Chief Justice Selection (Amendment) Bill

[Zyvetskistaahn]

As I was perusing the Legal Code, I noticed that the tie break clause for choosing the Chief Justice seemed a little out of step with the current electoral system. I would propose to amend the clause to just be that the Justice elected first will be Chief (if the Court cannot choose for themselves).

1. Section 3.1, clause 3 of the Legal Code is amended to read:

In the event that a Chief Justice has not been elected by seven days after the conclusion of a Judicial election, including the conclusion of any required run-off votes, the Chief Justice shall be the Justice who first achieved a majority in that election.

Spoiler: Markup

3. In the event that a Chief Justice has not been elected by seven days after the conclusion of a Judicial election, including the conclusion of any required run-off votes, the Chief Justice shall be the Justice who first achieved a majority in that electionreceived the highest number of votes in said election. In the event of a tie for highest number of votes, the Chief Justice shall be the one among those tied with the longest period of citizenship.

 

[Simone]

The "highest number of votes" bit is indeed ambiguous (is it first preference say or second preference?)

 

[Pallaith]

As I was perusing the Legal Code, I noticed that the tie break clause for choosing the Chief Justice seemed a little out of step with the current electoral system. I would propose to amend the clause to just be that the Justice elected first will be Chief (if the Court cannot choose for themselves).

Spoiler: Markup

3. In the event that a Chief Justice has not been elected by seven days after the conclusion of a Judicial election, including the conclusion of any required run-off votes, the Chief Justice shall be the Justice who first achieved a majority in that electionreceived the highest number of votes in said election. In the event of a tie for highest number of votes, the Chief Justice shall be the one among those tied with the longest period of citizenship.

Isn’t the existing wording saying the same thing? The justice who first achieves a majority is the justice who got the most votes. I don’t see how that tie breaker scenario ever takes place - the only way would be if the first round had a tie.

I’m not really opposed to changing this I just don’t see the need since in pretty much every case the wording change doesn’t actually change anything.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Isn’t the existing wording saying the same thing? The justice who first achieves a majority is the justice who got the most votes. I don’t see how that tie breaker scenario ever takes place - the only way would be if the first round had a tie.

I’m not really opposed to changing this I just don’t see the need since in pretty much every case the wording change doesn’t actually change anything.

Alright, I'll bite. Let me give you the following theoretical results:

Court Justice #1 (Rd. 1)       
Candidate    Vote Count    Percentage    Elected?
Zyvet           9               45.00%
Dreadton        6               30.00%
Pallaith        4               20.00%
Sil Dorsett     1               5.00%

Court Justice #1 (Rd. 2)       
Candidate    Vote Count    Percentage    Elected?
Zyvet           9               45.00%
Dreadton        7               35.00%
Pallaith        4               20.00%

Court Justice #1 (Rd. 3)       
Candidate    Vote Count    Percentage    Elected?
Zyvet           9               45.00%
Dreadton        11              55.00%          YES

Court Justice #2 (Rd. 1)       
Candidate    Vote Count    Percentage    Elected?
Zyvet           15              75.00%          YES
Pallaith        4               20.00%
Sil Dorsett     1               5.00%

Court Justice #3 (Rd. 1)       
Candidate    Vote Count    Percentage    Elected?
Pallaith        10              50.00%
Sil Dorsett     10              50.00%

Court Justice #3 (Rd. 2 [Countback])       
Candidate    Vote Count    Percentage    Elected?
Pallaith        4               80.00%          YES
Sil Dorsett     1               20.00%

Given this, who would be Chief Justice if the court could not decide in time? Would it be Zyvet, with 9 first preference votes? Would it be Dreadton for winning the first Justice seat with 11 votes? Would it be Zyvet for getting 15 votes when deciding the 2nd Justice?


Edit: In case you'd like to check my work: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S6q8ajXJF83Pl4DkSqxYCC5fqHzApNJwdzMdAGaqgPA

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Isn’t the existing wording saying the same thing? The justice who first achieves a majority is the justice who got the most votes. I don’t see how that tie breaker scenario ever takes place - the only way would be if the first round had a tie.

