Instant Runoff Election Bill

Gorundu

Gorundu

I finished my Chinese homework
-
-
Pronouns
he/him
TNP Nation
Gorundu
Discord
an_dr_ew
Seeing the discussion that's been occurring in The Agora about voting methods, and the support for an Instant Runoff voting method, I'm presenting the following bill:

Instant Runoff Election Bill:
Section 4.5 of the Legal Code shall be amended to:
Section 4.5: General Elections
29. The election of the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, the Attorney General, and the Speaker will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
30. If there are more than two candidates for an election, voters may rank the candidates, with the candidate ranked 1 being the first preference, the candidate ranked 2 being the next preference, and so on.
31. All first preference votes shall be counted first. If no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate with the least votes shall be eliminated, and the next preference of all voters who had voted for the eliminated candidate as first preference shall be counted, with the process repeated until a candidate achieves a majority.
32. If all of a voter's preferences have been eliminated, the voter's ballot shall not be used in further counting.
Click to expand...
Clauses 33, 34, 35, 36 of Chapter 4 shall be renumbered 34, 35, 36, 37 respectively.
Click to expand...

This is the first bill I've presented to the Regional Assembly. All feedback and corrections are welcome.

Section 4.5: General Elections
29. The election of the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, the Attorney General, and the Speaker will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
30. If there are more than two candidates for an election, voters shall rank the candidates in order of preference, with the candidate ranked 1 being the first preference.
31. Voters may rank a minimum of one candidate and a maximum of all candidates in an election.
32. All first preference votes shall be counted first. If no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate with the least votes shall be eliminated, and the next preference of all voters who had voted for that candidate as first preference shall be counted, with the process repeated until one candidate achieves a majority.
33. If a voter's last preference has been eliminated, the voter's ballot shall not be used in further counting.
Section 4.5: General Elections
29. The election of the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, the Attorney General, and the Speaker will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
30. If no candidate for a given office gains a majority, a runoff vote for that office will begin within one day of the first vote ending and it will last for five days.
31. Candidates will be added to the runoff ballot in descending order of how many votes they received. Candidates who received equal numbers of votes will be added the ballot simultaneously. Once the cumulative number of votes received by the candidates on the runoff ballot reaches a majority of votes cast in the previous round of voting, excluding abstentions, no more candidates will be added to the ballot.
32. If no one gains a majority of votes in the runoff vote, the runoff process will be repeated until a candidate receives a majority.
 
Last edited:
Good job writing this bill up. I support the intent.

I do have some thoughts on the phrasing and have made some suggested edits.

Gorundu:
Section 4.5: General Elections
29. The election of the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, the Attorney General, and the Speaker will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
30. If there are more than two candidates for an election, voters mayshall rank the candidates in order of preference, with the candidate ranked 1 being the first preference, the candidate ranked 2 being the next preference and so on.
31. Voters may rank a minimum of one candidate and a maximum of all candidates in an election.
32. All first preference votes shall be counted first. If no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate with the least votes shall be eliminated, and the next preference of all voters who had voted for that the eliminated candidate as first preference shall be counted, with the process repeated until onea candidate achieves a majority.
33. If all a voter's last preferences have has been eliminated, the voter's ballot shall not be used in further counting.
Click to expand...

Some of them are preference (a candidate over one candidate) while others clarify where there may be ambiguity (a voter's preference ranked may be eliminated prior to all of their preferences being eliminated).

Would RON work as it currently does?

An interesting idea would be to have RON be a "candidate". I think that could potentially result in more RONs occurring (I know there are people out there who think we aren't having enough RONs in certain elections).
 
Praetor:
Would RON work as it currently does?

An interesting idea would be to have RON be a "candidate". I think that could potentially result in more RONs occurring (I know there are people out there who think we aren't having enough RONs in certain elections).
Click to expand...
I have no intention of changing RON. Say RON is made a "candidate" - how would voters rank RON? Wouldn't it be kind of weird to have RON as the "winner" and a real person as the second place? I think I'd like to keep RON as it is.

Also, I'll make the changes that you laid out.
 
Gorundu:
I have no intention of changing RON. Say RON is made a "candidate" - how would voters rank RON? Wouldn't it be kind of weird to have RON as the "winner" and a real person as the second place? I think I'd like to keep RON as it is.

