July 2008 Election Resuls (crosspost)

[Claude Desmoulins]

Please congratulate the new LRA, Justice Soothsayer of the CSDF

Other CSDF members of the new RA are Arria Perrault and one seat TBD.
DPU members of the new RA are Rubaiyat Shatner and 2 seats TBD
The NuCare member of the new RA is Bells Semyorka

Last term a precedent was set with the SP that factions winning more seats in the election that they had candidates on their lists have the opportunity to fill those seats. The situation has occurred again this time.

Also , the rare circumstance arose wherein a change from zero based Borda to One Based Borda would have altered the outcome of the election to a 3-2-2 division of seats. The SC , based on the stronger historical precedent of Zero-Borda use in the CDS, chose this calculation method.

Transcripts of the SC certification discussion and comments will follow.

[Jon Seattle]

Here are the numbers. I will prepare a more detailed matrix later. These are zero-based Borda scores.

CSDF (First Ranked = 28, Borda Score = 61, seats = 3)
----
Justice Soothsayer
Arria Perreault

DPU (First Ranked = 8, Borda Score = 54, seats = 3)
---
Rubaiyat Shatner

NuCARE (First Ranked = 12, Borda Score = 29, seats = 1)
------
Bells Semyorka

[Bromo Ivory]

I would like to extend a congratulations and thanks (for serving) to the factions that are sitting this next term - and am excited for Bells as she takes up the mantle of the RA for nuCARE

I do find it rather disturbing to find out that the method of arriving at a Borda count was not fully sorted out before the polls were opened. As CDS grows and matures it is terribly important that we as a community move towards a rule of law and a simpler, less informal system. While I am disappointed for nuCARE that 1 seat was lost due to the SC's choice (though I think a 3-3-1 is almost as powerful as a 3-2-2), I do detect a much larger issue at hand than any one faction's fate.

The legitimacy of the elections in which the method of tallying votes is determined after the polls are closed, wherein the SC may be in full knowledge of how votes were cast is very troubling. If I discerned correctly that the exact method of Borda counting was decided after the polls closed, this placed CDS in an awkward position (regardless if the method would have arrived at a different result).

I look forward to reading the discussion in the SC meeting that made this decision, and would also like to know how the method of counting votes (i.e arriving at the Borda values) be so fluid and variable AFTER the polls have opened.

(I do find it rather troubling as well that we let a first ranker to rank candidates - which sets another contradictory precedent - in that the business of a faction is now the business of CDS as a whole - as I am very uncertain at this point what constitutes faction membership the Linden Lab group or a voting choice - and given the rules of factional membership .... )

Please congratulate the new LRA, Justice Soothsayer of the CSDF

Other CSDF members of the new RA are Arria Perrault and one seat TBD.
DPU members of the new RA are Rubaiyat Shatner and 2 seats TBD
The NuCare member of the new RA is Bells Semyorka

Last term a precedent was set with the SP that factions winning more seats in the election that they had candidates on their lists have the opportunity to fill those seats. The situation has occurred again this time.

Also , the rare circumstance arose wherein a change from zero based Borda to One Based Borda would have altered the outcome of the election to a 3-2-2 division of seats. The SC , based on the stronger historical precedent of Zero-Borda use in the CDS, chose this calculation method.

Transcripts of the SC certification discussion and comments will follow.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Bromo,

DISCLAIMER : I SPEAK ONLY FOR MYSELF

Deciding such a thing before the fact is the kind of policy making exercise the SC usually tries to avoid. Especially since the issue of 1-borda v 0-borda was raised at the last general election, there was a considerable time during which a policy making body could have clarified the 1 borda/zero-borda question. To the extent there was a precedent the SC followed it (AFAIK, in seven prior general elections zero borda was used six times and one borda once)

I think you are right that there are a number of issues here.

