[FAILED] Comprehensive Overhaul of Elections Act (COE Act)

Gorundu

Gorundu

I finished my Chinese homework
-
-
Pronouns
he/him
TNP Nation
Gorundu
Discord
an_dr_ew
As alluded to in this article, I planned on introducing a bill to provide for tiebreaking when two or more candidates are tied in every round of an election. This turned out to be a bit more complex than I expected.

Firstly, I noticed a few discrepancies between Sections 4.5 and 4.6 (for General and Judicial Elections respectively) which should not exist. Clauses 32 and 36, which should be exactly the same, are not, because the latter was passed after the former and thus incorporated some wording changes. The change that particularly concerns this bill is that clause 32 uses the singular word "candidate" at all times, while clause 36 uses "candidate/s" once but "candidate" every other time. Furthermore, clause 33 in Section 4.5 is something that would also apply to Judicial Elections, but is not included in Section 4.6. There's also some varying uses of "will" and "shall", but those are easy to fix.

Then the change to the tiebreaking provision itself is a bit more complicated than what I originally imagined. First I realised, partly due to the singular/plural discrepancies above, that we don't really need to resolve ties if eliminating any of the tied candidates yields the same result. So I've decided to change the wording in the clauses mentioned above to allow for multiple eliminations at the same time, except when eliminating different candidates would leave to different results. I also realised that, since there's always the possibility of three or more candidates being tied, a head-to-head count needs to be held between each possible pairing, and the candidate who loses by the most in any of these counts would be eliminated. If there are only two candidates tied then there is only one pairing, and it still works.

Finally, since many clauses in Sections 4.5 and 4.6 are almost identical, I've moved them into Section 4.4 to provide better logical flow between the clauses. The changes I proposed in the Election Law Fix has also been incorporated hill to combine them into one bill.
Sections 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Legal Code are amended as follows:
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.
  • Candidates for that race whose names appeared on the first ballot will retain their candidacy unless they choose to withdraw.
  • 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.
25. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the ballot for any runoff vote.
26. If the number of candidates is less than the number of candidates to be elected for a given race at any point after the candidacy declaration period closes, the process of reopening nominations will occur for that race. Any ongoing voting period for that position will be declared null and void.
27. If there are more than two candidates for a race in the General Election or more than three candidates for Justice, preferential ballots are used where 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.
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. When preferential ballots are used, all first preference votes will be counted first. If no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate 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 achieves a majority and is thus elected.
30. If, in any round of counting the votes for a given race, two or more candidates are tied for last place, the Election Commission will verify if eliminating any of the candidates would result in the same candidate winning the election. If so, all tied candidates will be eliminated. If not, the candidate who has the least votes at the latest round of counting where there is a difference in votes will be eliminated. If this does not break a tie, a head-to-head count will be conducted between each pair of the tied candidates, and the candidate who loses a count by the largest margin will be eliminated. If this does not break a tie, a runoff vote will be held between the possible winners.
31. If all of a voter's preferences have been eliminated, the voter's ballot shall not be used in further counting.

Section 4.5: General Elections
32. The election of the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, and the Speaker will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.

Section 4.6: Judicial Elections
33. The election of the Justices will begin on the first day of the months of March, July, and November.
34. If preferential ballots are used, when a candidate is 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...
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.
  • Candidates for that race whose names appeared on the first ballot will retain their candidacy unless they choose to withdraw.
  • 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.
25. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the ballot for any runoff vote.
26. If the number of candidates is less than the number of candidates to be elected for a given race at any point after the candidacy declaration period closes, the process of reopening nominations will occur for that race as provided in the next clause. Any ongoing voting period for that position will be declared null and void.
27. If there are more than two candidates for a race in the General Election or more than three candidates for Justice, preferential ballots are used where 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.
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. When preferential ballots are used, all first preference votes will be counted first. If no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate 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 achieves a majority and is thus elected.
30. If, at any point in counting the votes in any round of counting the votes for a given race, two or more candidates are tied for one position last place, the Election Commission will verify if eliminating any of the candidates would result in the same candidate/s winning the election. If so, all tied candidates will be eliminated. If not, 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 head-to-head count will be conducted between each pair of the tied candidates, and the candidate who loses a count by the largest margin will be eliminated. If this does not break a tie, a runoff vote will be held between the tied candidates possible winners.
31. If all of a voter's preferences have been eliminated, the voter's ballot shall not be used in further counting.

