Lessening Repeating Work (L.R.W.) Bill

Discussion in 'Regional Assembly' started by Praetor, Jul 17, 2019.

  1. Praetor

    Praetor Hoppin' Around - -

    Messages:
    1,481
    TNP Nation:
    Praeceps
    Discord:
    Praetor#6889
    I present to you all the Lessening Repeating Work Bill (L.R.W.).

    This bill makes a few changes to our elections.
    1. It fixes some grammatical errors (just one I think).

    2. It changes Judicial elections to preferential voting. Preferential voting is preferable to first past the post as it will ensure the candidate elected is more representative of the actual wishes of the citizenry.

    3. If a candidate becomes ineligible during the voting period, they are removed from the preferential ranking. This will eliminate having to restart the elections should a candidate become ineligible.

    4. It permits candidates to withdraw during the voting period, should they do so, votes for that candidate are similar to a candidate becoming ineligible. Previously, under our other systems, a candidate withdrawing during voting would not be possible as the election would need to be restarted. As mentioned above, this is now possible and would eliminate situations where candidates who have a change of mind have to threaten to not take their oath of office if elected (and start an election all over again).

    5. It specifies in the event of a tie what happens, first backwards tie breaking is used. If that does not work, whichever candidate has been the citizen for the longest wins.
    I hope to submit this bill before the General elections but I will not rush it to vote. It’s more likely it will be submitted after the General elections conclude but the next Judicial election begins. The more substantive changes affect the Judicial elections. I think the wording can probably be improved in places.

    Thank you to everyone who suggested changes even if I cannot properly credit you due to wanting to avoid "espionage". I have put most of them together in what I think makes sense. If there is anything super controversial for sensible reasons, I'm not opposed to removing it.

    21. Candidates may withdraw from the ballot anytime during an election except during voting.

    25. Candidates for that race whose names appeared on the first ballot will retain their candidacy unless they choose to withdraw during the period for candidacy declarations.

    28. If during any voting round for a given race a candidacy becomes invalid, then the voting round for that race will be promptly restarted with any invalid candidacies excluded from the new ballot. all votes for that candidate shall be removed from voters preferential ranking.

    29. If the votes for two or more candidates are tied, the Election Commissioners shall use backwards tie breaking. If this does not break a tie, whichever candidate has been a citizen for the longest period of time for their current period of citizenship shall be elected.

    33. The election of the Justices will begin on the first days of the months of March, July, and November.

    34. The three candidates who receive the most votes will be elected. If a run-off vote is required it will begin within one day of the first vote ending and it shall last for five days.If three candidates receive a majority of votes they will be elected.

    35. If there are more than three candidates for Justice, 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.

    36. All first preference votes shall be counted first. If three candidates do not achieve 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 three candidates achieve a majority.

    37. If all of a voter's preferences have been eliminated, the voter's ballot shall not be used in further counting.

    I would very much like feedback from the community. I think there are places for changes to be made. Would especially like @Crushing Our Enemies's feedback so I'm pinging him...
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2019
  2. Gorundu

    Gorundu Lurker-in-Chief - - -

    Messages:
    563
    It's not really clear to me how the Justice elections work. Clause 36 only says the process is repeated until one candidate gets a majority, what about the other two spots? Does the elected one get taken off the count, and they recount to get the next one, and so on for the third?

    Also, with regards to tie-breaking, why did you choose period of citizenship as the second tie-breaker? What do you think about other methods, such as extending the voting period or forwards tie-breaking?
    (Also, minor grammatical correction, in clause 29 it says "If the votes for a candidate are tied", which implies one candidate. I think it should be "if the votes for two or more candidates are tied")
     
  3. Dreadton

    Dreadton Associate justice - -

    Messages:
    171
    By this part I assume you mean the length of their current citizen period? Some members lose citizenship then come back. Their total length of citizenship could be longer, if added together, than the other canadiate who has a longer continous citizenship period.
     
  4. Praetor

    Praetor Hoppin' Around - -

    Messages:
    1,481
    TNP Nation:
    Praeceps
    Discord:
    Praetor#6889
    The phrasing for the Justice elections was intended to indicate until three candidates get a majority (with as soon as a candidate gets a majority being taken of the count). I will see about making that clearer.

    I chose period of citizenship as the second tie-breaker because it is not possible for someone to tie on that characteristic. Nobody has been a citizen for the exact same amount of time as someone else (current citizen period). Backwards tie-breaking is meant to be the "real" method of tie-breaking. I wouldn't imagine it to frequently need to resort to that method but if it does, we then have backwards tie-breaking. In the unlikely event that a backwards tie-breaking also results in a tie, I didn't want us to have a long list of methods for tie breaking that we run down given the unlikely event of a tie. At some point, we need to have a method of tie breaking which is unable to result in a tie. We could add some more methods in between, or we could swap out backwards tie-breaking for a longer voting period. This is something I'm quite open to hearing about.

    Yes, I will make that clarification. Good point.
     
  5. Gorundu

    Gorundu Lurker-in-Chief - - -

    Messages:
    563
    I personally prefer to extend the voting period first, before it has to go to tie-breaking, since it allows more people to have a voice.
     
