Total votes cast: 95
Turnout percent: 73.64
Cosâ Seats
DIEN: 15
FreeDems: 85
TNC: 100
Senäts
Maricopa: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Florencia: Mximo Carbonel
Cezembre: Glüc da Dhi
Note: results are not official until after the Electoral Commission certifies the results.
As per the September 2023 General Election Polling Station for Lord Warden (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2717.0), the representative for Cézembre to Senäts is
@Glüc da Dhi S.H.
Based on my reading of OrgLaw and El. Lex, both Vilacafat and Davinescu had four votes in the first round, while Ardpresteir had 3 and two other candidates one vote each. This resulted in a tie and went to the second preference/votes. Vilacafat received one valid second preference vote while Davinescu received two second preference votes.
El. Lex states "14.7. If, after any iteration, there are two or more candidates with the fewest ballots assigned to them, the candidate with the fewest first preferences assigned to him shall be eliminated. If these candidates all have the same number of first preferences assigned to them, the candidate with the fewest second preferences assigned to him shall be eliminated, and so forth."
This would seem to indicate that Vilacafat would be eliminated as he received fewer second preference votes than Davinescu.
If anyone has any thoughts on this please let me know. I would also encourage the Ziu, if they so chose, to revisit this rather tangled IRV language for future elections.
Whaaaaat? I guess I have been doing this wrong? The process I would have followed is as below:
The law says:
"If a voter submits a ranked list of preferences in which a candidate is listed multiple times, only the highest preference for that candidate is valid and the lower preferences for that candidate are invalid." So the adjusted ballots are:
Ballot 1
Béneditsch Ardpresteir
Ballot 2
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Ballot 3 (times 3)
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu
Ballot 4
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Ballot 5
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Danihel Txechescu
Ballot 6
Béneditsch Ardpresteir
Françal Ian Lux
Nivol Atxaþriada
Sebastian Bustany
Sir Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă
Ballot 7
Eovart Xhorxh
Ballot 8
Munditenens (Dien) Tresplet
Ballot 9
Gilberto Martinez
Ballot 10
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu
Munditenens (Dien) Tresplet
Ballot 11
Béneditsch Ardpresteir
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu
Ballot 12
Cresti Matáiwos Siervicül
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Ballot 13
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu
In the first round, I count Davinescu with 5 votes of first preference, Vilaçafat with 4, Ardpresteir with 3, and several other folks with 1. That means there are multiple people to be eliminated.
The law says:
"If, after any iteration, there are two or more candidates with the fewest ballots assigned to them, the candidate with the fewest first preferences assigned to him shall be eliminated. If these candidates all have the same number of first preferences assigned to them, the candidate with the fewest second preferences assigned to him shall be eliminated, and so forth."
Eovart Xhorxh and Gilberto Martinez and Cresti are tied under these terms, as they do not appear as anyone's second choice, third choice, etc. They each received only one vote.
The law says:
"If no such distinction can be made between these candidates because all have the same number of votes on every level of preference, the remaining iterations shall be conducted under multiple scenarios. Each scenario shall eliminate one of the tied candidates."
There is no difference in the outcome no matter who is eliminated this round, so they all are eliminated in succeeding rounds -- the order doesn't matter. Ballots 7 and 9 are exhausted and no longer are considered. Ballot 12's now on its second preference and has been reassigned to Vilaçafat.
The law says:
"If any ballot assigned to an eliminated candidate does not express a next preference, the ballot is treated in the same way as an abstention."
So with two ballots exhausted, that means that a candidate must now achieve a majority of the votes from the thirteen remaining ballots.
This leaves us with Davinescu as having 5 votes, which is still not a majority of the 11 remaining. Vilaçafat has 4, Ardpresteir has 3. Dien has only 1, so he is eliminated. Ballot 8 is exhausted. The majority number is 12.
On the next round, Ardpresteir is eliminated. Ballots 1 and 6 are exhausted. The majority number is 10. Vilaçafat has 5 and Davinescu has 5.