[Jon Seattle]

The legitimacy of the elections in which the method of tallying votes is determined after the polls are closed, wherein the SC may be in full knowledge of how votes were cast is very troubling. If I discerned correctly that the exact method of Borda counting was decided after the polls closed, this placed CDS in an awkward position (regardless if the method would have arrived at a different result).

This is incorrect. To my knowledge, as FRC (who is the person who set up the prior system) attests, the CDS has always used the zero-based counts to tally votes. I would have been quite a bit more troubled if the SC, knowing the results of the election, suddenly decided to change the method it had used for years.

I was asked by the LRA and SC, and agreed to take responsibility for writing and operating our voting system November 2007 with no prior knowledge of the details of the system. I worked from the text of the constitution in developing the new software, and the constitution is vague on the definition of "Borda score". Luckily in the January and April elections there was no difference between using zero-based and one-based Borda counts. FR set the record straight in a post in April 2008 when he posted that the CDS had always used zero-based scores.

Since my role in this is just as a volunteer providing a technical service, I am very careful not to make policy decisions. Constitutionally, I work for the SC under their supervision. Because this had been a question before, the counting method did make a difference this time, after the polls closed I submitted the question to the SC. They, quite correctly, confirmed that the zero-based counts are correct. There was, contrary to Bromo's assertion, no decision making based on outcome.

[Bromo Ivory]

Since my role in this is just as a volunteer providing a technical service, I am very careful not to make policy decisions. Constitutionally, I work for the SC under their supervision. Because this had been a question before, the counting method did make a difference this time, after the polls closed I submitted the question to the SC. They, quite correctly, confirmed that the zero-based counts are correct. There was, contrary to Bromo's assertion, no decision making based on outcome.

#1 - I am not accusing you of anything, I am only commenting upon the original post by Claude. I am not sure what "not making policy making" you are talking about - last time I checked you aren't a SC member? In my mind, as long as you weren't expressing opinions on the method of Borda counting before decisions were being made or revealing votes to non SC members until the SC had made up their mind, I would have no issue (and the first part simply because you are privy to votes, too).
#2 - I read the original post and it seemed to me a decision was made. My issue is that the SC had all the votes and then had to make a decision on how to count them. This is backwards. Even if the RA did not clarify anything, the SC needs to have made a decision before the polls open and then stick to it. We can have 11,000 posts back and forth on how "yes it was" and "no it wasn't" which is tedious and tiring - but we don't even to have a discussion if the method of tallying votes were decided before the votes were cast.

The base fact was the votes came in and then the SC decided how to count them. According to the posts by Claude. This is an enormous problem and in a real life country this would make the elections illegitimate. I agree that the SC was placed in an awkward decision, but the remedy was very simple.

I won't even go into other issues - which is the "ghost" RA seats and the minimum faction membership requirements. While the SC has declared this "precedent" I do think it is a bad percedent because we allow non faction members to rank those in a faction. This brings up a good legal question as well "What is a faction member?"

[Claude Desmoulins]

I won't even go into other issues - which is the "ghost" RA seats and the minimum faction membership requirements. While the SC has declared this "precedent" I do think it is a bad percedent because we allow non faction members to rank those in a faction. This brings up a good legal question as well "What is a faction member?"

Bromo, you're actually discussing three separate decisions here. The only one which the SC based on precedent was the decision to use zero based Borda. As it has been pointed out, zero-based has been used in six of the seven RA general elections prior to this month.

The rule allowing all citizens to rank members in the faction they rank first came out of the RA as a constitutional amendment.

As for the "ghost" RA seats, I am guessing that you're referring to allowing factions to fill after the fact. This decision was based on the Article I section 2 language about factions controlling their seats.

Your point about the unclear meaning is quite well taken. Perhaps this is something the incoming RA can clarify.

[Jamie Palisades]

Personal opinions, for what it's worth: I agree with Bromo that it's unseemly for the election formula to be insufficiently specified. The SC should apply a deterministic rule, not be required to interpolate.