Section 4.5: General Elections
32. The election of the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, and the Speaker will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
31. 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.
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 the eliminated candidate as first preference shall be counted, with the process repeated until a candidate achieves a majority.
33. If all of a voter's preferences have been eliminated, the voter's ballot shall not be used in further counting.

Section 4.6: Judicial Elections
33. 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.
35. If preferential ballots are used, when a candidate achieves a majority, they will be is elected. A, 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.
There is one last issue I am uncertain about. In the bill to change Judicial Elections to preferential voting, we seem to have forgotten to write out what to do if there are three candidates or less. This wasn't an issue for General Elections, so that was probably why it was overlooked. In my opinion the simplest solution is just to mandate preferential voting no matter the number of candidates. The alternative would be to write out an exception that uses plurality voting. I welcome any suggestions on this area.
 
Last edited:
I'm against due to the branding.

The changes overall are fine.
 
I feel like 31 could be split into two sections that depend on the scenario. The "tied for one position" bit is what is ambiguous. For instance, do...

31. If at any point in counting the votes for a given race two or more candidates are tied with the highest number of votes and no other candidate remains with a lower number of votes, 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.
32. If at any point in counting the votes for a given race two or more candidates are tied with the lowest number of votes and no other candidate has a majority of votes... do this...

Of course, you have a fill in the blank section and wordsmithing to do here.
 
Last edited:
Just combine both your election bills. If this one is so comprehensive why does it need a separate bill to do more election tweaks? Then you have to worry about the order you pass them in, which creates potential language ambiguity and is the sort of thing that caused some of the problems you’re trying to fix now. Just do it all in one bill, it’s all the same topic anyway.
 
Comfed:
Perhaps COE is not the best acronym to use.
Click to expand...
I wasn't planning on making an acronym, but I wrote the first word of the title as "Comprehensive", and then realised that since it'll have "Elections" somewhere, that's two of the three letters in COE, so I filled in the gap. COE is a pretty appropriate acronym in fact, since he was instrumental in creating the Election Commission - it was even mentioned in his commendation.
Sil Dorsett:
I feel like 31 could be split into two sections that depend on the scenario. The "tied for one position" bit is what is ambiguous. For instance, do...

31. If at any point in counting the votes for a given race two or more candidates are tied with the highest number of votes and no other candidate remains with a lower number of votes, 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.
32. If at any point in counting the votes for a given race two or more candidates are tied with the lowest number of votes and no other candidate has a majority of votes... do this...

Of course, you have a fill in the blank section and wordsmithing to do here.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you got the "tied for one position" thing from since I removed that phrasing in my bill, but I do still think the separation you proposed would make clear the difference between tying for elimination and tying for the win. I think in this case clause 32 would essentially be what I have now as clause 30.
Pallaith:
Just combine both your election bills. If this one is so comprehensive why does it need a separate bill to do more election tweaks? Then you have to worry about the order you pass them in, which creates potential language ambiguity and is the sort of thing that caused some of the problems you’re trying to fix now. Just do it all in one bill, it’s all the same topic anyway.
Click to expand...
Alright, done.
 
Gorundu:
I don't know where you got the "tied for one position" thing from since I removed that phrasing in my bill, but I do still think the separation you proposed would make clear the difference between tying for elimination and tying for the win. I think in this case clause 32 would essentially be what I have now as clause 30.
Click to expand...
Because I was looking at the markup version and the words were still there. Probably should update it.
 
