submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDs election

[mtlundquist]

The submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDS election

That the election was run with two methods of counting the result

That the two methods were believed by the election official (Jon Seattle) to not make any difference (see forum post below April 27th and Feb 5th 2008)

Had the RA known that the two counts could make a difference it would have had the chance to legislate on the accepted method.

In this election the two methods delivered a different result despite the previous prediction - this was therefore unexpected by the SC and their representative

That this placed CDS and the SC in a difficult position i.e. having to decide 'after that fact and when the two possible results were known' which method to use

That the difference in seat allocation could make a large political difference to the coming CDS RA session.

That the SC does not represent all factions in CDS being one independant and two DPU members

That the method chosen by the SC favours DPU (this to be fair may only be the appearance of bias)

That based on comments by Flyingroc all previous elections 'historically used a variant of the Borda system (aside from the past two elections) that weighted the lowest-ranked with 0 points' - which indicates that a new precedent was set for the last two elections.

What method of counting gives the most representative government.

Therefore it is submitted
That this current election result be considered void.

That the SC urgently request the RA to legislate on the method of counting to be used

That the election be rerun using the agreed single counting method

Extracted evidence from chat and forums

July 2008 Election Resuls (crosspost)
by Claude Desmoulins on Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:13 pm
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
Dean of the SC
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 4:28 pm
Location: Neufreistadt
Private message

Re: July 2008 Election Resuls (crosspost)
by Jon Seattle on Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:07 am
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)

Re: July 2008 Election Resuls (crosspost)
by Claude Desmoulins on Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:58 am
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.

Re: July 2008 Election Resuls (crosspost)
by Bromo Ivory on Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:08 pm
Jon Seattle wrote: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?"

Zero-Based Borda Counts
by Jon Seattle on Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:12 am
Flying Roc asked about zero-based Borda counts. As in the prior election, it does not make a difference. But if you are curious here they are:

DPU (Borda Score = 56, seats = 1)
---
Flyingroc Chung

CSDF (Borda Score = 48, seats = 1)
----
Gwyneth Llewelyn

NuCARE (Borda Score = 25, seats = 0)
------
Cindy Ecksol

The software applies the Sainte-Laguë with the numbers from scratch (for each method of computing). In neither case did it change the outcome. For a very long and detailed look at the difference please see the postings on this issue that occurred after the prior election:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1585&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15#p9693

I much prefer the zero-based method, but much of the literature I find on the subject uses one-based Borda and the current law is that the constitution be read literally. Claude has a copy of the (anonymous, random ordered) votes and the software used to do the calculations. It would be a good idea to change to zero-based calculations for future elections.
Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 1:18 pm
Location: Evanston IL
Private message

Re: A Final Report on the Election
by Jon Seattle on Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:01 pm
Its a non-issue. The SC and I have already had this discussion with Sleazy. I implemented Broda counts as the constitution requires, using the published definition from seven different sources. Borda counts typically start with one. And it did not matter one bit in this election. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count .)

1. The difference between 1 and 0 based Borda counts is to add a constant to every count for every faction.
2. In this election, I programmed both methods to make sure, and there was no difference in outcome.
3. The scores published were the consistent with the published definition, and there is unlikley to be a difference, but I would prefer we use zero-based counts in future elections. However, the constitution will have to be changed to allow this.

Here is more on each point:

1. The difference between 1 and 0 based Borda counts is to add a constant to every count.

Re: Zero-Based Borda Counts
by Flyingroc Chung on Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:35 am
Although the constitution is not exactly clear on this, we have historically used a variant of the Borda system (aside from the past two elections) that weighted the lowest-ranked with 0 points. The idea was that in a two-faction election, we would end up with a straight St. Lague allocation of seats. Here's an old post of Ulrika's (back in 2005) where she stated as much:
http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?t=56741

