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

[Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat]

The way I understand 14.5 and 14.6 is that ballots are assigned to their first preference, then the candidate with the fewest ballots is eliminated and those ballots are assigned by their Second Preference. Unless they don't have one in which case they are then discarded. This continues until there is a winner.

Meaning, Baron, that your Ballot 10 would be assigned to me (a vote for me) until such case as I am eliminated from the running, then it would be assigned to Þon Txoteu (as a vote for him).

Unless I misunderstand your quandary, which is very possible :-D

[Ian Plätschisch]

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).

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

This 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."

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The way I understand 14.5 and 14.6 is that ballots are assigned to their first preference, then the candidate with the fewest ballots is eliminated and those ballots are assigned by their Second Preference. Unless they don't have one in which case they are then discarded. This continues until there is a winner.

Meaning, Baron, that your Ballot 10 would be assigned to me (a vote for me) until such case as I am eliminated from the running, then it would be assigned to Þon Txoteu (as a vote for him).

Unless I misunderstand your quandary, which is very possible :-D

The issue as I understand it is that the final round of voting has you with five votes and Davinescu with five.  This would ordinarily be a tie, but one of your voters also lists Davinescu as a second preference (after you).  And this second preference breaks the tie, since the law seems to be saying that ties go to whoever has the most second preferences assigned to them.  That's obviously unjust, since the voter (a) wanted you to win more and so the outcome of their ballot shouldn't do the opposite and (b) it means that the voter was punished for actually ranking their choices instead of just putting your name.

[Ian Plätschisch]

This 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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

Oh, I see!  So when it says "second preference," it only means that by virtue of elimination of first preferences, but never when the first preference is still in play.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Therefore 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.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Therefore 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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Therefore 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.

Oh, yes.  Wow, really hard to shake that misinterpretation.  Like a Magic Eye you can't stop seeing.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I am convinced -- I'd advise @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB to go with this interpretation.*  It is equally valid in terms of letter of the law, but also conforms to the spirit of the law and leads to the obviously intended outcome.

*Not professional legal advice in my capacity as the sometime counsel for the Chancery or as the Avocat-Xheneral, although if retained in that respect again I would say as much.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I am convinced -- I'd advise @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB to go with this interpretation.*  It is equally valid in terms of letter of the law, but also conforms to the spirit of the law and leads to the obviously intended outcome.

*Not professional legal advice in my capacity as the sometime counsel for the Chancery or as the Avocat-Xheneral, although if retained in that respect again I would say as much.

Thank you Baron and S:reu Plätschisch for your opinions in this matter. I will accept your interpretation as it was also my initial interpretation until I "got into the weeds" with the law. Well to be forthright I at first believed there was a tie and the Premieir of Maricopa would have to break the tie, so it was my second interpretation.

I once again strongly urge the incoming Ziu to amend this language so that it is more clear for non-IRV experts.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I should note that no party received a majority in the Cosa, which means someone will need to hobble together 101 votes for Seneschal as that requires a clear majority. If no Seneschal is chosen by the first day of the 1st Clark, we'll have another IRV situation in voting for Seneschal.

What I am not clear about and cannot find a legal reference is if 100 votes is enough to pass a VoC or not.

[Sir Lüc]

What I am not clear about and cannot find a legal reference is if 100 votes is enough to pass a VoC or not.

Counterintuitively, it is. Normally a tied vote fails, in which case a tied VoC would mean no confidence, but OrgLaw VII.8 states that:

If at the end of any Clark the "no" vote [on the VoC] outnumbers the "yes" vote, the King shall dissolve the Cosa and call new elections.

Bit of an anomaly really, but whatever. I remember this was already the case in the 46th Cosa, btw, when the Government was initially 104-96, but became 101-96-3 when the Liberal Congress was formed.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Thanks. I was looking for the OrgLaw reference which I knew was there, but couldn't find it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Yeah, historical Talossan precedent (see Ár Päts) is that 100 votes is enough to win a VoC

Meanwhile, I agree that the RCV law is broken, and I'm kicking myself that I didn't notice until now. The international standard with RCV - as applied in Fiova, where the law is copy-pasted from that of the Australian Capital Territory - is that if there's a tie, you revert to the result from the previous round.