Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 27, 2018 18:18:53 GMT -6
Whereas when IRV was introduced live was so wonderful, a miracle, oh, it was beautiful, magical, but
Now it needs to be fixed to be more sensible, logical, oh, responsible, practical, and
Whereas in the past election multiple votes were received that listed the same candidate multiple times, and
Whereas if these additional votes for a candidate are counted among the totals for each preference level this could give these candidates and undue advantage in the case of ties, and
Whereas it is good to clear up any ambiguity about this matter, and
Whereas it furthermore would be wise to affirm what should happen in case a vote in a senatorial elections contains both valid and invalid parts (i.e. 1. valid candidate, 2. fictional character, 3. citizen of the wrong province, 4. valid candidate.), and
Whereas this bill was first drafted on the 28th of August 2018, which was Supertramp appreciation day, now
Therefore three sub-sections will be added after Lex.B.14.1. which will read:
"14.2. 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.
14.3. A preference for someone who is not eligible for the contested senate seat because they are either not a citizen of the province represented by the contested senate seat or not eligible to vote is considered invalid.
14.4. If a voter submits a ranked list of preference which includes both valid preferences for candidates and invalid preferences, such as described by Lex.B.14.2. or Lex.B.14.3., then the invalid preferences are ignored but the vote itself will still be valid and the preference for candidates will be considered in the order of the valid preferences.",
Furthermore, the sub and sub-sub-sections directly following the new sub-section 14.4. will be re-numbered accordingly.
Uréu q'estadra så: Glüc da Dhi - Secretary of State
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 27, 2018 18:22:13 GMT -6
I was going to do this later, together with a couple of other bills relating to elections, but I didn't want to miss this opportunity.
Anyway, I'm not entirely sure about the language, so any suggestions on that are very welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 28, 2018 7:21:33 GMT -6
In the second sentence, it might be better to have "Whereas now" instead of "Now" to start.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Aug 28, 2018 12:29:50 GMT -6
Anyway, I'm not entirely sure about the language, so any suggestions on that are very welcome. I support this. And as for the language, I'm certain Roger would appreciate the homage.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Sept 23, 2018 13:16:24 GMT -6
Is the proposed lexhatx text clear?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 23, 2018 19:59:28 GMT -6
I'd like to take a close look at this, since I have the feeling that I'm missing something big that needs to be fixed. Obv been occupied of late, so I will get back to this and check the destination title and relevant Orglaw soon.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Sept 27, 2018 17:50:59 GMT -6
I'd like to take a close look at this, since I have the feeling that I'm missing something big that needs to be fixed. To be honest, I always feel that way about every bill I write. That said, I do hope to clark this sooner rather than later, preferably even the next clark, so if there is something wrong I'm hoping to find out soon.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Sept 27, 2018 17:56:25 GMT -6
To further clarify, the main ideas behind this bill are that
1) if someone votes:
1. Candidate X 2. Candidate X
we will count that as
1. Candidate X
so that X does not get an unfair advantage if first preferences are tied and we have to look at second preferences.
2) if someone votes:
1. Candidate X 2. Harry Potter
we are going to count that as
1. Candidate X
and not discount the whole vote simply because part of it is invalid.
In addition this means that
3) if someone votes:
1. Candidate X 2. Abolish the Senate! 3. Citizen of another province. 3. Candidate X 4. Candidate Y
then the vote is counted as
1. Candidate X 2. Candidate Y.
That is the intention of this bill anyway. The main question I still have is whether the language of this bill properly reflects that intention.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 27, 2018 19:50:55 GMT -6
No, I'm actually a local activist for RCV, so I don't need to be convinced. But I just thought I remembered some problem with how this was integrated into the law. I swear I will get to this before the end of the weekend!
|
|
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 Sept 27, 2018 21:36:08 GMT -6
That is the intention of this bill anyway. The main question I still have is whether the language of this bill properly reflects that intention. Along those lines, here are a couple of thoughts on parts of the bill that might be at risk of being misinterpreted or misunderstood: 1. The phrasing "invalid votes or votes for candidates that are ineligible" implies that "votes for candidates that are ineligible" are not themselves "invalid votes," and therefore are not ignored. Especially since 14.2 can be read as defining invalid votes as lower-preference votes for a candidate who has a higher-preference vote on the same ballot. Consider changing the language in 14.3 to read "invalid votes (to include votes for candidates that are ineligible", OR change 14.2 to include a more comprehensive list of invalid votes, so you don't even have to mention "votes for candidates that are ineligible" in 14.3. 2. The word "vote" is used ambiguously in 14.3 to refer both to individual entries on the preference list (e.g. "invalid votes") and to refer to the entire list ("the vote itself" and "valid parts of the vote"). Consider using different terminology that distinguishes between the two senses, like "preferences" and "list" respectively.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Sept 28, 2018 5:51:37 GMT -6
In looking at this, the reproduction of names portion makes perfect sense.
However, in simply striking the names of fictional characters or ineligible candidates from the list, I cannot help but feel that you would be removing something important. It essentially nullifies the concept of the protest vote. If enough people want to put "Harry Potter" as a choice, then by heavens, let Harry take his seat in the Ziu. The voters didn't want anyone who was actually on the list.
People need a way to actively vote for "None of these people."
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Sept 29, 2018 15:09:30 GMT -6
That is the intention of this bill anyway. The main question I still have is whether the language of this bill properly reflects that intention. Along those lines, here are a couple of thoughts on parts of the bill that might be at risk of being misinterpreted or misunderstood: 1. The phrasing "invalid votes or votes for candidates that are ineligible" implies that "votes for candidates that are ineligible" are not themselves "invalid votes," and therefore are not ignored. Especially since 14.2 can be read as defining invalid votes as lower-preference votes for a candidate who has a higher-preference vote on the same ballot. Consider changing the language in 14.3 to read "invalid votes (to include votes for candidates that are ineligible", OR change 14.2 to include a more comprehensive list of invalid votes, so you don't even have to mention "votes for candidates that are ineligible" in 14.3. 2. The word "vote" is used ambiguously in 14.3 to refer both to individual entries on the preference list (e.g. "invalid votes") and to refer to the entire list ("the vote itself" and "valid parts of the vote"). Consider using different terminology that distinguishes between the two senses, like "preferences" and "list" respectively. I made some edits to the bill to reflect these proposals. Hopefully it looks better now.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Sept 29, 2018 15:34:16 GMT -6
In looking at this, the reproduction of names portion makes perfect sense. However, in simply striking the names of fictional characters or ineligible candidates from the list, I cannot help but feel that you would be removing something important. It essentially nullifies the concept of the protest vote. If enough people want to put "Harry Potter" as a choice, then by heavens, let Harry take his seat in the Ziu. The voters didn't want anyone who was actually on the list. People need a way to actively vote for "None of these people." This act does not remove the possibility of abstaining. Maybe that's not the same as voting invalid, but in practice that option does not currently exist, since invalid votes cannot be entered in the database. Non eligible candidates also by definition are ineligible to take their seat. The question this bill addresses is not whether invalid votes should be counted but whether partially invalid votes should be partially counted or not counted at all.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 4, 2018 12:19:59 GMT -6
In the second sentence, it might be better to have "Whereas now" instead of "Now" to start. Reiterating this. But otherwise, try as I might, I can't find whatever I thought I saw that would conflict with this. Looks good to me.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Oct 26, 2018 9:27:00 GMT -6
I think "but whereas now" sounds sort of wrong.
|
|