The Fleshing Out IRV Act

[Ian Plätschisch]

The Fleshing Out IRV Act

WHEREAS Senate elections are now conducted using Ranked Choice Voting, and

WHEREAS There is some concern that there are not enough specifics regarding how RCV is to be implemented, and

WHEREAS I guess I better write some specifics



THEREFORE, the following provisions shall be added to el Lexhatx:

B.14: In accordance with Org.IV.6, Ranked Choice Voting shall be conducted in the following manner:

B.14.1: Voters shall rank the candidates for Senator for their province in order of preference. Voters may rank as many or as few candidates as they please.

B.14.2: At the conclusion of the election, each candidate is assigned all ballots which express him as first preference. The candidate with the fewest ballots assigned to him is eliminated. Each ballot cast for the eliminated candidate is reassigned to the next expressed preference on the ballot.

B.14.3: Once the ballots are reassigned, the candidate with the fewest ballots assigned to him is eliminated and the ballots cast for him reassigned according to B.14.2. This process is repeated until one candidate wins by having a majority of non-abstention ballots assigned to him.

B.14.4: 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. 

B.14.5: 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.

B.14.6: A candidate may not be assigned ballots after he has been eliminated. A ballot that would otherwise be reassigned to an eliminated candidate is instead assigned to the highest-ranked candidate that has not been eliminated, or treated as an abstention according to B.14.4.

Uréu q'estadra så;
Ian Plätschisch (MC-MRPT)

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I have concerns with the "incoming executive officer" language.

The currently proposed language would allow individuals who have not yet taken office to exercise their duties, which I don't think is right. This is assuming, too, that executive officers are elected at the same time as Senators, or elected by the people at all as opposed to be elected by the province's legislature.

There is also the general concern with having any individual pick between two tied candidates.

It would be better, in my mind, to have some kind of randomized process for picking from the two. Have the SoS flip a coin (preferably a Talossan one!).

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I would draw the Ziu's attention to the existing preferential voting (aka IRV, ranked choice) legislation of Fiôvâ, which was copied from that of the Republic-that-was, which was in turn copied from that of Penguinea, which was IN TURN copied from the statutes of the Australian Capital Territory and the Irish Republic. Why re-invent the wheel?

In this Section, unless the contrary intention appears-
"quota" means the number of votes sufficient to elect a candidate at an election, being the first whole number which is greater than half of the total number of votes received;
"second preference recorded for a candidate" means the recording on a ballot-paper of the number "2" in the square opposite the name of a person whose name appears on the ballot paper as a candidate;
The ballot paper for a Capitán and Senator election shall be prepared as follows:
the names of the candidates, in the form of the candidate's surname followed by his or her initials, shall appear on the ballot paper in a random order;
each ballot paper shall have an "abstain" option listed last on the ballot paper after the names of all the candidates; and
a box shall appear to the left of each name and the "abstain" option in which electors will fill out their preferences.
Each voter shall then place a number in the box next to the name of each candidate they wish to vote for in order of preference, with "1" being the first preference, "2" being the second preference and so on. If the elector does not wish to vote for any candidate, they shall place a number "1" in the box next to the "abstain" option, and their vote shall not be counted towards any candidate, and shall not be used in determining the quota. Any preferences expressed after the "abstain" option shall be of no effect.
If more than half of the ballots indicate the "abstain" option, then the election shall be void and the Secretary shall then restart the election process at a time of his/her choosing.
To determine the successful candidate, the number of first preferences recorded for each candidate shall first be counted.
A candidate who has, after the first preferences have been counted, a number of such preferences equal to or greater than the quota shall be declared elected.
Where after the first preferences have been counted no candidate has obtained the quota, the candidate who, at that time, has the least number of first preference votes transferred to him/her as provided by this Part, shall be excluded, and all the votes obtained by him/her shall be transferred to the candidates next in order of the electors' respective preferences.
The ballot-papers obtained by an excluded candidate which indicate no further valid preferences shall be declared "exhausted", and set aside as finally dealt with.
The process of excluding the candidate who has polled the next lowest number of votes at the election and transferring to other candidates his/her votes shall be repeated until the total number of exhausted votes is greater than the amount of votes required to enable all unexcluded candidates to reach a quota. The candidate with the most votes shall then be declared elected.
Where at any time it becomes necessary to exclude a candidate, and 2 or more candidates having the same number of votes, have at that time, the least number of first preference votes transferred to them as provided by this Chapter, then whichever of those candidates was recorded as having the lowest number of votes at the last count or transfer at which they had an unequal number of votes shall be first excluded. If those candidates have had an equal number of votes at all preceding counts or transfers, the Secretary of State shall decide which of those candidates shall be first excluded.
In determining which candidate is next in the order of an elector's preference, any candidates who have been declared elected or who have been excluded shall not be considered, and the order of the elector's preference shall be determined as if the names of those candidates had not been on the ballot-paper.
Where on a transfer it is found that on any ballot-paper to be transferred there is no candidate opposite whose name a number is placed, other than a candidate whose name has already been either declared elected or excluded, those ballot-papers and their votes shall be set aside as exhausted.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jan 25, 2017 23:55:00 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