That's the fault of the RA, not the SC. The RA were unable to act on election reform: members wasted too much of our time in fruitless squabbles. Multiple factions share the blame for this. There were, however, several valid election reform bills in process. They will be available to the next RA. I will provide pointers in my final report as LRA next week.

It would be best for CDS if SC acts are not only *just*, but also *appear* to be just. That would be easier if CDS had conflict of interest rules. We don't. Again, we started that work in this term's RA, but didn't finish it.

As I'll describe later, I am not unhappy with the RA's output this term, given the challenges it faced. More on that later. But I did want to point out that the issues here easily are addressed by further proper legislation.

Regards Jamie P

[Rose Springvale]

While much has been said about the lack of transparency in decision making, especially by the SC, no one seems to have grasped that it was in furtherance of transparency that we even know there is an issue. Jon could have handed over the results to the SC, interpretting them the way he was told to on these boards, and no one would have been the wiser. Instead, he looked at the numbers, advised the SC of the issue, and let them make the decision, which appears to have been made on the basis of the precedent they had to work with. Pretty transparent, don 't you think? Does it feel funny, coming "after the fact?" Sure, but if you review the discussions, most people were convinced that the math would never support a different result. I'll be the first to admit that I don't follow those discussions very well, but people who DO understand seemed to have a grasp of it. No reason not to trust them that i can see.

Much WAS accomplished by this legislature, and we should not lose sight of that. They didn't get to everything. I doubt anyone can ever completely accomplish what they set out to in a single term... and this group brought many important issues to light. I know the democracy will be stronger, in some respects, in spite of the actions or inactions from this group. Thank you all for that.

I do agree with Jamie, that this was a legislative issue. Several of us participated in the conversaton about election reform on these boards, a commission convened and much information gathered. A bill was drafted, though not by the commission, but it was not acted upon. Part of that was due to the squabbles Jamie notes. Part of it was due, by my reading, to lack of quorum at meetings, late starts waiting for people to show up, etc. Even when there was quorum, several times the members were not prepared to vote on issues due to lack of information.

This isn't, btw, the problem solely of the RA. WE all are guilty in some of our SL ventures. But the solution seems simple.

1. If you take on a job, do the job. If you can't be at a meeting, or don't have time to run a commission, turn it over to someone else or at minimum make your limitations known. If you've done the work and just can't attend at the time chosen by your meeting chair, send them a notecard with your findings. Post on the forums. Despite the campaign rhetoric about communication not being a problem, i submit that it is our BIGGEST problem. Each of us can do a better job with this. We have the tools.

2. If we are truly a system of factions, and a Representative is not able to attend a meeting, why not designate another faction member who CAN attend as proxy? If a gerrymander is the strategy of the faction, then no faction member should attend,but shouldn't that be a decision made by the faction as a whole? Further, since there is a 7 day vote provision, all factions not in attendance should request and utilize the option at very least. A no vote, or even an abstention, should be recorded, not assumed. It is so disrespectful of the people who have prepared and take the time to be there when even these simple courtesies aren't extended to them.

3. Conflicts of interest always give the appearance of impropriety, and the community is big enough now that we shouldn't need overlap. Hopefully the legislation that was proposed this term, or something similar, will be taken up by the next RA.

probably should have made this two posts

[Pip Torok]

Dear Claude, I'd like to put myself forward as one of the three DPU chairs in the coming RA.

Thank you for your attention,

Pip Torok

[Flyingroc Chung]

(cross posting from the DPU forum)

As I understand it, there's still one open RA position for the DPU. If no other DPUers want it, I can fill the position (if any of you want it, I can cede the seat to you, since I've been at the RA last term).

[Justice Soothsayer]

As the new LRA, my job includes calling the first meeting of the RA. I would like to solicit the dates/times of availability of the new RA members, so it would be very helpful if the factions could identify as soon as possible the names of "to be determined" members. Thanks in advance for your assistance.