Candidates, Declare!

[Trebor Warcliffe]

When I had posted my earlier post on November 15 I had just left my Second Life dashboard where under the headings My Group it shows C.D.S. as one of my groups and it had 208 as the number of members. This is where in my mind I came up with the 150+ citizens’ statement I made. In my defense I did admit that I didn’t double-check myself on that point (insert laugh here) .
Sometimes second chances are a good thing. Maybe when the declarations for candidacy were first made some citizens didn’t realize that there weren’t that many of their fellow citizens interested in running. Maybe some people took the past week to rearrange their work and school schedule to allow more time to participate in this wonderful world we call the C.D.S. I guess what I’m asking is when does someone have to declare their candidacy for the by-election for this term?

[Patroklus Murakami]

Sorry I couldn't get to posting last week. RL work and travel consumed my waking hours.

Pat, from my perspective and my understanding of STV and Droop Quota, I have answered your questions. I am not trying to be difficult, I just don't know what else to say. Although it may not be said in your exact words, "don't bother holding an election, don't bother counting votes," when there are fewer candidates than seats, there is no candidate to be eliminated by the specified process the effect is the same. It's not "don't bother," it's "can't be done" given the number of candidates we had, the number of seats to fill, the Constitutional requirement for STV (Article I, Section 2) and Code of Laws specifying Droop Quota (NL 12-1). If any one of those conditions were not present, there might have been a way to count votes but given the four together you get an election with no vote counting. Rather than my reiterating more of what I've already posted in this thread, what is your understanding of using STV and the Droop Quota formula where there are fewer candidates than seats to fill? How do you see this could be done?

Delia

I think I've been pretty clear in the several notecards I have written for you and my forum postings. I have said why I think you were wrong not to hold a vote for the RA and what you should have done. If you haven't understood what I have said I can't see how any further attempt at explanation is going to do the trick.

The point now is to make sure we never get into a situation where an election is not held. There are several things we can do to ensure this travesty is not repeated. Here are a few ideas which I will expand on later:

• Reduce the size of the RA because setting it at 10% of the population size is far too high of a body with these responsibilities.
  Allow 'write-in' candidates so that more people can come forward after the official deadline for candidacy closes.
  Include one or more 'Re-Open Nominations' (RON) candidates on every ballot. If RON is elected, the seat remains vacant until a candidate with support in the electorate is elected in a by-election.

There are some other reforms needed. The current self-selected Scientific Council with life appointments needs to be abolished and replaced with a body with more checks and balances and fixed terms. We also need to give power back to citizens with more use of referenda - for all constitutional amendments and ratification of laws.

[Delia Lake]

Pat, I've gone back and reread your posts and notecards. You wanted to vote. I wanted to vote too. If we had tried to vote for Representatives given 6 candidates and 7 seats to fill, using STV and Droop Quota how would we have tallied those votes?

[Patroklus Murakami]

Pat, I've gone back and reread your posts and notecards. You wanted to vote. I wanted to vote too. If we had tried to vote for Representatives given 6 candidates and 7 seats to fill, using STV and Droop Quota how would we have tallied those votes?

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3141&start=30#p16662

[Delia Lake]

Pat, I had re-read your post cited above. My question is one of process. How would we have counted votes for Representatives? Exactly what would have been done to actually make a count because votes have to be counted via methods.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Pat, I had re-read your post cited above. My question is one of process. How would we have counted votes for Representatives? Exactly what would have been done to actually make a count because votes have to be counted via methods.

Delia

I really don't know how to make this any clearer for you. Go read the Electoral Reform Society's manual (the one you are quoting as your guide in these matters).

• 1. Open nominations
  2. Hold the vote
  3. Count the votes
  4. Declare the successful candidates elected

According to the rules you cite and the rules you want to implement, you hold the vote. You didn't. This is a fundamental error which has not support in the literature you have quoted. You "didn't bother" because the result was a foregone conclusion. You think this is okay. I don't.

Let's imagine the votes (first preferences) were as follows:

Cindy - 5 | Fern - 5 | Gwyn - 6 | Lilith - 7 | Mikelo - 8 | Pip - 9

That's 40 voters and 7 seats. So the Droop Quota is 6.

Under the rules you have cited, all candidates would be deemed elected as there are more candidates than seats available.

You raced ahead to the conclusion without bothering to go through the intermediate steps. As a result we do not know which of the six candidates voters actually wanted to become RA members and which didn't. You might see that as an advantage. I don't.

[Ranma Tardis]

Gee Pat, they can not get enough people to run now. You know you are beating a dead horse, don't you? Why don't you run for the RA?

[Delia Lake]

I have read the Electoral Society's Manual with STV rules and cited excerpts from it in earlier posts on this thread. http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voti ... vrules.htm

Throughout these instructions for STV, and all the others I've read as well, there are conditional statements that stop the process when there are no more candidates to eliminate in order to fill the available seats. In this Manual, 4. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE COUNT states in 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." And 5. DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE COUNT, 5.1 First Stage says in 5.17 "Considering each candidate in turn in descending order of their votes, deem elected any candidate whose vote equals or exceeds (a) the quota, or (b) (on very rare occasions, where this is less than the quota), the total active vote, divided by one more than the number of places not yet filled, up to the number of places to be filled, subject to paragraph 5.6.2." The rules for counting say "until" and "up to." And in 5.5 Completion of the Count, 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." We started out in this RA election with fewer candidates than seats available. The STV system assumes as a condition of counting and reassignment of excess votes that it is possible to fill all the seats with remaining candidates. We did not meet that criterion. This is a very different than not bothering; it is instead following the current CDS Constitutionally specified process for electing the RA. We had an election. We had an election for Chancellor where people voted for their choice of 1 person between the 2 candidates running for that office. We had an election for RA where no votes were counted because the STV rules say count "until" and "up to" and the CDS was below threshold of remaining candidates = seats available at the moment the period for declaration of candidacy concluded. More than 6 people could have declared candidacy to stand for election to 7 designated RA seats but did not do so this time.

[Delia Lake]

Responding to Trebor's question about the by-election, the SC will announce the 14th RA by-election with scheduled dates on December 1, after the Representatives already elected to the 14th RA take office. Until then that date, the 13th RA is still in office.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Delia

You're wriggling, trying to find an excuse through detailed examination of procedural rules for failing to hold the election as you should have. Now that I've answered yet more of your questions - Droop Quota and how to hold the count - you try to find another set of justifications by twisting the words of the manual you cite and ignoring that they all presuppose that you hold a vote. This is the point that you consistently dodge.

You're focussing on the knots in the bark trying to find a pattern which suits you, and failing to see the trees.

Did you realise what you just wrote?

• "General description of the count"
  "Detailed instructions for the count"
  "Completion of the count" (my emphasis)

Everything you have described presupposes there is a set of votes to count. And nowhere do you have justification for failing to hold one. It was a Scientific Council decision, an addition to our rules wholly invented by you. Your manual does not tell you "don't bother with a vote", our constitution and laws don't say "don't bother with a vote". That was your invention, no one else's.

What kind of contortions do you have to perform to write a sentence like this: "We had an election for RA where no votes were counted because the STV rules say count "until" and "up to" and the CDS was below threshold of remaining candidates = seats available at the moment the period for declaration of candidacy concluded"? Are you fucking serious? You think we *had* an election for the RA this term? Really? Where were the ballot papers? Where was the count held? How many votes did they get? You can't answer any of these questions because you chose not to hold an election.

But, as Ranma points out, this horse is well and truly dead and I've said all that needs to be said on the matter. Delia is desperate to defend her rash decision and is either not listening or incapable of understanding the simple points I've laid out here again and again. I would rather focus on how we reform our electoral system so this travesty can never happen again.

[Cindy Ecksol]

The point now is to make sure we never get into a situation where an election is not held. There are several things we can do to ensure this travesty is not repeated. Here are a few ideas which I will expand on later:

Ah, NOW we're back to constructive ground! As I stated back at the very beginning of this discussion http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... =15#p16625 I think this is the REAL issue.

• Reduce the size of the RA because setting it at 10% of the population size is far too high of a body with these responsibilities.
  Allow 'write-in' candidates so that more people can come forward after the official deadline for candidacy closes.
  Include one or more 'Re-Open Nominations' (RON) candidates on every ballot. If RON is elected, the seat remains vacant until a candidate with support in the electorate is elected in a by-election.

All of these are potentially viable alternatives, but I'd say that only allowing write-in candidates really addresses the participation issue. In particular allowing people to vote "RON" simply says to me that the person who does so is shirking his/her citizenship responsibilities. If you think the candidates on the ballot don't appropriately represent your view, you ought to be running yourself, not casting a vote that asks someone else to do it. Given my feelings about lack of participation, I plan to sponsor a constitutional amendment in the next session to allow write-in candidates.

There are some other reforms needed. The current self-selected Scientific Council with life appointments needs to be abolished and replaced with a body with more checks and balances and fixed terms. We also need to give power back to citizens with more use of referenda - for all constitutional amendments and ratification of laws.

Hey, Pat, I think we've still got Ash's work on the judicial branch around somewhere. Maybe it's time to resurrect it and pass it again. I'll look forward to seeing you put it on the agenda

Cindy

[Cindy Ecksol]

Delia notes:

I have read the Electoral Society's Manual with STV rules and cited excerpts from it in earlier posts on this thread. http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voti ... vrules.htm

4. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE COUNT states in 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."

And also:

The STV system assumes as a condition of counting and reassignment of excess votes that it is possible to fill all the seats with remaining candidates. We did not meet that criterion. This is a very different than not bothering; it is instead following the current CDS Constitutionally specified process for electing the RA. We had an election. We had an election for Chancellor where people voted for their choice of 1 person between the 2 candidates running for that office. We had an election for RA where no votes were counted because the STV rules say count "until" and "up to" and the CDS was below threshold of remaining candidates = seats available at the moment the period for declaration of candidacy concluded. More than 6 people could have declared candidacy to stand for election to 7 designated RA seats but did not do so this time.

Although I'm sympathetic to Pat's concern about "no votes being cast," the concern really is moot. Even if an actual vote was held, by definition, "the count" would have been over even before it started since it only continues until there are the same number of candidates left as seats to fill. The very first step in the counting process is to note whether there are more candidates than seats, so no matter how many votes were cast for any given candidate, we'd never know: the first "round" of the STV process would end at the very first step with a declaration that six seats were filled and one was empty. Whether doing this by computer or by hand, no actual count would ever be done or reported because that's the second step in the process.

As Delia has noted over and over again, there's a presumption of participation in the STV system that there will always be more candidates than seats to be filled. In this election, members of our community have chosen not to fulfill that presumption, so essentially we are agreeing that all of those who declare their candidacy will represent us as we would like to be represented. It's a natural consequence of the system that we have chosen (only two terms ago!) as better than the faction-based system we had before. If the community didn't understand that when they supported it, well, then at least now we DO understand.

And my hope is that in the next election we'll have enough candidates to engender some real debate and give voters a real choice. If that doesn't happen, then we aren't much of a working democracy....

Cindy

[Patroklus Murakami]

The very first step in the counting process is to note whether there are more candidates than seats, so no matter how many votes were cast for any given candidate, we'd never know: the first "round" of the STV process would end at the very first step with a declaration that six seats were filled and one was empty. Whether doing this by computer or by hand, no actual count would ever be done or reported because that's the second step in the process.

So, you are saying that if a vote were held, the raw figures would not be reported? I don't think that is true. Can you cite some authority rather than an assumption?

We have always reported the raw, aggregate figures, regardless of the result. I can see no reason why we would change our procedures in this case.

The concern is not really moot, despite the same people being elected in the end. If you hold a vote you give citizens the opportunity to say who they support. How much better would it be to know that all six people who put themselves forward as candidates all had good support in the electorate than not to know? Throughout the next 14th RA term we will never know if the people 'making laws and carrying out long-term planning' on our behalf really had popular support or not. I think that is a dreadful state of affairs in a democracy.

I will support you in seeking a constitutional amendment to allow 'write-in' candidates. I agree it would solve most of our problems (but I think it is not enough in itself). The rationale for including one or more 'RON' (re-open nominations) candidates is that it would mean we would never, ever be in a situation where no election was held. If we had seven seats and seven candidates, the addition of one RON candidate would mean an election had to be held and voters would get a choice. I disagree that voting for 'RON' is a cop-out. It's a clear statement of lack of satisfaction with the candidates on offer. I think that voters should still have that choice, even if it is inconvenient if expressed.

How do you feel about consulting voters on every constitutional amendment and law that is passed through referenda? With no faction platforms, voters are really participating in a 'beauty contest' and don't know what laws the people they elect will pass. Giving them the option to veto laws and constitutional amendments would restore some power which has been taken from the people.

[Pip Torok]

How do you feel about consulting voters on every constitutional amendment and law that is passed through referenda? With no faction platforms, voters are really participating in a 'beauty contest' and don't know what laws the people they elect will pass. Giving them the option to veto laws and constitutional amendments would restore some power which has been taken from the people.

Hi Pat,

You'll see that I already replied to the thread that you subsequently dedicated to this proposal. But there is one aspect I didn't cover there. Here it is:

Pat, are not the vast majority of elections, inworld and in RL, in fact what you would call a 'beauty contest' ... by force of circumstances?

Think about it.

The last election here in the UK, exceptionally I would argue, was about one single overriding issue -- which one of two set approaches should we adopt to see our way through the present crisis? Voters had a clear idea at the polls, and so, very exceptionally, we had a high turnout. The result was so close that no one of the two major parties won outright ... and as a result, the Liberal Democrats were able to cherry-pick a deal.

My point? This single-issue election was, is, and remains, an exception. The politicians had clear differences of personality and presentation, true, but the high turnout suggests that far graver issues
than TV rhetoric was on our minds. Clinton ("it's the economy, stupid!") in our case was bang on target.

But in a less dramatic situation, voters know only how long their collective choice will remain in office. They do not know, at voting time, just which situations are going to present themselves.

And so, by force of circumstance, they will plump for, usually, one of two things:

-- a candidate whose values and character are ones they can relate to.

-- a candidate whose demeanour and/or general outlook make a greater appeal, albeit unconscious.

In short .... a beauty contest.

"The world will find out that part of your character which
concerns it : that which especially concerns yourself, it will
leave for you to discover."

-- Sir Arthur Helps,
"Thoughts in the Cloister and the Crowd", 1835

Pip Torok