| Legal Question: Delegate voting counting methodology |
Legal Question
This is a multi-part question, the second part being a question of jurisdiction.
Your honour, I dispute the premise of this question. IRV is by its fundamental nature a single winner system. It's formulation is that of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, itself a multi-winner system, where there is only one winner. To have more than one winner is to not use IRV, and doing so would be a contradiction of law.
In Sandaoguo's formulation of the question, both violate IRV and can produce extremely undemocratic results. Method B uses no runoffs at all, and is therefore not IRV. Method A is mathematically invalid at determining second place preferences, producing skewed results. To give an exaggerated example, imagine this 25 voter race with three candidates (A, B, C). 5 voters chose C as their first preference. The other 20 do a ballot of A/B/C. A is clearly the first preference here, and should move on. However, despite the fact that 80% of these voters voted for B over C, C would still move on. There are many solutions to this beyond the two listed, providing varying degrees of disruption and required reconciliation. Two of these include:
Your Honor,
I would like to point out that Farengeto's first bullet point is the functional identical of Method A in my original question. Multiple-winner IRV does actually exist as a valid voting methodology. It is indeed called the single transferable vote. With due respect, petitioner Farengeto's assertion that IRV is a "formulation" of single transferable vote is mistaken. Single transferable vote is a subset of instant runoff voting, which is itself an umbrella term for any methodology of preferential voting where preferences are applied automatically, rather than multiple ballots held. IRV is not "STV with only a single winner"-- STV is IRV with multiple winners. Furthermore, and I take no joy in pointing this out, the critique that Method A is "mathematically invalid" is wrong. The math is quite correct. IRV does not meet the monotonicity criterion. That means a candidate with a lot of second-preference votes can lose to a candidate with a small number of first-place votes. That's not a math error-- it's a inherent condition of IRV. Indeed, STV doesn't meet the monotonicity criterion either. The same exact scenario would play out with simple STV. The only way to remove this "flaw" from our voting system is to completely rewrite it. To use Fargengeto's preferred STV, we would need to stipulate the use of a quota, rather than an elimination system. (See: Wikipedia) That's not a remedy the court can deliver. At the end of the day, our law says "the two candidates ranked first and second under IRV will move [on]." It does not define what "ranked first a second under IRV" means, and previous attempts to codify Method B have been voted down by the Assembly. However, there has never been a legally enforced definition, which means the Election Commission can arbitrarily decide which vastly different method to use. My interest here is to make sure all of our Delegate elections are counted the same.
The Permanent Justice requested my opinion on justiciability.
This question is justiciable as it is the Court's duty to "clarify and interpret provisions of law." Ultimately, my questions is which method actually qualifies as using IRV. That is an answerable question, based on the definition of IRV and the plentiful literature about it online. Clarification is necessary in order to protect the democratic process from arbitrariness. Electing our Delegate is one of the most important things we do. The method by which we do so shouldn't be up to the whims of the Election Commission. The Court is presented with the two interpretations that have persisted in our political debate, and thus the Court doesn't have to go on an expedition to devise its own methodology. I posit that Method B is not in any way, shape, or form a valid IRV method, and that (despite its flaws) Method A is the natural way to conduct IRV under all available literature. Rather than making an arbitrary choice of its own, the Court can indeed make an objective decision on what "the two candidates ranked first and second under IRV" means.
Your honour, I offer myself as an expert witness on this matter.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY Whereas sandaoguo has requested this Court that a review be conducted on certain issues related to the interpretation of the law with the following question:
Does the High Court have jurisdiction to hear this question prior to an election, per the Charter's grant of power to the High Court for clearing ambiguities in law? Or just a concerned person wait until an election is conducted to lodge a complaint with the Election Commission, and forward it to the High Court if needed, under Article 1.5 of the Elections Act?
Whereas this Court has conducted a careful review of the merits of such a request on the basis of its legal necessity and potential to impact present and future policies.
It is resolved with respect to this Legal Question as follows:
Kris Kringle Permanent Justice Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Your honor,
The petitioner having admitted elsewhere that there is no actual ambiguity here - "hierocles - Today at 9:53 PM I understand your made up system. I know how to count it." - we would argue that this case is mischief making, and would encourage you to dismiss it. If the petitioner wishes to argue for a change in TSP's election law they may submit a proposal of such to the Assembly, which is the appropriate forum with the power to do so. Asking a carefully worded Legal Question to seek a ruling changing the applied meaning of the law is not appropriate, and is a direct attempt to circumnavigate the legislative process. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Your Honour,
If I may submit this short amicus curiae brief: The wording in the Elections Act is as follows: The Elections Act, 3 (2) Wrote:c. The two candidates ranked first and second under IRV will move to a second round of voting conducted via a a poll of Native World Assembly members. This is, regardless of what Belschaft might claim, ambiguous. It is clear from Belschaft's statements, both currently and at various points in the past that the intent of this law is to do Simple STV, or Elimination Transfer Only STV for multiple winners, as described in the Wikipedia article on STV as follows: Wikipeida, "Single Transferable Vote", Counting The Votes, Simplest Method: Elimination Transfers Only Wrote:The most straightforward way to count a ranked ballot vote is simply to sequentially identify the candidate with the least support, eliminate that candidate, and transfer those ballots to the next-named candidate on each ballot. This process is repeated until there are only as many candidates left as seats available. This method was used for a period of time in several local elections in South Australia . In effect, it is identical to instant-runoff voting, which is commonly used in leadership contests, except that the transfer process is terminated when there are still several candidates remaining.Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_t...prov=sfla1 When officiating the election, Feirmont has always tried to follow Bel's intent, which means that both precedent and legal intent are in favour of continuing using Elimination Transfer Only STV. It would, however, be this legislator's preference that the assembly amend the law to use this non-ambiguous terminology after the election to avoid this discussion occuring again in future. Thank you. Sent from my KOB-L09 using Tapatalk Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond! Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi. Salma 145:8
With respect to Seraph, it is far from clear that Belschaft has said the intent of the law is to use elimination STV. As I mentioned above, that is identical to Method A in my initial question.
What Belschaft has advocated several times over is Method B. Just last night, he explained it as such: “My system essentially selects the favorite candidate of a majority of TSP... and then the favorite candidate of everyone else remaining.” That is unambiguously Method B— choose the two candidates with the most first preference listings. We can debate the merits of individual systems in the Assembly. Seraph is correct that which method is *best* should be settled by amending the law. What the Court is being asked to do now is simply recognize that Method B is unconstitutional, because it is not in any way, shape, or form a method of IRV. A methodology that takes a list of preferential ballots and ignores all votes except the first preferences is, by definition, not preferential and thus not a form of IRV. The law is certainly ambiguous, but what is not ambiguous is that it requires IRV. Belschaft’s post hoc self-designed system cannot be considered IRV under any definition of it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With respects to Sandaoguo, I don't believe that what Belschaft said, as quoted above, was unambiguously method B. I believe he was describing the effective outcome of using simple STV, not the process. This seemed clear to me from everything else he was saying at the time.
Sent from my KOB-L09 using Tapatalk Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond! Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi. Salma 145:8
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |