Candidates, Declare!

[Cindy Ecksol]

Pat,

Single Transferable Vote isn't designed as a "vote of confidence" system. One of the end states for the vote counting process is that # of remaining candidates <= # of remaining seats. We're there already.

Hi Claude

Whether it was designed that way or not, it provides voters with an opportunity to express a preference. In a democracy I should think that we would favour ensuring that citizens have that opportunity rather than taking it away from them.

Citizens will be voting in the Chancellor election in any case so there is no need to deprive them of the opportunity to vote in the RA election (and every reason to allow them to!) If an election returns all six candidates then at least they will have undergone an election and have legitimacy as RA members. If some fail to gain election that is also a good thing because it demonstrates they did not have sufficient support in the electorate and voters' wishes will have been respected. Just giving them a pass through because too few people put their names forward undermines our claim to be a democracy in my opinion.

Well....maybe we should be allowing write-in candidates That would be the only rationale for actually running an STV election when there are fewer candidates than seats. It simply isn't possible for someone to get "not enough votes" in that situation since any "excess" votes for one candidate are simply transferred to other candidates. If my STV dreaming is on target, you're actually going to end up with a result that has all candidates with the exact number of votes required to cross the election threshold and a bunch of "unused" votes. And I'm thinking it would be surprising for the calculation not to resolve within two rounds. Not sure that demonstrates anything of particular interest to anyone.

My question is "Why didn't more citizens stand for election?" The real test of a democracy is a willingness to participate...

Cindy

[Pip Torok]

Well....maybe we should be allowing write-in candidates That would be the only rationale for actually running an STV election when there are fewer candidates than seats. It simply isn't possible for someone to get "not enough votes" in that situation since any "excess" votes for one candidate are simply transferred to other candidates. If my STV dreaming is on target, you're actually going to end up with a result that has all candidates with the exact number of votes required to cross the election threshold and a bunch of "unused" votes. And I'm thinking it would be surprising for the calculation not to resolve within two rounds. Not sure that demonstrates anything of particular interest to anyone.

My question is "Why didn't more citizens stand for election?" The real test of a democracy is a willingness to participate...

Cindy

I also feel we should be allowing write-in candidates, for all the reasons Cindy has already stated.

I would like to see, for these seven seats, numbers well into double-figures. Fifteen upwards would be ideal.

And where is the willingness to participate? And, is it temporary, an effect of RL economic despondency? Perhaps the distraction of an RL election, maybe even Halloween!

What does stoke-up a willingness to participate are, far too often, the competitors of democracy ...

"Bigotry tries to keep truth safe in hand
With a grip that kills it."

-- Sir Rabindranath Tagore
(Fireflies, 1928)

Pip Torok

[Patroklus Murakami]

It simply isn't possible for someone to get "not enough votes" in that situation since any "excess" votes for one candidate are simply transferred to other candidates.

Hi Cindy

Your statement would be true if we forced people to transfer their votes to other candidates but we don't and neither should we. We allow citizens to vote for as many or as few of the candidates who put themselves forward for election to the RA. This allows voters the option to vote 'No' to candidates they do not support by not transferring their votes to them. People could just vote for one candidate and not transfer to any others if they want to and it should be their right to do so.

Since no one has to transfer votes to other candidates it is quite possible that, of the six who have put their names forward, one or more might fail to get sufficient support from the electorate to get elected. Since this possibility exists, and the only way to test it is to hold the election as normal, the candidates for the next Representative Assembly should face election. Let me be clear, I would *hope* that all of them would get sufficient support and get elected but I don't believe that decision should be taken away from the electorate in a democracy.

[Delia Lake]

A couple of points here regarding the process for electing the CDS RA. First, the CDS Constitution specifies the process in Article I, Section 2--The Representative Assembly Body.

Representative seats are chosen by popular election, from among those candidates who qualify under the rules set forth here. Any citizen who is eligible to vote, at the time of nomination, may become a candidate by declaring themselves by a message to the Dean of the Scientific Council, within the time set by the Scientific Council for such nominations.
The number of representative seats in the RA is equal to the odd whole number nearest to 10% of the population, rounded down, with a minimum of five seats and a maximum of forty seats.
In each RA election, voters shall select from among the candidates using Single Transferable Voting (a ranked voting method).
Vacancies in RA positions will be filled by by-election administered on a schedule set by the Scientific Council consistent with other applicable CDS law.
The Representative Assembly shall serve for a term of six months. New RAs shall take office on 1 December* and 1 June.* Elections shall be held over a 168 hour period beginning at noon SLT on the Saturday before the 16th of the month prior to the new RAs taking office. In the event of a server outage which prevents citizens from casting ballots and which lasts more than 12 hours, the Dean of the SC has the authority to adjust or extend the election schedule.
* Dates recently changed by RA, and these take effect after the next general election. The first RA elections where candidates are not required to be a member of any faction will be for the term starting June 1, 2010.

