Elections Overhaul ~~ Preferential Voting

Post by **Guy** » 17 Sep 2014, 15:49

I'm not sure that the little introductory paragraph is needed.

Do we really need the two separate articles? It seems to me like a Delegate election will be held in exactly the same way as a single-vacancy Officer election.

Otherwise, looks good.

Post by **Guy** » 17 Sep 2014, 18:55

Yeah, but not all Officer elections will have four vacancies. In fact, any number between 1-4 is possible. What you usually say is something like "repeat this process until all vacancies have been filled."

Also, important to note that we're not using the classical version of IRV, rather preferential block voting. IRV is a lot more fun to count, especially when you get incredibly tiny surplus values.

Post by **Guy** » 18 Sep 2014, 17:49

Ah sorry, yes, I meant STV there. Probably why one shouldn't write posts re: elections at 3am. My bad.

Still, the reference to IRV is superfluous.

Just one issue I see now - referencing numbered clauses when they aren't numbered ("Article 1.1-8").

Post by **Guy** » 19 Sep 2014, 07:14

Nope, they appear as (square) dot points to me

Post by **Campinia** » 19 Sep 2014, 07:53

For me as well (Carux theme)

Post by **Ryno** » 19 Sep 2014, 08:17

So the old theme people can't see the numbers it seems.

Post by **Guy** » 20 Sep 2014, 13:28

Do we really have to force voters to preference all candidates? I feel like optional preferential voting might be a good idea.

Post by **Guy** » 21 Sep 2014, 04:52

Oh, uhm, I suppose the issue with that is that you won't always be able to reach a majority of all votes, only of those that haven't been exhausted (run out of preferences).

Christian Democrats · Post by **Christian Democrats** » 21 Sep 2014, 05:42

unibot wrote:
17 Sep 2014, 17:19
Pretty sure PBV is identical to IRV when there is only one vacancy to fill, no?

Yes, they are identical systems.

Guy wrote:Do we really have to force voters to preference all candidates?

Yes, if our tiebreaker is going to be a Borda count, it will be necessary for voters to provide complete lists of rankings.

Post by **Spartan Termopylae** » 21 Sep 2014, 12:19

So people who have no interest in any other candidates whatsoever will be forced to vote for them and perhaps end up having their vote ignored and passed on to a candidate they don't want?

Post by **Guy** » 21 Sep 2014, 17:50

Well, the argument for full preferential is that even if you want to see neither candidate elected, not preferencing them doesn't make them less likely to get elected - only means you can't influence which one of them does.

I still think that optional preferential voting tends to work better, even if that means having to scrap our current tiebreaker.

Post by **Spartan Termopylae** » 22 Sep 2014, 01:23

But my preference is solely for the person I want to vote for. I have no interest in rating anyone other than my preferred candidate

Plus, it's ST, not SD

Post by **Ryno** » 22 Sep 2014, 10:56

So you want to have no say when your preferred candidates lose?

Post by **Spartan Termopylae** » 22 Sep 2014, 11:21

If my preferred candidate loses, then they lose. I see no point in ranking other candidates when I have no interest in them being elected, especially if things go in such a way that my preferential voting leads to the least desired candidate getting my vote because of indecision and differing opinions through the rest of the electorate. If my candidate loses a vote, they lose a vote, I accept that. But I don't want my vote to potentially count for someone I don't want

Opressed Ones · Post by **Opressed Ones** » 22 Sep 2014, 16:45

I don't want to be forced to decide in case of equal preferences just to get my vote valid.
I would vote against this constitutional amendment

Post by **Guy** » 22 Sep 2014, 17:04

Isn't that exactly the same case as having two equally preferred #1 candidates, though?

Opressed Ones · Post by **Opressed Ones** » 22 Sep 2014, 19:13

Guy wrote:
22 Sep 2014, 15:04
Isn't that exactly the same case as having two equally preferred #1 candidates, though?

Partially. However, telling me that the system removes the preference problems- well, not completely.
Let's imagine a contest between A, B, C
9votes. Delegate Vote(single seat)

A>B>C
A>B>C
A>B>C
A>B>C
B>C>A
B>C>A
C>A>B
C>A>B
C>A>B
B gets removed, giving C the win.
Borda Count for C is 18, for B 17 and A 20. The majority winner would have been A. C would have won against A alone, however, lost against B , and A would have won against B.
However, B's supporters were- unlike the others- just randomly picking second and third places! If they would have allowed to give them equal weight, A would have won(5>4)
Second: There are still problems. Switch all C>A>B to C>B>A and you get a solid choice, B... who is still eliminated firstround, and C wins.

Opressed Ones · Post by **Opressed Ones** » 22 Sep 2014, 19:51

Opressed Ones wrote:
22 Sep 2014, 17:13
Guy wrote:
22 Sep 2014, 15:04
Isn't that exactly the same case as having two equally preferred #1 candidates, though?
Partially. However, telling me that the system removes the preference problems- well, not completely.
Let's imagine a contest between A, B, C
9votes. Delegate Vote(single seat)

A>B>C
A>B>C
A>B>C
A>B>C
B>C>A
B>C>A
C>A>B
C>A>B
C>A>B
B gets removed, giving C the win.
Borda Count for C is 18, for B 17 and A 20. The majority winner would have been A. C would have won against A alone, however, lost against B , and A would have won against B.
However, B's supporters were- unlike the others- just randomly picking second and third places! If they would have allowed to give them equal weight, A would have won(5>4)
Second: There are still problems. Switch all C>A>B to C>B>A and you get this:
A>B>C
A>B>C
A>B>C
A>B>C
B>C>A
B>C>A
C>B>A
C>B>A
C>B>A
B is seen a solid choice, all others are controversional candidates: either wanted as first or not wanted at all.
B(solid choice, accepted by everyone) loses, like in the majority vote.
C wins. 2/3 of the voters are very unhappy. Even the majority winner, A, would have been a better choice...

Post by **Ryno** » 04 Oct 2014, 10:18

Putting it to vote.

Post by **Guy** » 04 Oct 2014, 13:35

I'm not sure at all equal preferences work?

And I still have a preference for optional preferencing.

Post by **Guy** » 04 Oct 2014, 18:40

Perhaps the result under optional preferential voting is less satisfactory at times (had we known voters' full preferences), but I'd argue that it makes voting easier, and that it should be the voter's right to exhaust their own vote.

The strongest argument I see against implementing it is the tiebreaking method that is currently proposed, but I think that should be side-stepped.

Post by **Guy** » 06 Oct 2014, 17:44

Happy to move to a vote as-is.

Opressed Ones · Post by **Opressed Ones** » 07 Oct 2014, 19:56

First the amendment, then the rest(if the amendment passes). Correct?

Post by **frattastan** » 12 Oct 2014, 10:24

Article 3 - Uncontested Elections

1. Uncontested elections must be confirmed by a simple majority vote.

Can I remove that part?
It's superfluous, since it's already mentioned in the Constitution, article 3F (which is not affected by the amendment - only contested elections follow a format decided by law).

Opressed Ones · Post by **Opressed Ones** » 12 Oct 2014, 17:22

failed edit

The Rejected Realms

The Rejected Realms