Voting for Chancellor

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:29 pm

I still have a problem with taking the human/political element (discussion, negotiation, bargain, compromise, leadership) out of the process and letting an algorythm decide automatically.

There should be a run-off, like in the French presidential elections, where the second round includes only two candidates - being the ones with most votes in case of a 3-3-1 first round, and requiring 1 of the 3 to withdraw in case of a 2-2-2 tie or 3-2-2 vote.

Thank God, all this will become irrelevant once we we (hopefully!) decide to have the Chancellor be directly elected by our citizens.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:20 pm

The problem being, of course, that in the event of a 3-2-2 or a 2-2-2 vote, who is required to withdraw?

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:46 am

Well we cant determine that in advance. There will be some bargaining and compromising and team-building between Candidates, with the RA having the final vote. All we can do is to stipulate only two can go on to the run-off.

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:14 am

Heh -

Well If there are no constitutional rules on how a 3 way tie - or no clear majority is reached - then it woul dbe up to the RA.

My main question -

If we have 1 round of voting and it is 3-2-2

Can any of the RA's [i:75ndlw8l]at that point[/i:75ndlw8l] change their vote?

In the case of the 7 day internet vote, can they change their vote [i:75ndlw8l]after first indicating their vote[/i:75ndlw8l]?

I am interested in the mechanics of this - would seem at first blush the answer would be:

Once a RA member casta a vote, it cannot be changed, but that is what I feel is logical - I do not know what is Constitutional.

(This came up in Chancellor discussions with people speculating baou tthe Chancellor vote - where the candidates and voting were discussed, one person (not me) indicated that it might be allowable to switch their vote "on the spot" or "on the internet" to change an outcome once it has been cast)

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:26 am

My take on this is that we may set this up within the RA. The RA's procedures are determined by the RA. Also not every vote has to be counted as passing a bill. Other procedures during deliberation are allowed.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:51 am

I propose that the RA first take a "poll of the RA" or advisory vote to see how voting will shape up. Then, after discussions, take a final vote -- allowing switching of originally intended vote before an official tally happens.

I very much oppose the idea of candidates dropping out -- especially if there is an element of coercion involved. I also don't think it is necessary. I am certain that any tie in vote can and will be addressed by RA members switching votes on a revote without the need for any candidate to be removed from the running.

Given the pulse of the community and the RA -- this really is a two person race anyway.

Beathan

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:02 am

I won't be in on August 5th, and I believe Brian indicated he might not either.

Why do it that way, Beathan, anyway?

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:12 am

The Chancellor's election is not a simple internal RA matter. There should be a straight first ballot where every RA member casts his/her vote without getting to change it depending on what others do. I can't believe the RA will be permitted to just change the rules of the election any which way it wishes, in mid-game.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:25 am

Michel --

The election of the Chancellor is a matter of national concern -- but the procedures for doing so are certainly an internal RA matter. Further, there are no "rules" for electing the Chancellor. The office is relatively new and the procedures are not set. The RA can set up and change the procedure with great freedom at the moment.

Bromo --

I too will be gone on August 5. However, I will be on vacation and should have a laptop with me (as I am working on two appeals and studying for the foreign attorney solicitor qualification exam during my vacation -- much to the chagrin of my wife).

I want to do the advisory vote to end the speculation about how the vote would go. It is possible that we won't need more than one ballot -- in which case we can simply go to a vote. However, if we need more than one ballot, we need to have some procedure about how that would work. That procedure, whatever it is, will likely be short-lived, as the method of selecting the Chancellor will probably change this term. Therefore, I would rather not waste time bickering about a procedure that would only be used once, especially if it need never be used at all.

Beathan

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:05 am

[quote="Beathan":1v4c3800]
I too will be gone on August 5. However, I will be on vacation and should have a laptop with me (as I am working on two appeals and studying for the foreign attorney solicitor qualification exam during my vacation -- much to the chagrin of my wife).[/quote:1v4c3800]

So this is how you define "vacation?" Makes the mind boggle as to what "work" would resemble. Well my employer had a "shut down" and I find myself going into work to make sure certain things get done anyway. Heh ...

Well good luck with that!
[quote:1v4c3800]
I want to do the advisory vote to end the speculation about how the vote would go. [/quote:1v4c3800]

Why not just have a VOTE to end it?

Not sure how a poll would prevent a runoff - it just increases gamesmanship from where I am seeing.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:25 am

Bromo --

What you call "feints and gamesmanship" Michel calls "bargaining and compromising and team-building between Candidates." I am inclined to agree with Michel on this one.

I think that a straw poll will tell us where we are -- which will provide the members of the RA and the candidates with a bargaining position from which to negotiate a resolution. I think that is a good thing.

Beathan

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:27 am

[quote="Beathan":3copins1]Bromo --

What you call "feints and gamesmanship" Michel calls "bargaining and compromising and team-building between Candidates." I am inclined to agree with Michel on this one.

I think that a straw poll will tell us where we are -- which will provide the members of the RA and the candidates with a bargaining position from which to negotiate a resolution. I think that is a good thing.

Beathan[/quote:3copins1]

I just see it as not solving the plurality problem unless you want to determine if we need a runoff system in the first place? And yes, I can see that it could encourage bargaining - and hopefully will - if it is deadlocked.

(I was about to delete my post actually since I recall many times the US congress uses it to determine if they are ready for a vote or not ....)

Oh and I am marking my calendar down -- "Beathan agrees with Michel 12:29PM SL time, 30 July 2007"

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:52 am

Beathan wrote:

[quote:2ipa2hnj]
What you call "feints and gamesmanship" Michel calls "bargaining and compromising and team-building between Candidates." I am inclined to agree with Michel on this one. [/quote:2ipa2hnj]

Whilst I did indeed say so, this was in the context of a situation when, after a first ballot, we end up with either a 3-2-2 tie or 2-2-2 tie, so that it cannot be determined who would go on to the second round. If after the first ballot there is a winner, this becomes unncessary.

So, I agree with Bromo:

1. Hold a binding first vote.

2. Determine in advance the procedure required if no outright winner emerges. In this case, there should be a run-off binding vote between the candidates with most votes.

3. In some tie occurs preventing a simple run-off vote, require on candidate to widthdraw; allow for some "bargaining and compromising and team-building between Candidates", then hold a second vote for the last two candidates.

Its simple, straightforward, transparent, honest.

Michel

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:09 pm

LOL --

For the first time in weeks, I agree with Michel and what happens? He disagrees with me. Oh, strange new world that has such people in it.

I continue to see no need for the hemming and hawing about a procedure that might be unnecessary.

That said, I disagree that the candidates should negotiate a withdrawal after a binding vote. Frankly, this seems to me to be a ploy for Michel to withdraw from the voting after the first vote, in exchange for some concession. The fact is that someone other than Michel would be elected on a second vote, provided RA members can switch votes -- and without granting any concessions to to unpopular position staked out by Michel.

Let it be so.

Frankly, while I am inclined to vote for Dnate for the reasons I stated -- if there is to be a single binding vote followed by a parade of concessions in which the final result is determined by someone other than the RA, I would vote for Moon in the first ballot to avoid such a thing.

Beathan

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:22 pm

LOL! Is everything you do determined by the same red herring flashing in front of your eyes?