Currently, there are no provisions for "write-in candidates." If that is an option that the CDS citizenry would wish to have in the future, the next RA, or a subsequent one, would have to propose and pass a Constitutional Amendment to permit that option. The SC is not a legislative body and does not have the authority to initiate write-in candidates on the ballot.

Secondly, the STV system is non-personal to the best I can determine. When any candidate receives the number of votes set by the quota/elected threshold (which is the number of valid voters divided by the number of positions available + 1), that candidate is officially elected and any votes given to that candidate beyond that "elected" threshold are fractionally apportioned among the remaining candidates who have not yet reached the elected threshold. So no candidate is "giving" votes to anyone else. Those votes are simply no longer assigned to an already elected candidate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote Again, the next or subsequent RA's may amend the Constitution for future elections but the STV is the constitutionally mandated system for this November 2010 CDS election.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Delia

I draw your attention to the following words:

Representative seats are chosen by popular election

To follow on from your other reasoning above, there is neither a provision for "write-in candidates" nor for representatives to be appointed "by acclamation" in the CDS Constitution. I assume therefore that we will be proceeding with an election for the RA as in previous elections and would be grateful if you could confirm this so that the candidates know they need to get campaigning in advance of the polls opening.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Well, I've been patient but to no avail.

The SC has decided to deprive citizens the right to select their own representatives in this election using spurious reasons and a bit of blurb on somebody else's website (rather than our Constitution).

We are no longer a democracy. The only person with any democratic legitimacy after this election will be our new Chancellor. Not our RA members, who will have been "acclaimed" like some fucking apparatchiks in the former Soviet Union. The Chinese People's Congress will have more legitimacy than our supposed democracy. The SC never were elected and have increasingly lost the plot making arbitrary and capricious rulings that place expediency before principle.

You will need to fill the seat vacant on the RA though (as only 6 names were put forward). I will be standing for that seat and will be seeking to impeach the SC and replace them with people who defend our Constitution - as they all swore to.

[Rose Springvale]

Of course you will Pat! In your quest to form the most Utopian democracy in the history of the world, creating more hassle, more bureaucracy and applying strict IMPLIED rules when none are actually written is just too tempting for you... And gives you another chance to say mean things about good people who have given their time and talents to a venture you CHERISH, though can only seem to be involved in when they don't do things exactly your way. You are more than willing to waste the time of more busy people, for an outcome that will CHANGE NOTHING, and why?

Maybe if more common sense decisions apply to the unwritten rules, more people would be willing to serve in CDS offices. Instead, we get the Patroklus Murakami Bi Annual Witchhunt.

I want to take a break from CDS. Frankly, i want to take a break from Second Life. But if you do run for this seat, on this platform, and no one else raises their hand to oppose you, I promise, i will run against you.

[FernLeissa]

Hi Pat,

I’m having trouble following your argument as to how the SC has decided to deprive citizens of the right to select their own representatives. Can you clarify for me the “spurious reasoning” and identify which blurb on somebody’s website you mean?

As I understand CDS governmental structure, the legislature makes the laws and the SC interprets them. I haven’t seen or heard any constitutional language that addresses the issue of what to do in a case where there are not enough people standing for election. If there is no current provision within our laws, then certainly this is something that now needs to be addressed by the next legislative assembly, but is not cause for calling for impeachment of the SC.

I am also not clear how you will be able to stand for any vacant RA seat, as the deadline for declaring is past and again, as far as I can see, the law does not provide for standing after the deadline in those cases where too few people stood at deadline.

I agree that the effective representation of CDS citizens is troubling, as the lack of people willing to run has essentially left us without the ability to have an election and therefore, in principle, without a democratically elected government. However, as we operating under a rule of law, I do not see how we can institute a change (as important as voting) without legislating it. That is, unless, we can locate constitutional language that might be interpreted as allowing us to have write-in votes, or standing after the deadline or whatever…

Fern
__________

The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy".
Montesquieu

[Patroklus Murakami]

Rose, Fern

If I thought that holding an election where there are fewer candidates than seats could have *no* effect on the outcome then I would not have raised this issue. My point throughout has been that, should an election be held, our citizens would be able to choose which of the six candidates they want to represent them on the RA. They may choose all six; they may not. But the only way we can find out is if we let them choose.

