Amendment to the Elections Act

[Goobergunchia]

Because I'm tired of this coming up, I propose amending clause 2 of the Speaker and Procedures of the Assembly Act by inserting text as follows:

2. Voters must rank all candidates from 1 (their most preferred candidate) to their least preferred candidate, but if there are only two candidates, only a first preference vote shall be required.

[Gorundu]

Most of the time this issue comes up, there aren't actually exactly two candidates, just that the election is in reality a two-way competition (or even a one-way landslide). I would propose making preferential voting optional entirely.

[Guy]

Optional preferencing would create problems with a Borda count being the tiebreaker.

I’d prefer this said though that if there are n candidates, you only have to number n-1, with the candidate not numbered receiving the last preference.

[Gorundu]

Fair enough, I support Guy's proposal. I don't like the Borda tiebreaker all that much but I'm not really feeling like visiting that issue so this will do.

[Goobergunchia]

Optional preferencing would create problems with a Borda count being the tiebreaker.

I’d prefer this said though that if there are n candidates, you only have to number n-1, with the candidate not numbered receiving the last preference.

Works for me.

[Guy]

Fair enough, I support Guy's proposal. I don't like the Borda tiebreaker all that much but I'm not really feeling like visiting that issue so this will do.

I’m very open to alternative ideas! I’m not wedded to the borda count either, but I haven’t been able to think of a better one.

[Gorundu]

Fair enough, I support Guy's proposal. I don't like the Borda tiebreaker all that much but I'm not really feeling like visiting that issue so this will do.

I’m very open to alternative ideas! I’m not wedded to the borda count either, but I haven’t been able to think of a better one.

The most obvious ones would be the backwards or forwards tie-breakers. Either whoever has more votes at the earliest stage of counting where a difference exists, or whoever has more votes at the latest stage of counting where a difference exists.

[BowShot118]

Poke on this, it'll be archived soon if nothing happens with it

[The Grim Reaper]

"If a vote is valid except for the exclusion of a single candidate through the omission of a final preference, the vote is to be considered as if the excluded candidate is preferenced last."

this is my proposal for a new clause 3.B in the Elections Act. valid ballot here is intended to imply that the vote is in fact numbered 1 onwards with no gaps. i think this is equivalent to Guy's N-1 construction but it doesn't involve an algebraic variable, which I hold to be anti-democratic on religious grounds.

otherwise I support Guy's construction if he writes it up, I don't give a shit

[frattastan]

This is already the case.

[Gorundu]

Alright, I'll post my radical idea for an overhaul of the election system, in case anyone is interested. Basically it would be an optional preferential vote instead of compulsory, and uses backwards tie-breaking instead of the Borda count. I also struck the part in the preamble mentioning plurality block voting because, well, we don't actually use it. And also made some other changes to the preamble that I think are self-explanatory.

To ensure that executives elected officials of The Rejected Realms are always elected by a majority of candidates voters, The Rejected Realms favours plurality block voting (PBV) and instant-runoff voting (IRV) over the first-past-the-post (FPTP) method.

1. The Speaker must supply voters with a list of all candidates running in an election in the opening post of the voting thread.

2. Voters must may rank all candidates from 1 (their most preferred candidate) to their least preferred candidate.

3. After the voting period, the Speaker must ascertain the elected candidates by the following process:

a. Ascertain the total number of valid votes and vacancies. For a vote to be valid it must rank all candidates contain a first preference candidate and be cast by a person who is a citizen at the end of the voting period. Vacancies are the number of positions to be filled at the election.

b. Count the first preference votes given to each candidate.

c. If a candidate has over one-half of the number of valid votes, that candidate is elected. All non-elected candidates (including previously eliminated candidates) revert to their first-preference votes, and the elected candidate's votes are transferred to the next preferred candidate who has not been elected.

d. If no candidate is elected, then the candidate with the lowest number of votes must be eliminated and any votes for that candidate must be transferred to the next most preferred candidate who has not been eliminated or elected. Candidates must be eliminated until a candidate is elected.

e. This process must be repeated until all vacancies have been filled.

f. If a candidate is to be eliminated, and there is a tie between two or more candidates with the fewest number of votes - the candidate with the lowest Borda count who has the least votes at the latest stage of counting where there is a difference in votes must be eliminated. To calculate a Borda count, each candidate receives one point for each last place vote received, two points for each second-to-last place vote received, three points for each third-to-last place vote received, and so and so forth.

g. In the event that any candidates tie with the same number of votes and an equal Borda count at every stage of counting, the tie shall be broken by reference to the Delegate's vote. If the Delegate has not cast a vote, the tie shall be broken by reference to any incumbent officers' votes. If no incumbent Officers have voted, or the vote is still tied, the tie shall be broken by reference to the Speaker's vote. If the Speaker has not voted, the tie shall be broken in favor of the candidate with the longest continuous citizenship.

[Goobergunchia]

Full support for the first half.

I don't have an objection to the second half, inherently, but would be curious if it would have actually made a difference in any elections of the last few years.

[Guy]

I am very supportive in principle of the proposed amendments, thank you for drafting them. I have some suggested changes. Unfortunately at some point I lost the formatting, but I had tried to recreate it.

In essence, my changes:
a. Retain PBV in section 1 given we still use it (rather than IRV) for multiple-vacancy elections
b. Remove the word 'all' in section 2
c. Inserted a new definition of 'elected candidate' to deal with the fact that votes can now exhaust, you can have no one with a majority of valid votes. I also changed 'voters' to 'votes' in section 1 for the same reason. I fear the definition of 'active vote' is someone inartful (given eliminated candidates can become 'uneliminated') and I would appreciate any assistance.
d. Rewrite paragraphs d and e for (hopefully) clarity, but this is not marked-up. These still don't deal with the situation where there isn't a next-most preferred candidate, again given the possibility for votes to exhaust. I think this is a serious issue and one that needs to be rectified before we vote on this.

