Proportional Representation Bill [Passed]

[Sam Spade]

Proportional Representation Bill

1. Hereinafter Class B Senators shall be elected using the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote (hereinafter ‘PR-STV’).

2. For the purposes of these elections the whole of Atlasia shall be treated as a single electoral constituency.

3. Sections 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act shall also apply to PR-STV elections.

Rules on the counting of votes in PR-STV elections
4. After the close of polls, the ‘total valid poll’ shall be calculated, this being the total number of valid votes cast in the election.

5. The ‘quota’ (i.e. the number of votes required to be deemed elected) shall then be calculated as the whole number (disregarding any attached fraction) resulting from the following equation:
[Total Valid Poll/(Number of seats to be filled + 1)] + 1

6. A first count shall then be made quantifying the total number of first preferences each valid candidate did receive. Any candidates receiving more than the quota shall be deemed elected.

7. Where candidates are tied they shall be ranked by the total number of second preferences received and so on. Where this method proves indecisive and the tie must be broken to materially progress the count, a condorcet count between the tied candidates shall be decisive.

7. (a) Where candidates are tied at any stage in the count, they shall be graded according to their status on the preceding count and so on. Where candidates are tied at each such stage, they shall be graded according to their total number of second preferences.
(b) Where still tied, by a similar analysis of their third preferences and so on.
(c) Where this method proves indecisive and the tie must be broken to materially progress the count, a condorcet count between the tied candidates shall be decisive.

8. The order of priority for distribution of votes shall be as follows:
(a) candidate’s surpluses which may materially affect the progress of the count. (Where more than one such surpluses exist they shall be distributed in the order in which the candidate was deemed elected.);
(b) distribution of the votes of the candidate placed last in the last preceding count.

9. Where there exists such surpluses as that in total they could materially affect the progress of the count, but no individual surplus meets this requirement, the surpluses shall be distributed in order of magnitute even though no individual surplus may materially affect the progress of the count. The distribution of such surpluses shall continue until such time as the totality of the remaining surpluses shall not be capable of materially affecting the progress of the count.

10. A distribution shall be deemed to materially affect the progress of a count, when it is of such quantity as it would be sufficient to bring about the election of another candidate or would be sufficient to raise the lowest placed remaining candidate above the next lowest remaining candidate.

11. Where no candidate receives a number of votes equal or greater to the quota, the lowest polling candidate shall be eliminated and his votes distributed in according with his next preference for a remaining candidate. This process shall continue until such time as a count results in the election of a candidate or candidates.

12. Where an elimination is to be made, a double elimination may be made where the distribution of the lowest remaining candidate’s votes alone would not materially affect the progress of the count. Similarly, a triple elimination may be made where the distribution of the two lowest remaining candidate’s votes alone would not materially affect the progress of the count, and so on.

13. Where a surplus is to be distributed, the entirety of the votes of the elected candidate shall be transferred to the candidates still capable of election at a reduced value called the ‘transfer value’. This value is calculated by the following formula:
Number of candidate’s surplus votes/Candidate’s total votes

14. Where a candidate has a surplus to be distributed, any such votes contributing to his election which were gained at a reduced transfer value as described above in a previous count, such votes shall transfer at a re-reduced value which shall be equal to their standing transfer value multiplied by the new transfer value to be applied o all of the votes to be distributed.

15. Where an eliminated candidate’s votes are to be distributed, the votes shall not be reduced in value any further than they may have been during the process to that point.

16. Counting shall continue until such time as the number of candidates deemed elected equals the number of available seats or until such time as no further distributions which can materially affect the count exist, in which case the candidates not reaching the quota shall be deemed elected in the order in which they rank until such time as all of the available seats are filled.

17. At the discretion of the SoFA, transfer values and vote totals (where appropriate) may be rounded off to three decimal places for simplification or presentational purposes.

Vacancies
18. Where a single Class B Senate seat vacancy exists, the election to the seat shall be conducted on a nationwide basis and in accordance with F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act.

19. Where multiple vacancies of Class B Senate seats exist and by law the election to fill the vacancies fall is to occur on the same weekend, the election shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined above.

Repeal of Census Legislation
20. Section 1 of F.L. 4-4 The Miscellany Act, mandating the conduct of censii, is hereby repealed.

Commencement Order
21. This Act shall not take effect until directed by an Executive Order of the President of Atlasia directing same.

(Sponsor: Ebowed)

[Sam Spade]

This bill is kind of complicated.  I'll have to read over it a couple of times before giving an opinion.

[Јas]

This bill is certainly the most complex and probably most ambitious of all of the reform bills I wrote, relecting the amount of time put into it to try and ensure all the bases are covered.