Ballot 2
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Ballot 3 (times 3)
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu
Ballot 4
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Ballot 5
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Ballot 10
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu
Ballot 11
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu
Ballot 12
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Ballot 13
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu
And so Davinescu wins because he's tied but has one second preference ballot also.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 08:23:06 AMQuote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on October 02, 2023, 08:18:50 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 08:09:35 AMWhere did I go wrong?
There are 3 of ballot 3. 15 ballots total.
Ah yes, I was reading the listing wrong! Thank you!
Okay, adjusted and listed what seems like should be the final ballots. So Davinescu wins because he's also someone's second choice. Makes sense! Very narrow! Thank you for the help, Gluc!
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 08:29:11 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 08:23:06 AMQuote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on October 02, 2023, 08:18:50 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 08:09:35 AMWhere did I go wrong?
There are 3 of ballot 3. 15 ballots total.
Ah yes, I was reading the listing wrong! Thank you!
Okay, adjusted and listed what seems like should be the final ballots. So Davinescu wins because he's also someone's second choice. Makes sense! Very narrow! Thank you for the help, Gluc!
I hope that if the database is replaced for voting in the 60th, we can build in a mechanism for IRV to make it easier to understand. I admit that IRV is not my strong suit, but I concur with your interpretation. If anyone else has an interpretation I'd love to hear it also.
Hopefully we will get a chance to get this done, yes. Things are a bit uncertain right now, but it's a goal (as you know). It's actually free and very easy to implement in a spreadsheet (and more transparent, too, since it can also visually produce each step). Here's a relevant example, but this could even be easily automated: https://www.rankedvote.co/guides/applying-ranked-choice-voting/how-to-calculate-ranked-choice-voting-with-google-forms-and-google-sheets
There are a few requirements we want:
- Each citizen needs to be able to vote in secret.
- Each citizen needs to be able to verify their identity.
- The Secretary of State needs to be able to enter votes for any citizen.
- The Secretary of State shouldn't be able to see anyone's vote.
- Each voter needs to be able to check to be sure their vote is recorded correctly.
I
think that the solution is to have a Google Form that accepts (a) votes and (b) PSCs. The form can be set to automatically email confirmation to a citizen that their vote has been recorded. This takes care of 1, 2, and 5. The Secretary of State would be the one who sets up the Form and sends out the PSCs, and they would thus be able to also enter votes for anyone who voted via email or Witt (requirement 3). The resulting spreadsheet could be easily set to verify the PSC and output a validated vote to an anonymous results sheet. But the Secretary of State could be prevented from actually seeing the results by reassigning ownership of the voting Form/spreadsheet to someone else (requirement 4). That person might be a justice or the king or someone else who is a bit outside of the political process -- this last bit is the uncertain part, since I don't know exactly how the Election Commission does their thing (can they see all voters and their votes)?
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 08:29:11 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 08:23:06 AMQuote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on October 02, 2023, 08:18:50 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 08:09:35 AMWhere did I go wrong?
There are 3 of ballot 3. 15 ballots total.
Ah yes, I was reading the listing wrong! Thank you!
Okay, adjusted and listed what seems like should be the final ballots. So Davinescu wins because he's also someone's second choice. Makes sense! Very narrow! Thank you for the help, Gluc!
As one of the main authors of our IRV statutes (along with
@Glüc da Dhi S.H. , who I think is going to disagree with me), I do not agree with this interpretation.
Throughout the statute, the phrase "ballots assigned to [candidate X]" is used to represent the idea "ballots that are currently being counted as a vote for [candidate X]."
When we get to the third ballot, S:reu Vilaçafat and S:reu Davinescu both have five ballots assigned to them, which means we go to the tiebreaker, the number of first preferences currently assigned to them. Both have four.
The next tiebreaker is the number of second preferences currently
assigned to them. Both have one.
The fact that one of the ballots currently assigned to S:reu Vilaçafat has S:reu Davinescu as a second preference is not relevant because
that ballot is not assigned to S:reu Davinescu.If we were to interpret the statute otherwise, we would have a major problem because
it penalizes a voter for expressing a second preference when their first preference is still in contention! IRV is not supposed to do that, which is why I wrote the statute the way I did (or at least intended to).
