Election Reform

Govindia

Govindia

TNPer
As Election Commissioner, I'm going to be drafting a bill tonight to do a major overhaul/reform of our election system, as I do not ever want to see another election fiasco like this again.

While I work on my my draft later today, I want to seek some ideas from you all about what could be reformed.

My initial thoughts:

- Clarification of voting deadlines
- Clarifying nomination process and seconding
- Quorum for elections - plurality and majority

Any other thoughts while I work on this bill today? :ADN:
 
It happens that me and Eluvatar have already been considering making such a proposal for a while now, and even have a draft, but were waiting until the conclusion of elections.

That said, I present what we have managed to cobble together thus far:

1. Elections will begin on the first day of the month for which they are scheduled.
2. Elections will begin with the opening of nominations. Any persons who accept such a nomination may begin to campaign for the appropriate office.
3. After seven days have passed all nominations and campaigning will cease and a vote will be opened.
4. The vote will be closed after another seven days have passed and the results promptly declared.
5. Offices requiring a majority for election will be elected by a two round instant run-off vote. Any ties in the second round will be broken in favor of the candidate who received the most votes in the first round. If the two candidates are also tied in the first round the tie as well as all other irresolvable ties will be broken in favor of the candidate with greater endorsements.
Click to expand...

The instant runoff voting (IRV for short) probably warrants an explanation for those unfamiliar. Majority rule is an important principle which I wholeheartedly agree with, but the most common way of accomplishing it (and the way we presently used) is flawed in that it requires a whole new vote, which takes time and may produce the exact same winner as a plurality vote. IRV addresses this problem by instantly simulating any necessary runoffs. It would work as such:

Voters rank any number of candidates on their ballots in order of preference. In the first round of counting each ballot is counted for the first preference stated on it. If any candidate receives an outright majority they, naturally, are the winner. However, if no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round the ballots are recounted between the top two candidates in a second round of counting, with each ballot counted for the candidate ranked highest on each. The candidate with the most votes is then of course the winner.

All of this mimics the old fashioned runoff system we use now and provides the same guarantee of majority rule, but without having to spend extra time on an additional vote.
 
This so-call "Instant runoff system" is no different than a plurality.

I think it is safe to assume that the difference between a plurality and a majority is understood, and if a plurality was intended for te Delegate and Vice Delegate, that would have been adopted. A new round of voting is the only fair way of assuring that voters who supported other candidates or did not vote for any candidate the first time have the opportunity to declare their vote for either finalist without making assumptions about how people would vote "instantly."

I also think that there's a misunderstanding about "Nominations" What we really have is a declaration system, where people have to declare their candidacy. People are free to "nominate" themselves, and we've never reqired seconing although some have done so nonetheless.

Finally we need to ginalize the pprocess of selecting two election commissioners,. The absence of a set procedure that is completed before the election cycle begins would speed up the election cycle more than anything.
 
Firstly, the statement that plurality and IRV are identical is entirely fallacious. If this were true, then a plurality vote would always return the same winner as an IRV, which is simply not true. In IRV candidates must secure a majority, not a plurality to win, and it is perfectly possible for a candidate who obtained only a plurality in the first round to fail to secure a majority in the second round.

Secondly, the assumptions of how voters would vote in a second round of voting are made based on the preferences they themselves have provided, not some wishy washy extrapolation. I do not see any reason why the explicitly stated preferences of a voter should be considered less legitimate simply because they stated at once rather than over multiple votes.
 
Indeed, to call IRV the same as plurality is fatuous at best.

Perhaps this could best be illustrated by an example.

Alice, Bob, and Charlie are running for office.

In a plurality vote, Alice got 4 votes, Bob got 3 votes, and Charlie got 2 votes. Alice "wins' the plurality vote.

In an IRV vote, you got:

3 votes Alice, Bob, Charlie,
1 vote Alice, Charlie Bob,
2 votes Bob, Alice, Charlie
1 vote Bob, Charlie, Alice
2 vote Charlie, Bob, Alice

As Alice and Bob have the most votes that put them as first choice (4 and 3 respectively), Alice and Bob go into the instant "second round".

With Charlie eliminated, those who put Charlie first are moved to their first remaining choice (of Alice or Bob). In this case, both are then counted for Bob, making Bob win 5 to 4.

In a separate runoff, Alice and Bob would be competing for Charlie's voters in the next vote. Most probably they would vote for their second choice, Bob, however.
 
I absolutely love the instant run off vote but for the sake of simplicity it might be simpler to have rank 1= 10 pts, 2= 5, 3 = 1. Add up all the points and the one with the most is the winner!

Remember we have at least 20 ballots an election with a historic high of 50, I just think this might make it easier.
 