Ulrika posted the equation we used as:
Below is a summary of the results for the vote. As you know, factions were rated from 1 to 3 with more "points" going to those who were higher rated. The equation which calculates the score gives the highest ranked faction a "1" and the lowest ranked faction a "0". Factions in between receive fractional amounts. The equation is

score = (number_of_factions - rank) / (number_of_factions - 1)

Since AFAIK, Ulrika was essentially the SC at that time, I've in the past assumed that this way of counting is constitutional. When we did the first 3-faction elections in 2006, Ulrika raised the counting issue again, and note that in this discussion, we assumed that last place had 0 points:
http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?t=82946

In the Jan 2007 elections, I again reiterated that we used a 0-based counting (with a slight change to use integer rather than fractional counting):
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=844&p=5231#p5231

So we have here on the one hand historically one way of counting borda scores, and on the other hand a different one based on Jon's more literal interpretation of the constitution (0-based borda scores are unusual, which can possibly be interpreted as not really a borda count; I'm not sure I agree with this, but *shrug*. (note also that 0-based and 1-based ranking do not matter in a winner-take-all environment))

Since Jon prefers 0-based counting, and since we have historically done 0-based counting anyway, I'm going to propose that we use the 0-based count from now on. I think we can do this as regular law (no need for a constitutional amendment) by defining a standard ranking for borda counts in the CDS.
**************************************

ThePrincess Parisi: claude when do we announce the seats
[2008/07/19 13:12] Claude Desmoulins: tOMORROW AFTERNOON SO WE CAN sorry
[2008/07/19 13:12] ThePrincess Parisi: why not today
[2008/07/19 13:12] ThePrincess Parisi: its always today
[2008/07/19 13:12] Claude Desmoulins: sort our a couple of wrinkles.
[2008/07/19 13:12] ThePrincess Parisi: dpu
[2008/07/19 13:12] Claude Desmoulins: No, It used to be Sundays
[2008/07/19 13:12] ThePrincess Parisi: ?
[2008/07/19 13:13] ThePrincess Parisi: no its the day the electinos are over
[2008/07/19 13:13] ThePrincess Parisi: always
[2008/07/19 13:13] ThePrincess Parisi: same day
[2008/07/19 13:13] ThePrincess Parisi: within hours
[2008/07/19 13:13] ThePrincess Parisi: last two terms
[2008/07/19 13:13] Claude Desmoulins: There are also one borda-zero borda issues on which the SC needs to weigh in
[2008/07/19 13:13] ThePrincess Parisi: what does that mean
[2008/07/19 13:14] ThePrincess Parisi: a tie or what
[2008/07/19 13:14] You: what the problem?
[2008/07/19 13:14] You: with the count?
[2008/07/19 13:14] Claude Desmoulins: Depending on whether you use 3-2-1 or 2-1-0 results change
[2008/07/19 13:14] ThePrincess Parisi: well they cant change it mid steream
[2008/07/19 13:14] You: cant change after the fact
[2008/07/19 13:14] ThePrincess Parisi: are you kidding
[2008/07/19 13:15] Claude Desmoulins: no
[2008/07/19 13:15] You: so what was the start count method?
[2008/07/19 13:16] Claude Desmoulins: there's some historical use of 1 bodra and some of zero
[2008/07/19 13:16] You: when did it changed and why
[2008/07/19 13:16] Claude Desmoulins: constitution and code are silent.
[2008/07/19 13:17] Claude Desmoulins: the election software was recoded.

[2008/07/19 13:26] IM: Jon Seattle: Ah, the software is very flexible, it just counts both ways and lets the SC decide. It always has done that.
[2008/07/19 13:26] IM: ThePrincess Parisi: what a total joke
[2008/07/19 13:26] IM: ThePrincess Parisi: are you kidding the SC decides which way the votes are counted.. lmao
[2008/07/19 13:26] IM: MT Lundquist: what they decide how to take the result AFTER THE FACT
[2008/07/19 13:27] IM: ThePrincess Parisi: and we pay money for this democracy.. can you imagine in RL?
[2008/07/19 13:27] IM: ThePrincess Parisi: im laughing so hard.. i hope you all are reading this !!!
[2008/07/19 13:27] IM: Jon Seattle: Up to now there has been no difference between the two menthods of counting.
[2008/07/19 13:27] MT Lundquist: this needs to go the RA next week
[2008/07/19 13:27] MT Lundquist: we need legislation to make this NOT A JOKE
[2008/07/19 13:27] Jon Seattle: Both FR and I agree on the proper method and we posted about it months ago.

