The official votes have elected the following people, Eluvatar, Alvino Castillion, KiwiTaicho, Mall and Govindia.
I personally had trouble voting myself, as I did not receive the telegram (as I was the one sending them) and could not access my code. Originally I had voted after seeing the results, however upon further reflection and discussion with others, I decided against doing that.
Instead, I will be appointing Romanoffia to the Fifth Cabinet position. I do not feel that I can work with Govindia as a Minister, nor do I feel that he will represent The North Pacific positively in his position. The Delegate retains the full legal right to appoint his entire cabinet without the need for elections. I am exercising that right today.
I accept the people's verdict for the first four candidates, I cannot however accept the fifth. Especially knowing that had I voted (given the 1/7thish difference between the two) Romanoffia would have been in my top 5 candidates, and would have taken the final position.
Therefore the new council will include Eluvatar, Alvino Castillion, KiwiTaicho, Mall and Romanoffia. All must post their oaths as soon as possible and we will get down to business.
There will be more announcements about who will be taking what Ministry in the coming days.
I applaud the Delegate for making the wise choice of replacing Govindia with Romanoffia. I believe he will be a much better choice for someone that has to represent The North Pacific.
I'm confused by the results. How many people voted? Who all got ballots? Looking at the raw ballots, I'm seeing lots of 1's and 12's. What does that mean?
36 people voted: that's what's shown by the "Check" column, that the total number of votes is 36 in each round. As we were electing 5 counsellors, the "Quota" to get elected was 1/6 of the voters + 1: 6+1 = 7.
In the first round, the total under each candidate is the number of people who ranked them first -- in cases when someone ranked multiple people first, their vote was added in fractionally. (One voter voted Alvino Castillon, Kingborough, and Sovreignry first: each got 1/3 of a vote; one voter voted Sanctaria and Mall first: both got 1/2 of a vote; one voter voted Romanoffia, Kiwi, Alvino Castillion, Tim and Eluvatar first: each got 1/5 of a vote; one voter voted Kingborough and Eluvatar first: each got 1/2 of a vote; and one person voted Kiwi, Scandigrad, Sanctaria, Mall, and Govindia first: each got 1/5 of a vote).
At the end of each round (including the first) the following operation was performed: if any candidate had at least 7 votes they were elected, and their "surplus" votes transferred by the principle of looking at all the people who voted for them and seeing who of the available candidates they had as their next choice and dividing up the surplus proportionately. If no candidate had at least 7 votes, the candidate with the fewest votes was eliminated, and all their votes would be transferred to their next choice. (If there was a tie for fewest votes, it would have been resolved based on who accepted nomination / declared candidacy first).
For example, at the end of round one, 7.7 had voted for Eluvatar so Eluvatar was elected. The 0.7 votes were then transferred, in proportion to the preferences of those voters: 0.005 to Alvino Castillon, 0.186 to Kiwi, 0.091 to Mall, 0.005 to Romanoffia, 0.091 to Sanctaria, 0.182 to Scandigrad, 0.005 to Tim, and 0.137 to Kingborough.
At the end of round 2, no one besides Eluvatar had 7 or more votes so someone had to be eliminated. As Kingborough had the fewest votes (0.97 to Iro's 1), he was. Kingborough's 0.97 votes were then transferred: 0.167 to Alvino Castillon, 0.167 to Sovreignry, 0.545 to Sanctaria, and 0.091 to Scandigrad.
At the end of round 3, no one new had 7 or more votes so someone had to be eliminated, and this time that was Iro (1 to Tim's 1.205). Iro's 1 vote was then transferred to Govindia.
At the end of round 4, no one new had made quota, so Tim was eliminated (1.205 to Scandigrad's 1.473). Tim's 1.205 votes were transferred: 0.062 to Alvino Castillon, 0.069 to Kiwi, 1 to Govindia, and 0.062 to Romanoffia.
