Users browsing this thread:

**Jay Coop** · 10-27-2020, 09:36 PM

I have introduced a bill that reforms how we treat votes to reopen nominations. Instead of treating RON as a "candidate" that can be eliminated, the amended Elections Act would treat RON as an option against all candidates running for an office. I thought that was the case before until I was corrected by the Election Commissioner in the recent Cabinet elections.

Elections Act

An act establishing elections for office

...

2. Electoral System

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

...

3. Office of the Delegate

...

(2) On the first of every January and July, the Assembly will convene for the first round of Delegate elections.

...

f. If an advancing candidate receives less than half of the approval vote 50% approval, the option to reopen nominations Re-Open Nominations will be "approved", and the process for that slot shall begin again at the campaign and debate period.

...

5. Office of the Chair

...

(2) The voting for the Chair will be conducted using Approval Voting.
a. Voters may vote for as many candidates as they approve of, or vote for none by voting to reopen nominations Re-Open Nominations.

...

c. If the winning candidate received less than half of the approval vote 50% approval, the option to reopen nominations Re-Open Nominations will be "selected".

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 10-28-2020, 04:07 PM by Jay Coop.)

**Domais** · 10-27-2020, 09:47 PM

Would it be like what is shown below?

Example Wrote:Position A <Would you like to RON (Y/N)>
<Ranked voting here>

You get to vote even if you pick yes? I assume no. You should be able to rank your candidates and RON should be a separate thing. So I guess I'm not getting the "approval vote" language.

(This post was last modified: 10-27-2020, 09:50 PM by Domais.)

**Jay Coop** · 10-27-2020, 09:58 PM

Yes, you get to decide whether to reopen nominations. However, if a majority do not vote to reopen nominations, you should still have the ability to decide between the options before you. Maybe, I should be more specific in the bill about this.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 10-28-2020, 04:07 PM by Jay Coop.)

***Tsunamy*** · 10-28-2020, 09:08 AM

I'm confused on what is sought be to accomplished here?

Generally, people insert RON into the list so would could vote for:

Debra
RON
Far
Tsu

Which gives you the ability to for vote RON, but also the other candidates.

I guess my question is why would we want to require people to vote against Debra, too, when they only want RON rather than Far and I?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Jay Coop** · 10-28-2020, 04:11 PM

Well, here's my thing, if someone did vote Debra > RON > Far > Tsu, why should they vote that way? Simply, it's Debra > RON if you do that. I don't understand why we should treat RON as a "candidate" and eliminate it early on. In fact, that option should exist even down to the final two candidates to determine if a majority agree that we should reopen nominations.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 10-28-2020, 04:11 PM by Jay Coop.)

**Farengeto** · 10-28-2020, 04:37 PM

(10-28-2020, 04:11 PM)Jay Coop Wrote: Well, here's my thing, if someone did vote Debra > RON > Far > Tsu, why should they vote that way? Simply, it's Debra > RON if you do that.

We do it that way, because it is not that.

Say the first round ranking in the election that uses your example ballot goes "Tsu, Far, Debra, RON". RON gets eliminated first round, and Debra doesn't get enough so is eliminated second round.

You can swap Debra and RON on the ballot of the first round result, doesn't matter here. We had ballots and run-offs like this last election, so this is barely even a hypothetical.

Now, in the third round, the options comes down to Tsu and Far.

As it stands now, the vote does its run-off and switches to Far. Potentially, it could even swap the third round ballot to Far.
Under your proposed example, the ballot is effectively discarded. Their vote stays as RON, but being ranked so low, it has no chance of making RON win. The net result is the same as if RON was eliminated, and any further preferences are ignored.

We allow candidates below RON, because while they have expressed their disapproval of those candidates, they have still expressed that they have a preference of one over the other. So if RON is eliminated, their preferences still matter and are counted. And this can sway an election.

**Belschaft** · 10-29-2020, 09:02 AM

It's the distinction between IRV & Approval elections. RON functions differently in them as the voting systems are different.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Farengeto** · 10-29-2020, 11:02 AM

For a more simple demonstration of why we rank past RON, consider US presidential candidates.

There's plenty of people who don’t like either candidate. But when the race comes down to the two of them, most still prefer one over the other.

**Domais** · 10-29-2020, 12:06 PM

It doesn't make sense for RON to be treated as a candidate. Because it's not a person.

**Farengeto** · 10-29-2020, 06:40 PM

(10-29-2020, 12:06 PM)Domais Wrote: It doesn't make sense for RON to be treated as a candidate. Because it's not a person.

It's a "candidate" for semantic reasons. It's not a candidate, but it is an option on the ballot. So we call it a "candidate" (in quotes for a reason) for lack of a better term.