[2008/07/20 15:02] MT Lundquist: Claude I wish to formally appeal the election in CDS based on the fact that the results were necesarily decided AFTER the fact
[2008/07/20 15:02] Second Life: User not online - message will be stored and delivered later.
[2008/07/20 15:02] MT Lundquist: there i wish the SC to consider that the election be rerun when the method of counting is fixed
[2008/07/20 15:02] Second Life: User not online - message will be stored and delivered later.

[mtlundquist]

A worrying development that the SC would not consider a submission by a citizen and RA member and had, apparently, already decided to refuse its consideration before it was properly presented. Is this really a democracy at work?

[Claude Desmoulins]

I must protest MT's characterization here. We began the SC meeting at the scheduled time. MT was not there. His original petition (which I posted to SC Announce Sunday) having been duly considered and rejected, MT arrived with his new petition. I can not speak for other members of the SC, but I read it, and I found that there was nothing there that was sufficiently different or new so as to warrant a re examination , My colleagues agreed with me. A full transcript will be posted in a couple of hours.

[mtlundquist]

Claude

I agree I was a few minutes late, I had problems logging in, asked you personally in IM for a tp to the meeting, you didn't respond. When I arrived I explained I was late then crashed. When I relogged I submitted the text of my submission with evidence to then be told the SC had not done me the curtesy of waiting for my SL problems to resolve, had already consider my submission - I had only just presented it, and then refused to consider it formally. Its disingenous for you to now say you read it and saw nothing new in it.

I was previously willing to give the SC the benifit of the doubt with regard to partisan bias, now I'm not so sure. Seems to me that with a DPU majority block on the SC and an indepentant who was ejected from NuCARE that the decision about the counting method was only ever going to be made one way.

This, in my view, represents a bad decision for CDS. Thats why I have decided to take this back into the RA.

My suggestion that the election be rerun does not necesarily mean that the result would be different (although in any rerun it has to be accept that it may) rather it would lend true legitimacy to any result given that the counting method would be fixed before the election. And that counting method may well be the zero based one chosen by the SC! However it wouldn't have been chosen by a partisan SC after the results were known! Thats the point and I'm amazed you don't see the necesity in a fledgling democracy for the voting system being seen to be fair by all parties.

Personally I have nothing to gain or lose in this debate. You will note that I did not stand for re election this time as I did not want to remain in the RA.

[Cindy Ecksol]

My suggestion that the election be rerun does not necesarily mean that the result would be different (although in any rerun it has to be accept that it may) rather it would lend true legitimacy to any result given that the counting method would be fixed before the election. And that counting method may well be the zero based one chosen by the SC! However it wouldn't have been chosen by a partisan SC after the results were known! Thats the point and I'm amazed you don't see the necesity in a fledgling democracy for the voting system being seen to be fair by all parties.

Personally I have nothing to gain or lose in this debate. You will note that I did not stand for re election this time as I did not want to remain in the RA.

MT, you are asking for a "remedy" that has nothing to do with the perceived problem. There was no problem with the voting itself, only some confusion about what formula should be used to allocate seats in the RA AFTER the voting was complete. Jon initiated the confusion by reporting two different ways of allocating seats. One was the way we have always used (the 0-count Borda) and the other was an alternative method (the 1-count Borda). Keep in mind that Jon does NOT allocate the seats -- he merely reports the vote to the SC, then runs those results through a seat-allocation formula specified by the SC. As always, the SC specified the 0-count Borda and allocated the seats according to that method. Jon ran the 1-count more out of intellectual curiosity than anything else I'm sure and had it been the same as the 0-count probably would not have thought to comment on it. But being the intellectually honest type that he is, he chose to share this unusual result with the rest of us. For a short time even Claude was confused by this. However Jon's personal commentary on this subject should not and did not have anything to do with the SC election certification process.