At the end of round 5, no new candidate had 7 or more votes so Scandigrad was eliminated (1.473 to Sanctaria's 2.336). Scandigrad's 1.473 votes were transferred: 0.143 to Alvino Castillon, 0.069 to Kiwi, 0.193 to Mall, 0.193 to Govindia, 0.415 to Romanoffia, 0.143 to Sovreignry, and 0.193 to Sanctaria.
At the end of round 6, nobody broke the 7 vote barrier so Sanctaria was eliminated (2.529 to Sovreignry's 2.643). Sanctaria's 2.529 votes were transferred: 0.023 to Alvino Castillon, 1.198 to Kiwi, 0.880 to Mall, 0.107 to Govindia, 0.297 to Romanoffia, and 0.024 to Sovreignry.
At the end of round 7, still nobody had gotten past that 7 vote barrier so Sovreignry was eliminated (2.667 to Romanoffia's 3.985). Sovreignry's 2.667 votes were therefore transferred: 2.534 to Alvino Castillon, 0.034 to Kiwi, 0.033 to Mall*, 0.033 to Govindia, and 0.033 to Romanoffia.
At the end of round 8, Alvino Castillon has 8.473 votes which is more than 7 so Alvino is elected! His surplus 1.473 votes are transferred: 0.727 to Kiwi, 0.356 to Mall, 0.009 to Govindia, and 0.380 to Romanoffia.
At the end of round 9, nobody new has 7 or more votes so Romanoffia is eliminated (4.398 to Govindia's 4.542).
In round 10, there are 3 candidates left and 3 seats left so they all win a seat.
Note: the totals in the results sheet are rounded to the nearest thousandth, and the transfers here are in terms of that rounding. In actuality the precision of the voter code was higher than that.
* Kiwi, Mall, Govindia, and Romanoffia appear to actually have gotten equal transfers here, but the transfer to Kiwi is rounded up because the remainders together caused a round up.
I think the Delegate made a wise choice in his decision to appoint a minister that he is more comfortable working with and that many of us believe would better represent The North Pacific.
As a side note, I'd like to express that I hope this particular system won't be used in future elections. It has always been confusing and complicated and I don't see any reason why, if we're going to retain Executive Council elections at all, we can't just vote on the forum.
I agree with Cormac to an extent - we should just scrap voting for the Council and let the Delegate choose. If anything this shows it's being used as trolling practice.
congratulation to elected and appointed Executive Council members,
i think next time we should let RA vote for EC candidates and scrap the current system of voting .
Given the unhappy conclusion to this election, I recommend a rerun. Now people know that there is a possibility of Govindia being elected, a rerun would show whether the people actually and actively want him to serve on the council.
If McM agreed to abide by the result of the rerun, it would also allow his term to be fulfilled without the taint that this result will inevitably provide.
An alternative would be for ROman to refuse to take up his seat. I am not sure I would want to be put on the council in these circumstances, as Govindia's sloppy seconds. This would result in a by-election and a democratic result.
Alternatively, we could let it stand and go back to pretending to be democratic?
There's no reason to hold elections if the delegate is going to select his own ministers anyway. If I were Govindia, I wouldn't be all that happy with McM's decision to not include him.
There's so many different ways this could have been handled to avoid this. Flem is correct in saying that there shall be a taint on this election.
But I guess I'll sum up my feelings on the matter this way - I'm disappointed McM.
So the Delegate is authorized by the Constitution to appoint people, he elicits public input via vote without making a binding promise to adhere to the results of the voting, and when he doesn't do something that he never promised (and you all simply assumed) that he would do, everyone is outraged?
So the Delegate is authorized by the Constitution to appoint people, he elicits public input via vote without making a binding promise to adhere to the results of the voting, and when he doesn't do something that he never promised (and you all simply assumed) that he would do, everyone is outraged?
Unless I missed it, do you know where McM stated that this was a 'public input' election? I, and others could have missed it, but from many of the comments there are a number of us who were not aware of this, and hence we have concerned.
Obviously, if we had the expectation that McM might decide to do his own thing we wouldn't have a problem. And again, if I missed that I'd like to be made aware in order to view this situation in its proper light.
