Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Apr 18, 2017 16:22:43 GMT -6
Whereas the Fleshing Out IRV Act does not specify what happens when two candidates with the lowest number of ballots assigned to them have the same amount of preference votes on every level, and
Whereas it is implied that Orglaw, Article IV, Section 6 would apply here, but this is not made explicit, and
Whereas the resulting text is a bit ambiguous, and
Whereas it might be wise to state explicitly what would happen in such a case, now
Therefore, Lex.B.14.4 which currently reads: "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. "
shall be amended to read:
"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. If no such distinction can be made between these candidates because all have the same number of votes on every level of preference, the outcome will be determined by calculating every scenario in which one of the tied candidates is eliminated. "
"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.14.4.1 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.
B.14.4.1.1 If the different scenarios described by B.14.4.1 result in the same winner of the election overall, the winning candidate shall become the Senator.
B.14.4.1.2 If the different scenarios described by B.14.4.1 result in different winners of the election overall, the result will be considered a tie between the winners of the different scenarios and will be resolved in accordance with Org.IV.6";
Additionally the following two subsections shall be added after Lex.B.14.4:
"B.14.5 If the different scenarios described by B14.4 result in a different winners of the election as a whole, the result will be considered a tie between the winners of the different scenarios.
B.14.6 Ties as described by B14.5 will be resolved in accordance with the OrgLaw, Article IV, Section 6";
Furthermore, the subsections directly following the old subsection Lex.B.14.4 shall be renumbered accordingly
Furthermore, Lex.B.14.6, which currently reads: "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."
Shall be amended to read: "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.14.5."
Noi Urent q’estadra så: Glüc da Dhi (MC, MRPT) Ian Plätschisch (MC, MRPT)
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Apr 18, 2017 16:23:20 GMT -6
Comments and suggestions are welcome.
Checking the bill for errors and ambiguities would be very much appreciated.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Apr 19, 2017 18:26:27 GMT -6
the outcome will be determined by calculating every scenario in which one of the tied candidates is eliminated.) No: too complicated. The Fiovan law, which is the original from which preferential voting in Talossa stems, mandates a toss of a coin or some other random procedure. And I must also express my distress that our response to the lack of activity in the Kingdom right now mainly involves technical fixes to laws which have never been put into action.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 19, 2017 18:58:38 GMT -6
the outcome will be determined by calculating every scenario in which one of the tied candidates is eliminated.) No: too complicated. The Fiovan law, which is the original from which preferential voting in Talossa stems, mandates a toss of a coin or some other random procedure. And I must also express my distress that our response to the lack of activity in the Kingdom right now mainly involves technical fixes to laws which have never been put into action. Doesn't seem too complicated to me. Even if it is complicated, so what? Still better than using something as undemocratic as random chance. I also don't think that a lack of activity precludes technical fixes. Besides, there are other things going on in the Kingdom right now to address that problem. I would prefer, Glüc, if, in cases where more than two possibilities arise, the winner of the most possibilities is declared the winner.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Apr 20, 2017 6:20:36 GMT -6
I don't understand what is meant by "calculating every scenario in which one of the tied candidates is eliminated." If the two candidates have the same number of votes with the same preferences, what kind of scenario are you envisioning?
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on May 11, 2017 15:08:59 GMT -6
A tie is a tie is a tie. It can be broken only by appeal to an unbiased random event.
"Every scenario" is a list that grows exponentially: for two-tied there are two cases (but, as we know, a tie of two cannot be broken in this way); for three-tied there are six cases; for four tied there are twenty-four cases; for five tied there are .... eeek! It's the factorial sequence.
It's either a tie (i.e. everything is equal), or it is not a tie. If it is not a tie, well then - we already have the answer. If it is a tie, then we have to appeal to a random, non-related event (e.g. a coin toss).
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 11, 2017 19:52:43 GMT -6
A tie is a tie is a tie. It can be broken only by appeal to an unbiased random event.
"Every scenario" is a list that grows exponentially: for two-tied there are two cases (but, as we know, a tie of two cannot be broken in this way); for three-tied there are six cases; for four tied there are twenty-four cases; for five tied there are .... eeek! It's the factorial sequence.