I agree that would be the more just outcome and that it was probably the intended interpretation, but the letter of the law seems unfortunately clear here.
"If, after any iteration, there are two or more candidates with the fewest ballots assigned to them, the candidate with the fewest first preferences assigned to him shall be eliminated. If these candidates all have the same number of first preferences assigned to them, the candidate with the fewest second preferences assigned to him shall be eliminated, and so forth."
Both candidates have "the same number of first preferences assigned to them," and in such a case, "the candidate with the fewest second preferences assigned to him shall be eliminated," right? It does indeed look like a Maricopan voter is getting penalized for ranking their ballot.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 11:52:12 AMI agree that would be the more just outcome and that it was probably the intended interpretation, but the letter of the law seems unfortunately clear here.
"If, after any iteration, there are two or more candidates with the fewest ballots assigned to them, the candidate with the fewest first preferences assigned to him shall be eliminated. If these candidates all have the same number of first preferences assigned to them, the candidate with the fewest second preferences assigned to him shall be eliminated, and so forth."
Both candidates have "the same number of first preferences assigned to them," and in such a case, "the candidate with the fewest second preferences assigned to him shall be eliminated," right? It does indeed look like a Maricopan voter is getting penalized for ranking their ballot.
Both candidates only have one second preference
assigned to them: S:reu Davinescu has another second preference out there, but it's not
assigned to him, so it doesn't count.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 02, 2023, 11:56:16 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 11:52:12 AMI agree that would be the more just outcome and that it was probably the intended interpretation, but the letter of the law seems unfortunately clear here.
"If, after any iteration, there are two or more candidates with the fewest ballots assigned to them, the candidate with the fewest first preferences assigned to him shall be eliminated. If these candidates all have the same number of first preferences assigned to them, the candidate with the fewest second preferences assigned to him shall be eliminated, and so forth."
Both candidates have "the same number of first preferences assigned to them," and in such a case, "the candidate with the fewest second preferences assigned to him shall be eliminated," right? It does indeed look like a Maricopan voter is getting penalized for ranking their ballot.
Both candidates only have one second preference assigned to them: S:reu Davinescu has another second preference out there, but it's not assigned to him, so it doesn't count.
I am confused. So the ballot in question is what I have called Ballot 10, right?
Ballot 10
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu
Munditenens (Dien) Tresplet
Dien is eliminated, so the ballot at the final resolution would read:
Ballot 10
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu
That's a first preference and a second preference. The first preference is assigned to Carlus, while the second preference is assigned to Davinescu. It can't be that it doesn't count as "assigned to" because it's a second preference, because that makes the whole thing impossible (ie, that would mean that second preferences are never considered "assigned" and so they aren't tiebreakers at all).
Obviously I would love to be wrong about this, by the way. I fully recognize that this interpretation would yield a very unjust result that directly contravenes the spirit of Ranked Choice Voting.
The way I understand 14.5 and 14.6 is that ballots are assigned to their first preference, then the candidate with the fewest ballots is eliminated and those ballots are assigned by their Second Preference. Unless they don't have one in which case they are then discarded. This continues until there is a winner.
Meaning, Baron, that your Ballot 10 would be assigned to me (a vote for me) until such case as I am eliminated from the running, then it would be assigned to Þon Txoteu (as a vote for him).
Unless I misunderstand your quandary, which is very possible :-D
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 12:23:38 PMI am confused. So the ballot in question is what I have called Ballot 10, right?
Ballot 10
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu
Munditenens (Dien) Tresplet
Dien is eliminated, so the ballot at the final resolution would read:
Ballot 10
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu
That's a first preference and a second preference. The first preference is assigned to Carlus, while the second preference is assigned to Davinescu. It can't be that it doesn't count as "assigned to" because it's a second preference, because that makes the whole thing impossible (ie, that would mean that second preferences are never considered "assigned" and so they aren't tiebreakers at all).
The word "assigned" in this statute never refers to individual rankings, only overall ballots.
A ballot is assigned to a candidate if it is currently being counted as a vote for that candidate.