So the Delegate is authorized by the Constitution to appoint people, he elicits public input via vote without making a binding promise to adhere to the results of the voting, and when he doesn't do something that he never promised (and you all simply assumed) that he would do, everyone is outraged?
Quite the interesting interpretation, almost seems Clintonian to me. "That depends on what the meaning of the word election is."
Seriously, look up what it means, and then look up the title to the thread everyone voted in, because i'm fairly sure it wasn't "Solicitation of public input with the express understanding that I will do what I want in the end".
If you want to choose who is on your council then do it, you have the right. However, if you surrender that right to the populace then you are bound by that decision. That is unless you wish to personally insult each and every voter and reveal the democratic institution as a sham. Plain disrespectful...
So the delegate says he will respect the will of the people, then he engages in wilful discrimination because he's incapable of being mature and professional and learning to work with EVERYONE?
If the Delegate claims to be a mature and professional adult, he must learn to work with people he likes and DISLIKES. That's called showing courtesy and professional respect. That means he must learn to work with me. If you can do it IRL you can do so here as well.
I did not campaign well enough during the voting period and prior to before the results were tallied, but I still won. I feel these results should be accepted. The fact they are not is a grave disappointment and is a black stain on our government. The fact that he supervised these elections also means he is obligated to honour the result as Election Commissioner.
I am not happy with this result, and that Romanoffia now has an office he legally was not elected to, despite our delegate saying he will accept the results.
That is all I will do on this matter. I will not contest this issue further, via the Courts, or the Regional Assembly.
Congratulations to the other four legally elected cabinet members. I'm sorry I couldn't join you.
So I did some proactive digging and found this directive from the delegate -
1. At any time when there are fewer than Six Councillors, the Delegate may call an immediate election.
2. At any time 30 days have passed since the conclusion of the last election, the Delegate may call an election.
3. Nominations will take place on the regional forum and last 3 days. Candidates must be eligible to be Executive Officers. Candidates must be members of the Regional Assembly who are not the Speaker or a Justice.
4. The Delegate will operate a voting system on forum. Regional Assembly Members and TNP Citizens shall vote in a thread, numbering the candidates 1 for their highest preference, down to their lowest preference.
5. Voting will take place over the course of 4 days.
6. At the conclusion of voting the Delegate will declare the results and the new councillors will swear oaths of office.
No where do I read that the Delegate will at the conclusion of the votes, take a look at the votes and determine if he is able to work with any or all of the winners. Instead, it says the delegate will declare the results (he did) and the new councilors will swear oaths of office (Govindia can’t because he was removed).
To me, that’s bait and switch.
It teeters towards election fraud in my opinion, and while Govindia will not be seeking charges against the delegate, in my powers as attorney general I will be reviewing this matter. To me – disregarding the results of an election is no trivial matter and is probably one of the keys to our democracy. I didn’t vote for Govindia and can’t conceive of a situation where I would vote for him for a position like this – but who I vote for doesn’t matter if he wins an election by his citizen peers.
The delegate is under no obligation to hold elections for these positions, but if he does hold them, writes the rules for them, but then changes the rules because he does not like the results – there’s something very wrong with that. Instead, I think he should be very clear about this process and I haven’t found anywhere, where he was clear about that. Indeed, if there are candidates he does not approve of, he should have rejected them before the voting period as would be his prerogative. But I can’t find where any of that happened and Govindia campaigned in good faith and the electors also voted in good faith.
This situation has me very concerned and I hope McM responds in this thread to some of the questions we have raised. As a note, my office shall not proceed with anything prior to me having a conversation with McM.
LATER EDIT: Dammit, Punk! I posted this at the same time as Punk did, so keep that in mind while you're reading. This is not influenced by or disregarding what he said, but I'm keeping it up regardless. I have not changed it at all since I read Punk's.
I'm sick of reading this, so I'd like to get something straight immediately. Keep in mind that nothing I write here, unless explicitly said so, has anything to do with my opinion on the format or the outcome.