To ensure that executives elected officials of The Rejected Realms are always elected by a majority of candidates votes, The Rejected Realms favours plurality block voting (PBV) and instant-runoff voting (IRV) over the first-past-the-post (FPTP) method.

1. The Speaker must supply voters with a list of all candidates running in an election in the opening post of the voting thread.

2. Voters must may rank candidates from 1 (their most preferred candidate) to their least preferred candidate.

3. After the voting period, the Speaker must ascertain the elected candidates by the following process:

a. Ascertain the total number of valid votes and vacancies. For a vote to be valid it must rank all candidates indicate the voter's most preferred candidate (the first preference vote) and be cast by a person who is a citizen at the end of the voting period. Vacancies are the number of positions to be filled at the election.

b. Count the first preference votes given to each candidate. At each subsequent stage of the count, apply either paragraph d or e.

c. A candidate is elected at a stage of a count if that candidate has a majority of active votes at that stage. A vote is active at a stage of a count if it contains a preference for a candidate who, by that stage of the count, had not been eliminated or elected.

d. If at a stage of the count a candidate is not elected, the candidate with the lowest number of votes must be eliminated and each vote for that candidate must be transferred to the voter's next most preferred candidate who has not been eliminated or elected. Candidates must be eliminated in this way until a candidate is elected.

e. If at a stage of the count a candidate is elected, all non-elected candidates (including candidates who had previously been eliminated) revert to their first-preference votes, and elected candidates' votes are transferred to the voter's most preferred candidate who has not been elected.

f. This process must be repeated until all vacancies have been filled.

g. If at a stage of the count a candidate is to be eliminated, and there is a tie between two or more candidates with the fewest number of votes, the candidate with the lowest Borda count who has the least votes at the latest stage of counting where there is a difference in votes must be eliminated. To calculate a Borda count, each candidate receives one point for each last place vote received, two points for each second-to-last place vote received, three points for each third-to-last place vote received, and so and so forth.

g. In the event that any candidates tie with the same number of votes and an equal Borda count at every stage of counting, the tie shall be broken by reference to the Delegate's vote. If the Delegate has not cast a vote, the tie shall be broken by reference to any incumbent officers' votes. If no incumbent Officers have voted, or the vote is still tied, the tie shall be broken by reference to the Speaker's vote. If the Speaker has not voted, the tie shall be broken in favor of the candidate with the longest continuous citizenship.

[frattastan]

I'm a bit hesitant on this. Still thinking over it, but I believe that you (Gor/Guy) should explain the consequences of the change for the benefit of voters.

We are a small community and the typical number of candidates is low, so it's not unreasonable for voters to have information about all of them and be able to come up with a genuine full ranking. Full knowledge of preferences allows to best exploit the benefits of ranked voting, of course.

The preamble says that the goal is "to ensure that ... officials are always elected by a majority of votes", but this won't always be the case with optional preferencing. The current draft doesn't deal with a situation where most voters choose to stick to a 1st preference vote only (or 2 preference only in an election for a full set of Officers), but I think it's one of those cases where it's very likely that officials will be elected with reference to a mere plurality of ballots.

I would also note that reliance on the alternate methods of tie-breaking (e.g., Delegate vote or longest citizenship) is more likely to have negative connotations. In case of a tie the Borda count would still be trying to take into account overall voter preferences, but a Delegate being re-elected through their own vote would be more open to controversy and attacks on legitimacy. This was a scenario before too, but these methods will now be the main ones we rely on in case of a tie rather than a last-ditch effort. A bit far-fetched as an argument, perhaps.

[Guy]

There are two main things these amendments change:
1. A voter no longer has to rank every candidate to cast a valid vote
2. Changing the tiebreaker method from the Borda count to looking back at previous stages of the count.

I don’t feel particularly strongly about the first change. Arguably lowering the requirement for validity is a good thing, although I like that compelling preferences ensures votes count at every stage of the count, rather than potentially exhausting at some point. As to the point you make that candidates will frequently not be elected with a majority of total votes, that is correct, but the definition of ‘active vote’ handles that situation completely satisfactorily imo. On the whole I’m supportive but perhaps not enthusiastically.

My enthusiasm was mostly for the idea of dropping the Borda count. We’ve seen in elections that, where people suspect a tie may occur, they move down the candidate they don’t want to win below their actual preference for them. So, if a voter prefers A > B > C, but A and B could tie, they change their vote to A > C > B. This is bad for many reasons.

Having thought more about the proposed new tiebreaking method, I do have some unresolved concerns as to how it would operate, particularly for Officer elections. I’m not convinced it will result in resorting to the further tiebreaking procedures as you say, fratt. But in PBV I’m not sure it’s a particularly principled way to break ties. I’ll have to give it some more thought.

[Gorundu]

I believe that you (Gor/Guy) should explain the consequences of the change for the benefit of voters.

Please stop peddling the conspiracy theory that Guy and I are the same person.

[Chef Big Dog]

Unarchiving this due to discussions on the TRR discord.

[Chef Big Dog]

Is guy's post the most up to date version of this proposal?

[Goobergunchia]

I believe so.

[Chef Big Dog]

This thread will be archived in 2 days if no clear further interest is shown, on June 1st, 2023, at 3:46 PM EDT.