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

Section 4.4 of the Legal Code shall be amended to:

Section 4.4: Overall Election Law:

20. Citizens will be provided three days to declare their candidacy. Voting will begin two days after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days.

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

22. Private votes may be sent by private message to a forum account designated for that purpose by the Election Commission. In such an event, the Election Commissioners supervising the election will promptly announce that a vote has been cast privately and who that vote was cast for. The Election Commissioners may not announce any other details about the vote.

23. The option to reopen nominations will appear on the ballot as a separate question for each race.

24. Should a majority vote to reopen nominations for a given race, a further two days will be provided for candidacy declarations.

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

26. A second round of voting for that race will begin immediately after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the new ballot.

27. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the ballot for any runoff vote.

28. If during any voting round for a given race a candidate becomes invalid, then all votes for that candidate shall be removed from voters preferential ranking. The Election Commission shall remove the candidate from the list of candidates and notify all citizens who have voted before the candidate became invalid.

29. If at any point in counting the votes for two or more candidates are tied for one position, the candidate who has the least votes at the latest stage of counting where there is a difference in votes shall be eliminated. If this does not break a tie, a runoff vote shall be held between the tied candidates.

Click to expand...

Section 4.6 of the Legal Code shall be amended to:

Section 4.6: Judicial Elections:

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

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 no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate/s 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 achieve a majority.

37. When a candidate achieves a majority, they shall be elected. All votes shall then be recounted using the same process, ignoring all preferences for the elected candidate. This shall be repeated until three candidates are elected.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Speakers note: I have edited the OP of this topic to reflect changes to the bill made by @Gorundu, who should be the person you direct feedback at.

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")

If this does not break a tie, whichever candidate has been a citizen for the longest period of time shall be elected.

Click to expand...

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.

Gorundu:

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")

Click to expand...

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.

Dreadton:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, I will make that clarification. Good point.

Praetor:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I have no problems making that change if others feel the same way.

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.

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.)

Is there any update on the progress of this?

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).

Etruric Ambassador:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Etruric Ambassador:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

Gorundu:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

It seems that the wording of this proposal does not quite get across the above method.

Lord Lore:

(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.)

Click to expand...

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.

Praetor:

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.

It seems that the wording of this proposal does not quite get across the above method.

Click to expand...

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.

Lord Lore:

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.

Click to expand...

Woah woah, calm down. Praetor pointed to TRR's election because that's what he intends. See here:

Praetor:

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.

Click to expand...

It may not be phrased very well that way, but then again, that's why this bill is still in drafting.

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)

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"

In the most recent Justice election, the loss of citizenship of a candidate resulted in voting being restarted. This would have prevented the situation from occurring, but as @Praetor has not been able to work on his bill, I have taken this bill and incorporated the feedback in this thread to create a new version. The significant changes include a change in the tie-breaking mechanism, and a clear procedure on how the instant-runoff process works in the case of Justice elections. I hope to hear your feedback.

Section 4.4 of the Legal Code is hereby amended to:

Section 4.4: Overall Election Law:

20. Citizens will be provided three days to declare their candidacy. Voting will begin two days after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days.

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

22. Private votes may be sent by private message to a forum account designated for that purpose by the Election Commission. In such an event, the Election Commissioners supervising the election will promptly announce that a vote has been cast privately and who that vote was cast for. The Election Commissioners may not announce any other details about the vote.

23. The option to reopen nominations will appear on the ballot as a separate question for each race.

24. Should a majority vote to reopen nominations for a given race, a further two days will be provided for candidacy declarations.

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

26. A second round of voting for that race will begin immediately after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the new ballot.

27. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the ballot for any runoff vote.

28. If during any voting round for a given race a candidate becomes invalid, then all votes for that candidate will be removed from voters' preferential ranking. The Election Commission will remove the candidate from the list of candidates and notify all citizens who have voted before the candidate became invalid.

29. If at any point in counting the votes for two or more candidates are tied for one position, the candidate who has the least votes at the latest stage of counting where there is a difference in votes will be eliminated. If this does not break a tie, a runoff vote will be held between the tied candidates.

Click to expand...

Section 4.6 of the Legal Code is hereby be amended to:

Section 4.6: Judicial Elections:

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

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 will be counted first. If no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate/s with the least votes will be eliminated, and the next preference of all voters who had voted for the eliminated candidate as first preference will be counted, with the process repeated until a candidate achieve a majority.