Sil Dorsett:
Because I was looking at the markup version and the words were still there. Probably should update it.
Click to expand...
Good catch. I've fixed it.

I've decide not to adopt your suggested change because I realised that if three or more candidates are all tied with the same number of votes and they are the only ones remaining, they are technically tied for last place (and first place), so if they have the same number of votes going back to the first round, then it is still possible to pit them against each other head-to-head and produce a loser to be eliminated.
 
To be honest, I'm really not understanding the practical application of this idea. I need to see an example of how eliminating a specific candidate first could cause a difference in the final result, and what would happen if you couldn't break the tie between the candidates to be eliminated, when also considering the possibility that neither of them could win overall anyways. Can you do a walkthrough of this scenario, or is this scenario mathematically impossible?

Edit: Wait, hold on... the head-to-head comparisons for determining an elimination... Are you running a head-to-head between just the candidates that tied each other (because wouldn't that just result in more ties?) or are these head-to-heads with the entire remaining field? I really need to see an example of this in action.

I'm really worried that you've created a solution that only you know how to implement. It's not really a good thing when the watching public doesn't understand how the system works, or comments that things hurt their brain. You had a couple of comments like that in your article thread. Even if the election commission becomes familiar with it and figures it out, if everyone else doesn't, then how do they know to trust the result that the election commission returns?
 
Last edited:
Sil Dorsett:
To be honest, I'm really not understanding the practical application of this idea. I need to see an example of how eliminating a specific candidate first could cause a difference in the final result, and what would happen if you couldn't break the tie between the candidates to be eliminated, when also considering the possibility that neither of them could win overall anyways. Can you do a walkthrough of this scenario, or is this scenario mathematically impossible?

Edit: Wait, hold on... the head-to-head comparisons for determining an elimination... Are you running a head-to-head between just the candidates that tied each other (because wouldn't that just result in more ties?) or are these head-to-heads with the entire remaining field? I really need to see an example of this in action.

I'm really worried that you've created a solution that only you know how to implement. It's not really a good thing when the watching public doesn't understand how the system works, or comments that things hurt their brain. You had a couple of comments like that in your article thread. Even if the election commission becomes familiar with it and figures it out, if everyone else doesn't, then how do they know to trust the result that the election commission returns?
Click to expand...
So to use the recent Speaker election as an example, eliminating Bobberino or Fregerson first wouldn't cause a difference in the final result, because we would end up with Oracle vs Skaraborg in the end either way.

But say if there's an election that's come down to 3 candidates, A, B, C, who have 20, 15 and 15 votes each. If C is eliminated and all their voters have B as their next preference, then B would win. But if B is eliminated and all their voters have A as their next preference, then A would win. So this would cause a difference in the final result. If we assume that B and C's previous round counts are all tied, then the head-to-head works like this:

C's 15 voters place C above B, and B's 15 voters place B above C. So far that's 15-15. That means it all depends on how A's voters ranked B and C. If more of A's voters ranked B above C, then C would be eliminated. If more of A's voters ranked C above B, then B would be eliminated.

We can also see this in the recent Speaker election. We saw that with Bobberino and Fregerson, where they both have 11 votes in the first and second round, but 32 people ranked Bobberino above Fregerson, whereas only 28 people ranked Fregerson above Bobberino, so Bobberino wins the head-to-head. However, if there are only two candidates remaining and they tie in preferential votes, then yes, the head-to-head would still be a tie. Oracle and Skaraborg's head-to-head, for example, is a tie.

A more complex scenario could involve 3 candidates being tied. Say A has 20 votes while B, C and D all have 10. We would do head-to-head counts for B vs C, B vs D and C vs D. Say B wins over C, 30-20, B wins over D, 35-15, and C wins over D, 26-24. D would then be eliminated because they lost by the most in a head-to-head (to B).
 
Gorundu:
C's 15 voters place C above B, and B's 15 voters place B above C. So far that's 15-15. That means it all depends on how A's voters ranked B and C. If more of A's voters ranked B above C, then C would be eliminated. If more of A's voters ranked C above B, then B would be eliminated.
Click to expand...
Seems needlessly complex to me.
 
