BE IT ENACTED yadda yadda yadda that, in conformity with international best practice, El Lexhatx B.14.7 shall be amended to read as follows:
Quote14.7. 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.
14.7.1. If these candidates all have the same number of first preferences assigned to them, then B.14.7 and this paragraph shall be applied to each preceding count until one candidate is excluded.
14.7.2. If no such distinction can be made between these candidates under the above 2 paragraphs, the remaining iterations shall be conducted under multiple scenarios. Each scenario shall eliminate one of the tied candidates.
14.7.2.1 If the different scenarios described by B.14.7.2 result in the same winner of the election overall, the winning candidate shall become the Senator.
14.7.2.2 If the different scenarios described by B.14.7.2. result in different winners of the election overall, the result will be considered a tie between the winners of the different scenarios and will be resolved in accordance with the Organic Law.
The 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.
There's a case pending on this, but I'm not sure it will actually get heard since it's clearly a "live controversy" and those aren't supposed to be subject to advisory opinions. So we should definitely fix this, either way -- good initiative, Dama Miestra.
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.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 05, 2023, 03:02:55 PMQuote 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.
Yeah, and we should change it to fit in with international best practice!
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 05, 2023, 03:11:45 PMYeah, and we should change it to fit in with international best practice!
I'll look to the original authors to chime in about that, since they know more than I.
I agree that this method of tiebreaking would be less confusing than our current one. However, I would rephrase as follows:
Quote14.7. If, after any count, there are two or more candidates with the fewest ballots assigned to them, the candidate with the fewest ballots assigned to them after the previous count shall be eliminated. If the candidates were also tied after the previous count, the candidate with the fewest ballots assigned to them after the count before that shall be eliminated, and so on until one candidate is eliminated.
14.7.1. If no such distinction can be made between the tied candidates because all have the same number of ballots assigned to them after each count, the remaining counts shall be conducted under multiple scenarios. Each scenario shall eliminate one of the tied candidates.
14.7.1.1 If the different scenarios described by B.14.7.1 result in the same winner of the election overall, that candidate shall be declared the winner.
14.7.1.2 If the different scenarios described by B.14.7.1 result in different winners of the election overall, the result shall be considered a tie between the winners of the different scenarios and shall be resolved in accordance with the Organic Law.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 03:08:39 PMQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 05, 2023, 03:02:55 PMQuote 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.
Anyway I agree that Miestrăs proposal would be a better solution and I also like Ians rephrasing.
Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on October 06, 2023, 11:31:12 AMAnyway I agree that Miestrăs proposal would be a better solution and I also like Ians rephrasing.
Great. Seems fine to me, then, if both of you think it's the way to go.
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)
Something still bothers me about this (other than contradictory interpretations of the law having decided two elections in different ways).
In the Maricopa case there is a strong argument that a tie is the just outcome. After all without the second preference of someone who already preferred Carlüs it would be a tie which includes Carlüs.
But that is not true in the Florencia case. Any two-way matchup between Acafat and any of the other candidates would have resulted in Acafat winning. So Id argue Acafat winning was also a just outcome. But this proposal (or the new consensus interpretation of the current law) would result in a tie.
Looking at previous rounds wouldnt catch it, because there were no previous rounds to look at.
The multiple scenarios clause only catches part of it. When all remaining candidates are tied and theres more than two candidates you're always gonna have a tie because you always have at least one scenario where each candidate is eliminated.
This is why Mximo stays in the race even though 2 out of 3 voters with a preference preferred Acafat.
That doesn't feel correct to me.
I guess we could change it so that whoever wins a majority of the scenarios is declared the winner, but that also doesn't feel right for some reason I can't put my finger on.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 06, 2023, 06:42:08 PMI guess we could change it so that whoever wins a majority of the scenarios is declared the winner, but that also doesn't feel right for some reason I can't put my finger on.
Yeah, I had the same thought and I understand what you mean. That doesn't feel right to me either.
I'm currently more thinking along the lines of
-if the scenario thing shows that some candidate can still win and some can't then wouldn't the next logical step be to continue counting with only those candidates that can still win before we declare an "organic" tie-
-in the Florencia case that means doing the whole scenario thing, coming to the conclusion that Acafat and Mximo can still win and then redoing the count without Breneir and IV in which case Acafat wins.-
,but how to put that into law in a way that is simple and unambiguous and also doesn't create an infinite loop of multiple scenarios?
OK how about this:
Quote14.7.1. If no such distinction can be made between the tied candidates because all have the same number of ballots assigned to them after each count, preliminary subsequent counts shall be conducted under multiple scenarios. Each scenario shall eliminate one of the tied candidates.