Here is the reasoning I set out for the Scientific Council. I have highlighted in bold the point about why an election matters:

Delia

This note summarises why I think we need to hold an election for the RA even though there are fewer candidates than seats. It summarises the reasons I have put forward on the forums and in my IMs to you.

I was surprised to see a notice saying that we would not hold elections for the RA this time. I assumed that your reasoning must have been that, if there are fewer candidates than seats they would all be elected and therefore there was no need to hold an election. This is not correct though. The voters still have a choice even when there are fewer candidates than seats and, since the only way to find out what their preferences are is to hold an election, I think we must hold one as usual.

Even with fewer candidates than seats, candidates would need to win votes from the electorate in order to get elected. This could be through getting enough first preferences to get elected or through transfers after other candidates win enough votes to get elected. But, if too few people vote for a candidate or too few transfer their vote to them, they would not get elected under our system. This would be the way, for example, for the electorate to vote 'no' if they thought that Pip or Gwyn were too long in the tooth and should not be re-elected once more. (I don't think that will happen, it's just an example to show that choice can still be exercised). If too few people voted for Pip or Gwyn or transferred their vote to them they would fail to get elected.

Since the electorate has a real choice here, and election of all six candidates cannot be guaranteed, I think we must hold an election for the RA as we normally do. If we do not do this we are depriving voters of their right to choose their representatives. I don't think anyone in the CDS has the right to do this, especially when the constitution is clear that "Representative seats are chosen by popular election".

I have not responded to the posts about 'write-in' candidates. We don't make up new rules in the middle of an election. Those ideas should be debated at another time. But, if we cannot have 'write-in' candidates I don't think we can have 'acclamation' either since neither of these concepts is currently in our Constitution.

Happy to discuss if you feel it's necessary but I would hope that you agree we need to run the RA election as normal. Since the polls open in a week's time I think it is urgent to get a clear decision out there and to let candidates know that they need to get campaigning.

Regards,
Patroklus

The response from the SC completely failed to address the key point I had made. Here is the response I got:

AmHi Pat,

Following investigation and discussion, here is the SC's response to your questions and concerns.

As much as we all believe in the voting process, there will be no voting for RA for this next term. Section 2 of Article I specifies use of STV for elections for RA. Under STV when there are only as many candidates as there are seats, all candidates are deemed elected. We currently have fewer candidates who declared than seats to fill. All candidates are deemed elected.

=======================

http://portal.slcds.info/index.php?id=135
Article I - The Representative Branch
Section 2 - The Representative Assembly Body
In each RA election, voters shall select from among the candidates using Single Transferable Voting (a ranked voting method).

AND
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voti ... vrules.htm
4. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE COUNT

4.1 The count is divided into a number of stages. At the first stage the voting papers are counted to determine the total vote. They are then sorted according to their first preferences, and any papers which are invalid are removed. The total number of valid votes is then found and the quota calculated. Any candidates who have at least a quota of first preference votes are deemed elected at this stage.
4.2 Each subsequent stage of the count is concerned either with the transfer of surplus votes of a candidate whose vote exceeds the quota, or with the exclusion of one or more candidates with the fewest votes.
4.3 This procedure continues until either sufficient candidates have reached the quota to fill all the seats, or there is the same number of candidates left as unfilled seats.

5.5 Completion of the count
5.5.1 If a proposed exclusion of one or more candidates would leave only the same number of continuing candidates as there are places remaining unfilled, all such continuing candidates shall be deemed to be elected.
======================

The RA could take up this matter and amend the Constitution to account for this kind of occurance when the number of candidates is equal to or less than the number of seats to fill. Whatever would be done though would not apply to filling the seats for this next term. The SC is not a legislative body and cannot make these changes.

Additionally, we would hope that you and all other concerned citizens encourage fellow citizens to run for office in subsequent elections so that the CDS would in the future have more candidates running than seats to fill.

I will post this to the Forum as well.

Even though we will not have voting for the RA, I did encourage Candidates to write and post position papers to inform the citizenry about their ideas. Fern and Pip have done this and Anna put out a sign with their pictures and that information at each sim hub. I will again encourage them to do this and also to reach out to the citizenry about their ideas for the RA via the Forum and the CDS group.