The aim of this bill (in conjunction with the required Constituional Amendment which follows in the legislative queue) is to introduce into Atlasia the system of Proportional Representation by means of the Single Transferable Vote for elections to the seats currently held by District Senators.

If I may, I shall quote my comments in the Elections Board after introducing hte bill to the Senate:

My fellow Atlasians,

Today I have introduced into the Senate chamber two pieces of legislation - The Proportional Representation Act and the End to Districts Amendment. I propose to end the system of District elections in Atlasia and replace them with elections in the style of PR-STV (Proportional Representation by means of the Single Transferable Vote).

Under this scheme, the entirety of Atlasia would become a single multi-member electoral constituency which would elect 5 Senators. The reasons why I have decided to do this is because I believe it will be good for Atlasian elections; good for Atlasian voters; and good for Atlasian parties.

More Competitive Elections
Recently, we came through our most competitive Senatorial elections in some time. However even so, the Southeast election was uncontested. Under my proposed system, free tickets into the Senate will be much more difficult to find. So long as there are more candidates nationally than seats to be fought for this system guarantees a competitive election. Persons will have to work harder to get elected – hopefully meaning more active campaigns and bigger Senate campaign debates.

More Choice and Influence for Voters
Further, this scheme benefits voters. The process of voting remains simple. As in the other elections one continues to order candidates in order of preference. The difference lies in how votes are counted and even then only to a small number of votes. The benefit to voters is that instead of picking between 2 or 3 candidates, voters will now have a much broader range of candidates to choose from and so be better able to reflect their political or personal preferences in the voting booth. In the last Senatorial election 10 candidates stood. The average voter had a choice of 2 candidates, under the new system they would have had a choice of all 10. They will also be able to influence the election of all the candidates – a direct say in the election of half the Senate.

Further for those voters who feel they live in districts dominated by alternative political mindsets, their votes will no longer be ‘wasted’. They will be much more likely to find candidates of a like-minded nature and more likely to have an influence in who gets elected.

A New Challenge for Atlasian Parties
I also believe this will be good for Atlasia’s party and caucus system. This new electoral method will present the parties and party strategists with new challenges beyond simply candidate selection. Parties will have to consider such issues as how many candidates to run (which could lead to a return of primaries) and whether or not to try and organise transfer pacts with like minded parties, etc. Independents (like myself) have nothing to fear from the system either, voters still will vote for candidates not parties.

Why not the Regions?
I propose that this change be brought in place of our current districts structure. Many people, including myself, feel that the regions should be maintained and fostered, I propose to retain the regional Senators as representatives for their Region in the Senate. Removing the Districts is simpler and also gets rid of the problems which often arise with the re-districting process.

Concluding Thoughts
Last week I introduced 5 proposals of forum affairs reform before the Senate. As I said before, when introducing those original proposals and during the Presidential campaign, reform is top of the agenda. This is the 6th proposal and most considerable. Certainly it took much more effort than any of the others. For too long it has been ignored. I put in this work because I believe this proposal to be a most worthwhile pursuit which could be of great value to Atlasia and Atlasian elections.

This is one of the most radical pieces of electoral reform put forward for consideration in quite some time. In order to effect this change both ordinary legislation and a constitutional amendment removing all reference to Districts is required. Both are now on the list of legislation before the Senate and (being an ambitious soul) I shall aim to have them both considered as soon as possible with the ultimate ambition of having this in place for the elections in 2 months time. I hope I can find the support within the Senate and with you, the people, to bring about this radical but I believe potentially very worthwhile change.

I urge you all to consider it carefully and I look forward to hearing what you all think. Thank you all for your attention as to my meandering thoughts. As before, I would encourage any questions, comments or considerations you may have. (Unqualified praise and adulation would be most warmly accepted, but I’ll make do with whatever’s out there. )

Also:

Those unfamiliar with STV may find benefit from the following links:

Wikipedia

• Single Transferable Vote
• History and Use of STV
• Counting STV

I'd also recommend the British Columbia Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform site. This contains a number of helpful guides, such as BC-STV Counting.

I appreciate that the bill may not be easy to digest and so welcome any questions you may have.

Just to note, the bill is not intended to affect the upcoming district elections. Clause 21 of the Bill was inserted so as to allow implementation when appropriate.

[minionofmidas]

Re section 20: The correct plural of census is censi.

[Hash]

I, of course, fully support this great bill and sincerely hope it passes.

[Brandon H]

While I am still undecided on the overall legislation, I do have a problem with one part and would like to hear ideas before introducing an amendment. My problem is in regards to vacancies in Section 18 & 19.