37. When a candidate achieves a majority, they will be elected. All votes will then be recounted using the same process, ignoring all preferences for the elected candidate. This will be repeated until three candidates are elected.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm still seeking feedback for this.

As to the changed counting (presuming I follow), given that it seems to work more or less as indicated by COE, I think that is an improvement.

Something that we saw this past election was that, following the withdrawal of a candidate who had only one vote, some voters changed votes in the reopened voting, despite there, presumably, being no reason why the drop out of that candidate should have changed their votes. Perhaps they would have changed their votes anyway or perhaps not, but together with the fact that the loss of a candidate could reasonably give rise to a desire to vote RON, I do think that consideration should be given to requiring notice of a candidate ceasing to be valid to be given during the course of voting, even if voting is not to be restarted.

On the tie breaking mechanism. Why have extending the voting period as the first mechanism? I appreciate that the extension would not be for as long a period as a normal run-off and that there will not be a need for those who have already voted to vote again, but it seems to me that it somewhat defeats part of the purpose of the proposal in removing the time spent on run-offs.

Additionally, how is it envisioned that the tie breaking extension will function for judicial elections in the circumstance, say, of two candidates having the first and second most, then two being tied for third? Does the voting extend for all candidates? An alternative scenario, there is a tie between the candidates having the second most, after the extension that tie is resolved but there is then a tie for third. Does the extension simply get skipped and tie breaking proceeds to the next step?

Zyvetskistaahn:

As to the changed counting (presuming I follow), given that it seems to work more or less as indicated by COE, I think that is an improvement.

Something that we saw this past election was that, following the withdrawal of a candidate who had only one vote, some voters changed votes in the reopened voting, despite there, presumably, being no reason why the drop out of that candidate should have changed their votes. Perhaps they would have changed their votes anyway or perhaps not, but together with the fact that the loss of a candidate could reasonably give rise to a desire to vote RON, I do think that consideration should be given to requiring notice of a candidate ceasing to be valid to be given during the course of voting, even if voting is not to be restarted.

Click to expand...

That seems like a good idea. I have added it to clause 28.

Zyvetskistaahn:

On the tie breaking mechanism. Why have extending the voting period as the first mechanism? I appreciate that the extension would not be for as long a period as a normal run-off and that there will not be a need for those who have already voted to vote again, but it seems to me that it somewhat defeats part of the purpose of the proposal in removing the time spent on run-offs.

Click to expand...

I feel like the best way to resolve a tie is simply to allow more people to vote, rather than determining it using previous counting stages.

Zyvetskistaahn:

Additionally, how is it envisioned that the tie breaking extension will function for judicial elections in the circumstance, say, of two candidates having the first and second most, then two being tied for third? Does the voting extend for all candidates? An alternative scenario, there is a tie between the candidates having the second most, after the extension that tie is resolved but there is then a tie for third. Does the extension simply get skipped and tie breaking proceeds to the next step?

Click to expand...

For the first scenario, I would imagine that yes, voting extends for all candidates. For the second scenario, if two candidates are tied second most, then they would both be elected as there are three Justices. I tried to phrase Clause 29 in a way that caters to this. The clause says "If the votes for two or more candidates are tied for one position...", so if there are two people tied for two positions, then it wouldn't apply.

If there is no more feedback, I intend to motion for a vote.

I would run another check over the draft, it appears to have minor possessive and tense issues with the grammar.

I think the second tie breaking method needs to be rewritten. The way you have it now, it says that if extending the vote doesn’t break a tie, the candidate with the most votes in the last round of counting wins. The problem here is, if extending the vote didn’t break a tie, that would mean a tie still exists. And if that’s the case, then no one will have more votes in the latest count because...they’re tied. So I think the way it’s written it isn’t doing anything to advance tie breaking. I would just go straight to the language about runoffs. It’s also possible I simply do not understand what you intended to do here, so consider rewriting that part.

I am inclined to support this, I generally prefer preferential voting. It would be nice not to have to restart elections because candidates up and leave or get sloppy and lose citizenship. I think you just need to do another sweep for grammar and clarify the tie breaking mechanism and this could work.

Pallaith:

I would run another check over the draft, it appears to have minor possessive and tense issues with the grammar.