Sincerely,
Delia

So, rather than deal with the reasons I put forward for holding an election, the SC has chosen to ignore them and rely on some blurb from the Electoral Reform Society website as if that settles everything!

If you believe (as I do) that we should not institute a change without legislating it, then how can we allow the RA to be chosen without an election when our Constitution explicity states that one is needed? These rules are not 'implied', they are clearly stated. It is those who want to disregard the clear written rules in our Constitution and substitute 'common sense' or someone else's rules who are being inventive here.

We have held an election for each of the previous RA elections. Why not these ones too? So far, no one has demonstrated that my interpretation of the electoral law is wrong and that holding an election would not make a difference to the result. If no one can answer this point, we really need to hold an election. Or we are not a democracy.

[FernLeissa]

Hi Pat,

As I understand your position, you are calling for an election because you believe that there is the possibility of a different election outcome depending on how many people vote and who they choose or don’t choose. On the other hand the SC is saying that because of our use of STV for elections, the outcome is already 100% predictable and therefore we have in fact, a defacto “election”.

At this point, it does seem to me that Claude’s statement that there would be no difference in results is sound, but I am not very familiar with the STV system, so let me ask for more explanation of your point by submitting an example.

Let’s say we have an election and I get zero votes. I agree that is a clear indication that my fellow citizens do not wish to see me represent them in the legislative assembly. But, by the rules of STV counting as I read them, I would not be eliminated in the exclusion process because the number of seats exceeds the number of candidates. I read, “4.2 Each subsequent stage of the count is concerned either with the transfer of surplus votes of a candidate whose vote exceeds the quota, or with the exclusion of one or more candidates with the fewest votes,” as a process intended to transfer votes and eliminate those candidates with the fewest votes UP TO THE POINT where candidates = seats. I’m not clear under what circumstances I would not be “elected” even if I should not be, based on the inferred wishes of my neighbours. (I’m also a little unclear on what you mean by, “If too few people… transferred their vote to them…” The voters don’t do the transferring, right?)

If you can show me the math that would make the election even 1 % unpredictable, than I agree that we need to run the election.

Fern

[Trebor Warcliffe]

I joined the CDS on June 16th of this year, approximately three weeks after I discovered and started exploring Second Life. In RL I’ve always had a love for the mountains and in 2006 while on vacation I fell in love with Yellowstone National Park. I stumbled upon the CDS while doing searches for SIMS that had something to do with mountains. I plugged the word “Alpine” into the SL search engine and discovered Alpine Meadows. I spend days exploring the CDS/AA SIMS, taking in the landscape, the architecture. During this exploring process I’m sad to say I didn’t come across many people but I am very happy to say that the citizens I did meet in the beginning were very welcoming.

I than explored the web portal and more importantly the forums. Going on my memory alone I remember the controversy of the Chancellor election between Sonja and Cindy being a hot topic and I also remember the controversy about the one year anniversary of the merger and whether the merger would remain intact or be dissolved. I’ve been attending school since January 2008 and at the time I discovered the CDS my workload for school was on the easier side. I had time on my hands to enjoy my new found entertainment. I took this time to develop my CDS Owners/Citizens List and the possible development of a more accurate representation of the accounting process in the CDS.

My schooling consists of 11 week quarters and unfortunately the fall quarter, the current one, and the summer quarter, my previous one, has been quite a bit more involved than previous quarters. Where in the past I’d spend an average of 15 to 20 hours a week on school work I find myself presently spending upwards of 35 hours plus a week. Keep in mind that’s on top of a 40+ hour work week plus other obligations outside of work and school.
Alas I’m rambling, a sometime bad habit I have I confess. To Gwyneth, Fern, Pip, and Cindy I have to say the only reason I didn’t throw my hat into the ring for a seat on the Representative Assembly is that currently I do not feel I’d be able to give it the time and attention the position deserved due to my current RL schoolwork load. When I first discovered CDS I was able to make time to attend some of the RA meetings and even some of the committee meetings. Lately all I seem able to do is keep up on the postings in the forums and ponder what to do with my parcel in Alpine Meadows.

Cindy I do not feel that allowing write-in candidates is an option that should be explored, just my opinion. The reason for this is the number of eligible participants qualified to run for the RA is what, less than 200? All any of those citizens have to do is throw their hat into the ring. Why would we want to have write-in candidates for a citizen who didn’t want to run for election in the first place?

