Fwurg

[Representative Anselim of the Free Peoples of Wrarrbo]

"Fellow Senators,

After working with my committee to resolve the issue regarding ambiguous voting laws, we have come up with the following proposal. Note that this is not currently a proposal to change the law, it is merely intended to show the progress of our work and request input to determine if further work is required before this can be put to a vote."

The Senator had a document passed to all senators with a proposed rewrite for article 7 of the voting laws

7. Tallying

After the vote has been closed, the votes will be tallied.

1. Tallying is done as follows:
   
   1. All legal votes are weighed equally,
   2. All missing votes default to 'abstain',
   3. All illegal votes default to 'abstain'.
2. An absolute majority (more than half) of the cast votes is required for an option to win. Abstentions are not counted towards the total number of votes
3. If a vote has exactly 2 options and ends in a tie, the Chancellor casts the deciding vote.
4. If a vote has more than 2 options and ends without a single option having an absolute majority, the following proceedure is handled
   
   1. First, all options with 0 votes are removed from consideration
   2. If after this removal, exactly 2 options are left - these necessarily being tied - the Chancellor casts the deciding vote between the two
   3. If after this removal, more than two options are left, the top half options proceeed to a new round of voting
   4. In case there is an uneven number of options, the fraction is rounded up for the number of options to proceed.
   5. In case there is a tie in the number of votes for between options to be eliminated and options to proceed to the next round, the Chancellor decides how many of the tied options proceed to the next round.
      
      1. The Chancellor may in this case pass all tied options, none of the tied options or some number in between. This is an exception to the rule regarding half of the options proceeding. However:
      2. The new vote must always have a minimum of two options
      3. At least one option must be eliminated above and beyond all options with 0 votes. This may either be one of the tied options or an option with more than zero, but fewer than the tied votes, if available.
      4. If the number chosen by the chancellor eliminates at least one but not all of the tied votes, the actual options that are removed are determined by an objectively random method, chosen by the Chancellor, such as a dice roll. All options must have equal odds of being eliminated in this fashion

[Nehket Aeka]

"I would like to have the sentence with '...a tie in the number of votes for between options...' clarified. I find the text 'for between' unclear.

Other than that, I applaud the speed with which your committee arranged this."

[Maria Latharion]

"In addition to the Chancellors point, I believe part IV.c leaves a little to much room for interpretation.

I would rather have it say something like 'the half with the most votes.'

In order to avoid confusion."

[Representative Anselim of the Free Peoples of Wrarrbo]

Having looked at the proposed points, we present an adjusted version.

7. Tallying

After the vote has been closed, the votes will be tallied.

1. Tallying is done as follows:
   
   1. All legal votes are weighed equally.
   2. All missing votes default to 'abstain'.
   3. All illegal votes default to 'abstain'.
2. An absolute majority (more than half) of the cast votes is required for an option to win. Abstentions are not counted towards the total number of votes.
3. If a vote has exactly 2 options and ends in a tie, the Chancellor casts the deciding vote.
4. If a vote has more than 2 options and ends without a single option having an absolute majority, the following procedure is used:
   
   1. First, all options with 0 votes are removed from consideration.
   2. If after this removal, exactly 2 options are left - these necessarily being tied - the Chancellor casts the deciding vote between the two.
   3. If after this removal, more than two options are left, the half of the options with the most votes proceed to a new round of voting.
   4. In case there is an uneven number of options, the fraction is rounded up for the number of options to proceed.
   5. In case there is a tie in the number of votes between options to be eliminated and options to proceed to the next round, the Chancellor decides how many of the tied options proceed to the next round.
      
      1. The Chancellor may in this case pass all tied options, none of the tied options or some number in between. This is an exception to the rule regarding half of the options proceeding. However:
      2. The new vote must always have a minimum of two options.
      3. At least one option must be eliminated above and beyond all options with 0 votes. This may either be one of the tied options or an option with more than zero, but fewer than the tied votes, if available.
      4. If the number chosen by the chancellor eliminates at least one but not all of the tied votes, the actual options that are removed are determined by an objectively random method, chosen by the Chancellor, such as a dice roll. All options must have equal odds of being eliminated in this fashion.

Chancellor, would you be willing to put this new version to a vote so we can make it official?

[Nehket Aeka]

"I will allow a week of time for other members of the senate to comment on the proposal. If no criticism is heard within the week, I will open the vote."

