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: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 08:29:11 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 08:23:06 AM

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on October 02, 2023, 08:18:50 AM

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.

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).

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 01, 2023, 06:33:02 PMWow.  I'd better temper my expectations!  What's your methodology?  Randomly select people and ask them who they voted for?

My methods are proprietary

The Senate race in Maricopa is too close to call but I would give the slightest edge to S:reu T. Davinescu

VERY SCIENTIFIC PRELIMINARY EXIT POLL

Talossan National Congress: 100
Free Democrats of Talossa: 88
Dien: 12

This may not be as big of a blowout as people think.

I'm currently working on an exit poll and will be hanging out in the Discord voice chat if anyone wants to have an election night watch party

Get ready for today's most important results reveal.

15:30 TST in the Discord voice chat.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 26, 2023, 03:45:03 PMI know you guys are running a purely negative campaign, so this is what you've got -- scary smears and silliness.  But I don't think this is the best approach.

Run a campaign about ideas!  Tell the people about what you want to accomplish, rather than what you want to destroy.  What do you want to build or fix?  How will you improve people's experiences here?  How will you grow the country, while still keeping it fun and interesting?  What is the joy you get from being here, and how will you share that joy with others?

It would be very convenient for the governing party if the Opposition never resorted to the dreaded "negative campaigning", wouldn't it?

I think it's pretty obvious how I and many others have been finding/sharing joy in Talossa over the past year; thankfully, it has had very little to do with politics.

Politics is a quest for the seat of power. Many (dare I say most or even all) things that build people up and spread joy can be accomplished outside of it.

The central FreeDem message is that we should win enough seats to prevent the TNC from fully attaining the seat of power, because we are rightly suspicious of what you would do with it.

Sorry if that's not enough sunshine and roses for you.

Quote from: Bråneu Excelsio on September 19, 2023, 06:10:34 PMAzul, fuliensen talossans!
I will say again that personal opinions are not official party policy.

When the time comes to discuss our personal opinions in a purposeful constructive environment, I will be there leading the way, I hope.
I have not answered these questions yet because I am precisely trying to lead an impartial movement that can allow the opinions of others to be heard.
 Is that, being a candidate, counterintuitive? Pouçivalmint mas parç qe la voce da Talossa c'e la voce da toct I tzară. The voice of Talossa is the voice of everybody.


For today, I consider it important to emphasize that I'd rather not reduce the campaign to this issue, we at the TNC have great enthusiasm for creating and sharing fun things in addition to carrying out a clean, transparent and transcendental Cosa; we have the people, we have the energy and the will to lead a path to a stronger more united Talossa.

Bråneu.

As D:na Schivă says, I don't think that not addressing this issue is an option. Well, I guess it technically is an option because it is physically possible, but it is essentially telling the voters that you will not tell them how you will use the power you are asking them to give you.

It is, to be blunt, nonsensical to claim that a political party is "impartial". Being partial is literally what is means to be a party

I get that the TNC is trying to cast a wide net and would rather campaign on administrative ability instead of policy. However, surely you can understand why people would be interested in what your policies are, given that, depending on whether you win and how big the margin is, you may very well be in a position to enact the policies you want.

This is especially important because the TNC's last attempt at succession reform was unacceptable to many people. I am not sure if you were politically active at the time, so the thread may be an interesting read.

You and @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu are pretty much telling us not to worry our pretty little heads over what we consider to be the central and defining aspect of Talossan life. I'll give you a pass but the Baron should know better than to say things like:

QuoteWe're a party devoted to having fun and welcoming others, and we have refused to be defined by just one or two divisive issues.  I wish that the FreeDems would feel comfortable with that

Cosa: Free Democrats
Referendum: Për

IMFAO it would be better to show a moving average here instead of a trend line but now we are really going down the rabbit hole. I would be willing to set that up if you give me the keys.

It's not so much that I think you should spend a lot of time on them, it's that low effort ones can be misleading (even if it's unintentional) and it's often better to not include them at all.

For example, I see you chose an exponential trend line for the number of applications. Do you have a justification for that, other than that it looks nice? Linear models are more parsimonious, and so are preferred in the absence of strong evidence for other models. I also know that linear trend lines  are the default in Excel, so this was a conscious choice to depict exponential growth even though you are pretty much admitting you didn't spend any time thinking about it.

Of course, the reason this is important is that anyone who looks at the chart will get an impression that immigration will probably continue to "grow exponentially" even if that's not an appropriate conclusion based on the data.

Auto-generated trendlines with no context are my least favorite part of data viz

Option 2

A lot of my speech to the previous convention seems worth repeating.

QuoteI'll get straight to the point; I think the party might be better off without me in it.

...

I cannot commit to any serious activity in Opposition. I cannot commit to helping to recruit or otherwise grow the party. I do not have new policy ideas, and I will oppose the major Organic reforms that most of this party seems to want.

...

If I stay in the party, I would advocate against major Organic reforms. Everyone else would probably acquiesce to prevent me from leaving, but that would just prevent the party from adopting a platform that could compete against the TNC. In return for giving that up, you will get very little by way of me being active in Opposition.

After this speech, the party stayed away from radical political positions, I remained in it, we didn't do well in the election, we didn't put up a very effective Opposition, and, as promised, I did pretty much nothing politically (except make speeches against some of the Seneschal's more ridiculous bills).

The question before us is whether we can really get energized on a platform of just "Defend the OrgLaw against the TNC" or if the party needs a completely new direction. As much as I would want the former to be true, I am honestly very doubtful.

(I am also a bit doubtful about S:reu Grischun's ability to stay energized and get everyone else energized on his platform, because I feel like I have seen the same song and dance from others before, but I don't mean to be a party pooper. Please prove me wrong).

If the FreeDems embrace Republicanism, I will leave. BUT, I will probably continue doing the same things I otherwise would be doing as a FreeDem member if the party didn't do that and I stayed in it. I'll still be in the Senate to cast my vote in favor of "defending the OrgLaw", and I could at least theoretically run for re-election next year.

This is not to say I really want to have to leave, because I wish more people were "good" Monarchists like I am and that "good Monarchism" was a more winning political idea. However, I have enough macro-national politics in my life now that I honestly don't care deeply about Talossan politics anymore. I care a lot more about the Talossan community, and I suspect that what would be best for the community is for me to get out of the party and stop being a stick in the mud.