Re: Discussion - Proposed Constitution - voting part 2
Darren Benham writes ("Discussion - Proposed Constitution - voting part 2"):
> I've found another area that could cause problems in the vote counting area.
> I've been running various sceanios and here's what I've found:
>
> In point 5 of A.6. describes the STV method. Basicly, if no one
> option has 1/2 the votes, The option that got the least number of
> votes is removed and every ballot that had that option listed as 1st
> prefered, will use thier 2nd prefered as 1st and 3rd prefered as
> 2nd. If a ballot has had all of it's options disqualified (lets say
> they only voted a 1 in one option and left the others blank.. and
> that option gets disqualified), their "vote" has no options. The
> Constitution doesn't state what to do with these ballots so they
> remain counted toward the "total half" needed by the winning option
> but they don't add any count to any option. It's possible for this
> "no preference" to actually win the vote. The constitution doesn't
> state what this would mean, either... This is particularly possible
> in the cases where a Supermajority is needed. Possible Options that
> wouldn't be far fetched: "no preference" = the default option or
> ballots with no preference don't count towards the "half" needed to
> win.
A.6(5)(iii):
This elimination procedure is repeated, moving down ballot papers to
2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. preferences as required, until one option gets
more than half of the `first' preferences.
It seems to me to be clear that the intent is that if a ballot has no
remaining preferences then it doesn't count when considering which
option might have "more than half of the `first' preferences". Such a
ballot couldn't be said to have a "`first' preference" any more,
surely ?
> In point 8, where Quorum is talked about, it states that for an
> option to win, it must have X more votes for than vs. the default
> option. Ok, there are two methods used to determine a winner.... if
> method one doesn't produce a winner (More people prefer this option
> against that option) we switch to the other method (STV). These two
> methods can *often* result in different outcomes so the answer to
> this next question can make an important difference in the outcome
> of votes: If the first method produces a clear winner ( "4. If
> there is any option which Dominates all others then that is the
> winner" and "2. option A is said to Dominate option B if *strictly*
> more ballots prefer A to B than prefer B to A" emphasis mine), but
> fails to get the Quorum, do we still switch to the STV method ( "5.
> If there is now *more than one* option remainging STV will be
> applied to choose amongst those remaining" emphasis mine) of do we
> end the count there and declare the default option to have won? I
> think the constitution implies that the vote ends there...
A.6(8):
8.If a quorum is required, there must be at least that many votes
which prefer the winning option to the default option. If there
are not then the default option wins after all. For votes requiring
a supermajority, the actual number of Yes votes is used when
checking whether the quorum has been reached.
The "winning option" here refers to the outcome of steps 1-7, clearly,
and 8 is intended to _modify_ the outcome. So, if Concorde doesn't
produce a clear-cut answer we use STV amongst the remaining options,
and then we have a putative `winner'. If this winner didn't actually
have enough ballots which prefer it to the default, then the default
option is declared the winner. There's nothing saying we should go
and restart the ballot counting with STV instead, or something. The
condition for using 4 or 5 is whether there is one option which
Dominates all the others, and 8 can't change the answer to that
question.
Ian.
Reply to: