Quote from: xpb on October 14, 2023, 10:49:40 PMThis was a copy of the previous 2 elections, the more recent of which was announced at https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2115.0

These two elections deviated from all the elections before that under the same constitution.

Quote"party" has taken on a number of useful meanings, including "any of the people engaged in a formal legal proceeding," which dates from the early 14th century.

First noted in the 17th century is the sense of "an organized political group or faction"

I have followed the earlier definition.

That's a creative interpretation, although very much not the intent of the law.

For what it's worth a party can be a national party or a local party or just an independent running as a party. The constitution puts no limits on this, but there is no law that says a party has to be a a single candidate.

How do you square this with the fact that parties can assign the seats "as they see fit?". What if a party intends to assign seats to several people. Are they still required to be on the ballot as a single person? Wouldn't that be misleading the voters?

Two questions:

how does this take into account Article 9, which reads:

" After elections to l'Etats, each party will receive
20 numbers, which will be produced by dividing the
number of votes the party received by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. The 20
highest numbers will be referred to as high quotients. In
case the 20th highest number has the same value as the
21th highest number all numbers with the same value will
not be considered high quotients. This will result in vacant
seats in the assembly. Each party will receive a number of
seats, equal to the number of high quotients it received.
Each party may divide its seats amongst Cézembrian
citizens as it sees fit. If a member dies or resigns or is
impeached by a motion receiving a 2/3rds vote of the
L'Etats, the seats shall return to the party that assigned
the seats."

suggesting that seats after the elections are NOT awarded to individual candidates but to parties and also that these parties can assign seats as they see fit?

Also, why would articles 14 or 15 apply here, since they refer to sénéchal elections?

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on October 07, 2023, 06:07:05 PMFor the time being Im assuming there won't be a court case to challenge the results so you'll have to do with me as your senator.

Heh, looks like I spoke too soon.

So first of all many thanks to @xpb for organising the election.

And also thanks to the Cézembreans who voted for me. I know there was no other choice, but I appreciate the support anyway.

It's unfortunate that there weren't any other candidates, especially since I am not too motivated by current politics myself and I might not be the best senator at the moment because of that. @þerxh Sant-Enogat would have been a great candidate of course, even more because of his activity at the provincial level and connection to our island, but unfortunately in this case the limitations set by the Organic Law prevented that.



I am somewhat uneasy about the election however, because according to our constitution the election should be conducted by the chancery if no provincial statutes exist. This appears to have been the case. I think this is a good thing because the alternative is for the sénéchal to basically invent the rules themselves (as happened in this case by choosing fptp when both chancery conducted elections and previous statute-based elections used irv).

This is not to diminish the appreciation for the work xpb has done. He has put great effort into calling for candidates and setting everything up and I don't doubt his integrity. Also he has kept provincial activity going when nobody else could be bothered. However, I don't think it is correct for one person to unilaterally choose the election rules, which is what happens when there aren't any (valid) rules in place, which is why the constitution says the chancery should be requested to conduct the election in that case.

I apologise for being so late too voice this concern. I suppose I couldn't be bothered to argue about it earlier. For now it is probably a moot point and I dont think it would have affected the outcome with only one declared candidate.

For next time maybe l'Etats should maybe pass a bill to clarify that no laws are in place and therefore the Chancery should in accordance with the constitution be requested to conduct senate elections. (Or write a law to conduct the elections ourselves, but I personally wouldnt be in favour of that since Chancery elections have been well organised and tend to have higher turnout than provincially conducted elections. Provincial activity has been quite low for a while but Cézembreans still have an interest in being represented at the national level.)



For the time being Im assuming there won't be a court case to challenge the results so you'll have to do with me as your senator. As promised I intend to read and vote on every bill. If anyone has any questions about my views feel free to ask. Also if anyone has opinions on legislation before the senate feel free to contact me. I can't promise I will change my vote accordingly but I will always try to carefully consider the arguments made.

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?

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.

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.