Issuing points on ranking is an entirely separate system called the Borda count, and it does not produce the same results as a runoff vote. Indeed, it is possible for a candidate who is the first choice of a majority to still lose.

And it would probably be more complex to count than IRV; in IRV a ballot can only be counted for one candidate each round of counting, so all you have to do is determine which candidate to count each for and tally it on a sheet of paper with tick marks. With a Borda count you'd have to calculate the point value for each candidate on the ballot and then add those values to their present score.

Using an IRV does not increase the workload at all. Just like now, at most two rounds worth of votes must be counted. The only difference is that they'd be counted in rapid succession, but I can tell you from my own experience managing other elections that this doesn't take long. Worst case scenario, 10 minutes.
 
You know, we could really set up a system whereby run-offs are almost unneeded.

You do it like this: if no candidate gets a majority, you let every other candidate cast their garnered votes to whatever candidate they want. NOT!
 
If you're talking about IRV, your description is incorrect. Eliminated candidates don't have any say in how the votes cast for them originally are redistributed in the second round (other than their own vote of course if they voted for themselves). It is based entirely on the preferences that the individual voters themselves provide.
 
The IRV system some propose has weaknesses. For instance, what if a voter chooses not to select anything other than a first choice without knowing what the result is as of the first round.

And what if the voter decides that they would vote differently in a second round than they might have before the results of the first round are known?

To me the IRV creates some inequality in each votr's vote, something that is specifically frowned upon in the Bill of Rights.
 
I'm not as to how it infringes on the Bill of Rights but even placing someone on the ballot does not count as a vote towards their tally if it's the last of their options. It's more like an anti-vote.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The IRV system some propose has weaknesses. For instance, what if a voter chooses not to select anything other than a first choice without knowing what the result is as of the first round.
Click to expand...
This practice is referred to as "plunking." In the above scenario, if I plunk for Charlie would the second count consider my vote an abstention?
 
Great Bights Mum:
Grosseschnauzer:
The IRV system some propose has weaknesses.  For instance, what if a voter chooses not to select anything other than a first choice without knowing what the result is as of the first round.
Click to expand...
This practice is referred to as "plunking." In the above scenario, if I plunk for Charlie would the second count consider my vote an abstention?
Click to expand...
I believe so as there would be no way to tell if you preferred Alice to Bob or Bob to Alice.

If IRV is the system however, voting is done by ranking the candidates.
 
And it's the ranking concept which I object to. I shouldn't be forced to have my vote count for any particular candidate at any round of voting. I should be able to choose not to have my vote counted in an arbitrary or imposed manner contrary to my opinion or conclusion on one or more candidates.

And as I noted before, I think the proposal may violate the provisions of the Bill of Rights that protects the treatment of my vote. And I'm stll waiting to hear how a choice not to indicate preferential support of candidates can be protected and not be compelled.
 
Thank you all for your comments so far. I am working on a draft of this bill and I will address your comments later today. :)
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The IRV system some propose has weaknesses. For instance, what if a voter chooses not to select anything other than a first choice without knowing what the result is as of the first round.
Click to expand...

As Great Bights Mum has already pointed out, a voter choosing not to give additional preferences is no different than a voter choosing to abstain from voting in a runoff round now.

Grosseschnauzer:
And what if the voter decides that they would vote differently in a second round than they might have before the results of the first round are known
Click to expand...

I don't see how the results of voting in the first round (namely, whether a runoff is necessary and if so who it's between) would alter voting in a manner relevant to IRV. Voters naturally vote for whichever of the remaining candidates they like the most (short of, for some reason, wanting to create an outcome they don't like). And the ranked ballots provide a very straightforward way of determining which of the two remaining candidates the voters like the most.

Grosseschnauzer:
To me the IRV creates some inequality in each votr's vote, something that is specifically frowned upon in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

I see no substance behind this argument. Each ballot counts for one vote for one candidate in each round, just like now. Each voter has an equal opportunity to influence the results of the election. A system should not be accused of making voters' votes unequal simply because if allows voters to abstain and willingly give up their ability to influence the results. Abstaining is their choice and the right to vote includes (in my opinion) the right not to vote if one so chooses.

Grosseschnauzer:
  And it's the ranking concept which I object to. I shouldn't be forced to have my vote count for any particular candidate at any round of voting. I should be able to choose not to have my vote counted in an arbitrary or imposed manner contrary to my opinion or conclusion on one or more candidates.
Click to expand...

How does IRV force you to vote in a manner contrary to your opinions? It does no such thing. Again, you choose how to rank the candidates on your ballot. You want your ballot to be counted for A in a runoff against B? Rank A higher than B. You desire the opposite? Then rank B higher than A. You are in full control of the preferences stated on your ballot and thus in full control of how it is to be counted in any runoff.

