FT 11-07: Vacancies Act (Passed)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

AN ACT
to reform systems and procedures for resolving parliamentary vacancies

Section 1 (Title & definitions)
i. The long title of this Act shall be, the "Parliamentary Vacancies and By-Elections Act of 2019." It may be cited as the "Vacancies Act," or as "PARVA."
ii. For the purposes of this legislation, "vacancy" shall refer to any instance when the number of members sitting in parliament shall be reduced from the number chosen in the last election, as a result of the death, recall, or resignation of one or more members.
iii. For the purposes of this legislation, "by-election" shall refer to an election called by the first minister in consequence of a parliamentary vacancy (or vacancies) to chose one or more members of parliament, and which does not accompany the dissolution of parliament itself.
iv. For the purposes of this legislation, "member serving ad interim" shall refer to any person appointed in accordance with Article I§8 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Frémont, who has not been returned for the remainder of the existing term as the result of a by-election.

Section 2 (Resolution of vacancies)
i. Whenever a vacancy should occur in the composition of parliament, the first minister of Frémont shall appoint an eligible person to assume the vacated seat ad interim. A by-election for the vacated seat shall then begin on the first Friday after the second day from the appointment of the member serving ad interim.
ii. Whenever multiple vacancies should occur in the composition of parliament before a by-election may be held, the number of members to be chosen at the by-election mandated by §2(i) of this Act shall be equal to the number of vacancies which should occur before 12:00:00 am (EST) on the Wednesday preceding the election.
iii. Should the first minister make no appointment, after the expiration of fourteen (14) days, parliament may vote either to order a by-election for the vacated seat or seats, or to declare the seats vacant for the remainder of the existing term.

Section 3 (By-elections)
i. Parliamentary by-elections shall proceed according to the regularly-established provisions for the election of members of parliament, except as otherwise provided by this legislation.
ii. By-elections for parliament shall be by first-past-the-post voting. The number of votes allowed each elector shall be equal to the number of members to be chosen. Undervotes shall be counted as votes for None Of The Above.
iii. Electors in by-elections shall have the option to vote for None Of The Above one or several times, according to the number of votes allowed them by §3(ii) above. "None Of The Above" shall appear on the ballot beneath the list of candidates for election.
iv. No candidate who fails to declare prior to the commencement of the by-election shall be eligible to receive votes for member of parliament. Votes for ineligible candidates shall be counted as votes for None Of The Above.
v. The total number of votes for None Of The Above shall be divided by the number of members to be elected. Should None Of The Above then be elected to one or more of the vacant seats, those seats shall be declared vacant for the remainder of the existing term.

Sponsor: MP Harry S Truman

The floor is now open.

24 hours to advocate.

[YE]

This is kind of the elephant in the room isn't it.

Due to a series of poorly timed and unfortunate events, we ended up with a Parliament too large and that has resulted in a snap as well as serious discussion regarding election law.

I should note that the FM has the ability as of now to delay specials and/or see a special get cancelled (like what happened with Sestak) because a candidate pulled out. This is a loophole of the wording of the present law on specials that passed when I was FM that was intended to ensure there was an interested candidate. I also did not and this is on me make clear what would happen in multi-seat vacancies. Would 1 declaration result in election for 1 vacancies or all?

We also need to look into changing the max size of Parliament allowed but that's for a different discuss that granted is one I hope we have soon.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I thank the first minister.

The brief history of what is destined to be the shortest parliament on record has amply demonstrated that the prevailing system for filling parliamentary vacancies is inadequate to handle multiple open seats when they occur within a short period of time. The purpose of this legislation, therefore, is to reform the procedure for conducting parliamentary by-elections to be more streamlined and less vulnerable to abuse and conflicting interpretations.

To be honest, I am not wedded to any of these reforms in particular, but I do believe some reform is necessary to avoid a recurrence of the last several weeks. To that end, I would be happy to accept such measures as designating a pre-arranged date for by-elections once monthly, proposed by the honorable member for Alaska, or changing the rules of apportionment to exclude dual-candidacies from the official count, as proposed by the honorable member for Washington, as alternative or in addition to the provisions offered here. My objective is to settle upon a method for resolving multiple vacancies that (a) preserves the democratic integrity of parliament and the original electoral mandate; and (b) curtails election spam and voter fatigue.