Comfed:
Seems needlessly complex to me.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not sure there's a simpler solution. I've thought of the Borda count but I feel that's an even more complex solution. The only other option is a runoff, which delays the election.
 
Ah, okay. I feel silly for not getting the head-to-head stuff right away, but I understand it now.

What about this highly unusual situation, which I'm not even sure is mathematically possible... Bobberino and Fregerson are locked in a perfect tie and can't be broken by countback or head-to-head, but Fregerson being eliminated first gives Oracle the win, and Bobberino being eliminated first gives Skaraborg the win. It seems impractical to have a runoff between Bobberino and Fregerson to decide the winner of Oracle vs Skaraborg, so what happens?
 
Sil Dorsett:
Ah, okay. I feel silly for not getting the head-to-head stuff right away, but I understand it now.

What about this highly unusual situation, which I'm not even sure is mathematically possible... Bobberino and Fregerson are locked in a perfect tie and can't be broken by countback or head-to-head, but Fregerson being eliminated first gives Oracle the win, and Bobberino being eliminated first gives Skaraborg the win. It seems impractical to have a runoff between Bobberino and Fregerson to decide the winner of Oracle vs Skaraborg, so what happens?
Click to expand...
As you said, you're not even sure if it's mathematically possible, and neither am I. I feel like that's just too remote of a possibility to have to contemplate it. Technically we do have a solution, it does seem a bit absurd, but I doubt it will ever happen.
 
Gorundu:
As you said, you're not even sure if it's mathematically possible, and neither am I. I feel like that's just too remote of a possibility to have to contemplate it. Technically we do have a solution, it does seem a bit absurd, but I doubt it will ever happen.
Click to expand...
I'd rather we have an ironclad solution to even the most remote possibility. I don't think anyone wants the election commission to be deadlocked because we failed to consider all the possibilities. So, what is the solution to my scenario?
 
Sil Dorsett:
I'd rather we have an ironclad solution to even the most remote possibility. I don't think anyone wants the election commission to be deadlocked because we failed to consider all the possibilities. So, what is the solution to my scenario?
Click to expand...
The current provision is to hold a runoff vote between the tied last candidates. I suppose it'll essentially be a proxy vote if voting for one will cause one of the top two candidates to win and voting for the other will cause the other top two candidate to win. Otherwise I guess we can have a runoff vote between all the possible hypothetical winners, if that's preferable.
 
I don't like the idea of a runoff between losers to see who loses first. I'd rather do a Borda count. What about this?

1. Check if order of elimination changes the eventual winner. If no, eliminate both simultaneously. If yes...
2. Countback to previous rounds. If this doesn't break the tie...
3. Borda count the entire field. Most points between the previously determined theoretical winners wins the election. If there's a tie for the win in Borda count, then do head-to-head between the candidates tied for the win. If this doesn't break the tie, runoff between the candidates tied for the win.
 
Last edited:
The 3rd step just sounds a little bit too complicated. What you seem to want is that in the situation of a tie for elimination (and the order changes the eventual winner), we go straight to figuring out a winner, which kind of defeats the purpose of instanf runoff voting - to eliminate candidates one by one until a candidate achieves a majority. The bill as it stands tries to do that through head-to-head counts. If in the unlikely scenario that it doesn't break a tie, and we want to ensure that a runoff would always be between the potential winners, we can just take the different potential winners from step 1 and hold a runoff.
 
What I'm trying to do is keep to the whole point of why we did instant runoff voting, which was to not have runoffs unless we're absolutely sure that the election is hopelessly deadlocked.
 
I agree with the principle, but this just seems like too many steps, especially since you expressed concern yourself whether the public can understand the system. The possibility of a runoff should be alreday remote with the bill as it stands. Plus, a Borda count would be hard to put down in legislative language, especially with the need to account for voters not ranking a full ballot.
 
