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

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

  1. Praetor

    Praetor Hoppin' Around - - -

    Messages:
    1,559
    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 Thou Glorious Speaker - - - -

    Messages:
    741
    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:
    223
    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:
    1,559
    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 Thou Glorious Speaker - - - -

    Messages:
    741
    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:
    1,559
    TNP Nation:
    Praeceps
    Discord:
    Praetor#6889
    I have no problems making that change if others feel the same way.
     
  7. Artemis

    Artemis Vice Delegate - - - -

    Messages:
    1,469
    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:
    1,280
    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 Vice Delegate - - - -

    Messages:
    1,469
    TNP Nation:
    Sundred
    Discord:
    Oracle#0851
    Is there any update on the progress of this?
     
  10. Etruric Ambassador

    Etruric Ambassador Registered

    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 Thou Glorious Speaker - - - -

    Messages:
    741
    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:
    1,280
    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:
    1,559
    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:
    3,974
    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
  15. Kronos

    Kronos Citizen -

    Messages:
    7
    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:
    3,974
    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.
     
  17. Praetor

    Praetor Hoppin' Around - - -

    Messages:
    1,559
    TNP Nation:
    Praeceps
    Discord:
    Praetor#6889
    To reply to all of those who are confused as to how a ranked choice election in a case where multiple individuals are elected, The Rejected Realms just finished an election using this method. I was going to write a long post demonstrating the above when I realized I could just copy and paste the link. :P

    It seems that the wording of this proposal does not quite get across the above method.
    I'm not opposed to removing Citizenship Period. You are right that it would be concerning in the unlikely eventuality it occurs.

    I should note it is currently the second form of a tie-breaker; in case the first method of tie-breaking doesn't work which is probably quite an unlikely event. I selected citizenship period since it is already used (in case of a Speaker lacking) and because it is not possible to tie on that quality. Alternatively, we could select something as the first candidate to stand for nomination, receive a vote, etc. as long as it cannot produce a tie itself.
     
  18. Lord Lore

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

    Messages:
    1,280
    Discord:
    Lore, Architect of Pandemonium#7561
    Yes TRR has done so. But the method that TRR uses is expressly NOT what you have written up. To point to them is not a point in the favor of your proposal. I would be willing to talk about a TRR like system but under yours there is NO mechanism to transfer votes after your candidate has been chosen in fact your system implies that it is just locked in at that candidate which would give everyone 1 vote for 3 seats. Which also is a MAJOR problem because as written out of 100% 3 people must reach 50%+1 which is IMPOSSIBLE.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
  19. Gorundu

    Gorundu Thou Glorious Speaker - - - -

    Messages:
    741
    Woah woah, calm down. Praetor pointed to TRR's election because that's what he intends. See here:
    It may not be phrased very well that way, but then again, that's why this bill is still in drafting.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
  20. Fregerson

    Fregerson TNPer -

    Messages:
    33
    TNP Nation:
    PotatoFarmers
    Discord:
    The Setting Sun#7086
    I don't know if the OP is continuing to pursuit this way of voting (especially with Judicial Elections coming soon), but I have strong objections against using any form of STV/IRV to determine winners of multi-winner elections. I understand that many people have lately switched to the system for single-winner elections, given the advantages such as encouraging voters to vote for marginal candidates. However, when it comes to multi-winner elections, especially for relatively small voter pools like us, the results may go really absurd when there are too many candidates and the votes are split rather evenly among a group of candidates.

    I guess I shall substantiate myself by describing a really ridiculous situation I had while managing an election IRL. At the start of the year we had elections for management council, where we had to vote for 6 candidates from a pool of 17 candidates. This was the first time we had it in an IRV manner (where you eliminate the winner and reset the IRV process after the winner is found), as the past elections were conducted in based on a more direct method similar to the current system for judicial elections in TNP (whoever attains more than half of voters qualify and a runoff for the rest if slots remain empty).

    We had 127 voting slips for that round, and using the IRV method, the first 3 candidates were elected rather easily since they were hot favorites and were council incumbents. When it came to the 4th candidate, we had a problem, because we realised many candidates were getting tied votes and were eliminated rather quickly. As we made our way down the list, we reached a point where all the candidates left after rounds of elimination were tied. (There were 6 left for that matter) We had a problem, as the election law had no provision for what happens if we cannot pick a winner. So therefore we still had to call a runoff among everyone left, making it fair because some of the candidates may have received their votes at the lower ranks (like the 5th and 6th spot) and we weren't doing them a justice if we only let the 6 candidates that tied all the way run the runoff.

    Of course, you could argue that if you backtrack and see who is higher, you can result in a tiebreak. However, this would make every ranking of the vote matter (whether I put the order as ABC or ACB would make a difference then when they try to trace back a tie between B and C), which goes against what a multi-candidate voting system is supposed to do. Some may also say that it is rare you would notice such ridiculous ties like this, but when candidate quality becomes similar as people get better, this might become reality and you really don't want such a thing to happen. (Trust me)
     
  21. Zyvetskistaahn

    Zyvetskistaahn TNPer -

    Messages:
    1,710
    TNP Nation:
    Zyvetskistaahn
    Discord:
    Zyvet#9958
    I have a few comments in relation to this proposal, presuming it is still intended for it to be pursued.

    I think, in broad terms at least, I am in favour of allowing for withdrawals during the voting phase. I do wonder whether it may be worthwhile requiring some notification to be given to voters in the event that a candidate withdraws from a race. I appreciate that, if preferential voting is adopted, the withdrawal of a candidate ought to make no difference to the outcome as between the candidates, but I think that there is perhaps an argument to be made that it could change how voters approach the question of re-opening nominations, particularly where there are only few candidates in the race to begin with. Presently, the law effectively forces voters to remake the choice of whether or not to re-open if a candidate ceased to be a valid candidate, in that it requires the voting to be restarted. It is probably not an intentional effect of the law at the moment, but I do think it should be considered whether we want to retain some mechanism by which voters, even if not forces to reconsider the question, should be advised of the removal of a candidate, given that the absence of a candidate could lead to a different decision on the re-opening nominations question.

    In relation to the move to preferential voting for Judicial elections. I have to admit, I find the proposed law quite opaque in how it operates for a multi-candidate election and, plainly, so do others. To my mind, such an election ought to operate in the manner described by COE and I would prefer a redraft in that direction.

    I am also somewhat curious, on the current wording, as to what happens in a scenario where there are only three candidates. There would appear to be no preferential voting (and so, presumably, no eliminations) and yet the Justices still require a majority of votes to be elected and they are only elected if three of them get a majority. It may be due to a deficiency in my understanding, but it appears to me that this results in an election that cannot be won, as plainly only one candidate could ever win a majority of votes and, in all likelihood, no candidate will.

    Lastly, I think it may make sense for the wording around the longest period of citizenship (if that is to be chosen as a tie break mechanism) to be the same in the Legal Code and the RA Rules and, indeed, everywhere it is used (though the Judicial Law is out of the present scope of this Bill, so that may be a hope for a future proposal).

    EDIT: "current"
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019 at 7:01 PM