Pat I do appreciate your concern for all the citizens being able to vote for their RA representatives but under the current situation I have to disagree with you. As Delia Lake points out “Section 2 of Article I specifies use of the STV for elections for RA. Under STV when there are only as many candidates as there are seats, all candidates are deemed elected.” The way the STV is set up, at least the way I interpret it, is that if you don’t have enough candidates to meet the minimum amount required than yes these representatives are automatically elected by default so to speak. In real-life if a candidate runs for an elected office unopposed than they win by default. That’s pretty much what’s happening in the CDS this election, whether any of us like it or not.

As a citizen of the CDS I look forward to casting my votes in my first election. I hope I will have time this term to contribute to the CDS and I look forward when I can throw my hat into the ring and stand for an elected position.

Trebor Warcliffe

[Patroklus Murakami]

I plan to send the SC the following notice:

I see that you have announced that there will be no RA elections this term and that all candidates are deemed elected. You have referred to the Electoral Reform Society's rules to justify this decision. Let me point out that this document does not form part of our founding documents or code of laws and that you are operating beyond your remit by acting in a legislative fashion to adopt this.

But let's accept for the moment that you are using it. It still requires you to hold an election. The section you have quoted presupposes nominations, voting and a count. It lays out what should happen when you reach the point where the number of candidates is less than or equal to the number of seats remaining. You have taken a leap from the procedure outlined in the ERS STV booklet to 'they all get elected anyway so we don't need an election' which is unsupported by the evidence you have presented.

I'm suggesting a compromise here. Run the election according to the rules you have quoted but run the election!

Why is it still important to do this if the result is the same? Well, the result is not the same. If we do not hold an election we will not know who does/does not have electoral support. It is quite possible that some candidates may get no, or very little, support from the electorate. If I were in that position I would consider resigning so that the electorate could choose someone they truly support. We will have to hold a by-election for the vacant seat in any case so this decision would be honourable and not disruptive.

By refusing to allow us to cast our votes for our representatives you deny us voters the opportunity to demonstrate who we do/do not support. You also deprive the candidates of information on their level of support within the electorate and you deny them the opportunity to do the honourable thing if they have no real support.

There are still good reasons to hold an election and only bad ones not to. It is not too late to change your minds and I would urge you to do so.

[Delia Lake]

I am moved to respond to Pat's posts on this thread. Let me start with the CDS Constitution itself that detail what the RA is, how it is elected, and what the SC is and does. At various points in copied texts below I will change the font color of particular passages. The colored emphasis is mine and not contained in any of the original texts.

http://portal.slcds.info/index.php?id=135

Article I - The Representative Branch
Section 1 - The Representative Assembly

The Representative Assembly (RA) is a body of democratically elected legislators which represent the views of CDS citizens. Its governmental role is to pass laws and its service role is to promote the city and perform long-term planning.
Section 2 - The Representative Assembly Body

Representative seats are chosen by popular election, from among those candidates who qualify under the rules set forth here. Any citizen who is eligible to vote, at the time of nomination, may become a candidate by declaring themselves by a message to the Dean of the Scientific Council, within the time set by the Scientific Council for such nominations.
The number of representative seats in the RA is equal to the odd whole number nearest to 10% of the population, rounded down, with a minimum of five seats and a maximum of forty seats.
In each RA election, voters shall select from among the candidates using Single Transferable Voting (a ranked voting method).
Vacancies in RA positions will be filled by by-election administered on a schedule set by the Scientific Council consistent with other applicable CDS law.
The Representative Assembly shall serve for a term of six months. New RAs shall take office on 1 December* and 1 June.* Elections shall be held over a 168 hour period beginning at noon SLT on the Saturday before the 16th of the month prior to the new RAs taking office. In the event of a server outage which prevents citizens from casting ballots and which lasts more than 12 hours, the Dean of the SC has the authority to adjust or extend the election schedule.
* Dates recently changed by RA, and these take effect after the next general election. The first RA elections where candidates are not required to be a member of any faction will be for the term starting June 1, 2010.

Section 7 - Powers of the RA
In regards to the Philosophic branch:
The RA provides a vote of confidence on candidates to the Philosophic branch. This vote is in regards to their perceived likelihood to uphold the constitution.
The RA can amend the constitution with a 2/3 vote.
The RA can seek impeachment of members of the Philosophic branch by initiating an impeachment hearing.

Article III - The Philosophic Branch
Section 1 - The Scientific Council
The Scientific Council (SC) is a self-selected meritocracy. Its governmental role is to interpret and enforce the constitution. Its service roll (ed. note: sic) is to resolve citizen disputes and moderate user forums and events.