Comfed:
The borda count is flawed in the first place and I’m against implementing it at all.
This is why.
Click to expand...
If you scroll down on that page to "Other properties", you'll see a table comparing a range of methods against different criteria, one of which is Independence of irrelevant alternatives (abbreviated in the table as LIIA), the criteria you linked to. You'll see that almost no voting method satisfies that criteria
 
Gorundu:
If you scroll down on that page to "Other properties", you'll see a table comparing a range of methods against different criteria, one of which is Independence of irrelevant alternatives (abbreviated in the table as LIIA), the criteria you linked to. You'll see that almost no voting method satisfies that criteria
Click to expand...
Borda count is particularly dissatisfactory, however, in that an unpopular candidate becoming more popular can help another losing candidate.

It’s like a reverse spoiler effect.
 
Last edited:
A minor edit has been made in clause 34, adding the phrase "If preferential ballots are used".

I intend to move this bill to a vote if no further feedback is received.
 
Still not a fan of holding a runoff between potentially losing candidates to see who wins between the theoretical winners. If we have to go down the route of holding a second vote, I'd rather the runoff be between the theoretical winners. If Candidate A losing a runoff causes Candidate C to win, and Candidate B losing the runoff causes Candidate D to win, I'd rather the runoff vote be Candidate C vs Candidate D. If we code it that way, I'll vote Aye.
 
Last edited:
Sil Dorsett:
Still not a fan of holding a runoff between potentially losing candidates to see who wins between the theoretical winners. If we have to go down the route of holding a second vote, I'd rather the runoff be between the theoretical winners. If Candidate A losing a runoff causes Candidate C to win, and Candidate B losing the runoff causes Candidate D to win, I'd rather the runoff vote be Candidate C vs Candidate D. If we code it that way, I'll vote Aye.
Click to expand...

I'll add that I don't particularly like that either. While I know it's important to see who gets eliminated first in order to move forward, ultimately we're looking for the overall winner.
 
I thought there was a change I wanted to make that I forgot about, so I think this was it. I've changed the clause from:

"If this does not break a tie, a runoff vote will be held between the tied candidates."
to
"If this does not break a tie, a runoff vote will be held between the possible winners."
 
Sil Dorsett:
Still not a fan of holding a runoff between potentially losing candidates to see who wins between the theoretical winners. If we have to go down the route of holding a second vote, I'd rather the runoff be between the theoretical winners. If Candidate A losing a runoff causes Candidate C to win, and Candidate B losing the runoff causes Candidate D to win, I'd rather the runoff vote be Candidate C vs Candidate D. If we code it that way, I'll vote Aye.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Gorundu:
I thought there was a change I wanted to make that I forgot about, so I think this was it. I've changed the clause from:

"If this does not break a tie, a runoff vote will be held between the tied candidates."
to
"If this does not break a tie, a runoff vote will be held between the possible winners."
Click to expand...
Just bringing up another problem. We have always been assuming ties are two-way right? Something tells me there is probably a situation there which could be really messy if it is a 5 or 6-horse race with a 3-way tie for 3rd and 4th respectively
 
The new law, as written, would cover it, although probably not in the most ideal way. (For what it's worth, I don't think there is an ideal way...) The EC would have to check each theoretical situation (Candidate C loses first, Candidate D loses first, Candidate E loses first, etc...) to see who ultimately wins the election in each scenario, and then runoff between those theoretical winners. I could see the EC having to make flowcharts to explain why the election is deadlocked and who gets to stand in the runoff.
 
Last edited:
This seems unnecessarily complicated. Just declare that in earlier rounds where no candidate has yet received a majority, candidates who tie for last are all eliminated in that round. I’m pretty sure that’s how it’s being done now anyway, and you can then reassign all those votes to the candidates who had more.

We’ve tangled ourselves up with this stuff enough. I’ll be voting against anything that requires a magnifying glass and a committee to figure out how to count votes round to round.
 