As for this bill: Section 2 serves to reform the timing of by-elections, and Section 3 to reform how by-elections are conducted. The major innovations of the latter are (a) introduction of FPTP; and (b) introduction of the "NOTA" option to allow voters to retire a seat when they are dissatisfied by their choice of candidates. As I anticipate the choice of FPTP will prove controversial, I am willing to compromise on this issue: my intent is to avoid some of the weaknesses of STV in an election for two seats and to allow citizens to elect NOTA to multiple seats without a great deal of complicated math —but of course, this method has its own weaknesses, so it's a question of which tradeoffs we prefer. Between the two, providing the NOTA option is much more important to me: as a voter, I find elections where only one choice is presented (and the attitude with some that the single candidate is somehow entitled to my vote by virtue of being the only person to declare) incredibly frustrating, and the potential for a party to veto the result of an election through a clever combination of recalls and by-elections alarming. "NOTA" is intended to allow the voters to chose to retire a vacant seat over electing a replacement whose only qualification is showing up.

I look forward to the flurry of criticism that is sure to follow in service of a healthy debate.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I thank the honorable member from North Dakota for introducing this legislation.  A revamp of our election and by-election system is absolutely necessary in light of the frequent vacancies, the near-weekly special elections that the last Parliamentary session experienced, and now with the conclusion of the shortest session of Parliament on record.

I believe that the reforms contained in this legislation would mark a huge improvement over existing procedures.  With that said, personally, I am partial to MP shua's proposal for pre-arranged once-monthly dates for special elections, as well as a restriction on dual-candidacies.

The constant need for special elections has only complicated our by-election systems.  Their outcomes are almost always predictable and they have caused voter fatigue amongst an increasingly election-weary constituency.  Furthermore, the very existence of "dual candidacies" reduces our great deliberative body to a mere fall-back for unsuccessful candidates seeking higher offices.  With no disrespect to fhtagn and Jimmy, their simultaneous elections to Parliament and House of Representatives caused great disruption to maintenance of our own regional legislature, which is no less important than that of the Congress.

Furthermore, it is my preference that we retain STV as we use for all legislative elections, but I also endorse the introduction of an option for "None of the Above" on our ballots - not just for by-elections, but for regularly scheduled elections as well.

Those are my thoughts.  I will await input from other MPs before introducing any amendments.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Truman, what are the "weaknesses of STV in an election for two seats" that you are concerned with?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Truman, what are the "weaknesses of STV in an election for two seats" that you are concerned with?

Basically, if three candidates run for two seats—two candidates from Party A and one candidate from Party B—the result is almost guaranteed to be an even split, even if one party wins a significant majority of votes cast.

For example:

HYPOTHETICAL RESULTS – 1st preferences
Party A-1   8 votes
Party B-1   8 votes
Party A-2   4 votes

Math:

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

Candidates=3 Seats=2 Votes=20 Quota=6.67
Raw votes
vote 1: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) (none)
vote 2: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) (none)
vote 3: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) (none)
vote 4: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) (none)
vote 5: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) (none)
vote 6: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) (none)
vote 7: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) (none)
vote 8: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) (none)
vote 9: (Party A-2) (Party A-1) (none)
vote 10: (Party A-2) (Party A-1) (none)
vote 11: (Party A-2) (Party A-1) (none)
vote 12: (Party A-2) (Party A-1) (none)
vote 13: (Party B-1) (none) (none)
vote 14: (Party B-1) (none) (none)
vote 15: (Party B-1) (none) (none)
vote 16: (Party B-1) (none) (none)
vote 17: (Party B-1) (none) (none)
vote 18: (Party B-1) (none) (none)
vote 19: (Party B-1) (none) (none)
vote 20: (Party B-1) (none) (none)
Round 1 votes
vote 1: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) vote value = 1
vote 2: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) vote value = 1
vote 3: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) vote value = 1
vote 4: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) vote value = 1
vote 5: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) vote value = 1
vote 6: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) vote value = 1
vote 7: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) vote value = 1
vote 8: (Party A-1) (Party A-2) vote value = 1
vote 9: (Party A-2) (Party A-1) vote value = 1
vote 10: (Party A-2) (Party A-1) vote value = 1
vote 11: (Party A-2) (Party A-1) vote value = 1
vote 12: (Party A-2) (Party A-1) vote value = 1
vote 13: (Party B-1) vote value = 1
vote 14: (Party B-1) vote value = 1
vote 15: (Party B-1) vote value = 1
vote 16: (Party B-1) vote value = 1
vote 17: (Party B-1) vote value = 1
vote 18: (Party B-1) vote value = 1
vote 19: (Party B-1) vote value = 1
vote 20: (Party B-1) vote value = 1