Therefore a "second preference assigned to [Candidate X]" means a ballot currently assigned to Candidate X on which Candidate X is the second preference.
A ballot currently assigned to Candidate Y is by definition not assigned to Candidate X.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 02, 2023, 01:03:27 PMThe word "assigned" in this statute never refers to individual rankings, only overall ballots.
A ballot is assigned to a candidate if it is currently being counted as a vote for that candidate.
Therefore a "second preference assigned to [Candidate X]" means a ballot currently assigned to Candidate X on which Candidate X is the second preference.
A ballot currently assigned to Candidate Y is by definition not assigned to Candidate X.
This makes me more confused! :(
How can a ballot be assigned to Candidate X and also have Candidate X as the second preference, since those would have already been eliminated as duplicative?
14.2 says, "If a voter submits a ranked list of preferences in which a candidate is listed multiple times, only the highest preference for that candidate is valid and the lower preferences for that candidate are invalid."
Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on October 02, 2023, 12:58:10 PMThe way I understand 14.5 and 14.6 is that ballots are assigned to their first preference, then the candidate with the fewest ballots is eliminated and those ballots are assigned by their Second Preference. Unless they don't have one in which case they are then discarded. This continues until there is a winner.
Meaning, Baron, that your Ballot 10 would be assigned to me (a vote for me) until such case as I am eliminated from the running, then it would be assigned to Þon Txoteu (as a vote for him).
Unless I misunderstand your quandary, which is very possible :-D
The issue as I understand it is that the final round of voting has you with five votes and Davinescu with five. This would ordinarily be a tie, but one of your voters also lists Davinescu as a second preference (after you). And this second preference breaks the tie, since the law seems to be saying that ties go to whoever has the most second preferences assigned to them. That's obviously unjust, since the voter (a) wanted you to win more and so the outcome of their ballot shouldn't do the opposite and (b) it means that the voter was punished for actually ranking their choices instead of just putting your name.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 01:07:16 PMThis makes me more confused! :(
How can a ballot be assigned to Candidate X and also have Candidate X as the second preference, since those would have already been eliminated as duplicative?
14.2 says, "If a voter submits a ranked list of preferences in which a candidate is listed multiple times, only the highest preference for that candidate is valid and the lower preferences for that candidate are invalid."
Suppose a ballot is cast as follows:
1. Candidate Z
2. Candidate X
3. Candidate Y
This ballot is assigned to Z in the first round. Suppose Z is eliminated; this ballot is then assigned to X, but X is the second preference on this ballot.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 02, 2023, 01:13:42 PMSuppose a ballot is cast as follows:
1. Candidate Z
2. Candidate X
3. Candidate Y
This ballot is assigned to Z in the first round. Suppose Z is eliminated; this ballot is then assigned to X, but X is the second preference on this ballot.
Oh, I see! So when it says "second preference," it only means that
by virtue of elimination of first preferences, but never when the first preference is still in play.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 02, 2023, 01:03:27 PMTherefore a "second preference assigned to [Candidate X]" means a ballot currently assigned to Candidate X on which Candidate X is the second preference.
So just for clarification, this should really read, "a "second preference assigned to [Candidate X]" means a ballot currently assigned to Candidate Y on which Candidate X is the second preference." I think you made a typo here and it was confusing to me since you can't have X be second preference below X.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 01:25:47 PMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 02, 2023, 01:03:27 PMTherefore a "second preference assigned to [Candidate X]" means a ballot currently assigned to Candidate X on which Candidate X is the second preference.
So just for clarification, this should really read, "a "second preference assigned to [Candidate X]" means a ballot currently assigned to Candidate Y on which Candidate X is the second preference." I think you made a typo here and it was confusing to me since you can't have X be second preference below X.
It's not a typo; in the example above, the ballot is assigned to X and X is the second preference.
Clearly this section needs to be rewritten, although I think I'm still correct even under the current wording.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 02, 2023, 01:28:28 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 01:25:47 PMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 02, 2023, 01:03:27 PMTherefore a "second preference assigned to [Candidate X]" means a ballot currently assigned to Candidate X on which Candidate X is the second preference.
So just for clarification, this should really read, "a "second preference assigned to [Candidate X]" means a ballot currently assigned to Candidate Y on which Candidate X is the second preference." I think you made a typo here and it was confusing to me since you can't have X be second preference below X.
It's not a typo; in the example above, the ballot is assigned to X and X is the second preference.
Clearly this section needs to be rewritten, although I think I'm still correct even under the current wording.
Oh, yes. Wow, really hard to shake that misinterpretation. Like a Magic Eye you can't stop seeing.
I am convinced -- I'd advise
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB to go with this interpretation.* It is equally valid in terms of letter of the law, but also conforms to the spirit of the law and leads to the obviously intended outcome.
*Not professional legal advice in my capacity as the sometime counsel for the Chancery or as the Avocat-Xheneral, although if retained in that respect again I would say as much.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 01:32:13 PMI am convinced -- I'd advise @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB to go with this interpretation.* It is equally valid in terms of letter of the law, but also conforms to the spirit of the law and leads to the obviously intended outcome.
*Not professional legal advice in my capacity as the sometime counsel for the Chancery or as the Avocat-Xheneral, although if retained in that respect again I would say as much.
Thank you Baron and S:reu Plätschisch for your opinions in this matter. I will accept your interpretation as it was also my initial interpretation until I "got into the weeds" with the law. Well to be forthright I at first believed there was a tie and the Premieir of Maricopa would have to break the tie, so it was my second interpretation.
I once again strongly urge the incoming Ziu to amend this language so that it is more clear for non-IRV experts.
I should note that no party received a majority in the Cosa, which means someone will need to hobble together 101 votes for Seneschal as that requires a clear majority. If no Seneschal is chosen by the first day of the 1st Clark, we'll have another IRV situation in voting for Seneschal.
What I am not clear about and cannot find a legal reference is if 100 votes is enough to pass a VoC or not.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on October 02, 2023, 01:52:32 PMWhat I am not clear about and cannot find a legal reference is if 100 votes is enough to pass a VoC or not.
Counterintuitively, it is. Normally a tied vote fails, in which case a tied VoC would mean no confidence, but OrgLaw VII.8 states that:
QuoteIf at the end of any Clark the "no" vote [on the VoC] outnumbers the "yes" vote, the King shall dissolve the Cosa and call new elections.
Bit of an anomaly really, but whatever. I remember this was already the case in the 46th Cosa, btw, when the Government was initially 104-96, but became 101-96-3 when the Liberal Congress was formed.
Thanks. I was looking for the OrgLaw reference which I knew was there, but couldn't find it.
Yeah, historical Talossan precedent (see Ár Päts) is that 100 votes is enough to win a VoC
Meanwhile, I agree that the RCV law is broken, and I'm kicking myself that I didn't notice until now. The international standard with RCV - as applied in Fiova, where the law is copy-pasted from that of the Australian Capital Territory - is that if there's a tie, you revert to the result from the previous round.
I hate to be indecisive but something isn't sitting right with me here. I'm going to seek an advisory opinion from the CpI.
The Chancery has had time to thoroughly examine all the ballots and apply El.Lex.B.14 to them. Accordingly, upon certification by the Electoral Commission, a tie will exist between Carlus Vilacafat and Txotue Davinescu. Both candidates received 5 first preference votes on the third round of voting. Both candidates also had one valid second preference assigned to them. A fourth round is not possible because the outcome would be exactly the same as the third round.
Summary: Carlus Vilacafat and Txotue Davinescu tied in the Maricopa Senate Election. The Premieir of Maricopa, Danihel Txechescu will be called upon to break the tie.
The Electoral Commission has certified the results of the election and the results are now final.
Many thanks to the hard work of
@Danihel Txechescu,
@Ian Plätschisch, and
@Istefan Perþonest in this most important task.
(https://i.ibb.co/qMJG5xZ/66-FF1-A4-D-E740-424-D-9-DDF-306-A963-FD97-B.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/m4b8rY3/signature-with-sir-and-red-removebg-preview.png)
Secretár d'Estat/Secretary of State
@Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB It's been three months now, we might want to unsticky this?