Here is the point I brought up when this was first introduced:

if the guy who resigns is your first place vote, then you should have more of a say in his replacement than the guy who voted him last place, but by having a special election, the guy who has him last has equal say as the guy who voted him first.

Here are a list of procedures for dealing with vacancies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_affecting_the_Single_Transferable_Vote#Vacancies

I am leaning towards the count-back method, but would appreciate hearing input from others.

[Keystone Phil]

I am totally opposed to proportional representation. As a voter in Atlasia, I want to have my own representative, responsible for representing me and I want to be able to hold that individual directly accountable.

[Colin]

While I am still undecided on the overall legislation, I do have a problem with one part and would like to hear ideas before introducing an amendment. My problem is in regards to vacancies in Section 18 & 19.

Here is the point I brought up when this was first introduced:

if the guy who resigns is your first place vote, then you should have more of a say in his replacement than the guy who voted him last place, but by having a special election, the guy who has him last has equal say as the guy who voted him first.

Here are a list of procedures for dealing with vacancies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_affecting_the_Single_Transferable_Vote#Vacancies

I am leaning towards the count-back method, but would appreciate hearing input from others.

While countback is a nice feature and I wouldn't have any objections if the vacancy policy was changed to include the countback method I feel that there might be a problem if a candidate runs for a position and does well in the first election but then either quits Atlasian politics or leaves the forum entirely, in either an announced or unannounced fashion. What happens then if the winner vacates his seat and the now inactive Atlasian is the winner by the countback method? That is my only major problem with the method that you've described and I grant that the situation I present is rather far fetched, though not, of course, without precedent.

[Brandon H]

If person who would fill the next vacancy leaves, then go down the line. Now if we run out of persons then we do have a problem. Perhaps let that party select a replacement. Of course if the person is an independent, there is another problem that can occur. Perhaps either encourage voters to include extra write-ins or have some persons run as a "replacement candidate" in the election. Just throwing some ideas around.

[Hatman 🍁]

STV sucks. Damn you Irish and your silly system. Nonetheless, I will support it as it's better than the current system.

[Colin]

If person who would fill the next vacancy leaves, then go down the line. Now if we run out of persons then we do have a problem. Perhaps let that party select a replacement. Of course if the person is an independent, there is another problem that can occur. Perhaps either encourage voters to include extra write-ins or have some persons run as a "replacement candidate" in the election. Just throwing some ideas around.

Then again how do you know if the person has left the forum? I'm guessing there would have to be some sort of activity level set akin to what we currently do for elections, or, this is probably a better idea, why don't we just have to have the person who won the countback accept the position like people have to accept write-in candidacies now. This will get rid of problems with inactives possibly winning the election and with people who have been elected to some other position that they don't want to give up possibly winning the "by-election".

[Brandon H]

That could work. Right now for a write in one has until the end of the election to accept. Would we need some sort of time frame, such as 72 hours after a vacancy is declared?

[Јas]

On the vacancy issue, the reason I chose the by-election method was mainly for 2 reasons.

Firstly, for essentially the reasons Colin stated above - that the winner on countback may no longer be involved or may be in a different position in the game.

Secondly, because at the time of the vacancy different people may wish to get involved than those who sought office at the original election.

And thirdly, because elections are central to Atlasia and increase interest and activity (through campaigning and such).

Having said all that, if an agreeable alternative emerges (as appears to be the case) with significant support than that's fine with me.

[Јas]

I am totally opposed to proportional representation. As a voter in Atlasia, I want to have my own representative, responsible for representing me and I want to be able to hold that individual directly accountable.

Well, of course, said individual isn't just responsible just to you, but to an entire district. I would also wonder in your experience just how often, for example you've had a leftist Senator representing you who couldn't give a whit what your thoughts were and wasn't dependent on your vote - are those Senators truly accountable to you?

Under this proposal, you would have 6 Senators who would be seeking your vote (your regional Senator and the 5 STV elected Senators). This, I think, increases your importance - especially if one lives in a district dominated by an alternative political ideology.

[Јas]

Re section 20: The correct plural of census is censi.

Ah, apologies. I'd suggets either bring a friendly amendment; or just pretend it's the Atlasian spelling .

[Keystone Phil]

I am totally opposed to proportional representation. As a voter in Atlasia, I want to have my own representative, responsible for representing me and I want to be able to hold that individual directly accountable.

Well, of course, said individual isn't just responsible just to you, but to an entire district.