No one, under the current law, is EVER legally elected to the Executive Council. Find me the piece of legislation that governs how it is chosen, because to my knowledge there is NONE. This election is entirely for INPUT. While it is true that a candidate may receive more votes using this system, there is no guarantee that the Delegate will accept the results. Whether it is "honorable" to do so or not, and whether it is "traditional" to do so or not, is not impacted at all by the law. McMasterdonia could select anyone to fill the position. Welsh Cowboy did not run, but on the book he could legally be the next Minister of Defense.
My own OPINION on this is mixed. I don't think it's fair to Govindia that he was passed over, even if it's legal. However, please do not start to bring maturity, professionalism, and discrimination into the equation. Physically speaking, this isn't a scandal.
Now that that part is over, I hope, I believe it's time to have a serious talk about the implications of the Executive Council. But this is not the place nor the precedent to do so.
Delegate directives don't carry the force of law. Supposing that he did honor the results, he could immediately dismiss Gov for any reason he chose, and appoint anyone else in his place, just as he is free to do with any Executive Officer at any time.
So the delegate says he will respect the will of the people, then he engages in wilful discrimination because he's incapable of being mature and professional and learning to work with EVERYONE?
If the Delegate claims to be a mature and professional adult, he must learn to work with people he likes and DISLIKES. That's called showing courtesy and professional respect. That means he must learn to work with me. If you can do it IRL you can do so here as well.
I did not campaign well enough during the voting period and prior to before the results were tallied, but I still won. I feel these results should be accepted. The fact they are not is a grave disappointment and is a black stain on our government. The fact that he supervised these elections also means he is obligated to honour the result as Election Commissioner.
I am not happy with this result, and that Romanoffia now has an office he legally was not elected to, despite our delegate saying he will accept the results.
That is all I will do on this matter. I will not contest this issue further, via the Courts, or the Regional Assembly.
Congratulations to the other four legally elected cabinet members. I'm sorry I couldn't join you.
I'm sorry, but the only way I can really express myself is thusly
Your attempt to spin this is cute, but still spin nonetheless. Especially the bit where you use the words "legally" and "elected" in the same sentence with reference to this "election."
Legally, the delegate doesn't have to have these elections. It's his choice whether to hold an election or to appoint. In my opinion, he exercised sound judgement by choosing to ignore your selection and appoint the last spot. The last thing the Executive needs is disunity because one of the cabinet members (you) is incapable of playing nice and working well with others.
Since you're so fond of RL examples, I'll provide one: there's a reason why the loser in an American presidential election is no longer made Vice President.
Will McM's action stain this administration's reputation? Maybe a little, but doubtful considering he made the correct decision.
CoE, Agreed - that's a perfectly suitable alternative. And he may do so with some of the folks he just appointed who won the elections.
My point here is that the delegate is not breaking any 'laws' in his absolute actions of selecting his ministers. Instead, I am saying that he is not following his established process and I can find no instance where he makes the statement that he will refuse to seat a person who won this 'election'. So while he has not committed an illegal act, I do believe that it appears he has not followed much of the spirit behind the law.
You keep using that word, and yet I don't believe you know what it means. </The Princess Bride>
Law implies that it was codified in the legal code or the Bill of Rights. The spirit and letter of the law is that the Delegate can do just about whatever the frak he wants with the Executive branch.
Personally, I don't think the election itself is in keeping with the spirit of the law. I think the spirit of the law would be the delegate appointing a few competent officers to do some of things he can't get to himself.
Personally, I don't think the election itself is in keeping with the spirit of the law. I think the spirit of the law would be the delegate appointing a few competent officers to do some of things he can't get to himself.
You keep using that word, and yet I don't believe you know what it means. </The Princess Bride>
Law implies that it was codified in the legal code or the Bill of Rights. The spirit and letter of the law is that the Delegate can do just about whatever the frak he wants with the Executive branch.
I hated the Princess Bride. I watched it in elementary school and the pirate guy reminded me too much of my chess teacher.