[Senator Danar Tassar]

Tassar had a small chuckle after the senator said she would open the vote to vote about these rules of voting.

"The Teprogrenaian Consensus requires clarification of section IV.a.iii: 'At least one option must be eliminated above and beyond all options with 0 votes. This may either be one of the tied options or an option with more than zero, but fewer than the tied votes, if available.'

Why removing an option which received votes, over an option which received no votes, other than the option with 0 votes being 'no'?"

[Representative Anselim of the Free Peoples of Wrarrbo]

"Senator, I believe perhaps you have misunderstood.

Allow me to explain the proposal with three examples.

Suppose a vote with options Alpha, Bravo and Charlie, which receive 3, 4 and 5 votes respectively.

Rule IV applies as there are more than two options and no option has an absolute majority. Sub-sections IV-a and IV-b are not applicable, but sub-section IV-c is. Thus, half the options proceed.

Since there were 3 options, 1.5 options proceed. Sub-section IV-d specifies that the fraction is rounded up, so 2 options proceed. There are no ties, making sub-section IV-e irrelevant. Options Bravo and Charlie proceed to the next voting round.

Is this example clear?


Now suppose a different vote with options Delta, Echo and Foxtrot. The first two each receive four votes and Foxtrot receives six votes.

Rule IV applies again with subsections a. By subsection c, half the options proceed, thus, a total of two options proceeds. Clearly option Foxtrot proceeds to the next round: it received the most votes of all. But which of options Delta and Echo should proceed?

Sub-subsection IV-e-i allows the Chancellor to decide to pass both, neither, or one of them. This allows the Chancellor to take into account various conditions such as whether or not the two options are similar or not.

If the chancellor eliminates all three, then only option Foxtrot is left, making the vote superfluous. This, Sub-subsection IV-e-ii guarantees at least one option must pass. If both are passed, then the vote would have identical options, with probably identical results, wasting time and money. Thus, sub-subsection IV-e-iii guarantees at least one option must be eliminated.

If the chancellor can choose to eliminate options Delta and Echo, this would promote bias on part of the chancellor. Thus, the chancellor instead has to rely on random chance to see which option is eliminated.

Is this clear as well?


Now, presume another different vote with 7 options: Gamma, Hotel, India, Juliet, Kilo, Lima and Mike. Options Gamma and Hotel each receive zero votes. India, Juliet and Kilo each receive 2 votes while Lima and Mike each receive 8 votes.

By the voting laws, we first eliminate options Gamma and Hotel. Nobody likes those. This leaves us to consider a vote between India, Juliet, Kilo, Lima and Mike. Half of these must be eliminated, meaning 3 options pass to the next round.

Obviously Lima and Mike should pass to the next round, but which of India, Juliet and Kilo should pass?

The chancellor can decide to pass zero, one, two or all three of them. In this case it may make sense to pass only Lima and Mike, since these are the clear leaders.

But they could also choose to pass all three. This would lead to a vote between India, Juliet, Kilo, Lima and Mike, but we already know the result there, since Gamma and Hotel received 0 votes. Thus a vote like that would waste everyone's time and money.

Sub-subsection IV-e-iii might list that at least one option must be eliminated. But that's not enough, because options Gamma and Hotel were eliminated. Therefore, the language of IV-e-iii states "eliminated above and beyond all options with 0 votes".

But what if option Hotel had actually gotten 1 vote? In that case a vote between India, Juliet, Kilo, Lima and Mike could yield new results, since the Hotel vote is no longer possible. Thus, it would be legal to keep all three. Which is clarified in sub-subsection IV-e-iv with the text "This may either be one of the tied options or an option with more than zero, but fewer than the tied votes, if available."

Does this clarify our intent?


If so, how would you propose rephrasing this section to deliver the same content with more clarity?

[Senator Harek]

“Thanks senator for explanation. But there should not be put too much emphasis on the results of the vote but rather on the how the vote is stated. These difficult to choose tie situations will probably arise when either the options are too similar or too different. So the vote should be stated in such a way that there is small change of tied options.”

[Nehket Aeka]

"I agree with senator Harek, the offered options should not be too similar. However, as it is impossible to objectively determine this, we can not amend the proposal with this. Therefore, I will open the vote to amend the Union voting laws with the updated proposal by senator Anselim of the Free Peoples of Wrarrbo.

Thank you."