Of course. I believe that I speak for most of my constituents when voicing that belief.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be blunt, that's life. That's something I had to deal with for a long time but I still believed that those Senators were accountable to me. In Atlasia, those Senators are accountable to me specifically because of the small amount of voters. Because of that, it isn't that complex to remove someone from office though they were previously deemed "safe."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think my vote is worth enough under the current system.   We're simply going to have to agree to disagree on this matter.

[DownWithTheLeft]

In my opinion it would be much simplier to have 2 regional senators split into Class A and B, or expanding to split each region into 2 and give them each a senator

[Јas]

In my opinion it would be much simplier to have 2 regional senators split into Class A and B, or expanding to split each region into 2 and give them each a senator

Yes, that's certainly simpler. But this proposal isn't based on the premise that what's simple = what's best.

The benefits of the proposal, to my mind, include the following:
More Competitive Elections;
More Voter Choice;
Possible Return of Regular Party Primaries;
Ends the Need for Re-Districting;
Retains Regional Representation;
Fewer 'Wasted' Votes...

I certainly concede that the proposal isn't the simplest electoral process out there, I propose however that it brings many possible benefits to Atlasia.

[minionofmidas]

Re section 20: The correct plural of census is censi.

Ah, apologies. I'd suggets either bring a friendly amendment;

Consider it brought.

[Brandon H]

Please do not consider the amendment introduced yet:

Sections 18 and 19 are replaced as

If a vacancy occurs then the "Countback" Method shall be used: the candidate whose seat has become vacant shall be removed from the ballot and the votes shall be recalculated.


Something else that may need to be addressed is (from the wikipedia article):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This addresses one issue but does not address the issue of independents. I then thought of perhaps allowing Independents and Single Member Parties the use of a replacement list but then that is open for abuse (person switching to indy just so they can use a replacement list). If we do that then I was thinking we should have a 30 day pre-election requirement.

This could become quite complicated.
---

The benefits of the proposal, to my mind, include the following:
More Competitive Elections; - Probably
More Voter Choice; - Yes
Possible Return of Regular Party Primaries; - Maybe. Parties would be encouraged to run multiple members, but a first choice, second choice might also be beneficial to the party.
Ends the Need for Re-Districting; - I like redistricting
Retains Regional Representation; - Yes
Fewer 'Wasted' Votes... Yes

---
May I also suggest that during this upcoming a election, a second thread be opened as a test vote using the current candidates, asking each citizen to vote using this method.

[Јas]

Something else that may need to be addressed is (from the wikipedia article):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This addresses one issue but does not address the issue of independents. I then thought of perhaps allowing Independents and Single Member Parties the use of a replacement list but then that is open for abuse (person switching to indy just so they can use a replacement list). If we do that then I was thinking we should have a 30 day pre-election requirement.

This could become quite complicated.

I would prefer a uniform approach to be adopted if possible when dealing with vacancies, either simply accept the result of countback whatever about party designation, allow a replacement list for all candidates to be lodged with the DoFA, or (preferably IMO) by-elections.

[Sam Spade]

Re section 20: The correct plural of census is censi.

This has been introduced as a friendly amendment.  Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Sam Spade]

The amendment has been passed as friendly without objection.

[Brandon H]

I'll introduce the amendment using countback for all vacancies. Independents will have to encourage like minded individuals to run as "secondary choices" just as parties will.
--
Sections 18 and 19 are replaced as

If a vacancy occurs then the "Countback" Method shall be used: the candidate whose seat has become vacant shall be removed from the ballot and the votes shall be recalculated.

And all following sections shall be renumbered appropriately.
--
Also, I would appreciate some feedback on my suggestion of running a test vote during this coming election.

[Јas]

I'll introduce the amendment using countback for all vacancies. Independents will have to encourage like minded individuals to run as "secondary choices" just as parties will.
--
Sections 18 and 19 are replaced as

If a vacancy occurs then the "Countback" Method shall be used: the candidate whose seat has become vacant shall be removed from the ballot and the votes shall be recalculated.

And all following sections shall be renumbered appropriately.

As is no doubt clear, I'm not a huge fan of countback, but I think that if an amendment is going forward to put it in place there should be a provision in place to set a time limit for the winner by countback to actually accept the seat and provision in place for what should have if the new winner declines.

Also, I would appreciate some feedback on my suggestion of running a test vote during this coming election.

I would worry that it would be problematic for a number of reasons, must critically to me that persons finding themselves elected in the elections proper but not by this method in the test run would vote it down solely on that basis.

I'm not sure about the necessity for a test vote, in that the actual method of voting is perfectly simple and effectively exactly the same as currently used - state the candidates in order of preference. The only difference is in counting and specifically the setting of a quota and the distribution of surpluses.