Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on October 06, 2023, 10:50:21 AMI should note that this is not how I ever intepreted that clause. This has affected earlier election results as well. See for example Florencia dec '19 where according to Ians interpretation it should have been a four-way tie, but my interpretation, as written out here: https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13773/chancery-dec-florencia-senate-results?page=1&scrollTo=168434 lead to Acafat del Val being elected.

From what I can tell Ian did write the bit about the tiebreak, so perhaps my interpretation is wrong, but then at least this earlier result would also have been wrong.

Correction, according to Ians interpretation it would have been a two-way tie between Mximo and Acafat because of the multiple scenarios clause (no matter who you eliminate first, it never ends in Breneir or IV actually winning)

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 06, 2023, 04:08:09 PM

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on October 06, 2023, 02:56:43 PMIt's been 7 cosa terms since I last served in the senate and 16! since I first entered this chamber.

Wow, I can't believe it's been 20,922,789,888,000 terms since you first entered this chamber.

Heh, nice one

The Chancery has confirmed that the Treasury has confirmed that my fee has been received, so it looks like I'm back. It's been 7 cosa terms since I last served in the senate and 16! since I first entered this chamber. That feels like a ridiculously long time, although I realise some of you were senators much earlier still. Anyway, looking forward to working with all of you (although I probably won't be doing too much).

Also, I support the nomination of the senator for Mariitimi-Maxhestic for the position of Mençei.

Fee sent!

Anyway I agree that Miestrăs proposal would be a better solution and I also like Ians rephrasing.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 03:08:39 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 05, 2023, 03:02:55 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 09:02:09 AMThe change only needs to be a narrow one, since the disputed language is in 14.7.  My suggestion:

QuoteIf, 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.

should be amended to

QuoteIf, 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 on ballots that are neither exhausted nor otherwise assigned assigned to him shall be eliminated, and so forth.

That's not how RCV works. Reversion to the last round is how you resolve ties.

This is the existing language crafted by @Ian Plätschisch and @Glüc da Dhi S.H. , with only sufficient changes to resolve the current ambiguity to match their intentions.

I should note that this is not how I ever intepreted that clause. This has affected earlier election results as well. See for example Florencia dec '19 where according to Ians interpretation it should have been a four-way tie, but my interpretation, as written out here: https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13773/chancery-dec-florencia-senate-results?page=1&scrollTo=168434 lead to Acafat del Val being elected.

From what I can tell Ian did write the bit about the tiebreak, so perhaps my interpretation is wrong, but then at least this earlier result would also have been wrong.

Quote 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.

In 40 minutes the TMT 20 reveal will start on discord. An excellent opportunity for discussing election night as well, like in the old days on Chatzy. I hear there might be an exit poll. Come join us everyone!

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on September 30, 2023, 10:11:04 AMI've never heard of this account so I won't be of any use.

I thought I sent you the password at the time? There should be a facebook account as well.

Happy birthday Dien! Good to see you around on witt again, I hope you're doing well!


_{On an unrelated note, have you voted on the TMT final? Ian has promised we're getting a broadcast again like old times. Deadline's in 8 hours.}

Ah yes, the election. Exciting stuff!
We have the strongest field in years imho. Hopefully we'll get a record high turnout too. That would be 13 voters I think, so definitely doable if some new people vote as well.

Is Gimme Shelter gonna win again? Is Bohemian Rhapsody returning to it's former glory. Maybe people are done with the incumbents and cause an upset by electing Enjoy the Silence instead? So many options...

I need some time to listen to all the candidates before voting by sending a private message to @Ian Plätschisch.







Oh... That election.
Eh, best vote there too

:(
Congrats Braneu

Quote from: xpb on August 26, 2023, 03:18:52 PMthe current law indicates that citizens would vote for one candidate of their choice, and the candidate which receives the majority of votes would be elected.

Which law is that?

I will try to be there, but not sure yet.

Quote from: xpb on August 22, 2023, 12:35:21 PMThe election will take place in an official voting thread, or via the electionbuddy.com system [which has been tested and found satisfactory and conformant to the requirements of the constitution], or via email, or telephone, or postal mail as any individual Cézembre citizen may desire when the official ballot is issued. [Note: electionbuddy can be used without cost for up to 20 voters, and the current population of Cézembre is 16 as listed on talossa.ca currently and reflected in the CAG].  Postal ballots may be directed to Cézembre Land Office, Post Office Box 3037, High Mar Station, Boulder. Colorado 80307-3037 USA.

Just to confirm, will the votes in the case of more two candidates be ranked and the result calculated using IRV?