Northern Regional Committee

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

motion to end debate and vote on this version of the bill (no changes except a one-week shift)

[cinyc]

What's going to solve this stalemate?  Two separate elections? 

In any event, this election isn't starting at 12:00AM Friday.  We've already blown past the proposed declaration deadline.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

motion to end debate and vote on this version of the bill (no changes except a one-week shift)

accidentally clicked modify instead of quote

[Blair]

What's going to solve this stalemate?  Two separate elections? 

In any event, this election isn't starting at 12:00AM Friday.  We've already blown past the proposed declaration deadline.

I'd support having two separate election booths for both classes of senators; which would give voters a better option of selecting the two senators that they want

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Apologies for my inattention - things have imploded at work recently (payroll problems, plus budget cuts taking their toll) and I haven't been able to be my micro-managing self.

I personally feel that having separate elections for Class I and Class II is the most democratic way to go about things. In an ordinary election, both Senators would be elected by a majority of the entire voting population; under this system, the intricacies of STV could potentially lead to the election of a candidate opposed by a majority of the voters.

I support Evergreen's amendment, by the way.

[Kingpoleon]

Agreeing with the amendment. I support immediate nomination of this Committee for as short a time as possible. Why not two weeks, if it's termed a "special election?"

[cinyc]

If we're holding the multiple elections next weekend, can we constitutionally specify that the person elected to the June seat will remain in office until October?  I don't think the Fourth Constitution requires another June election - it just says the election for the Senator has to be in June.  And this will be.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If we're holding the multiple elections next weekend, can we constitutionally specify that the person elected to the June seat will remain in office until October?  I don't think the Fourth Constitution requires another June election - it just says the election for the Senator has to be in June.  And this will be.

I agree with this.

[/]

If we're holding the multiple elections next weekend, can we constitutionally specify that the person elected to the June seat will remain in office until October?  I don't think the Fourth Constitution requires another June election - it just says the election for the Senator has to be in June.  And this will be.

I agree with this.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

I would support the multiple winners one. Look, if we're only getting one winner, then the second is considered as "lost". Why not give him/her the second spot (two to three week term only). We can hold special elections for the June seat, but it is not necessary to hold two elections. Just one election, give the second spot the two-week term.

[Kingpoleon]

If we're holding the multiple elections next weekend, can we constitutionally specify that the person elected to the June seat will remain in office until October?  I don't think the Fourth Constitution requires another June election - it just says the election for the Senator has to be in June.  And this will be.

I agree with this.

I, too, agree. Good compromise. I'm not very glad that we are going so slowly, but, then again,it's going faster than I thought it would.

[Blair]

we should hold two separate elections for the two seats; it's not as if it costs us anything more to open up another ballot. We've already rejected committee appointments on the grounds of expanding the democratic mandate- with two separate booths. I'd be happy with an constitutionally specifying that they're in office until October   

[/]

I completely agree with Blair's sentiments.

[cinyc]

Proposed changes, almost all to section 2.  I don't know which seat is the Class I and which is the Class II seat, so I've put those in brackets.  Please tell me if I'm wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/]

I fully support cinyc's amendment.

According to the Constitution, Class I Senators are elected in February, June, and October, while Class II Senators are elected in April, August, and December.

[cinyc]

I fixed the classes, and changed "until" October/August to "through" October/August, to make it clear that they will serve the portions of those months until we hold elections (or whatever we ultimately decide to do for regional Senators).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/]

As I emphasized earlier, it is impossible to have an STV election in which only one candidate wins. The proper voting system to use in this case would be the IRV system.

I suggest we move to a final vote once the bill is amended appropriately.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I support cinyc's amendment.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I fixed the classes, and changed "until" October/August to "through" October/August, to make it clear that they will serve the portions of those months until we hold elections (or whatever we ultimately decide to do for regional Senators).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

switching irv/stv, clarifying the amendment stuff, minor language changes

[/]

Evergreen's amendment seems about right. Truman, can we move to a final vote?

[cinyc]

Evergreen's amendment seems about right. Truman, can we move to a final vote?

The relevant federal law, the Proportional Representation Act, which we used in the Northeast for all elections, is called PR-STV.  I think changing STV to IRV only adds confusion about how votes are to be counted.  There is nothing called "IRV" defined in federal law.

evergreen - did you mean a simple majority of votes or a simple majority of those who voted on the amendments?  This matters, because there will be people who abstain or don't vote on the amendments.  There always are.  I'd propose the voters voting in the election.

It's actually up to Truman and me.  I get a say in this under the rules.  I'm not quite ready there, until I hear back from evergreen.

[/]

The Proportional Representation Act is presumably only used when the point of an election is to achieve "proportional representation." The concept of proportional representation is wholly irrelevant when there is only one winner in a given election.