Party A-1 = 8
Party A-2 = 4
Party B-1 = 8

Most votes currently held by a candidate = 8.
Number of candidates with the greatest number of votes = 2.
The tiebreaker says the first surplus to be re-allocated is Party A-1's.
Party A-1 has exceeded the quota and is elected. If there are seats remaining to be filled, the surplus will now be reallocated.
Round 2 votes
vote 1: (Party A-2) vote value = 0.16625
vote 2: (Party A-2) vote value = 0.16625
vote 3: (Party A-2) vote value = 0.16625
vote 4: (Party A-2) vote value = 0.16625
vote 5: (Party A-2) vote value = 0.16625
vote 6: (Party A-2) vote value = 0.16625
vote 7: (Party A-2) vote value = 0.16625
vote 8: (Party A-2) vote value = 0.16625
vote 9: (Party A-2) vote value = 1
vote 10: (Party A-2) vote value = 1
vote 11: (Party A-2) vote value = 1
vote 12: (Party A-2) vote value = 1
vote 13: (Party B-1) vote value = 1
vote 14: (Party B-1) vote value = 1
vote 15: (Party B-1) vote value = 1
vote 16: (Party B-1) vote value = 1
vote 17: (Party B-1) vote value = 1
vote 18: (Party B-1) vote value = 1
vote 19: (Party B-1) vote value = 1
vote 20: (Party B-1) vote value = 1

Party A-1 = 0
Party A-2 = 5.33
Party B-1 = 8

Most votes currently held by a candidate = 8.
Number of candidates with the greatest number of votes = 1.
Party B-1 has exceeded the quota and is elected. If there are seats remaining to be filled, the surplus will now be reallocated.
The election is complete and the elected candidates are (Party A-1) (Party B-1).

The result of the above would be for Party A and Party B to each gain one seat —despite a 20-point margin for A in the popular vote. This becomes a problem when the two vacant seats were held by A before the by-election, resulting in what is essentially a nullification of the general election result by virtue of Party A—despite being a clear majority of the voting public—being insufficiently large to hold both their seats in a two-of-three by-election.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

My solution to that would be if the majority party is concerned about losing one of their seats, maybe they can avoid creating two vacancies at the same time

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Bump.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

There's been extensive discussion of this and other proposals to reform and by-elections and appointments to vacant seats on Discord: do the other members have any further comments as to this proposal in particular, or should I interpret your silence as approval?

[YE]

I’m worried this could create situations where the only viable candidate would not get seated due to his ideology and/or a repeat of the Sestak situation last summer.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I’m worried this could create situations where the only viable candidate would not get seated due to his ideology and/or a repeat of the Seastak situation last summer.

Well, the whole point of §3(iii) is to abolish the coronation by-election, so yes —if a majority of the voters do not want candidate A in parliament, then candidate A would not be elected under this system. As much as I like Sestak, the attitude of some after that election that he deserved to be a senator by virtue of being the only candidate running and that the voters were totally out of line voting for someone else, is one I find highly distasteful. If we don't think majority approval is an important feature in this process, why not just abolish by-elections entirely and let the FM appoint a replacement for the balance of the term?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm submitting an amendment to keep STV in our by-elections.  I'm not sure what the rationale is for eliminating it in our by-elections, as we use STV in about every other election.

AN ACT
to reform systems and procedures for resolving parliamentary vacancies

Section 1 (Title & definitions)
i. The long title of this Act shall be, the "Parliamentary Vacancies and By-Elections Act of 2019." It may be cited as the "Vacancies Act," or as "PARVA."
ii. For the purposes of this legislation, "vacancy" shall refer to any instance when the number of members sitting in parliament shall be reduced from the number chosen in the last election, as a result of the death, recall, or resignation of one or more members.
iii. For the purposes of this legislation, "by-election" shall refer to an election called by the first minister in consequence of a parliamentary vacancy (or vacancies) to chose one or more members of parliament, and which does not accompany the dissolution of parliament itself.
iv. For the purposes of this legislation, "member serving ad interim" shall refer to any person appointed in accordance with Article I§8 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Frémont, who has not been returned for the remainder of the existing term as the result of a by-election.