Grosseschauzer:
And I'm stll waiting to hear how a choice not to indicate preferential support of candidates can be protected and not be compelled.
Click to expand...
.

First of all, like Elu, I don't see how asking voters to express preferences on candidates is a violation of rights. I mean, that is exactly what all voting is; having voters express their preferences regarding a pool of candidates. And are current system already allows multiple preferences to be expressed; the only difference, again,is that this expression is dragged out over two separate rounds of voting.

And if you really only care about one candidate then you are perfectly free to only provide one preference. Again, this would be no different than a voter deciding not to express multiple preferences in the course of an election now by not voting in a runoff. Indeed, you can abstain from voting entirely if you desire.
 
In all reality, I think a standard run-off for 50%+1 in the final round of voting is about the best way we can come up with - unless we want to become ridiculously complicated about the matter.
 
Pragmia:
You know, we could just build off of the substantial proposal I already provided <_<
Click to expand...
It will be taken into consideration as I am drafting my proposal.

As election commissioner I feel it is my responsibility to spearhead this effort as the election issues we had from this past election were mostly dealt with by me, with the after-effects notwithstanding.

This thread was mainly seeking input as I drafted my bill and I will still consider it as such. :ADN:
 
Govindia:
Pragmia:
You know, we could just build off of the substantial proposal I already provided <_<
Click to expand...
It will be taken into consideration as I am drafting my proposal.

As election commissioner I feel it is my responsibility to spearhead this effort as the election issues we had from this past election were mostly dealt with by me, with the after-effects notwithstanding.

This thread was mainly seeking input as I drafted my bill and I will still consider it as such. :ADN:
Click to expand...
Not to get all technical, but I believe your job as Election Commissioner ends when the elections end. Therefore you don't need to feel responsible for it.

Also, you should probably use a lot of Prag's proposal. He's quite good at this election stuff.
 
I will consider as I am writing mine.

I'm still a little shaken and recovering from whiplash so I haven't had much time to focus much on this thread today...<_< :ADN:
 
This seems to have stalled. That said, rather than waiting anymore I'm going to try to continue this by building from my original proposal, starting with a modification.

1. Elections will begin on the first day of the month for which they are scheduled.
2. Elections will begin with the opening of nominations declarations of candidacy. Any persons who accept such a nomination meet the for office may declare their candidacy and begin to campaign for the appropriate office.
3. After seven days have passed all nominations and campaigning will cease and a vote will be opened.
4. The vote will be closed after another seven days have passed and the results promptly declared.
5. Offices requiring a majority for election will be elected by a two round instant run-off vote. Any ties in the second round will be broken in favor of the candidate who received the most votes in the first round. If the two candidates are also tied in the first round the tie as well as all other irresolvable ties will be broken in favor of the candidate with greater endorsements.
Click to expand...

Also, as Grosse has noted it would be prudent to add something regarding the selection of election comissioners, and as I have no ideas of my own I invite all suggestions.
 
slight grammatical mkistakes (happens to the best of us.) We used to have a system where any incumbent who is not running be automatically EC. Other than that, volunteering helps. What do you think?

Also elections are already scheduled after the end of every four month term so 1 is redundant. Personally I prefer the "accept such nomination" as it is less confusing.

Other than the EC issue, everything seems to be covered by the Constitution. Which by the by, is this a bill or amendment?

Good job! My first four proposals were shot down faster than... things that get shot down quickly.
 
I still have serious reservations about the inherent fairness and equal treatment of the right to vote with respect to paragraph 5.

Item one does not conflict with the Law that set the month of elections, since that Law never set a specific date or calendar within the month.

Technically the incumbent Delegate is responsible for appointing election commissioners. The proposal could include the requirement that the commissioner(s) not be candidates in that election, but it should set a deadline prior to the beginning of the month of elections for the designation of the commissioners.We might want to decide to include a requirement for more than one commissioner.

Item 2 is missing a noun. People might get confused by the last sentence of item 5, so the reference to Offices might be better off referring to Delegate and Vice Delegate.
 
As much of a fan as I am of the IRV, if it passes, there'll def be a judicial hearing further delaying it. So unless you don't mind the wait, it'd be better to leave it out.

*puts back on speaker hat
 
Well, I was planning on delaying any additional discussion of paragraph 5 until later (though again, I see absolutely no reason why IRV would violate anyone's rights or whatnot for all the reasons that I have already stated and will not bother repeating at the moment). Though, I will say that abandoning any sort of legislative proposal simply because some people might oppose it isn't terribly sensible. Alas, the limited number of people participating in the discussion makes it very difficult to get any accurate sense of the prevailing opinion regarding IRV.

Moving on...

