Constitutional Amendment (At Final Vote)

[Associate Justice PiT]

I see two possible options:

1.) Keep the regional seats, perhaps reform regions
2.) 10 PR seats

This idea is crap

     I agree with this. PR is fine when the bar is not set too high. With this proposal though, you need 20% to be guaranteed a seat. Can anyone think of a country that uses PR where the bar for representation is this high?

Where did you pull 20% out of?
Under the current system, the STV seats have a quota of 16.7% (which in the last election equalled 9 votes).

You're right, I don't know what I was thinking. Still, 16.7% is a ridiculously high bar to gain representation.

Why?

Can you name a country that uses PR with that high a bar?

Ireland.

This isn't quite the same since we don't have enough people to make a 5% bar feasible, but still, isn't 16.7% rather high when we could, just by electing all ten seats at once, lower the bar to 9.1%?

No, I don't see how. At the last election it took 8 votes to get elected, I don't think that sets the bar too high.

The problem with electing all 10 seats at once is that it greatly increases the likelihood that the Senate races won't be competitive - which was a major factor in the switchover to STV from the District system. I have no qualms with electoral change, per se, but I will be very hesitant regarding any suggestion that reduces electoral competition.

     You have a point. Maybe I was overreacting to the difficulty of getting eight votes to be represented since as the RPP Vice-Chair, I've had a hell of a time getting anyone to do anything.

     Actually, Xahar had an intriguing idea for how Senate elections could be run. I'll try to find it now.

     EDIT: I found his proposal:

If we elect 10 members each go, how about a form of STV MMP? It'd work like this:

There are 5 mini-elections in the count, between the candidates from each region. For instance, in the Mideastern round, all candidates not from the Mideast are eliminated, and their votes redistributed to a Mideastern candidate. One of the Mideastern candidates is then elected through IRV. The same happens for all the other regions. Then comes the main count. All the votes for candidates already elected are redistributed to candidates not elected, and it proceeds through normal STV with 5 seats to be elected.

Thus, we get at least one candidate from each region, but also PR-STV. Like most compromises, it's horrendously complicated. What do you guys think?

     

[Јas]

You have a point. Maybe I was overreacting to the difficulty of getting eight votes to be represented since as the RPP Vice-Chair, I've had a hell of a time getting anyone to do anything.

     Actually, Xahar had an intriguing idea for how Senate elections could be run. I'll try to find it now.

     EDIT: I found his proposal:

If we elect 10 members each go, how about a form of STV MMP? It'd work like this:

There are 5 mini-elections in the count, between the candidates from each region. For instance, in the Mideastern round, all candidates not from the Mideast are eliminated, and their votes redistributed to a Mideastern candidate. One of the Mideastern candidates is then elected through IRV. The same happens for all the other regions. Then comes the main count. All the votes for candidates already elected are redistributed to candidates not elected, and it proceeds through normal STV with 5 seats to be elected.

Thus, we get at least one candidate from each region, but also PR-STV. Like most compromises, it's horrendously complicated. What do you guys think?

It's a very interesting plan and has its merits.

However, with the active population level as it is, I don't see how any system which puts all 10 seats up at once will result in a competitive election - and that is my primary concern. A 10 seat election means we need at least 11 candidates to have an election proper. That's a high bar to set and maintain.

[minionofmidas]

I am totally confused now. What does STV mean, and is that what we have now for the at large seats?

Yes. STV stands for Single Transferable Vote, which is a system of Proportional Representation (PR).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. That is for the accompanying bill, next up on the Senate floor. The idea (also used when PR was introduced for Class B seats) is to make it possible to tinker with the method of proportional representation used without needing a constitutional amendment.

If we elect 10 members each go, how about a form of STV MMP? It'd work like this:

There are 5 mini-elections in the count, between the candidates from each region. For instance, in the Mideastern round, all candidates not from the Mideast are eliminated, and their votes redistributed to a Mideastern candidate. One of the Mideastern candidates is then elected through IRV. The same happens for all the other regions. Then comes the main count. All the votes for candidates already elected are redistributed to candidates not elected, and it proceeds through normal STV with 5 seats to be elected.

So, in other words, every region is guaranteed a seat, but has its Senator picked for it by the entire nation. Imagine if the Southeast seat is contested by Duke and BRTD and BRTD wins based on votes from outside the region while Southeasterners are nearly united behind Duke.
While it would be fun counting, and I'd readily volunteer for the job , it seems to me to combine the drawbacks of the current system - tiny candidate pool in most regions, frequent uncontested elections, regionally unbalanced Senate (the Northeast is likely to remain underrepresented) - with the arguable drawbacks of PR (lack of clearly defined constituency, severance of the token federalism* represented by using the regions as constituencies, which is so dear to certain people from the Southeast)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Including two per region. Mind you, if the Senate were elected for a four-month term in nonpresidential months, it wouldn't be a problem.

*and it is just token federalism. Real federalism would involve having the regional Senators as representatives of the regional Governments, picked by the regional Governments, serving as a Second Chamber. Which, coming from just about the only country in the world to still use such a system, I can assure you does not exactly work well.

     You're right, I don't know what I was thinking. Still, 16.7% is a ridiculously high bar to gain representation.

Ah, but the beauty of STV is that voters who don't get their first choice may at least get their second choice. With five-member STV, five-sixth of voters are guaranteed to be represented, and of course most of the remainder actually got a second choice anyways. (There are bound to be a few voters left out in the cold, though, but then that is unavoidable.) Anyways, I don't see how anyone can argue that the problem isn't worse under fptp.

[DownWithTheLeft]

(FTR, I am quite happy to answer any questions regarding our system of STV either here or by PM.)