Section 2 (Resolution of vacancies)
i. Whenever a vacancy should occur in the composition of parliament, the first minister of Frémont shall appoint an eligible person to assume the vacated seat ad interim. A by-election for the vacated seat shall then begin on the first Friday after the second day from the appointment of the member serving ad interim.
ii. Whenever multiple vacancies should occur in the composition of parliament before a by-election may be held, the number of members to be chosen at the by-election mandated by §2(i) of this Act shall be equal to the number of vacancies which should occur before 12:00:00 am (EST) on the Wednesday preceding the election.
iii. Should the first minister make no appointment, after the expiration of fourteen (14) days, parliament may vote either to order a by-election for the vacated seat or seats, or to declare the seats vacant for the remainder of the existing term.

Section 3 (By-elections)
i. Parliamentary by-elections shall proceed according to the regularly-established provisions for the election of members of parliament, except as otherwise provided by this legislation.
ii. By-elections for parliament shall be by first-past-the-post voting single-transferable vote. The number of votes allowed each elector shall be equal to the number of members to be chosen. Undervotes shall be counted as votes for None Of The Above.
iii. Electors in by-elections shall have the option to vote for None Of The Above one or several times, according to the number of votes allowed them by §3(ii) above. "None Of The Above" shall appear on the ballot beneath the list of candidates for election.
iv. No candidate who fails to declare prior to the commencement of the by-election shall be eligible to receive votes for member of parliament. Votes for ineligible candidates shall be counted as votes for None Of The Above.
v. The total number of votes for None Of The Above shall be divided by the number of members to be elected. Should None Of The Above then be elected to one or more of the vacant seats, those seats shall be declared vacant for the remainder of the existing term.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm submitting an amendment to keep STV in our by-elections.  I'm not sure what the rationale is for eliminating it in our by-elections, as we use STV in about every other election.

I provided my rationale above, but am willing to accept the retention of STV—provided we can devise a way to allow NOTA to still win multiple seats if that option received a sufficient number of first preferences.

[YE]

I'd object to the amendment but I'd wait for a larger Parliament.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'll rescind the amendment.  I don't believe there is a way for NOTA to win multiple seats without FPTP or going through the extensive process of holding separate elections for different seats.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Motion for a final vote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I would have liked to hear from our newly-elected members first, but since there hasn't been any debate in this thread for over a week, I'll second the motion.

[YE]

I can’t support a system in which a situation that aims to screw over a minority party, especially if said party is the only one to have a candidate for a given office, by this much in the event of a vacancy.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I will rescind the motion, then.

Perhaps it would be fairer and simpler just to hold monthly special elections on a given day?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I can’t support a system in which a situation that aims to screw over a minority party, especially if said party is the only one to have a candidate for a given office, by this much in the event of a vacancy.

Does this refer to the NOTA option? If so, I don't know what more debate will do to resolve this difference: for my part, I'm not willing to endorse a system that forces unpopular candidates on the voters in uncontested elections.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I can’t support a system in which a situation that aims to screw over a minority party, especially if said party is the only one to have a candidate for a given office, by this much in the event of a vacancy.

Does this refer to the NOTA option? If so, I don't know what more debate will do to resolve this difference: for my part, I'm not willing to endorse a system that forces unpopular candidates on the voters in uncontested elections.

Maybe I misread YE's post, but I interpreted that as him opposing the FPTP system in by-elections, which would almost always favor the left.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I can’t support a system in which a situation that aims to screw over a minority party, especially if said party is the only one to have a candidate for a given office, by this much in the event of a vacancy.

Does this refer to the NOTA option? If so, I don't know what more debate will do to resolve this difference: for my part, I'm not willing to endorse a system that forces unpopular candidates on the voters in uncontested elections.

Maybe I misread YE's post, but I interpreted that as him opposing the FPTP system in by-elections, which would almost always favor the left.

I'm not sure what "especially if said party is the only one to have a candidate for a given office" means in that case: could the Speaker clarify?

[YE]

Scott's interpretation is correct.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

I can understand the rationale behind FPTP, but ultimately STV will always be the more democratic option.

Imagine the following scenario: three candidates run for two seats, with two from Party A and one from Party B. 8 people vote for both Party A candidates, while 7 people vote for Party B and NOTA. In this situation, Party A, which won 53.3% of the popular vote, will receive 100% of the seats.

STV's problems in a two-seat election are less egregious, since a party that receives a popular vote nearing 75% (i.e. closer to 100% than to 50%) will indeed win 100% of seats, as evidenced by the recent snap election. Meanwhile, a party that consistently shoots at the 60-65% mark will get 50% of seats, which is exactly how seats should be allocated.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Per Discord, how would everyone feel about having vacancies filled by the relevant party chair, as is the practice in the federal House?