I nominate myself.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 09:13:24 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 05, 2023, 08:04:42 PMAnd indefinite appointments lead to inactive Cunstavais. I know that some people think if John breaks wind loudly it should be praised as a brand new Top 40 hit single, but others don't think "The King Wills It" to be a good excuse for bad practice and the collapse of important constitutional offices.

Could we possibly discuss this without such rudeness?

🙄

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: xpb on October 05, 2023, 04:57:20 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on October 05, 2023, 03:59:31 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 08:59:21 AMI do not think it's a good idea to start the term by reducing the powers of the king.

This bill does not reduce any of the King's powers

It would seem to reduce the King's powers to appoint a Cunstavál for any duration

There is no limit to the amount of times a Cunstaval could be reappointed.

If we are really concerned about overburdening the King by requiring reappointments once every three years, perhaps he should retire.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 05, 2023, 08:59:21 AMI do not think it's a good idea to start the term by reducing the powers of the king.

This bill does not reduce any of the King's powers

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 02, 2023, 01:25:47 PM

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.

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: 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: 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: 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.