14.7.1.1 If the different scenarios described by B.14.7.1 result in the same winner of the election overall, that candidate shall be declared the winner.
14.7.1.2 If the different scenarios described by B.14.7.1 result in different winners of the election overall, all of the originally tied candidates who would not win under any scenario shall be eliminated simultaneously, and subsequent counts shall proceed according to B.14.6. If all of the tied candidates would win under at least one scenario, the result shall be considered a tie between all candidates who would win under at least one scenario, and shall be resolved in accordance with the Organic Law.
But but but guys, I just want the international standard practice - reverting to the previous non-tied round, if there is one. :(
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 06, 2023, 10:24:38 PMBut but but guys, I just want the international standard practice - reverting to the previous non-tied round, if there is one. :(
We agree on that.
We're discussing what to do if there is no previous non-tied round.
Azul,
But how I can lost Florencia senatorial election...
Round 1
Mximo 4
Rosa 2
Gracu 1
Acafat 1
No'ac'h 1
No majority for Mximo
Therefore last candidate is out of the race in this case their is 3 names
Round 2 ( Only the second choice of someone out of the race most count now)
Mximo 4 + 1 = 5
Rosa 2
Present 2 ( since they all vote for sombebody out of the race)
Mximo wins...
How can somebody with only one vote like Acafat can tie with me ever...
First we need to stop write-in candidacy.
Second we need to force people to vote each round, a ballot with only one vote should not count.
Mximo Carbonèl
Mximo, you won the election on the second tally, so I fail to see what your issue is other than write-in votes. Why would we disallow that? I may not agree with certain Talossans who use write-ins in the manner they were used, but we also have citizens who are not active or even use Wittenberg. We need to allow write-ins for those citizens so they can still participate. Removing write-ins risks disenfranchising voters, which is distasteful to me.
Azul,
Firstly, some individuals in the aforementioned discussion suggest there might a possibility for me to lose the Florencia Senatorial election. I seek clarification on this matter. It appears to me that there's misleading information circulating, propagated perhaps by an MC, suggesting someone with just one preliminary vote could defeat me with some magical math. This notion seems preposterous, and I'd appreciate further insight.
Secondly, the inaugural post about the elections surfaced in our discussion group on July 13. This means that news regarding the election became public two months ahead of the actual event. Our election cycles aren't that lengthy. Moreover, the legitimacy of the voting process is questionable when an entire family, unknown to many mostly 'dandelions', casts votes for their members. A blank vote might seem more meaningful. Becoming a Senator is an important task; it is not a decision you make overnight. It would therefore be important that candidates are at least able to know the registration date and the voting date before starting, right?
The irony : the position of Governor is still available. There are also seats in the Nimlet that remain vacant election after election. Where are them ?
Lastly, will there be opportunities for debates? As for the current state of Senate elections, they are far from ideal, one of them in cort. There's a pressing need for reform, which I am committed to addressing. But I have to question: can unknown entities, like these 'dandelions' I've just learned of, truly be deemed worthy candidates? Yes, it remains their right to be candidate, so they can simply register. Is it really too much to ask to know against whom one is campaigning? Is registration truly such a daunting task? If the answer is yes, then they shouldn't be a candidate because theirs is a lot more tasks ahead for them if they win.
Sir, with all my respect.
Mximo Carbonèl
Regardless of whether someone may be claiming a different result Senator, you were declared the winner so you have nothing to worry about. You clearly met the requirements of ranked choice voting and won on the second tally. That election is resolved.
Quote from: mximo on October 17, 2023, 02:20:56 PM[...]some magical math.[...]
I literally Lol'd. Ranked Choice being some kind of magic is becoming a meme, I like it.
All right you guys, is this the current consensus?
Quote14.7. If, after any count, there are two or more candidates with the fewest ballots assigned to them, the candidate with the fewest ballots assigned to them after the previous count shall be eliminated. If the candidates were also tied after the previous count, the candidate with the fewest ballots assigned to them after the count before that shall be eliminated, and so on until one candidate is eliminated.
14.7.1. If no such distinction can be made between the tied candidates because all have the same number of ballots assigned to them after each count, preliminary subsequent counts shall be conducted under multiple scenarios. Each scenario shall eliminate one of the tied candidates.
14.7.1.1 If the different scenarios described by B.14.7.1 result in the same winner of the election overall, that candidate shall be declared the winner.
14.7.1.2 If the different scenarios described by B.14.7.1 result in different winners of the election overall, all of the originally tied candidates who would not win under any scenario shall be eliminated simultaneously, and subsequent counts shall proceed according to B.14.6. If all of the tied candidates would win under at least one scenario, the result shall be considered a tie between all candidates who would win under at least one scenario, and shall be resolved in accordance with the Organic Law.