It is educational to read up on the application of Borda counts in our last two elections. In January, you may recall, we had a long discussion about the election results, primarily focused on the application of the "elimination strategy" by nuCARE to improve their chances of winning more than one seat. But in the course of the discussion, we did get onto the topic of how seats are allocated. Jon posted some very interesting and detailed explanations of how that works here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... orda#p9683 If you scroll down in the forum, you'll see my reply to Jon challenging his calculations and pointing out that he used a different system than the one specified in Sleazy's CDS voting guide. Jon recalculated the seat allocations based on the 0-count Borda and pointed out that there was no difference. However I did comment here http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... orda#p9685 that this was only a single case and that when the number of parties changed, the 0-count and 1-count seat allocations might not be the same. We didn't take it any further than that: the rest of the discussion basically confirmed that we ought to be using the 0-count method as that was what was historically done right back to Ulrika. There was no disagreement about this since the seat allocations turned out the same using either method in that election.

In April the question came up again: FR noticed that Jon had used the 1-count to allocate seats and challenged him, so Jon re-calculated and published the 0-count allocations. Once again it did not make a difference. And once again the consensus was that the 0-count Borda should be used. Here's the discussion from that time: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... rda#p11102 . FlyingRoc's posting a little further down in that discussion gives the entire historical perspective.

Given all of this prior discussion and history, there really was no other decision that could have been made on your appeal to the SC, MT. Had we decided to mandate the use of the 1-count the RA would have had grounds to protest since we would have been trespassing on their prerogatives to amend the Constitution. If someone wants to introduce a bill to the RA that would mandate use of the 1-count Borda (or the 0-count Borda for that matter) that could be done. Having a clear statement from the RA on this matter would essentially turn "precedental law" into written law. But any change in the law would apply only to future elections. In this election we have simply applied the same method that has been used for past elections. Any other decision would have been "activist" and inappropriate.

Cindy

[mtlundquist]

Cindy wrote
Given all of this prior discussion and history, there really was no other decision that could have been made on your appeal to the SC, MT. Had we decided to mandate the use of the 1-count the RA would have had grounds to protest since we would have been trespassing on their prerogatives to amend the Constitution. If someone wants to introduce a bill to the RA that would mandate use of the 1-count Borda (or the 0-count Borda for that matter) that could be done. Having a clear statement from the RA on this matter would essentially turn "precedental law" into written law. But any change in the law would apply only to future elections. In this election we have simply applied the same method that has been used for past elections. Any other decision would have been "activist" and inappropriate.

Cindy

My point, which you seemed to have missed, is given the confusion created by the SCs servant, the election official (Jon Seattle) and indeed by Claude himself, and given that new methods of counting had been introduced and applied in previous elections, that the most appropriate response from the SC would be to return the election result to the RA with a request that the RA establish the method of counting and then, to avoid any augument of unfair choice by people in a partisan position, for the election to be rerun.

You made the point before to me that the caste votes would not change, that its only the counting method that changes. But counting method has now produced two different results and should for that reason be questioned and changed. Not withstanding this even if the votes were caste in an identical manner and even if the counting system chosen by the RA is the zero based one and therefore the result is exactly the same, I think a rerun vote would be a demonstration that the election was fair, honest and above board, without a shadow of a doubt. Under the present circumstance there is a cloud hanging over CDS. It allows some to question that very fairness on which the democracy of CDS should be based. I personally do not want CDS to be considered a joke. This decision by the SC makes it so, and thats a real shame.