I sincerely doubt that the STV voting system has been used in all Northeastern elections, as elections in which there is only one winner (Governor, Regional Senator, etc.) cannot by definition be conducted using STV.

IRV, on the other hand, is the ranked voting system used when only one candidate can win in a given election. I'm not under the impression that terms must be defined by federal law for us to use them, as long as said terms have very clear common definitions. I fail to understand how using the correct voting system "adds confusion" to the process of counting the votes.

I hate to go on a diatribe here, but if the point of this bill is to choose the electoral system under which our Senators are elected, we should use the correct voting system. Thanks!

[cinyc]

The Proportional Representation Act is presumably only used when the point of an election is to achieve "proportional representation." The concept of proportional representation is wholly irrelevant when there is only one winner in a given election.

I sincerely doubt that the STV voting system has been used in all Northeastern elections, as elections in which there is only one winner (Governor, Regional Senator, etc.) cannot by definition be conducted using STV.

IRV, on the other hand, is the ranked voting system used when only one candidate can win in a given election. I'm not under the impression that terms must be defined by federal law for us to use them, as long as said terms have very clear common definitions. I fail to understand how using the correct voting system "adds confusion" to the process of counting the votes.

I hate to go on a diatribe here, but if the point of this bill is to choose the electoral system under which our Senators are elected, we should use the correct voting system. Thanks!

All Northeast elections since I remember have been held under the PR-STV provisions of the Proportional Representation Act, as later codified into Northeast law, including single-member elections like Governor and special elections for Senator.  The denominator of the fraction to determine the quota becomes 2, and it essentially is just as if you're holding an election where the winner can only win if he receives a majority of preferences, including second- or third- preferences of the also-rans.  Obviously, there are no surpluses to reallocate, as there can only be one winner.

I, like most Northerners, don't know exactly how the IRV rules would work, an I don't want to put something that is undefined into this election law - especially if I am called on to run the election in the absence of the Chair.

[/]

Elections in which only one candidate can win simply cannot be held using the STV system. I'm sorry if people are under the impression that the Northeast should have been using STV for past elections, but we might as well start using the correct system sooner than later.

I appreciate your having explained your version of calculating single-winner election results using STV, but that doesn't make the use of STV in single-winner elections acceptable. The purpose of the new Constitution is to fix errors in the old system and improve upon the existing one; I see no reason for us to continue to use an electoral system that by definition does not work in single-winner elections if we have the opportunity to "introduce" the correct one.

I really do doubt that most Northerners have some sort of unwavering desire to use an incorrect voting system just because it's apparently been used in the past. The IRV system is in no way "undefined" and cannot possibly be "confusing"; the rules to calculating the votes under IRV are very clear and very simple, and there are no variations of the system to be disputed.

Frankly, even if you are the one calculating the votes in this election, we should be basing the system we use to count the votes off of which system is the most accurate rather than the one you prefer to use. There is no lack of clarity or definition when using the IRV system as opposed to the false version of STV we’ve apparently been using in past elections; if we have been using the wrong system for all these years then there's no better time than now to change it.

Using IRV in our single-member elections will require no change in policy or legislation whatsoever; the government does not need to define a term in order for us to use it.

[cinyc]

Elections in which only one candidate can win simply cannot be held using the STV system. I'm sorry if people are under the impression that the Northeast should have been using STV for past elections, but we might as well start using the correct system sooner than later.

I appreciate your having explained your version of calculating single-winner election results using STV, but that doesn't make the use of STV in single-winner elections acceptable. The purpose of the new Constitution is to fix errors in the old system and improve upon the existing one; I see no reason for us to continue to use an electoral system that by definition does not work in single-winner elections if we have the opportunity to "introduce" the correct one.

I really do doubt that most Northerners have some sort of unwavering desire to use an incorrect voting system just because it's apparently been used in the past. The IRV system is in no way "undefined" and cannot possibly be "confusing"; the rules to calculating the votes under IRV are very clear and very simple, and there are no variations of the system to be disputed.

Frankly, even if you are the one calculating the votes in this election, we should be basing the system we use to count the votes off of which system is the most accurate rather than the one you prefer to use. There is no lack of clarity or definition when using the IRV system as opposed to the false version of STV we’ve apparently been using in past elections; if we have been using the wrong system for all these years then there's no better time than now to change it.

Using IRV in our single-member elections will require no change in policy or legislation whatsoever; the government does not need to define a term in order for us to use it.

I don't know what IRV is.  It is not defined anywhere in Atlasian law, and you are making no attempt to explain what it is, just using the phrase  IRV over and over again.  How can I agree to use a vote counting system that I don't know or understand?

Is the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act still in effect?  What if we say that the winner shall be determined in accordance with Section 2 of that Act, with a vote of this Commission deciding which candidate to eliminate in the case of total number of preference ties among those candidates.