|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 5, 2009 18:17:24 GMT -6
This thread is not about Secretary Preston, even though he is certainly awesome enough to merit a thread. It is about the bill and IRV. You may not agree or understand his stated intentions, but they have nothing to do with the merit of the bill. Please focus on the substance of the law here.
|
|
|
Post by Cody Ellsworth on Feb 5, 2009 18:30:05 GMT -6
This thread is not about Secretary Preston, even though he is certainly awesome enough to merit a thread. It is about the bill and IRV. You may not agree or understand his stated intentions, but they have nothing to do with the merit of the bill. Please focus on the substance of the law here. I'm pretty sure you're talking to me? Anyways, I know. I just hate to see people assume they know what people are thinking, and goes as far as accusing them of not appreciating something. But yes, back to what matters - LAW. I'm not really gonna put my input into anything until I'm a citizen. Which today was actually my 15th day.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Feb 5, 2009 22:34:09 GMT -6
El Distáin is correct. The issue is not about my actions , it is about IRV and this revision of the Reform Amendment.
My apologies to all.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 5, 2009 23:31:02 GMT -6
El Distáin is correct. The issue is not about my actions , it is about IRV and this revision of the Reform Amendment. My apologies to all. I totally stepped out of the argument about 20 posts or so ago when I sensed some hostility and saw things turning away from the issue of IRV. I fully respect the arguments FOR the system and I also understand that the 'if it isnt broke, dont fix it' thing goes against the grain of a society that is supposed to grow through change, etc. However, and I only say this in my limited capacity as a non-citizen, I feel that an election should be held in a monotonic fashion. IRV is non-monotonic. Borda, MAM and Shulze are monotonic systems, but they are based on preferencial systems that are too complex for the smaller range election held in an electorate of 200. FPTP (the current system) I admit is not flawless, However the flaws do not exceed it's advantages. You can argue that IRV is a proven system being used over the world, but FTPT is also a proven system and is still the most common and frequently used voting system in the world. Not just at governmental levels, but all the way through the private sector right down to local PTA posts.
|
|
|
Post by Cody Ellsworth on Feb 6, 2009 4:43:11 GMT -6
El Distáin is correct. The issue is not about my actions , it is about IRV and this revision of the Reform Amendment. My apologies to all. I totally stepped out of the argument about 20 posts or so ago when I sensed some hostility and saw things turning away from the issue of IRV. Same. It seems like more people are getting angry around Talossa lately lol.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 6, 2009 7:07:57 GMT -6
Lately? Cody, you hardly have the experience to say that. We've always been angry.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 6, 2009 7:20:05 GMT -6
This thread is not about Secretary Preston, even though he is certainly awesome enough to merit a thread. It is about the bill and IRV. You may not agree or understand his stated intentions, but they have nothing to do with the merit of the bill. Please focus on the substance of the law here. Quite right. Back on topic now. Any thoughts for additions/corrections for this bill (besides just getting rid of it)?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 8:18:32 GMT -6
What are the results of the sample election you tried out with us?
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Feb 6, 2009 8:35:59 GMT -6
There is some conflicting wording in the Amendment.
In 1. Article IV, Section 6, it reads:
"On the ballot, voters must mark a '1' beside the most preferred candidate, a '2' beside the second-most preferred, and so forth,"
But in Article IV, Section 8 m it reads:
" A voter may choose not to rank some candidates..."
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 6, 2009 8:57:54 GMT -6
What are the results of the sample election you tried out with us? Not all ballots have been returned. I'm still waiting on 3 people. Though, if you want I could just leave them out and publish the results. Good catch. Will fix.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 6, 2009 9:17:00 GMT -6
In the first round all first preference votes must be counted. If, in the first round one candidate holds the majority of the first preference votes, that candidate shall be declared the winner. Shouldn't this read that the majority must be 51% of total votes cast for a winner to be declared. For instance three candidates where A and B get 30% and C gets 40% - your wording indicates that C has won, when under IRV that is not the case. If the majority was only 40% the run off would have to take effect until a majority of 51% is reached.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 6, 2009 9:23:30 GMT -6
The definition of majority is greater than 50%, you cannot have a "majority" of 40%--that is a plurality.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 6, 2009 9:26:13 GMT -6
The definition of majority is greater than 50%, you cannot have a "majority" of 40%--that is a plurality. My mistake, yeah. Shoot me, i'm tired.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 6, 2009 9:37:23 GMT -6
RESULTS OF THE MOCK ELECTION Statistics: Of 15 total voters, 12 returned their ballots with 3 voters not returning their ballots. 1 ballot was incorrectly filled out but the first preference will still be counted. FIRST ROUND Candidate | First Preferences | Percentage | Majority? | Eliminated? | Owen | 6 | 50% | No | No | Mick | 2 | 16.7% | No | No | Danihél | 1 | 8.3% | No | Yes | Hooligan | 3 | 25% | No | No |
SECOND ROUND Candidate | Votes | Percentage | Majority? | Eliminated? | Owen | 6 | 50% | No | No | Mick | 3 | 25% | No | Yes | Hooligan | 3 | 25% | No | No |
THIRD ROUND Candidate | Votes | Percentage | Majority? | Eliminated? | Owen | 6 | 50% | No | No | Hooligan | 6 | 50% | No | Yes |
Winner: Owen Edwards
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Feb 6, 2009 9:43:16 GMT -6
Just for fun, please explain the results of the mock election. How did it work?
|
|