Mister Sniffles:
Personally I prefer the "accept such nomination" as it is less confusing.
Click to expand...

Mm... based on what happened in the most recent election it seems that nominations rather than declarations of candidacy are the norm. Which I suppose would have paragraph 2 read, to streamline the original proposal:

2. Elections will begin with nomations. Any persons who accept such a nomination may begin to campaign for the appropriate office.
Click to expand...

So I suppose the question now is should it be that or:

2. Elections will begin with declarations of candidacy. Any persons who meet the requirements for office may declare their candidacy and begin to campaign for the appropriate office.
Click to expand...

Mister Sniffles:
Other than the EC issue, everything seems to be covered by the Constitution. Which by the by, is this a bill or amendment?
Click to expand...

Bill.

And now to take a crack at the EC issue.

1. Elections will begin on the first day of the month for which they are scheduled.
2. Elections will begin with declarations of candidacy. Any persons who meet the requirements for office may declare their candidacy and begin to campaign for the appropriate office.
3. After seven days have passed all nominations and campaigning will cease and a vote will be opened.
4. The vote will be closed after another seven days have passed and the results promptly declared.
5. Offices requiring a majority for election will be elected by a two round instant run-off vote. Any ties in the second round will be broken in favor of the candidate who received the most votes in the first round. If the two candidates are also tied in the first round the tie as well as all other irresolvable ties will be broken in favor of the candidate with greater endorsements.
6. Seven days prior to the beginning of elections the Delegate will appoint at least two election commissioners. These commissioners will be responsible for administering the upcoming election and may not run for office in the election they administer.
Click to expand...
 
sounds good, and even if I don't agree with it nor do I think it's a forced vote, the Bill of Rights states that no one can be coerced into placing a name (a vote) on their ballot if they don't want to do it.

I guess the cheap way around it is to just not list the person you really really don't like. Would this still be in the spirit of IRV?
 
Regarding how one becomes a candidate: To me, declarations of candidacy would include accepting a nomination. So I prefer we keep the longstanding practice in TNP of being able to declare one's own candidacy pr accepting a nomination.
 
Mister Sniffles:
I guess the cheap way around it is to just not list the person you really really don't like. Would this still be in the spirit of IRV?
Click to expand...

If you don't list someone on the ballot then under no circumstances can that ballot ever be counted for that person. So if you would never vote for a candidate under any circumstances then simply don't rank them on your ballot.

Again, I hardly see how it can qualify as coercion when the preferences which determine for whom the vote is counted are controlled by the voters. That's essentially saying, if I understand the argument, that our current system is also cohesion because I'm forced to vote for whomever I put on the ballot.

And I shouldn't be arguing this when I myself said I wanted to pause this debate until the other less contentious spots were settled >_<

Grosseschnauzer:
Regarding how one becomes a candidate: To me, declarations of candidacy would include accepting a nomination. So I prefer we keep the longstanding practice in TNP of being able to declare one's own candidacy pr accepting a nomination.
Click to expand...

I believe the way to accomplish this within the nominations setup would be for a candidate to simply nominate themselves and accept, as nothing forbids this.
 
Okay, I just want to make sure I understand this. I'm familiar with the voting scheme, but I wanted to check something.

Lets say there are candidates A, B, and C. Now you have to rank them, but you wouldn't vote for candidate A under any circumstances. Is this allowed:

1. C
2. B
3. Abstain (or just left blank)
Click to expand...

Or are you forced to rank them even if you don't want to? I think that's the concern, right?
 
That is a completely acceptable ballot. You can rank as many or as few of the candidates as you please, whether its all of them, just 1 of them or any number in between (or of course none if you want to abstain from voting).
 
This looks pretty good. I can't find where election months are specified in the constitution or other bills. Can someone dig it up for me? If the months aren't set, maybe we can include it in this bill. I really want to make sure we don't end up having elections Christmas week.
 
TNP Law 26:
TNP LAW 26
Election Dates

This law is hereby enacted to enable an election schedule for the offices and elections prescribed in Article I, Section Three of the Constitution of The North Pacific.

SECTION ONE

The election cycle for the 4-month terms of The Delegate, The Speaker of the Assembly, and CLO members, shall begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.

SECTION TWO

The election cycle for the 6-month terms of The Judiciary, including the Chief Justice, shall begin on the first day of the months of April and October.

SECTION THREE

This Act shall take immediate effect.
Click to expand...

The TNP Legal Code
 
Thanks!

Don't we usually have a week of campaigning following nomination week and prior to the start of voting? Aren't campaigning activities still permitted during election week? Granted, the posting slows down, but if an issue comes up those campaign threads can still see some activity. What do you all think?
 
Hell, if you do it right, you start campaigning months before the election. ;D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top