I'm just hesitant in a situation with three candidates remaining and two candidates are tied with less votes than the leading candidate, so then the leading candidate would automatically win without a majority.
 
Is there any progress to this? (Asking both as a Speaker looking to clean up this place, and as a citizen interested in this bill)
 
Fregerson:
Is there any progress to this? (Asking both as a Speaker looking to clean up this place, and as a citizen interested in this bill)
Click to expand...
Since there doesn't seem to be much more feedback, I am going to motion for a vote now.
 
Gorundu:
Since there doesn't seem to be much more feedback, I am going to motion for a vote now.
Click to expand...
The motion to vote is noted. The bill will now enter a five day period of Formal Debate, ending at (time=1642949100) (your forum time). Voting will then be scheduled after the conclusion of the Formal Debate.
 
I would move clause 24 to be after clause 26. I don’t like the way it refers to the next clause, I prefer it to point to a process or procedure rather than anticipate an upcoming clause like that. Your law should refer to something that exists or to itself, I don’t like it referencing something you haven’t seen yet.

Clause 30 is still a mess and I don’t think it adequately describes what you’re trying to do. Given that the tie situation you’re trying to mitigate is so rare, I don’t like that we could be complicating things further with this language. I’d like to hear from some ECs on interpretation and how they view this because it still seems incessantly complicated to me.
 
Pallaith:
I would move clause 24 to be after clause 26. I don’t like the way it refers to the next clause, I prefer it to point to a process or procedure rather than anticipate an upcoming clause like that. Your law should refer to something that exists or to itself, I don’t like it referencing something you haven’t seen yet.
Click to expand...
Ok, that makes sense. I've changed the order.

Pallaith:
Clause 30 is still a mess and I don’t think it adequately describes what you’re trying to do. Given that the tie situation you’re trying to mitigate is so rare, I don’t like that we could be complicating things further with this language. I’d like to hear from some ECs on interpretation and how they view this because it still seems incessantly complicated to me.
Click to expand...
In most cases of ties it's probably not going to get past the first two sentences because it doesn't usually matter who gets eliminated. But as I said before in the event that two candidates are tied behind a leading candidate and none of them have a majority, I think it's preferable not to have the leading candidate win by default. Regarding the possible implementation of this, I think it can easily be done with the sheets that the EC currently uses.
 
This thing lives or dies based on clause 30. The wording is confusing - from the use of the word candidate describing the scenario where the “same candidate” will win, to throwing in this head to head count, to what precisely is meant by the runoff for “the two possible winners.” That last one especially matters because one of the goals of this bill was to eliminate the possibility of a runoff between two tied losing candidates that would interrupt the election. I can read this as succeeding at that, but the problem is that there’s a lot of assuming required. I wanted the EC to weigh in because they would have to be the ones to actually apply this law and they recently had to do this in a Speaker election. I remain uncomfortable with this clause and must remain opposed.
 
I would think Gorundu, as a member of the EC, has a clear understanding of how they intend to apply the laws and how it would fit in the current mechanisms. Of course, you won't accept that as an answer, so I am guessing I have to give something else.

Sil Dorsett:
The new law, as written, would cover it, although probably not in the most ideal way. (For what it's worth, I don't think there is an ideal way...) The EC would have to check each theoretical situation (Candidate C loses first, Candidate D loses first, Candidate E loses first, etc...) to see who ultimately wins the election in each scenario, and then runoff between those theoretical winners. I could see the EC having to make flowcharts to explain why the election is deadlocked and who gets to stand in the runoff.
Click to expand...
I think what Sil said above basically sums up the issue with this particular bill. Especially the bolded part. However, this doesn't really need to happen most of the time, because you need to have at least 2 candidates at the bottom, tied on votes, and basically are at a position with a significant vote chunk adding up to at least a quarter of the votes.

The only other big problem I could foresee is determining the order of the Justices getting elected. Which could be a real headache should it happen, but again, requires the same conditions, which is probably rare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top