Regarding Article I, Section 2 The Representative Body. The Constitution says

Representative seats are chosen by popular election, from among those candidates who qualify under the rules set forth here.

It does not say Representative seats are chosen by popular election. Instead of a period at the end of that first phrase there is phrase that qualifies and sets conditions:

from among those candidates who qualify under the rules set forth here.

Then there are rules specified.
[1]

Any citizen who is eligible to vote, at the time of nomination, may become a candidate by declaring themselves by a message to the Dean of the Scientific Council, within the time set by the Scientific Council for such nominations.

[2]

The number of representative seats in the RA is equal to the odd whole number nearest to 10% of the population, rounded down, with a minimum of five seats and a maximum of forty seats.

[3]

In each RA election, voters shall select from among the candidates using Single Transferable Voting (a ranked voting method).

[4]

Vacancies in RA positions will be filled by by-election administered on a schedule set by the Scientific Council consistent with other applicable CDS law.

[5]

The Representative Assembly shall serve for a term of six months.

The third rule in this listing specifies using Single Transferable Voting (STV). It does not say use STV when it gives you the results you like. It does not say use STV only under these certain conditions then use something else under other conditions. It says very specifically and clearly

using Single Transferable Voting

; no other options given.

In support of this rule, the 12th RA passed NL 12-1 STV Quota Bill. http://portal.slcds.info/index.php?id=397 The CDS Constitution specifies that the electoral system will use the Single Transferable Vote method to allocate seats to the Representative Assembly following an election...

So how did this become the constitutionally specified way that RA is elected in the CDS? Let me provide some information and links going back to 2009 and the 11th RA and move forward from there.
1. http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 029#p14029 Amendment to make factions optional. (in case folks would like to see some of the discussion about the then proposed constitutional amendment changing the way RA will be elected, Dec 5,2010 Jamie’s post with Gwyn’s additions).

2. http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2632 Pat’s post on Why Do We Have Factions? At the bottom of your first post on this thread, Pat, you say this:
There are some improvements we could make though:
1. The RA is clearly too big, 13 people can't work effectively as a legislature in SL even with the kind of useful tools which Cindy brought to help RA sessions run smoothly. We should limit the size to 7 reps. That would be perfectly adequate for representing 130 people (or even more).
2. The faction size rule is too high a bar for participation. It's ridiculous that a group should have to get 10% of the citizens to join to stand for election (incidentally, do any of our parties currently qualify? Last time I checked they all had less than 12 members. Uh, oh!) We should make it 5% or a minimum of 3 people like it used to be.
3. Electoral reform. I was glad to see Single Transferable Vote mentioned as an alternative to our current system. Anything which guarantees proportional representation and does not force people to vote for (rank) factions they don't agree with would be an improvement on our current system.
3. We should hold regular 'Town Hall' meetings rather like the regular meetings held in Al Andalus before the merger. This could be in alternate weeks with the RA. This would be a good way to discuss issues and build consensus before formal voting in the RA.

3.http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2638 transcript of RA meeting Dec 6, 2009—with Pat in attendance

4.http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2651 RA meeting Jan 3,2010
Pip Torok: i believe the the apathy is just that ... apathey and has no connection to the existence of factions ... those who care have always known that we are faction-based and not "mp" based
Pip Torok: done
Cindy Ecksol: thanks.
Question Queue V 1.1: Next in queue: Patroklus Murakami
Cindy Ecksol: Pat, you have a comment?
Micael Khandr: I care . .
Micael Khandr:
Patroklus Murakami: my comment is similar to pip's. i think that it indicates the lack of interest in being on the RA rather than a faction problem per se
5.http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2654
6. http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2658

Now let's move on to matter of Single Transferable Vote. The majority of commentary on STV process addresses how voting is tallied in order to fairly fill available seats when there are more candidates than seats to fill. It has been widely used in rl because it is set up to have as few votes as possible wasted. It is not set up to be a method of ranking preference for candidates when there are fewer candidates than seats. STV methodology does not have provisions for eliminating candidates when there are fewer candidates than available seats but only UNTIL all available seats are filled.