[Cindy Ecksol]

You made the point before to me that the caste votes would not change, that its only the counting method that changes. But counting method has now produced two different results and should for that reason be questioned and changed. Not withstanding this even if the votes were caste in an identical manner and even if the counting system chosen by the RA is the zero based one and therefore the result is exactly the same, I think a rerun vote would be a demonstration that the election was fair, honest and above board, without a shadow of a doubt. Under the present circumstance there is a cloud hanging over CDS. It allows some to question that very fairness on which the democracy of CDS should be based. I personally do not want CDS to be considered a joke. This decision by the SC makes it so, and thats a real shame.

Well, MT, if it makes you feel any better, I am currently dealing with a RL situation in which a Federal appeals court ruled in what appears to me to be a similarly arbitrary fashion that infringes on my rights (and those of other citizens in my Township) under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. I believe their ruling to be completely ridiculous and resent that they seem to have made up some "facts" and accepted as gospel some claims of the defendant without any evidence on the validity of those claims being heard. But, unlike you, I am not wasting time slamming the court, or accusing them of nefarious motives. Instead, I'm going back and doing the thing that they insist it must be possible to do....even though I've already discovered (as I already knew but the Court refused to take evidence on) that the defendant has no interest in allowing me to do that thing. Interestingly enough, just TRYING to do that thing has already provided the fascinating perspective that in refusing our appeal, the Court may, in fact, have given us a "win" that we would not have had had they accepted the appeal. I'm not sure what the eventual outcome will be or how long it will take to get there, but clearly what appeared initially to be a disaster may, in fact, turn out to be something much more helpful.

So I understand how you're feeling right now, but as with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, I would advise you to assume that the recommendations of the SC are somehow logical and try to operate under those conditions. You may be surprised to see where that takes you -- and it may be to a more appropriate place than you would have gotten to had the SC accepted your appeal.

Cindy

[Jon Seattle]

My point, which you seemed to have missed, is given the confusion created by the SCs servant, the election official (Jon Seattle) and indeed by Claude himself

Rather than being an “election official” (which I am not) or “servant of the SC”, which is closer, I would prefer the term “technical volunteer”. I have always brought any issue or question that I had out into the open because I believe that all aspects of an election should be transparent and open to public review. The entire system and process is designed so that there are no black boxes, Every step of the election process can be observed and checked. And I will always err on the side of openness and review where this does not compromise the privacy of each vote.

1. The online software provides the ability, while the polls are open, for any voter to go back and review their ballot. This is to make sure they are confident that the system has registered their vote correctly.

2. The online software creates three records of votes. One is sent via email to a box set up for the purpose, a second is the system’s transaction log, and a third is the vote database. If there is any question we can reconcile any of these against the votes.


3. The online part of the software just collects votes and provides a file of these without any voter identification, presented in random order. When the polls close I run an off-line program that does the counting and seat allocation. I then prepare a package for the SC members, that contains:

a. A tab-delimited file of raw votes (without voter identification). SC members can load
this into Excel or Apple’s numbers or any other spreadsheet program to check my results.


b. The actual program used to count the votes in python. This is a fairly small program provided in
source code form. Any member of the SC can run this program and examine the source code
actually used to do the calculation.


c. The results output from the python program.

This means that the SC can do several kinds of review:

a. It can compare the record of the votes against the file produced by the software to
make sure that individual votes have not been changed.


b. It can use a spreadsheet to re-generate the counts and Borda scores check these against
the reports to make sure they are accurate. 


c. It has a copy of the actual source code of the software used to do the seat allocation. It
can review that source code and test it.

As to MT’s claim that the SC is biased in some way -- I must say that I have never seen the least sign of it. Instead every SC member I have worked with has gone way out of their way to be fair and careful with elections. We really do have a clean system.

[mtlundquist]

Cindy - I'm afraid that conclusion was to cryptic for me

John - the majority of your post was interesting but not directly relevant to my position.