It's either a tie (i.e. everything is equal), or it is not a tie. If it is not a tie, well then - we already have the answer. If it is a tie, then we have to appeal to a random, non-related event (e.g. a coin toss). I don't think that the list of scenarios grows exponentially. If two candidates are tied at a certain round, then there are, of course, two scenarios (one scenario in which each of them is eliminated). However, if three candidates are tied, there are only three scenarios (again, one in which each is eliminated). This process would continue for any amount of tied candidates. By using the proposed system, everything between the candidates is not equal, so an appeal to chance is not needed.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on May 12, 2017 7:50:40 GMT -6
I don't think that the list of scenarios grows exponentially. If two candidates are tied at a certain round, then there are, of course, two scenarios (one scenario in which each of them is eliminated). However, if three candidates are tied, there are only three scenarios (again, one in which each is eliminated). This process would continue for any amount of tied candidates. By using the proposed system, everything between the candidates is not equal, so an appeal to chance is not needed. ....er, no. If there are three tied, then we have to consider each one being eliminated - three cases... BUT for each of those three cases there are two more to consider - just as there would be for a tie of two. So we have three cases of two-tied, and two-tied is two (sub)-cases. Alas, it does go up factorially.
But in all of this (the environment we are considering) we either have a true tie or we do not. If it is not a true tie, then none of this is needed. If it is a true tie, then all of this is impossible - and then we need aleatoric resolution.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 12, 2017 10:00:26 GMT -6
I don't think that the list of scenarios grows exponentially. If two candidates are tied at a certain round, then there are, of course, two scenarios (one scenario in which each of them is eliminated). However, if three candidates are tied, there are only three scenarios (again, one in which each is eliminated). This process would continue for any amount of tied candidates. By using the proposed system, everything between the candidates is not equal, so an appeal to chance is not needed. ....er, no. If there are three tied, then we have to consider each one being eliminated - three cases... BUT for each of those three cases there are two more to consider - just as there would be for a tie of two. So we have three cases of two-tied, and two-tied is two (sub)-cases. Alas, it does go up factorially.
But in all of this (the environment we are considering) we either have a true tie or we do not. If it is not a true tie, then none of this is needed. If it is a true tie, then all of this is impossible - and then we need aleatoric resolution.I still disagree. Consider a case where three people are tied at a step. Three cases are necessary; one in which each person is eliminated. This does not result in having to consider two more scenarios in each case, since the redistribution of the votes of the eliminated candidate would likely break the tie between the other two. Anyhow, this system just adds another tiebreaker, demonstrating that there is not a "true tie" between the candidates if this tiebreaker produces a winner.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 12, 2017 10:32:47 GMT -6
I already feared that this one made more sense in my head than on paper. I will try to further clarify it when I have time, but that won't be before next week.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on May 16, 2017 6:42:29 GMT -6
I still disagree. Consider a case where three people are tied at a step. Three cases are necessary; one in which each person is eliminated. This does not result in having to consider two more scenarios in each case, since the redistribution of the votes of the eliminated candidate would likely break the tie between the other two. Anyhow, this system just adds another tiebreaker, demonstrating that there is not a "true tie" between the candidates if this tiebreaker produces a winner. If the elimination of one person, but not any of the others, breaks the tie - then there was not a tie (as I have sometimes been using the word). A true tie can exist only when all the votes for each candidate are the same. If by "tie" you mean "votes at a particular level" being the same, then - agreed - we have to consider three cases (for a three-person tie), where each case is reduced to a two-person play-off. Let's call the "absolutely identical" case a "true tie" (as I have sometimes been doing), and call the other examples a "tie" (which, I think, was the sense you were using.... please correct me if I am wrong).
Now consider a four-way tie. We have to eliminate one of the four, and (possibly) perform the three-way case on the remaining three; that three-way test is needed at this stage only if there is, again, a tie at this level. Then we eliminate instead the next of the four, and so on. That gives us up to twelve cases we have to consider. For a five-way tie, we have to eliminate one of the five and perform the four-way examination on the remaining candidates... this gives up to 60 cases.