Doing a Google Search of single transferable vote + counting turns up slightly more than 21,000 references. In my note to you, Pat, regarding elections I cited only one. I cited that one because it gives a fairly clear description of what happens using STV when there are no more candidates in excess of seats to be filled. I include that excerpt plus a little more here with the link:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voti ... vrules.htm
5.4.9 Considering each continuing candidate in turn in descending order of their votes, deem elected any candidate whose vote now equals or exceeds
(a)the quota, or
(b)the total active vote, divided by one more than the number of places not yet filled,
up to the number of places remaining to be filled, subject to paragraph 5.6.2.
5.5 Completion of the count
5.5.1 If a proposed exclusion of one or more candidates would leave only the same number of continuing candidates as there are places remaining unfilled, all such continuing candidates shall be deemed to be elected.
5.5.2 If, at any point in the count, the number of candidates deemed to be elected is equal to the number of places to be filled, no further transfers of papers are made, and the remaining continuing candidate(s) are formally excluded.
5.5.3 The count is now completed.
5.5.4 Declare elected all those candidates previously deemed to be elected.

For those who wish to check this out, please do your own Google Search. Here are some more links from one of my searches.

http://www.openstv.org/votingmethods/basicstv
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... rable-vote
single transferable vote (STV), also called Hare system, multimember district proportional representation method of election in which a voter ranks candidates in order of preference. As candidates pass a specified electoral quota, they are elected and their surplus votes apportioned to the remaining candidates, until all the open seats are filled. In this way the results reflect fairly accurately the preferences of the electors and, therefore, their support for both individuals and parties. Although the system provides representation to minor parties, results in single transferable (STV) elections generally have shown that minor centrist parties benefit from the system and minor radical parties ... (100 of 402 words)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
Finding the winners
An STV election proceeds according to the following steps:
1. Any candidate who has reached or exceeded the quota is declared elected.
2. If a candidate has more votes than the quota, that candidate's surplus votes are transferred to other candidates. Votes that would have gone to the winner instead go to the next preference listed on their ballot.
3. If no one new meets the quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and that candidate's votes are transferred.
4. This process repeats until either a winner is found for every seat or there are as many seats as remaining candidates.
http://www.answers.com/topic/single-transferable-vote
4. This process repeats until either a winner is found for every seat or there are as many seats as remaining candidates.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Single_transferable_vote#4.
4. This process repeats until either a winner is found for every seat or there are as many seats as remaining candidates.

http://www.bigpulse.com/preferentialvoting
BigPulse has extensive experience with Single Transferable Voting (STV) and instant-runoff voting methods.
The process then repeats with another count to find the next winner(s) or loser until the required number of vacancies is filled.
http://www.gnb.ca/0100/Doc/fact8single-e.pdf
Commission on Legislative Democracy
This process continues until all seats in the multi-member riding are filled.
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resou ... unting.pdf
Citizens Assembly on Electoral Vote Reform
STV in British Columbia
Counting continues until all seats are filled

The common concept in all of them is that counting continues until all seats are filled. The situation that the CDS finds itself in today is that with fewer candidates than seats to be filled, there is no STV process for continuing, there is not even any provision for counting as there are no more seats that can possibly be filled by the candidates who declared. Therefore Claude's post earlier on this thread,

One of the end states for the vote counting process is that # of remaining candidates <= # of remaining seats. We're there already.

After the CDS Constitution section on election of RA was amended, was anything about that section raised again in legislative discussion? Yes, it was, and was in fact started by you, Pat.
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2731 The discussion addressed size of the RA though, and not the process for actually electing.
Setting a size for the RA
by Patroklus Murakami » Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:17 am
In the current Representative Assembly we have 11 representatives. Previously there have been 12, 5, 7, 9 .... The number depends on how many citizens are registered when the polls open. Personally, I think this is insane And I'd like to propose that we fix the size of the RA at a suitable number. I think it should be 7…

Were there other good opportunities to raise raise issues concerning STV? Yes, of course there were. One was the testing process. Testing of the new CDS voting system was conducted on May 11, 2010. Some of the CDS citizens who were testers also participated in a conversation via email about how their tests went and what they found. Those people were myself, Jon Seattle, Claude Desmoulins, Sudane Erato, Tor Karlsvalt and Patroklus Murakami. I still have that set of emails—saved in my CDS/SC file. They include one, Pat, where you say “Just testing it now, it looks good. Couple of things I notice.” You, Pat, continue and list three items, none of which are about STV handling of the situation where there are fewer candidates than seats to fill.

This is not to put the entire burden of anticipating handling of RA elections if there were fewer candidates than seats to fill on you, Pat, as any of us could have raised this issue anytime within the past year and none of us did. It is only fair though to point out that you among us are the only person who participated in the original discussions about making this change to STV, publicly stated that you were glad to see STV mentioned, raised other issues about this very Constitutional Section in Legislative Discussion when you were a member of the RA, participated in the testing of the electoral system using STV, and then heaped all the blame for this now perceived problem on the members of the SC whose job is to enforce the Constitution rather than originate legislation. Perhaps, just perhaps Pat, if you feel the need to assign blame in this matter you might at least begin by querying that person you see when you look in the mirror.

Could we have avoided the situation in which we now find ourselves. Of course we could have. Gwyn put forth her candidacy because she saw on October 29th that

the number of currently willing candidates is very small It's true that we'll have a small RA this term, but, nevertheless... we need at least a few people willing to serve!

Gwyn’s concern was echoed by Fern and Pip who also declared their candidacies. By the end of the day on October 30 though only 6 of our CDS citizens had put forward their names as candidates.

The SC has not

decided to deprive citizens the right to select their own representatives in this election using spurious reasons

as you claim, Pat. Rather, the SC after serious discussion and investigation of the matter at hand is carrying out its constitutionally specified duty of enforcing the provisions set out quite specifically in our CDS Constitution. The 6 good and generous citizens of the CDS who declared themselves as Candidates for the 7 available RA seats will all be deemed elected as that is how the STV system which currently is the only option specified in our Constitution handles this situation. This is absolutely not a matter of any personal preference for not voting held by any member of the SC. I believe in voting as do my SC colleagues. Voting is one of the privileges I have living in a rl democratic nation and one that I cherish. Our CDS citizenry do have an opportunity to vote this election cycle. For the first time in our history we have the direct election of Chancellor. Each of the 2 candidates has put out position papers. My plea is that each person reading this post also would read each of those papers and make sure to vote.

Personally, I hope fervently that the CDS does not face this particular electoral situation ever again. I request that this new RA, the 14th of the CDS, undertake a modification of Article I, Section 2 so that if ever in the future there are fewer candidates than seats the citizenry will still have a process for registering their votes.

Perhaps even more important, though, is the question Cindy raised in this thread,

"Why didn't more citizens stand for election?" The real test of a democracy is a willingness to participate...

So end this post with my own version of Cindy's question. How can we do better? How might we all do better at inviting, encouraging and supporting participation in the the various activities of democracy in the CDS?

Delia

[Patroklus Murakami]

Delia

Thanks for posting a fuller explanation of how you made your decision. This is helpful. But you have not read these sources carefully enough which is why you have reached the wrong conclusion. All of the sources you quote presuppose that you hold an election. This is the point I made in my last post and notecard to the SC and you have not taken it into account.

Here is the crucial quote from the Electoral Reform Society guidelines from your post above:

5.5 Completion of the count
5.5.1 If a proposed exclusion of one or more candidates would leave only the same number of continuing candidates as there are places remaining unfilled, all such continuing candidates shall be deemed to be elected.
5.5.2 If, at any point in the count, the number of candidates deemed to be elected is equal to the number of places to be filled, no further transfers of papers are made, and the remaining continuing candidate(s) are formally excluded.
5.5.3 The count is now completed.
5.5.4 Declare elected all those candidates previously deemed to be elected.

In order to get to this point described you need to first hold the election, then count the votes and declare those who have reached the quota elected. Then, and only then, do you consider whether there are more seats than candidates remaining and declare those candidates elected. You have decided to skip this step and this decision oversteps the bounds of your competence. You do not get to 'make it up as you go along'. We have a set of rules which require an election so hold one! Nowhere in the literature you have quoted does it say "If you have more seats than candidates, they all get elected anyway so don't bother with a vote". Yet that is what you have chosen to do. Your decision is not supported by the evidence you quote. It is a huge leap and it is not acceptable in a democracy to take that step. If you want to justify this decision then please show me where it says in any of the evidence you quote "don't bother holding an election, don't bother counting votes".

As I have already pointed out, holding the election will provide useful evidence for the candidates about their actual level of support in the electorate. If people get elected with only one or two votes (assuming they vote for themselves!) they might decide to resign and either stand again or allow someone else with more support to go for the vacancy in the by-election. We have to hold a by-election in any case so this would not be a problem. This is another key point which you have not addressed in your post.

Why won't you allow citizens to express their preferences? Why won't you allow the candidates to find out whether they have popular support or not?

[Tor Karlsvalt]

But Pat,

Even with that then the election would be over as soon as he first person cast a vote and the software ran.