Also, I'll make the changes that you laid out.
Click to expand...
It's not a suggestion I have made my mind up on yet.

However, I think it would work as in preference. That a majority of voters would prefer that we RON instead of a certain candidate being elected.
 
If the bill made it so that RON was in the preference list, the language of the bill would need to ensure that the first thing considered is whether RON got 50%+1, and if it didn't then it's excluded and the second choice of all the RON 1st ballots are counted. Would make things simpler in the long run, at least I think so.
 
How about having RON being treated as the unremovable default position instead of abstain if no further candidate is specified. So If they make a vote for one candidate and no second vote after that it goes into the column for RON.
 
I support this bill and thank you for taking the time to write it up.

I do, however, think that one change should be made to this bill. It should specify that if there are only two candidates (or less) for a certain position, then voting will occur as usual for that position.
 
abc:
I support this bill and thank you for taking the time to write it up.

I do, however, think that one change should be made to this bill. It should specify that if there are only two candidates (or less) for a certain position, then voting will occur as usual for that position.
Click to expand...
I believe there's no need, since it wasn't specified in the current version either. This is because there's already a clause in the Constitution that requires these positions to be elected by majority, so if there are two or less candidates logic dictates that you only vote for one.
 
I support the intent. Haven’t read the full details - RON needs to be considered but otherwise I think instant runoff is vastly preferable.
 
There's been some talk about what to do with RON. My personal position is that we just keep RON as it is, as a separate question to the ballot, but if any of you have a reason why RON should be part of the ballot, then please tell me.
 
Muh RON, muh runoffs!

As said above, I support the intend in its entirety. We just need to reconsider our favourite ballot opinion of RON. How else can we elect Plemb as Delegate? :P
 
Last edited:
Re: RON

I've decided that I'd like to just keep RON as a separate option as it always has been. I think it's the least complex and most sensible way - If 50% vote for RON, then RON, if not, then the preferences are counted.

So with that, since I'm not experienced in the RA, would it be a good time to motion for a vote or is that too early?
 
I think more time would be appropriate. A few days at any rate. I'd like to consider the ^ further... I just noticed this. Trying to catch up on events here still.

Up to you folks however.

I do support the bill as noted by Praetor.
 
Last edited:
It's a shame this thread kind of died, but it looks like there is definitely a fair deal of support for this bill.

As others have stated above, I am in support of just keeping RON as a separate ballot option.

Since elections are currently being held, I'd suggest the OP doesn't motion for a vote yet, but once it is over, we should revisit this and try to get it up for vote (and hopefully passed) before the next elections.
 
abc:
It's a shame this thread kind of died, but it looks like there is definitely a fair deal of support for this bill.

As others have stated above, I am in support of just keeping RON as a separate ballot option.

Since elections are currently being held, I'd suggest the OP doesn't motion for a vote yet, but once it is over, we should revisit this and try to get it up for vote (and hopefully passed) before the next elections.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, I still remember this exists, I'll motion for a vote soon.
 
abc:
It's a shame this thread kind of died, but it looks like there is definitely a fair deal of support for this bill.

As others have stated above, I am in support of just keeping RON as a separate ballot option.

Since elections are currently being held, I'd suggest the OP doesn't motion for a vote yet, but once it is over, we should revisit this and try to get it up for vote (and hopefully passed) before the next elections.
Click to expand...
This bill only applies to General elections, as such, were it to go to vote and pass, it would not affect the current election.
 
For future reference, can two RA votes occur simultaneously?
 
Yes. The RA rules read...
No more than two legislative votes may take place simultaneously at any time.
Click to expand...
You can have one, you can have two, but you cannot have three or more.

Non-legislative motions, like line of succession updates or SC membership votes, do not contribute to the total.
 
The motion for a vote is acknowledged. The bill is now in Formal Debate for 5 days.
 
Worth noting to the bill author, for future reference, that proposals don't need to move to renumber clauses - by the preamble of the Legal Code the Speaker is empowered to renumber clauses already.
Leaving it in is fine but just something to save time in the future.
 
There is one day left in formal debate. A vote is scheduled to begin 2 days after the end of the formal debate period.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top