I think the second tie breaking method needs to be rewritten. The way you have it now, it says that if extending the vote doesn’t break a tie, the candidate with the most votes in the last round of counting wins. The problem here is, if extending the vote didn’t break a tie, that would mean a tie still exists. And if that’s the case, then no one will have more votes in the latest count because...they’re tied. So I think the way it’s written it isn’t doing anything to advance tie breaking. I would just go straight to the language about runoffs. It’s also possible I simply do not understand what you intended to do here, so consider rewriting that part.

I am inclined to support this, I generally prefer preferential voting. It would be nice not to have to restart elections because candidates up and leave or get sloppy and lose citizenship. I think you just need to do another sweep for grammar and clarify the tie breaking mechanism and this could work.

Click to expand...

It appears the clause on tiebreaking was a little vague. I think my recent edit should clear that up. I've also made a few edits with word choices and so on.

Also, it occurred to me that with the instant runoff system, a tie can occur in a lot of places during counting, so extending the voting period wouldn't be practical. As such, I've removed the extension and made it so that the candidate with least votes in the latest stage where there is a difference is eliminated, as opposed to the one with the most votes being elected.

@Gorundu, has there been any motion on this? I was just drafting a bill to put an end to invalid candidacies restarting the voting period before I remembered that this bill was trying to do just that, along with other things. My fix was a bit more narrow in scope...

Sil Dorsett:

@Gorundu, has there been any motion on this? I was just drafting a bill to put an end to invalid candidacies restarting the voting period before I remembered that this bill was trying to do just that, along with other things. My fix was a bit more narrow in scope...

Click to expand...

I'm still inviting feedback on this. If there appears to be none, then I may motion it to vote soon.

I motion this bill for a vote.

Gorundu:

I motion this bill for a vote.

Click to expand...

The motion to vote is recognised and we are now in a formal debate period that shall last 5 days. Should you wish to shorten formal debate, I will accept a shortened period of 2 days for formal debate. The op of this topic will also be updated to reflect the bill that will go to vote.

I wish this bill used "will" rather than "shall".

Eluvatar:

I wish this bill used "will" rather than "shall".

Click to expand...

And that has been changed.

Formal debate is now over and this version of the bill will go to vote in two days time:

Section 4.4 of the Legal Code is hereby amended to:

Section 4.4: Overall Election Law:

20. Citizens will be provided three days to declare their candidacy. Voting will begin two days after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days.

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

22. Private votes may be sent by private message to a forum account designated for that purpose by the Election Commission. In such an event, the Election Commissioners supervising the election will promptly announce that a vote has been cast privately and who that vote was cast for. The Election Commissioners may not announce any other details about the vote.

23. The option to reopen nominations will appear on the ballot as a separate question for each race.

24. Should a majority vote to reopen nominations for a given race, a further two days will be provided for candidacy declarations.

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

26. A second round of voting for that race will begin immediately after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the new ballot.

27. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the ballot for any runoff vote.

28. If during any voting round for a given race a candidate becomes invalid, then all votes for that candidate will be removed from voters' preferential ranking. The Election Commission will remove the candidate from the list of candidates and notify all citizens who have voted before the candidate became invalid.

29. If at any point in counting the votes for two or more candidates are tied for one position, the candidate who has the least votes at the latest stage of counting where there is a difference in votes will be eliminated. If this does not break a tie, a runoff vote will be held between the tied candidates.

Click to expand...

Section 4.6 of the Legal Code is hereby be amended to:

Section 4.6: Judicial Elections:

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

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 will be counted first. If no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate/s with the least votes will be eliminated, and the next preference of all voters who had voted for the eliminated candidate as first preference will be counted, with the process repeated until a candidate achieve a majority.

37. When a candidate achieves a majority, they will be elected. All votes will then be recounted using the same process, ignoring all preferences for the elected candidate. This will be repeated until three candidates are elected.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Apologies for our oversight. The vote will begin on this bill at some point in the nest 10 hours.

The bill is now at vote for a period of seven days.

Wait, I’m confused. Is this just Single Transferable Vote?

Comfed:

Wait, I’m confused. Is this just Single Transferable Vote?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it STV outright, since it is slightly modified. But you get the idea that they are basically doing 3x STV for the Judicial Elections (which is the main change from current laws)