  6. Praetor

    Praetor Hoppin' Around - -

    Messages:
    1,481
    TNP Nation:
    Praeceps
    Discord:
    Praetor#6889
    I have no problems making that change if others feel the same way.
     
  7. Artemis

    Artemis Global Moderator - - - -

    Messages:
    1,357
    TNP Nation:
    Sundred
    Discord:
    Oracle#0851
    I don't think extending the time period will do much. Majority of the time, 95% of the people who are going to vote will have voted in the first couple of days. Usually, the last day that the vote is open is dead.
     
  8. Lord Lore

    Lord Lore I'm anything you want me to be. - - - - -

    Messages:
    1,263
    Discord:
    Lore, Architect of Pandemonium#7561
    Extending the Instant Runoff method of Judicial Elections is a bad idea. To do so would require one of the following each of which is a stupid idea.

    A.) Restrict each voter to 1 vote for three seats.
    B.) Count every vote towards a majority and force everyone to make a ranked choice for EACH vote.
    C.) Split the three Judicial Seats into separate elections which would restrict people's ability to choose who to vote for.

    Note: Both A and B also make it impossible to ever do a Judicial Election without a runoff because it would require 3 people to reach 50% which would require 150% of votes to be case.
    - Side Note: B also comes with this fun little problem that if everyone who votes uses their 3 votes instead of abstaining on 1-2 then it becomes mathematically impossible to get more then 33%.

    Conclusion: You end up with either a really stupid buggy system or a system that flat out restricts choice.

    (Also just got to say that a Citizenship Period tie breaker is also just poor form. Its a crummy way to deal with it and is only liable to create sore losers pissed off because they only lose because the old guard who where there before them wrote the rules to screw them over.)
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2019
  9. Artemis

    Artemis Global Moderator - - - -

    Messages:
    1,357
    TNP Nation:
    Sundred
    Discord:
    Oracle#0851
    Is there any update on the progress of this?
     
  10. Etruric Ambassador

    Etruric Ambassador Citizen -

    Messages:
    13
    This would need to use STV instead of IRV. A candidate would be elected upon reaching more than 25% of the vote. (note: 4 candidates can each get 25%, but 4 candidates cannot each get more than 25%, so only three could be elected).
     
  11. Gorundu

    Gorundu Lurker-in-Chief - - -

    Messages:
    563
    That's probably an easier way, yeah. That said, I don't know if @Praetor is still intending on getting this bill through, since it's been lying here for more than two weeks now.
     
  12. Lord Lore

    Lord Lore I'm anything you want me to be. - - - - -

    Messages:
    1,263
    Discord:
    Lore, Architect of Pandemonium#7561
    But as I pointed out that limits everyone's voice. Right now we have a system where they are 3 seats and you get a voice in each seat. But that would require that there are 3 seats and everyone gets a voice in ONE seat and ONE seat ONLY. Which is silly and takes power away from people and robs them of their votes.
     
  13. Praetor

    Praetor Hoppin' Around - -

    Messages:
    1,481
    TNP Nation:
    Praeceps
    Discord:
    Praetor#6889
    I have been busy with a bunch of stuff in RL (and being sick), I am planning on responding to people's concerns and suggestions. I plan to wait for the General Election to finish prior to motioning to vote (presuming the bill is ready to move forward).
     
  14. Crushing Our Enemies

    Crushing Our Enemies TNPer - - - - -

    Messages:
    3,970
    Discord:
    COE#7110
    You can do it as IRV. You have everyone rank the candidates once, and conduct it as if you were electing a single candidate. When you have a winner, remove the winner from the rankings and recount to get your second winner. Remove the second winner from the rankings, and recount to get your third winner.

    I consider this ideal, since the first count would essentially answer the question - "if we could only elect one Justice, who would it be?" Thus, it arrives at the single most popular candidate for Justice. Then, in the first recount, we essentially say "OK, but if they weren't running, who would it be?" So the second winner is the second most popular candidate, and so on. I would even be in favor of making the winner of the first count automatically the Chief Justice, rather than have the court choose among themselves.

    EDIT: Note that the current draft of the bill doesn't do it this way, and writing this up in legislative language will be tricky, but doable.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM
  15. Kronos

    Kronos Citizen -

    Messages:
    5
    I'm not fully aware of how the voting system works yet but I'm having trouble understanding Clause 28. The amendment to Clause 28 is written so that instead of restarting a vote should a candidacy become invalid, the votes toward that invalid candidate are removed from said candidate. And according to Commission Rules, Voters are able to change their votes with their latest votes being the ones that are counted. Is it safe to say that when the votes are removed from an invalid candidacy, citizens who voted for said candidate can change to another?
     
  16. Crushing Our Enemies

    Crushing Our Enemies TNPer - - - - -

    Messages:
    3,970
    Discord:
    COE#7110
    Kronos, I think it's confusing because we haven't had a ranked choice election yet. Beginning with the September general election, you'll rank the candidates in order of preference, rather than selecting only your first choice. So under clause 28, removing a withdrawn candidate from the ballots just means that the candidates you ranked below them will move up. There would be no need for a voter to update their ballot after a withdrawal, unless their preferences regarding the remaining candidates had changed.