As to my claim of bias or indeed appearance of bias, when the SC is made up of two DPU members and and an independant who was ejected from NuCARE and the decision favours DPU to the detriment of NuCARE then I think it is entirely possible that bias or certainly the appearance of it could be seen as a factor.

Therefore I suggest again that the election be rerun after deciding the count method - even if the result ends up being exactly the same as previously. That at least would be seen as fair by all.

Its as simple as that.

Sometimes its not just about being fair but being seen to be fair thats important if we want people to continue to agree to participate under the same rules.

[Cindy Ecksol]

Cindy - I'm afraid that conclusion was to cryptic for me

Then let me be more direct and specific. The SC clearly is not inclined to change its mind on certification of the election, and it has pretty solid reasons for refusing to do so even if you don't agree with their conclusions. My suggestion is that you stop complaining about the election results and go do something that will ensure that this question will not arise again.

At the top of the list of things I can think for you to do is to introduce a bill in the RA that will specify the "zero-count Borda" as the method that should be used to allocate RA seats after an election. As with complaints about the "elimination rule" in the January election, there's a perception that only a few people understood that the seat allocations might be different depending on whether the zero-count or one-count method was used. Personally I think this is a red herring. I may have been the ONLY one who really believed that the results could be different, and even I did not do enough of the math beforehand to understand exactly how they might differ and under what circumstances. So, in fact, NO ONE was convinced before the election that this could happen, and even if everyone HAD been aware, it would only have been with enough math to warrant approval of a PhD topic that either Jon or I might have been able to explain the difference between the two methods and what circumstances would create such a difference. Jon and I have discussed this offline, and I think we're in agreement that if we worked through the math, we'd find only a small range of very specific circumstances that would cause the seat allocations to differ depending on the method. It's related to mostly to the number of votes and the number of factions, but I wouldn't venture to say that we know exactly HOW it's related except that we're pretty sure that it would be extremely unlikely in situations with more than three factions in the race, and close to certain if there were only two factions.

Anyway, even if we HAD explained it before the election, it would have been extremely difficult for any faction to create a strategy that would optimize the result depending on which method was to me used.

In short: get out there and incite the RA to FIX the problem for us all by removing the perceived ambiguity!

Sometimes its not just about being fair but being seen to be fair thats important if we want people to continue to agree to participate under the same rules.

Well, if it comes down to THAT, then perhaps you'd like to reconsider this statement?

As to my claim of bias or indeed appearance of bias, when the SC is made up of two DPU members and and an independant who was ejected from NuCARE and the decision favours DPU to the detriment of NuCARE then I think it is entirely possible that bias or certainly the appearance of it could be seen as a factor.

After all, my ejection from the faction has not changed my favorable perception of nuCARE's platform, nor do I hold any particular grudge against any nuCARE member (or former member), certainly not against the members who stood for the RA positions, and I am friends with several. I'll also point out that I am not a member of DPU because I still am not particularly comfortable with their platform. So perhaps you could try to create the "appearance of fairness" in your dealings with me by not making assumptions about who or what I favor...or not.

Cindy

[mtlundquist]

Cindy

I made no assumptions about what you think, I merely consider the appearance of things, whether they appear fair.

MT

[Bromo Ivory]

There is a basic fact: MT brought a complain to the SC about the election - the fact that the method fo counting was "decided" by the SC after the votes had been tallied. And unlike previous times, this made the difference in the result. Regardless of how it was done in the past, this state of affairs was "swept under the rug" since it did not affect the outcome until now.

Regardless of the RA's votes, a simple method of allocating borda counts should have been published, well known and be fixed before the polls had opened. Since it influenced the outcome, you could also argue it may influence the voters as well.

The fact the SC sees nothing but an academic concern, and was unwilling to hear MT is even more disturbing to me than the actual results of the election.

The CDS is supposed to be a democracy, and having elections is not enough. I know that I have been accused of being soem sort of "Stalin" by people in the past, and while I deny it, I will leave you with a quote from him:

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." Joseph Stalin

I would strongly encourage the SC to both reconsider their stance - and undo their "stiff arming" of MT. It does not matter if you like or dislike him, nuCARE, me or anyone else. It is how you treat your opposition and enemies that shows the strength of your system.