I’m not really opposed to changing this I just don’t see the need since in pretty much every case the wording change doesn’t actually change anything.

I don’t think it does say exactly the same thing, though I would expect that most scenarios under the current law would have the same result (well, under most scenarios I expect this law to do nothing at all because I expect the Court to choose a Chief Justice). That said, I don’t think the wording as it stands differentiates between preferences, a candidate who is ranked first by all voters and a candidate who is ranked third by all voters both have the same number of votes. Obviously, the current wording doesn’t just leave that unresolved as it has the citizenship tie breaker also but it seems to me the starting point should be the most preferred candidate.

I would hope that the Court would always avoid having a petty dispute about this issue but, given the provision only actually does anything if the Court aren’t agreed on a Chief Justice, in the event that it does come into operation there would seem to me to be a risk of silliness.

EDIT: Oh no, has Sil beaten me to the punch?
EDIT2: Yes.

 

[Pallaith]

Alright, I'll bite. Let me give you the following theoretical results:

Court Justice #1 (Rd. 1)      
Candidate    Vote Count    Percentage    Elected?
Zyvet           9               45.00%
Dreadton        6               30.00%
Pallaith        4               20.00%
Sil Dorsett     1               5.00%

Court Justice #1 (Rd. 2)      
Candidate    Vote Count    Percentage    Elected?
Zyvet           9               45.00%
Dreadton        7               35.00%
Pallaith        4               20.00%

Court Justice #1 (Rd. 3)      
Candidate    Vote Count    Percentage    Elected?
Zyvet           9               45.00%
Dreadton        11              55.00%          YES

Court Justice #2 (Rd. 1)      
Candidate    Vote Count    Percentage    Elected?
Zyvet           15              75.00%          YES
Pallaith        4               20.00%
Sil Dorsett     1               5.00%

Court Justice #3 (Rd. 1)      
Candidate    Vote Count    Percentage    Elected?
Pallaith        10              50.00%
Sil Dorsett     10              50.00%

Court Justice #3 (Rd. 2 [Countback])      
Candidate    Vote Count    Percentage    Elected?
Pallaith        4               80.00%          YES
Sil Dorsett     1               20.00%

Given this, who would be Chief Justice if the court could not decide in time? Would it be Zyvet, with 9 first preference votes? Would it be Dreadton for winning the first Justice seat with 11 votes? Would it be Zyvet for getting 15 votes when deciding the 2nd Justice?


Edit: In case you'd like to check my work: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S6q8ajXJF83Pl4DkSqxYCC5fqHzApNJwdzMdAGaqgPA

Your point is well taken. The two scenarios are not equivalent, and they can be different in more than just the one scenario I outlined.

Under the existing standard, it would be Zyvet - he has the most first preference votes. Under Zyvet’s proposed standard, it would be Dreadton, as he’s the first to achieve a majority. I don’t believe any other conclusions are valid in either case.

Zyvet’s approach ignores the most first preference votes in scenarios with closer results, which does have the effect of leading to a choice that is preferred by a majority of voters. The existing system (in my reading, which I maintain is the only realistic reading) only focuses on first preferences even if the highest first preference candidate is a plurality. This comes down to if you think that’s a better outcome for the rare situation where the justices don’t decide for themselves.

 

[Simone]

Zyvet’s approach ignores the most first preference votes in scenarios with closer results, which does have the effect of leading to a choice that is preferred by a majority of voters. The existing system (in my reading, which I maintain is the only realistic reading) only focuses on first preferences even if the highest first preference candidate is a plurality. This comes down to if you think that’s a better outcome for the rare situation where the justices don’t decide for themselves.

Most of the discussion above is theoretical anyway, but we might as well clarify it, in my view. Possibly "rare" but not totally impossible situation if the Court basically splits three ways.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Given the lack of further objections to the principle of the Bill, I move to vote.

 

[Lord Nwahs]

This is a sensible amendment in my mind.

(EDIT: second not necessary)

 

[Cloud]

Given the lack of further objections to the principle of the Bill, I move to vote.

Motion recognised. This will now be in formal debate for 5 days, which will end at around (time=1722052800), after which a vote will be scheduled.