If at any stage we reach an impasse (a true tie) then - alas - we have to toss a coin (or roll some dice, or use the winning team's score in a particular cricket match divided by N, where N is the number of candidates tied, and use the remainder as the random element, or ... )
If there is not a true tie, but just a tie, then the sequential elimination method is, perhaps, as good as any other (though, as an aside, the way the French President is elected perhaps warns us that we have to be careful).
But a true tie can be broken only at random.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 17, 2017 8:58:48 GMT -6
I'm not sure if I understand Ián's point, but if I do I disagree. Something can be a true tie within a system (in this case the election, meaning they get the same amount of votes on all preference levels.), which means it needs to be resolved by some external factor, but this does not need to be random chance. In fact, the OrgLaw prescribes something else, namely, the executive officer of the province. (I guess that it could be argued that if the executive officer has a preference there would never be a true tie, but that doesn't seem a particularly useful definition.)
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on May 17, 2017 9:34:01 GMT -6
As for what I meant with this bill, I will try to explain.
First of all, we are dealing with the possibility of a "tie", meaning in this case that two or more candidates have the lowest number of votes during a certain iteration of the election AND have the same amount of votes on every level of preference. This bill does not specify what happens in such case. Maybe the OrgLaw would apply then, which states that "In case of a tie between two or more candidates, the executive officer of the province shall select one of those candidates to be the Senator.".
There are however some problems with this.
Consider the following scenarios:
Preference from highest to lowest - Votes A;B;C - 1 A;C;B - 1 B;A;C - 1 C;A;B - 1
In this case, since A does not have a majority, B and C are tied. If B is eliminated, A is elected senator. If C is eliminated, A is elected senator.
Obviously what we don't want is the executive officer being called upon to appoint either B or C, just because they are tied in an earlier phase of the election, since it's clear A should win. An alternative intepretation of the law might be that the executive officer is called upon to eliminate either candidate B or C, but this too is undesirable since it requires action from someone where this is completely unnecessary. (Maybe the best interpretation of the law would be that there is no law at all to deal with such a case, which is what this bill attempts to fix.
Preference from highest to lowest - Votes
A;B;C;D - 3 B;A;D;C - 3 A;D;C;B - 1 B;C;D;A - 1 D;C;A;B - 5 C;D;B;A - 5
In this case, in the first round, A and B are tied with the least number of votes. If A is eliminated, C will be eliminated during the second round, resulting in the election of D If B is eliminated, D will be eliminated during the second round, resulting in the election of C
Here too we do not want the executive officer electing one of the "tied" candidate, because obviously both C and D deserve to win the election more. We can let the executive officer decide who gets eliminated, but obviously in such case it would seem unlikely that this decision would really be based on a preference for either A or B, but rather on a preference for either C or D. Rather than have the executive officer pretend to choose between either A or B, it would make more sense to directly decide between C or D.
The intention of this bill then is to make the point that if two candidates are tied it's not really a tie between those candidate but between the outcomes that result from the elimination of either candidate. If the outcome is the same, as in the first example, then there is not really a tie. If the outcome is different, the orglaw needs to be invoked.
I will accept though that the language of the bill isn't exactly clear or easily understandable, and I would call upon any MZ (or anyone else) who understands my intention to help me revise this bill so that it is clear.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on May 18, 2017 9:45:08 GMT -6
I'm not sure if I understand Ián's point, but if I do I disagree. Something can be a true tie within a system (in this case the election, meaning they get the same amount of votes on all preference levels.), which means it needs to be resolved by some external factor, but this does not need to be random chance. In fact, the OrgLaw prescribes something else, namely, the executive officer of the province. (I guess that it could be argued that if the executive officer has a preference there would never be a true tie, but that doesn't seem a particularly useful definition.) A choice by an outside (human) party is as random (in the abstract sense) as a dice roll: it is something that is independent of the ballot-expressed wishes of the electorate. And it may well be a perfectly good method of breaking a true tie. (The executive-officer-choice is, in this case, aleatoric - not directly governed by the expressed votes).
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jun 28, 2017 10:51:57 GMT -6
and I would call upon any MZ (or anyone else) who understands my intention to help me revise this bill so that it is clear. Anyone?
|
|