Nevertheless, I must continue to implore that we take this for what it is and bring it somewhere else. While several good points have been made and there are arguments concerning the results that should not be ignored, the fact remains that the new Cabinet's assumption of position is completely legal. I am sure that the Speaker would be completely willing to begin conversation about reforming these policies in the Regional Assembly's discussion area, or the Courts if you disagree with the evidence presented, but for now I think the smartest thing to do is step back and let the Cabinet do its thing. Certainly do not drop the issue, but this election as it is needs to finish.
You keep using that word, and yet I don't believe you know what it means. </The Princess Bride>
Law implies that it was codified in the legal code or the Bill of Rights. The spirit and letter of the law is that the Delegate can do just about whatever the frak he wants with the Executive branch.
While the actions of our delegate may be legal, the decision to recognize all results but one is, IMHO, against the democratic spirit of TNP. The delegate should make up his mind whether he'd like to use his power fully, or not at all. The selective nature in which his legal powers were used are unsavory. Appoint them all, or elect them all.
Grimalkin - i've already addressed my intent regarding pursuing charges in this situation. Did you actually read where I said:
This situation has me very concerned and I hope McM responds in this thread to some of the questions we have raised. As a note, my office shall not proceed with anything prior to me having a conversation with McM.
So the delegate says he will respect the will of the people, then he engages in wilful discrimination because he's incapable of being mature and professional and learning to work with EVERYONE?
If the Delegate claims to be a mature and professional adult, he must learn to work with people he likes and DISLIKES. That's called showing courtesy and professional respect. That means he must learn to work with me. If you can do it IRL you can do so here as well.
I did not campaign well enough during the voting period and prior to before the results were tallied, but I still won. I feel these results should be accepted. The fact they are not is a grave disappointment and is a black stain on our government. The fact that he supervised these elections also means he is obligated to honour the result as Election Commissioner.
I am not happy with this result, and that Romanoffia now has an office he legally was not elected to, despite our delegate saying he will accept the results.
That is all I will do on this matter. I will not contest this issue further, via the Courts, or the Regional Assembly.
Congratulations to the other four legally elected cabinet members. I'm sorry I couldn't join you.
Nice attempt at spin, there, but you fail to understand that the delegate has the prerogative of using any method the delegate desires to create his Cabinet. That is carved in stone in the Constitution.
I'm not saying this to be obtuse or mean, but, frankly, I get the distinct impression that you fail to understand the nature of executive authority under the Constitution of TNP. The Delegate has the constitution authority to use any means or reasoning in the process of appointing (appointing being the key word here) the Delegate's Cabinet. Frankly, were I delegate, I would personally wish to have people in my cabinet advising me and executing the law of my own choosing. In all reality, the Council is essentially by concept a Privy Council as detailed in a Westminster Parliamentary Model.
As to my being 'legally' elected or not, the law gives the decision of who ultimate authority of who resides in the cabinet to the Delegate. That is the Constitution and that is the Law.
From a personal point of view, and as someone who has in the past received the ire of forum administrators in previous incarnations of this forum a number of years ago, I understand your position. By the same token, because I was once in a similar position as you due to my own indiscretions and lack of self restraint, I have the peculiar right to say I have no sympathy for your plight. I suffered for my indiscretions in that incident and I see no reason why you should be exempt from suffering the same. It is the way the Law and Constitution are constructed.
While I do understand this is all perfectly legal, I think it is somewhat of a double standard and I'd have preferred for the whole election to be thrown out or nothing at all - otherwise, you're accepting some people (one at least of whom I personally dislike far more than Govindia) and not others, which is not morally right in my opinion.
However I will note these protests will get no one any where, as the delegate has the final say here.
Third time. I think all parties have made their point and I would request the topic, here specifically, end here and now. I will talk to McM regarding a final decision. If you would like to talk to the Delegate, please do so. If you would like to stage another discussion, please do so. If you would like to do hurdles off the Empire State Building, please do so. This election may not be decided, but I'm sick of this--- *indicates thread around him*.
I posted this at the same time as Punk did, so keep that in mind while you're reading. This is not influenced by or disregarding what he said, but I'm keeping it up regardless. I have not changed it at all since I read Punk's.