I have concerns with the "incoming executive officer" language.

The currently proposed language would allow individuals who have not yet taken office to exercise their duties, which I don't think is right. This is assuming, too, that executive officers are elected at the same time as Senators, or elected by the people at all as opposed to be elected by the province's legislature.

There is also the general concern with having any individual pick between two tied candidates.

It would be better, in my mind, to have some kind of randomized process for picking from the two. Have the SoS flip a coin (preferably a Talossan one!).

While I think the current Fiôvân legislation is too wordy, I did adopt its method for dealing with ties.  It's way better than random chance IMO (I never like deciding any election by chance), and I admit my original solution wasn't that great.

B.14.4: 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.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jan 29, 2017 8:33:23 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

I wish to Clark The Fleshing Out IRV Act and Amendment

I would urge you to wait untill at least the second clark with clarking this. Three days is very little discussion time for an act like this, that will have real implications for our electoral process. Most members of the Ziu will not have read it yet. And there is no need for such hurry either, because the act will not have any effect untill the next GE.

It would be interesting for example to hear from Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. what he thinks about the practical implementation of this act.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I agree, and I will be voting down this legislation if it goes on the Clark now, no matter the potential merits.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jan 29, 2017 18:28:30 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

I agree, and I will be voting down this legislation if it goes on the Clark now, no matter the potential merits.

Bill withdrawn

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Thank you for your cooperation, Ian. What are your thoughts on ratifying this before the next GE/SE?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Feb 1, 2017 17:23:38 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Thank you for your cooperation, Ian. What are your thoughts on ratifying this before the next GE/SE?

Very necessary, as doing so will both ensure that these regulations are in place before the next election and make it easier to condense this article later this term.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

How will the SoS implement this new regulation, provided it passes?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Feb 1, 2017 18:42:17 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

How will the SoS implement this new regulation, provided it passes?

Since this bill only codifies how IRV is already carried out, the plans Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. made in the thread for my IRV bill last term should still work.

[Glüc da Dhi]

What if two candidates are tied on all preference levels? (Not really that unlikely, especially if there are only a limited number of candidates.)

[Ian Plätschisch]

Feb 6, 2017 8:43:18 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

What if two candidates are tied on all preference levels? (Not really that unlikely, especially if there are only a limited number of candidates.)

Maybe a runoff election? I really don't like random chance to decide these things, as it strikes me as undemoctatic.

Any better ideas would be appreciated

[Lüc da Schir]

I'd take a runoff over any random tiebreaker or provincial appointment any day, tbh.

[Glüc da Dhi]

But wouldn't a runoff just mean the same people who are tied between two candidates voting on the same candidates again? The point of IRV is that its a series of runoff elections, but instant, thats why it's called IRV. Are we hoping people will miss the second election in order to resolve the tie. What if the election is tied again? Also, we could only hold such a runoff after the elections have been verified. Then, the Chancery will have to run a new election, which would logically take two weeks again. Then that one needs to be verified. That would very likely delay the first clark.

Another benefit of keeping the provincial executive clause is that we don't have to change the orglaw. It could be argued ties during a step of the process that can be resolved by total preferences aren't real ties. After all, they are resolved simply by looking at the vote, without any further outside input. If a situation cannot be resolved that way, we calculate both scenarios. Sometimes these will lead to the same candidate being elected anyway. If not, it would be considered a tie and resolved according to the Orglaw as it is. That way we can fix IRV without having to change the OrgLaw, so we'll be in time for the next election.