Moderator: SC Moderators
OK - Have a quick question - for the SC
What are the mechanics?
Meaning when you vote - the vote is recorded. And then you cannot change it - or can you change your vote in this 7 day period?
For instance lets say there is a 3 way split with no majority.
What happens?
Can people change their vote "on the spot?" or is there a run off?
==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."
Let me, for reference, quote what I believe to be the relevant sections of the constitution:
Article I, Section 6
[quote:1lv6b50y]A vote in the RA is a simple majority vote of representative seats. Constitutional amendments require a 2/3 vote.[/quote:1lv6b50y]
Article II, Section 5
[quote:1lv6b50y]The Chancellor of the CDS shall be selected by the Representative Assembly from among any CDS citizen who shall make application to the RA[/quote:1lv6b50y]
....
and
...
[quote:1lv6b50y]The chancellor will serve a term ending with the election of the next chancellor by the incoming RA.[/quote:1lv6b50y]
[quote="Claude Desmoulins":vkjatamd]Let me, for reference, quote what I believe to be the relevant sections of the constitution:
Article I, Section 6
[quote:vkjatamd]A vote in the RA is a simple majority vote of representative seats. Constitutional amendments require a 2/3 vote.[/quote:vkjatamd]
Article II, Section 5
[quote:vkjatamd]The Chancellor of the CDS shall be selected by the Representative Assembly from among any CDS citizen who shall make application to the RA[/quote:vkjatamd]
....
and
...
[quote:vkjatamd]The chancellor will serve a term ending with the election of the next chancellor by the incoming RA.[/quote:vkjatamd][/quote:vkjatamd]
Glad I am not the only one that saw that. I would assume that since it is not a constitutional amendment, it therefore is a simple majority.
Yes, as the person who patched together the final version of the amendment that established the executive, it was always intended to be a simple majority. What I have been puzzling over is can this be structured as a pair of bills, each establishing an ordering of a pair of candidates? Let [b:3vy9efup]A < B [/b:3vy9efup]mean that A is preferred over B.
[code:3vy9efup]if A < B:
if A < C:
A wins
else:
C wins
else:
if B < C:
B wins
else:
C wins[/code:3vy9efup]
In effect an tournament. In this way we satisfy the constitutional requirement, and fairly establish the preferred candidate of the three. The problem with this system though is that it can be broken by insincere voting.
One way to fix it, however, is to use the Borda counts. We could do the Borda counting to establish a winning candidate, the confirm that candidate through a majority vote.
What if A=B=C (ie. 2-2-2) or A=B where A>C (ie 3-3-1) ?
In the latter, C should be eliminated and a head-to head between A and B take place.
The former is tougher. IMHO it should be stipulated that one candidate must withdraw. This would leave it up to the candidates to discuss among themselves and with the RA various options.
[b:1s8o0280]Please note: [/b:1s8o0280] the Chancellor will be able to make a number of appoitments once elected. This would allow two candidates to effectively form a team and run, for example, as Chancellor and PIO.
Since the candidate who withdraws has no assurance that his votes would go to the Candidate offering him/her a position on case of election, the decision still remains fully in the hands of the RA.
I don't like the idea of forcing any candidate to withdraw -- even in the event of a 3-3-1 tie. Rather, I'd prefer to see the matter go to multiple ballots. If it is good enough to elect a Pope; it should be good enough for us.
Beathan
Or, let the process work itself out. I am reminded of old US political conventions where things often went to several ballots.
I would like to think that in the event of a 3-3-1, a candidate would have the wisdom to withdraw from the process without it being procedurally compelled.
The Borda count idea is, I think, not a bad one. I intend to write as soon as I can get to it about why I think our electoral system is designed as it is. Please be a bit patient.
Yet another option occurs to me. We could vote using all pairs of candidates, then choose one vote randomly to use as the first round. We can then use the results of the appropriate vote as the second round.Without knowing which vote will cause the first elimination the system would not be subject to the insincere voting problem.
There;s a lottery element there I really don't like. The result can change entirely depending on which vote happens to be chosen at random. I rather prefer allowing team-building situations, with the final vote still in the hands of independent RA members (ie nothing compels RA members having voted for a candidate who withdraws because promised the PIO position by another candidate to vote for the latter).
[quote="michelmanen":2dy82c9h]There;s a lottery element there I really don't like. The result can change entirely depending on which vote happens to be chosen at random.[/quote:2dy82c9h]This is not true if there is a clear preference ordering. The only time that this could be sensitive to random selection is if some voters vote without logical consistency, for example A < B, B < C, C < A. That seems unlikely in this case.
