I feel as though if I wanted to play a game about voting, I would play Mafia...
And it is a "weak" system in terms of expressing what people want to choose, achieving a balanced compromise, getting popular support for the final outcome... anything that you would actually want out of voting aside from having someone else make the decision or having something that can be manipulated by those who care to do so, or being manipulated by chaotic forces that leave everyone dissatisfied... it seems like a system that is inherently disempowered from its own perspective, which I would cite as a passable definition of weakness. A strong voting system would actually tend towards permitting people to actually vote for what they actually want to vote for. A strong system would present basically zero barriers to voting for a dead horse. Doing so would not detract from your ability to get an outcome that you approve of. People can change their votes n the forum.
The strawpoll I don't know, I am not familiar with that, but people could all pile onto a new thing if they wanted to, and belief to the contrary is a false perception, yet people will hesitate to do so even if they would like to, on the basis that if they are the only one to do so, then the thing that they support will lose. Given that they want to change their vote, it seems that there is evidence of people who want to change their vote and no evidence to the contrary, other than the fact of it not happening. This is the sort of thing that I mean with false perceptions. We can still have fun from the decisions of other players if people actually get what they want, just not in the midst of voting.
I mean, you say that you don't deny the value of arguing for a thing, but then basically say that it only applies when that option is already popular. When I actually tried to argue my case you suggested that it might be protest vote or I was "incredibly set on it" which implies more favouritism than rationality, even though my arguments were right there. We would be basically giving them some great options for their side of the equation when we would otherwise be primed to starve them. I, for one, don't fancy trying to martial a plague of fruit-flies because nothing else has enough generations to evolve, while the enemy is supernaturally organised and got science for free from magic, which is basically evolution but faster and with less loss. But unfortunately, Eternal is "a third party candidate" that "isn't going to be a viable option." so force of argument should be abandoned.
But strong voting systems involve a small measure of complexity which really isn't conducive to the difficulties involved in getting a group of random players to collaborate, so there is usually little use in discussing the matter and this is tarting to go off topic.
Grain: 5 votes; Rice: 6 votes; tomato: 7 votes. 11 people wanted starch, they would have settled for rice or grain, but none of them wanted tomato to win. they split their vote because there were two similar options and one different option. All the fruit supporters went for tomato and so it won, even though it was less popular. Now there are protests in the street over the starch shortage and they are erecting guillotines. The fruit lobby doesn't have the numbers or support to pacify the situation... There should have been a way to combine votes for similar options. Weak voting system.
Grain: 5 votes; Rice: 5 votes; Tomato 3 votes. There is a tie. There would not be a tie if the fruit lobby had a say on the specific type of grain that they would have to put up with in the absence of fruit, but they can't. The arguments stretch on for months as the government is paralysed, then Meatopolis charges in and with no foods of their own, the entire population is overwhelmed and crucified by those meaty fiends. There should have been a way to reduce the incidence of ties. Weak voting system.
Grain: 8 votes; Rice: 6 votes; Bread: 2 votes. Well I would have loved to vote for bread, it sounds really exciting, but if I had then those filthy rice barbarians would have won and then where would I be! So goes the public sentiments, but then the smell of bread flows from Bakeston and most of the population leave their homes to follow it. They knew bread was good, but they just couldn't take the risk. They are barred entry and lack the strength to return nor force their way. They slowly starve to death, then their ghosts are lured in by the same smell, and trapped inside the blessed bakers ovens to feed the flames for all eternity. Back home the economy collapses from the lack of labour to maintain the infrastructure. Soon the rice fields dry and they have nothing left. The soon resort to cannibalism before following the murderous path of bread that claimed their neighbours, and will shortly claim them also. There should have been a method to vote for what you truly wanted without compromising your reliable choice and momentum of established options should not dominate a system that is supposed to replace inherited authority. Very weak voting system!
There are better ways...
Magic gives them science, which is extremely strong but heavily implies accountability, we can exploit that if they are pressured for resources. Eternity gives them immediacy, which again is very strong, but heavily implies reduced efficiency. Massed numbers and dedication to effort both very heavily imply massed expenditure. They are almost certain to drive themselves into a resource deficit. That is the good path.
The bad path is giving them regimen which grants them efficiency of operation and reduces their resource debt. It is also freakishly terrifying. You don't want to be in the path of a legion, or a phalanx, or a musket square, or carpet bombing, or an ant trail...
Perfection is not that bad but is not that good either. It sounds strong but in practice it is more about restrictions than power. A perfect being doesn't defeat a pragmatic one. The perfect muscle control, with the perfect precision of motion, and the perfect awareness of the self, with the perfectly composed and familiar blade in the hand, is not much use when there is sand and light in your eyes, a table flying at your stomach, they have three loaded crossbows and a combat net, and they offered a large sum of money to the people behind you... Perfection is about ideally matching something, not about being pragmatically better in any way. Also, we can likely pick it up from a mass-production theme, so terrible action-economy. and it gives them, well, pragmatism. I don't want to fight pragmatism...