[Cantzelerïă/Chancery] Official 59th Cosâ General Election Results

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Total votes cast: 95
Turnout percent: 73.64

Cosâ Seats

DIEN: 15
FreeDems: 85
TNC: 100

Senäts

Maricopa: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Florencia: Mximo Carbonel
Cezembre: Glüc da Dhi

Note: results are not official until after the Electoral Commission certifies the results.

[xpb]

As per the September 2023 General Election Polling Station for Lord Warden, the representative for Cézembre to Senäts is @Glüc da Dhi S.H.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Based on my reading of OrgLaw and El. Lex, both Vilacafat and Davinescu had four votes in the first round, while Ardpresteir had 3 and two other candidates one vote each. This resulted in a tie and went to the second preference/votes. Vilacafat received one valid second preference vote while Davinescu received two second preference votes.

El. Lex states "14.7. 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. 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."

This would seem to indicate that Vilacafat would be eliminated as he received fewer second preference votes than Davinescu.

If anyone has any thoughts on this please let me know. I would also encourage the Ziu, if they so chose, to revisit this rather tangled IRV language for future elections.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Whaaaaat?  I guess I have been doing this wrong?  The process I would have followed is as below:

The law 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."  So the adjusted ballots are:

Ballot 1
Béneditsch Ardpresteir

Ballot 2
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat

Ballot 3 (times 3)
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu

Ballot 4
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat

Ballot 5
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Danihel Txechescu

Ballot 6
Béneditsch Ardpresteir
Françal Ian Lux
Nivol Atxaþriada
Sebastian Bustany
Sir Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă

Ballot 7
Eovart Xhorxh

Ballot 8
Munditenens (Dien) Tresplet

Ballot 9
Gilberto Martinez

Ballot 10
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu
Munditenens (Dien) Tresplet

Ballot 11
Béneditsch Ardpresteir
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu

Ballot 12
Cresti Matáiwos Siervicül
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat

Ballot 13
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu

In the first round, I count Davinescu with 5 votes of first preference, Vilaçafat with 4, Ardpresteir with 3, and several other folks with 1.  That means there are multiple people to be eliminated.

The law says:
"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."

Eovart Xhorxh and Gilberto Martinez and Cresti are tied under these terms, as they do not appear as anyone's second choice, third choice, etc.  They each received only one vote.

The law says:
"If no such distinction can be made between these candidates because all have the same number of votes on every level of preference, the remaining iterations shall be conducted under multiple scenarios. Each scenario shall eliminate one of the tied candidates."

There is no difference in the outcome no matter who is eliminated this round, so they all are eliminated in succeeding rounds -- the order doesn't matter.  Ballots 7 and 9 are exhausted and no longer are considered.  Ballot 12's now on its second preference and has been reassigned to Vilaçafat.

The law says:
"If any ballot assigned to an eliminated candidate does not express a next preference, the ballot is treated in the same way as an abstention."

So with two ballots exhausted, that means that a candidate must now achieve a majority of the votes from the thirteen remaining ballots.

This leaves us with Davinescu as having 5 votes, which is still not a majority of the 11 remaining.  Vilaçafat has 4, Ardpresteir has 3.  Dien has only 1, so he is eliminated.  Ballot 8 is exhausted.  The majority number is 12.

On the next round, Ardpresteir is eliminated.  Ballots 1 and 6 are exhausted.  The majority number is 10.  Vilaçafat has 5 and Davinescu has 5.

Ballot 2
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat

Ballot 3 (times 3)
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu

Ballot 4
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat

Ballot 5
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat

Ballot 10
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu

Ballot 11
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu

Ballot 12
Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat

Ballot 13
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu

And so Davinescu wins because he's tied but has one second preference ballot also.

[Glüc da Dhi S.H.]

Where did I go wrong?

There are 3 of ballot 3. 15 ballots total.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Where did I go wrong?

There are 3 of ballot 3. 15 ballots total.

Ah yes, I was reading the listing wrong!  Thank you!

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Where 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!

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Where 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!

I hope that if the database is replaced for voting in the 60th, we can build in a mechanism for IRV to make it easier to understand. I admit that IRV is not my strong suit, but I concur with your interpretation. If anyone else has an interpretation I'd love to hear it also.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Hopefully we will get a chance to get this done, yes.  Things are a bit uncertain right now, but it's a goal (as you know).  It's actually free and very easy to implement in a spreadsheet (and more transparent, too, since it can also visually produce each step).  Here's a relevant example, but this could even be easily automated: https://www.rankedvote.co/guides/applying-ranked-choice-voting/how-to-calculate-ranked-choice-voting-with-google-forms-and-google-sheets

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

There are a few requirements we want:

• Each citizen needs to be able to vote in secret.
• Each citizen needs to be able to verify their identity.
• The Secretary of State needs to be able to enter votes for any citizen.
• The Secretary of State shouldn't be able to see anyone's vote.
• Each voter needs to be able to check to be sure their vote is recorded correctly.

I think that the solution is to have a Google Form that accepts (a) votes and (b) PSCs.  The form can be set to automatically email confirmation to a citizen that their vote has been recorded.  This takes care of 1, 2, and 5.  The Secretary of State would be the one who sets up the Form and sends out the PSCs, and they would thus be able to also enter votes for anyone who voted via email or Witt (requirement 3).  The resulting spreadsheet could be easily set to verify the PSC and output a validated vote to an anonymous results sheet.  But the Secretary of State could be prevented from actually seeing the results by reassigning ownership of the voting Form/spreadsheet to someone else (requirement 4).  That person might be a justice or the king or someone else who is a bit outside of the political process -- this last bit is the uncertain part, since I don't know exactly how the Election Commission does their thing (can they see all voters and their votes)?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Where 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).

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I 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.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I 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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I 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.

I 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).

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Obviously I would love to be wrong about this, by the way. I fully recognize that this interpretation would yield a very unjust result that directly contravenes the spirit of Ranked Choice Voting.