I'll take up your offer , anyone with knowledge can feel free to answer:

Once a ballot is used to elect someone, is it used again?

Example:

Ballot reads:
[ 1 ] Candidate A
[ 2 ] Candidate B
[ 3 ] Candidate C

Candidate A is easily elected and it is a battle between B and C.  Does the ballot continue to count to elect B or is it just counted as a vote for A?  If that's confusing I'll try and clear it up

[Torie]

Well if 15% of the voters are right wing nutters (or left wing nutters), they deserve a seat no?  It can be done through regional moving around or with cumulative voting, but is there another way to get there?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Well if 15% of the voters are right wing nutters (or left wing nutters), they deserve a seat no?  It can be done through regional moving around or with cumulative voting, but is there another way to get there?

O so I'm a right-wing nutter now

Torie, would you favor a people to make the country into four regions each with a seat and six at large seats?

[Torie]

I am leaning towards the status quo, but I admit I am a rather confused old man on this. The electoral combinations and permutations are more confusing than the hedge maze Jack Nicholson was running around in The Shining with his ax. The nutter thing was in the entirely in the nature of a hypothetical by the way.

[Хahar 🤔]

DWDL, let's say that the quota (that is, the number of votes needed) is 7. Let's also say that Candidate A, your first preference, gets 10 votes. That means that ⁷/₁₀ of your vote goes to Candidate A, while the remainder goes to your second preference.

[DownWithTheLeft]

DWDL, let's say that the quota (that is, the number of votes needed) is 7. Let's also say that Candidate A, your first preference, gets 10 votes. That means that ⁷/₁₀ of your vote goes to Candidate A, while the remainder goes to your second preference.

Wow, nothing against your explanation but that is really confusing.  I think I'm just going to let the electoin play out

[Associate Justice PiT]

DWDL, let's say that the quota (that is, the number of votes needed) is 7. Let's also say that Candidate A, your first preference, gets 10 votes. That means that ⁷/₁₀ of your vote goes to Candidate A, while the remainder goes to your second preference.

Wow, nothing against your explanation but that is really confusing.  I think I'm just going to let the electoin play out

     The basic idea is that if a candidate beats the quota of votes to win, his support is redistributed to second preferences until it's equal to the quota.

[Јas]

(FTR, I am quite happy to answer any questions regarding our system of STV either here or by PM.)

I'll take up your offer , anyone with knowledge can feel free to answer:

Once a ballot is used to elect someone, is it used again?

Example:

Ballot reads:
[ 1 ] Candidate A
[ 2 ] Candidate B
[ 3 ] Candidate C

Candidate A is easily elected and it is a battle between B and C.  Does the ballot continue to count to elect B or is it just counted as a vote for A?  If that's confusing I'll try and clear it up

Short answer:
Depends on circumstances, but yes it can.

Long answer:
As the system we use is founded on the principal of proportional representation, it is designed so that the winners should try and reflect the voter's preferences in a proportional manner.

Let's take your example. Let's say Candidate A is a conservative, Candidate B is a liberal, and Candidate C is a libertarian running in a 2-seat constituency (with 100 voters) under our system (PR-STV). This would mean it would take 34 votes to get elected (I can explain the math if you like, it's within the Act as well if you want to look it up).

On the first count the results were:
A: 51
B: 27
C: 22

Candidate A has won election easily getting 17 votes more than he needed. Neither of the other candidates has gotten the necessary number of votes and there are no other candidates placed lower who we can eliminate to redistribute their votes.

Now, as I said above, our system is based on the idea of proportional representation - as Candidate A's supporters clearly make up a greater proportion of the population, so they should have a proportional say in who gets elected. Therefore, we transfer all of Candidate A's votes to their next preferences, but at a reduced value - top reflect the fact that proportionally speaking, they've already elected a candidate. The votes would be transfered at a value which equals the number of surplus votes divided by the quota. Which in this case = 17/34 = 0.5

So for the second count in our election, we transfer all of Candidate A's votes, but do so such that each vote is worth half a ballot.

Lets say that when we go through Candidate A's 51 ballots we find the following breakdown of second preferences:
B: 10
C: 30
No other valid preference stated: 11

Therefore, we now transfer these votes at a value of 0.5 each to get...
2nd Count (Distribution of A's Surplus)
A: Elected on 1st Count
B: 32 (+5)       The Maths: (27 + [10 x 0.5])
C: 37 (+15)     The Maths: (22 + [30 x 0.5])

Therefore, the transfers of Candidate A get Candidate C elected to the second seat.


Of the 9 counts that took place in the first STV election we ran here, only 1 (Count 5) was a surplus distribution (a distribution of Earl's surplus of 1 which was split between HappyWarrior, Lewis, Rocky and Bacon King). All other distributions were eliminations, which operate in exactly the same way as IRV.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Thanks Jas, makes sense

[Torie]

Yes thanks Jas. I see that there is some minority impact.

[Јas]

No probs (just glad someone read it)

[Colin]

Seeing as there has been no debate on this in over 24 hours we now proceed to the final vote.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[minionofmidas]

Aye

[DownWithTheLeft]

I urge everyone to vote against this, what a horrible blow to the regions it would be.

[Colin]

Aye

[Torie]

Nay

[AndrewTX]

nay

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I would like to encourage Senators to vote Aye on this so this matter can be decided by the people.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I would like to encourage Senators to vote Aye on this so this matter can be decided by the people.

     What would be the point of the Senate voting on it then? In that case, they should just push through all amendments so that they can be decided on by the people.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I encourage all Senators to oppose this infringement on the rights of regions.

[Meeker]

Nay

[DownWithTheLeft]

3 down 1 to go!