As has just been pointed out, the Elections Act doesn't provide for ties. So. Time to fix?

2. Electoral System

(1) All elections held on the regional forums will be conducted via Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).
a. The form of IRV used must be Optional Preferential Voting (OPV); voters may vote for one or multiple candidates in descending order of preference.
b. Should no candidate have an absolute majority once all votes have been counted then the candidate with the least number of votes shall be eliminated from the election. Should more than one candidate have the least number of votes, the candidate with the least number of votes on the next order of preference shall be eliminated. If their numbers of votes are still equal, both shall be eliminated.
c. The votes of those voting for the eliminated candidate(s) will be reallocated based upon the expressed preferences, or discounted if no further preferences are expressed.
d. This process will continue until a candidate has an absolute majority.
d. This process will continue until a candidate has an absolute majority. Should the final candidates have an equal number of votes when all have been allocated, the Elections Committee will arbitrate.

(2) The option to Re-Open Nominations must be included as a "candidate". If elected, the election process for that candidate office shall restart at the nomination phase.

b - The reason for not simply eliminating all lowest-voted candidates is that a candidate may have very few first choice votes but many second choice votes - it seems unfair to discount all the second choice ones and treat both candidates as if they were equally unvoted for.

d - As currently stands, a tie would count as an election-related dispute and therefore be arbitrated by the Elections Committee anyway. This just makes it clearer. In the only prior precedent, the Elections Committee decided to count the second preference votes of the first round - I don't think this is a method that should be put into law without further debate. It would likely encourage people to vote RON as second choice to block out their favourite candidate's opponents from winning in this way.

2 - Just editing because I was here anyway. Unless I'm wrong, the election is for the office, not the candidate, right?

(This post was last modified: 12-24-2017, 04:18 PM by Nakari.)

Reply

I'd merge d and e as such:

d. This process will continue until a candidate has an absolute majority. Should the final candidates have an equal number of votes when all have been allocated, the Elections Committee will arbitrate.

Otherwise, this looks good and has my support!

Reply

Edited to merge those, thank you!

Reply

I'm wavering a little on "the Elections Committee will arbitrate." What was the reasoning behind this?

Otherwise, it looks good.

(For the record, that quote is quite out of context.)

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

Reply

I'm wavering a little on "the Elections Committee will arbitrate." 

I'm also far from ecstatic on this. I get that it provides a quick out in selecting a candidate, but yeah, that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Marius Rahl

Fortitudine Vincimus!

Reply

Reasoning behind that is that it's already what happens. Since the situation's currently undefined, it would be counted as a dispute, and therefore be arbitrated by the Elections Committee - I just want to make that formal. If we're adding a tiebreak for last place it makes sense to also have one for first place.

I'm suggesting this because I think the Elections Committee are best placed to decide what is appropriate. The current options for resolving a tie in the final stage seems to be (1) looking at how many second-preference votes they got in the first preference round, as done in the Jan 2017 delegate election, or (2) redoing the entire voting period with only the tied winners as candidates - i.e., an actual runoff vote rather than instant. 1 is only really appropriate in races with many candidates, or it could lead to overuse of RON to try and manipulate the system. Its benefit is that it helps candidates with a wide base of approval, even if they aren't as many peoples' first choice. 2 doesn't have that benefit but doesn't seem as prone to manipulation via RON.

I think it's a bit beyond the law to decide where each of these are appropriate (and to cover every single contingency other than the basic draw would be unmanageable), so it would be best left to the Election Committee. Though I may be wrong! And if anyone wants those methods added to the law, feel free to come up with how exactly!

(This post was last modified: 11-07-2017, 08:25 AM by Nakari.)

Reply

If there’s a tie in the final round, we should just use random.org or something to resolve it, in my opinion. I know that seems weird to people, but it’s simple and fair, and ties are determined by coin flips in most democracies anyways.

Just have the tied candidates pick a number between 1-100, and use random.org to get the number. Closest wins. Repeat if the cosmic elements of the universe align to result in another tie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

I'm wavering a little on "the Elections Committee will arbitrate." 

I'm also far from ecstatic on this. I get that it provides a quick out in selecting a candidate, but yeah, that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Last time we had an EC try to decide an election it ended up in the Glen/Wolf election incident. And looking at now imagine if an admin (especially Kris or Glen) became the deciding EC vote in choosing the winner? Half of NS would cry out for blood, especially if they made the "wrong" choice.

I'm not sure random number is even a satisfying answer here, there's no way to prove that coin flip or random number or whatever it is was the first and only attempt, instead of retrying until you get the result the EC wants. Because we all know someone on the losing side will contest it.

Reply

I'm not sure random number is even a satisfying answer here, there's no way to prove that coin flip or random number or whatever it is was the first and only attempt, instead of retrying until you get the result the EC wants. Because we all know someone on the losing side will contest it.

Just do it on Discord using the bot.

Code:

[8:15 PM] Roavin: !flip
[8:15 PM] BOTCoconut [!]: flips a coin and... HEADS!
[8:15 PM] Roavin: !flip
[8:15 PM] BOTCoconut [!]: flips a coin and... TAILS!

Reply

Reasoning behind that is that it's already what happens. Since the situation's currently undefined, it would be counted as a dispute, and therefore be arbitrated by the Elections Committee - I just want to make that formal. If we're adding a tiebreak for last place it makes sense to also have one for first place.

I'm suggesting this because I think the Elections Committee are best placed to decide what is appropriate. The current options for resolving a tie in the final stage seems to be (1) looking at how many second-preference votes they got in the first preference round, as done in the Jan 2017 delegate election, or (2) redoing the entire voting period with only the tied winners as candidates - i.e., an actual runoff vote rather than instant. 1 is only really appropriate in races with many candidates, or it could lead to overuse of RON to try and manipulate the system. Its benefit is that it helps candidates with a wide base of approval, even if they aren't as many peoples' first choice. 2 doesn't have that benefit but doesn't seem as prone to manipulation via RON.

I think it's a bit beyond the law to decide where each of these are appropriate (and to cover every single contingency other than the basic draw would be unmanageable), so it would be best left to the Election Committee. Though I may be wrong! And if anyone wants those methods added to the law, feel free to come up with how exactly!

I'd much prefer the second option your highlighted here, as it deals with a full election to break the tie, rather than an arbitrary decision by the EC or a completely random coin flip. An arbitrary decision by the EC is, for obvious reasons, highly questionable and completely against the democratic principles that elections are focused around. As for a coin-flip, it seems an awful way to decide the winner - it is purely chance! It's horribly unfair to the involved parties and takes no merit into account whatsoever.

Using Nakari's method 2, on the other hand, allows for a full vote between the two tied candidates, which really should only take 3 days - hardly a significant delay. For such a minor loss, the method is far superior to either of the other two, as it stays away from arbitrary decisions and pure chance and is instead based purely off of the opinion of the people.

Marius Rahl

Fortitudine Vincimus!

Reply