Southeastern Election Initiative

[Jake]

Initiative 41 - Revision to the Southeastern Elections
Regulations

Section 5, Clause (a) of the Southeastern Election Regulations shall be modified to read:

In non-runoff gubernatorial elections, instant runoff voting shall be used with voters listing their first preference and an subsequent preferences in order on the ballot. Write-in votes are permitted. If two or more candidates end with the same number of votes, the candidate with the most first preference votes shall be declared elected. If during the tie break round a candidate has less first preference votes than his competitors, that candidate will be eliminated and his votes shall given to the next preference.  If no candidate still has more first preference votes, a runoff will be held using election rules in Section 5, clause (b).


Edited

[Peter]

Interestingly Southeast election law is almost entirely defined by an Executive Order that Ernest handed down during his tenure. It wouldn't be the worst idea to move a lot of it to statutory definition as basically any Governor can undo an executive order when they want to.

[Jake]

Exactly, I was very suprised when I checked the SE site and saw election regs under the executive orders section.

[Sam Spade]

I assume this means that we would be using preferential voting of some sort. 

However, my assumption on first reading this is that if three or more candidates tie with first preference votes, that there would be a runoff with all those candidates.  I would hope that we could at least narrow this down to two maximum, if possible.

[Jake]

If, after the first preferences are counted, after a tie, none of the three hypothetical candidates have a plurality of those 1st preferences, we go to a runoff.

[Sam Spade]

If, after the first preferences are counted, after a tie, none of the three hypothetical candidates have a plurality of those 1st preferences, we go to a runoff.

What if we have three candidates and one is eliminated by having less first preferences than the other two, who are tied.  Do the preferences go to the second preference candidate by the candidate eliminated?

That's what seems unclear in this legislation, I'm just making sure that's the idea.

[Jake]

Hmm, good question. Depends on what we want to do with that. 

[Sam Spade]

Hmm, good question. Depends on what we want to do with that. 

Well, because if nothing happens, then it really wouldn't be preferential voting.  It would be one person, one vote voting.

[Jake]

Edited in regards to Sam Spade's concerns

[John Dibble]

I would prefer to maintain the approval voting system.

[WiseGuy]

I would prefer to maintain the approval voting system.

Me too.

[Sam Spade]

Initiative 41 - Revision to the Southeastern Elections
Regulations

Section 5, Clause (a) of the Southeastern Election Regulations shall be modified to read:

In non-runoff gubernatorial elections, instant runoff voting shall be used with voters listing their first preference and an subsequent preferences in order on the ballot. Write-in votes are permitted. If two or more candidates end with the same number of votes, the candidate with the most first preference votes shall be declared elected. If during the tie break round a candidate has less first preference votes than his competitors, that candidate will be eliminated and his votes shall given to the next preference.  If no candidate still has more first preference votes, a runoff will be held using election rules in Section 5, clause (b).


Edited

Let me propose at least a minor revision to the language, Jake.

Initiative 41 - Revision to the Southeastern Elections
Regulations

In non-runoff gubernatorial elections, instant runoff voting shall be used with voters listing their first preference and an subsequent preferences in numerical order on the ballot.  Write-in votes are permitted. 

If during any tie-break round, one candidate has less first preference votes than his competitors, that candidate will be eliminated and his votes shall given to the next preference listed on said ballot.  If at any time during this tie-break round, all candidates have an equal number of first preference votes, second preference votes, et al, a runoff will be held using election rules in Section 5, clause (b).

This is the version of preferential voting that you wish to propose, I assume.  Sort of like the old federal version method.  Any method that comes down to strictly first preference votes at the end (regardless of how many candidates have been eliminated is still one person, one vote.

There is still a flaw in this version I'm pointing too above that we had to fix before (the ultimate tie between two eliminated candidates before the final), but it is up to what to propose on that one.

Assuming everything gets cleared up and the initiative gets better written, I will sign it, though I will likely vote against it.

[Brandon H]

I think preferential or Condorcet voting would be better than instant run-off voting, though it is a little harder to figure out.

http://www.electionmethods.org/ for more info.