[Cindy Ecksol]

I would strongly encourage the SC to both reconsider their stance - and undo their "stiff arming" of MT. It does not matter if you like or dislike him, nuCARE, me or anyone else. It is how you treat your opposition and enemies that shows the strength of your system.

*Sigh* Nothing in the SC discussion had anything to do with whether any SC member "liked" or "did not like" MT. The "basic fact" of the matter is that MT made the INCORRECT claim (repeated by Bromo here) that "the method of counting was decided after the election." Nothing could be further from the truth. All we did in addressing MT's challenge was to clarify for everyone that the decision on what method to allocate seats was made back in Ulrika's time, and that the SC certified the election results and the seat allocations based on that method and no other. We did not "decide what method to use," we merely used the method that had ALWAYS been used. I cannot imagine how anyone could think that such a conservative approach represents any kind of bias on the part of any SC member.

It's perfectly logical to think that using a one-based Borda might give different seat allocations than a zero-based Borda. But re-running the election based on that thought is not a logical solution as it will not change the seat allocation formula. Given the history of our seat allocation methods, the logical thing for everyone who voted to have done would have been to vote the faction they prefer MOST first, and the faction they prefer LEAST last. Were we to run the election again, I expect everyone would do the same, since it makes no sense at all to change that behavior if you know that the zero-based Borda will be used to allocate seats, and I can't think of any way for any one of the three "voting blocks" to change the results in a way that would create the seat allocations that a one-based Borda would have created.

On the other hand, had MT arrived in RA today with a proposal that the RA certify the zero-based Borda count as the definitive method for allocating seats, I expect he would have found not only a second for his motion, but also four enthusiastic votes in favor of his proposal. And in the future, there would never again be a challenge to election results on this basis.

Cindy

[Bromo Ivory]

[...] we merely used the method that had ALWAYS been used. [...]

Are you sure that was used in all cases in in all times, and that the most recent elections used this method and no other?

Because the post by Claude indicated that the SC discussed which method to apply showing that there was a choice being made, and hence the rule to be used for counting after the votes came in. Conservative approach or no - it was a choice and decision.

But enough said about this - I do see a fairly large problem and in the absence of RA action, I would be hopeful the SC announce the method of tallying votes BEFORE the polls open in the next eleciton to avoid this unseemly business.

I also wonder how this applies to the Declaration of human rights we always drag out under these circumstances?

I believe MT's did not get his bill seconded so it is dead.

So CDS is choosing to remain an oligarchy therefore, and leave the selection of its leadership tot he SC. Pity, really.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Dear Cindy who is so so smart.. the method always used has actually never been used because we never had this problem before.
it has never come to pass in CDS that the results were different if counted in different ways. So you saying there is precedent is incorrect because there cant be precedent becuase this has never happened before.

so it seems instead of counting apples the way you always counted oranges.... maybe what the SC should have looked at was which result makes for a more representative democracy. .................think about it.

so your mathmatical gerrymandering worked. and the votes people cast were made irrelevant.

touche"

-----------------------------------
FOR SALE
the land we own on the forum is for sale .. let me know if you are interested. I will sell to anyone but cindy moon gwyen and sudane. LOL
no i dont care............just kidding, you want it you got it.

THE P
who is now and forever
"happily retired"

and btw for what its worth. i thank michel manen very much for the experience, it was FUN and it was REAL, but it wasnt real fun! the worst day in rl is better than the best day in sl !

oh one more rumour.. i hear that ppl are seeking an election for chancellor void of politicking and drama and campaigning.. well, i ponder... a democracy without truth and without politicking... what would that be? well, perhaps a dictatorship? perhaps communisim.. well its something, but its not a democracy.

Bromo Ivory: "It doesn't matter who casts the votes, but who counts them"