The Examiner: Election Tracker

[Marokai Backbeat]

With all due respect to Ben, he can count and should have known better. It's unfortunate that he (I believe) mistakenly did this, but it's clear he broke the law and that's something that I'm duty-bound to pursue.

     But if you believe that it was an honest mistake, it makes little sense to pursue a case that's a surefire loss.

And how is it a surefire loss? I'm pretty sure I can count. This case boils down to:

Was Ben punished by being banned for 13 weeks from voting? Yes
Did Ben vote before his ban was up? Yes

Case closed.

[Associate Justice PiT]

With all due respect to Ben, he can count and should have known better. It's unfortunate that he (I believe) mistakenly did this, but it's clear he broke the law and that's something that I'm duty-bound to pursue.

     But if you believe that it was an honest mistake, it makes little sense to pursue a case that's a surefire loss.

And how is it a surefire loss? I'm pretty sure I can count. This case boils down to:

Was Ben punished by being banned for 13 weeks from voting? Yes
Did Ben vote before his ban was up? Yes

Case closed.

     In the real world, mistake of fact is a valid legal defense. Unless for some odd reason the same does not hold true in Atlasia, you just caused yourself a small problem. If Ben's attorney can convince the presiding justice that Ben voted without being aware that his penalty was still in effect, your case is in deep jeopardy.

     On second thought though, maybe "surefire loss" is a bit harsh as I am not educated in the case law relating to that particular defense. I mostly know of it being applied to a friend of my mother who was arrested for possessing a marijuana plant without knowing what it was.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's pretty obvious Ben knew what he was doing when he voted.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's pretty obvious Ben knew what he was doing when he voted.

     It was pretty obvious that he knew that his sentence was still in effect & that he was violating the terms of it? Cite please.

[Marokai Backbeat]

With all due respect to Ben, he can count and should have known better. It's unfortunate that he (I believe) mistakenly did this, but it's clear he broke the law and that's something that I'm duty-bound to pursue.

     But if you believe that it was an honest mistake, it makes little sense to pursue a case that's a surefire loss.

And how is it a surefire loss? I'm pretty sure I can count. This case boils down to:

Was Ben punished by being banned for 13 weeks from voting? Yes
Did Ben vote before his ban was up? Yes

Case closed.

     In the real world, mistake of fact is a valid legal defense. Unless for some odd reason the same does not hold true in Atlasia, you just caused yourself a small problem. If Ben's attorney can convince the presiding justice that Ben voted without being aware that his penalty was still in effect, your case is in deep jeopardy.

     On second thought though, maybe "surefire loss" is a bit harsh as I am not educated in the case law relating to that particular defense. I mostly know of it being applied to a friend of my mother who was arrested for possessing a marijuana plant without knowing what it was.

This is different.

Ben has been through these proceedings and had been clearly punished. The fact that he got the date wrong is his own responsibility, and no one else's. It's not like your friend happening upon marijuana and not knowing what it was, Ben's situation is akin to someone sitting through a Driver's Ed course and getting traffic laws wrong once he's out on the open road.

It's his fault for not taking the responsibility to remember these things, especially since Ben has been in trouble in this area before. This is not a matter of some silly mistake, this is a matter of Ben not taking the responsibility of following the very clearly laid out punishment that was given to him. He can count, this wasn't complicated.

[Associate Justice PiT]

With all due respect to Ben, he can count and should have known better. It's unfortunate that he (I believe) mistakenly did this, but it's clear he broke the law and that's something that I'm duty-bound to pursue.

     But if you believe that it was an honest mistake, it makes little sense to pursue a case that's a surefire loss.

And how is it a surefire loss? I'm pretty sure I can count. This case boils down to:

Was Ben punished by being banned for 13 weeks from voting? Yes
Did Ben vote before his ban was up? Yes

Case closed.

     In the real world, mistake of fact is a valid legal defense. Unless for some odd reason the same does not hold true in Atlasia, you just caused yourself a small problem. If Ben's attorney can convince the presiding justice that Ben voted without being aware that his penalty was still in effect, your case is in deep jeopardy.

     On second thought though, maybe "surefire loss" is a bit harsh as I am not educated in the case law relating to that particular defense. I mostly know of it being applied to a friend of my mother who was arrested for possessing a marijuana plant without knowing what it was.

This is different.

Ben has been through these proceedings and had been clearly punished. The fact that he got the date wrong is his own responsibility, and no one else's. It's not like your friend happening upon marijuana and not knowing what it was, Ben's situation is akin to someone sitting through a Driver's Ed course and getting traffic laws wrong once he's out on the open road.

It's his fault for not taking the responsibility to remember these things, especially since Ben has been in trouble in this area before. This is not a matter of some silly mistake, this is a matter of Ben not taking the responsibility of following the very clearly laid out punishment that was given to him. He can count, this wasn't complicated.

     Here, it says that the law must provide for mistake of fact as a defense. With that in mind, I guess I was way off-base the whole time. If I understand it correctly it means that mistake of fact actually does not exist in Atlasia, rendering this whole discussion moot.

[minionofmidas]

So the discussion here is about whether Ben will get some additional punishment? Sounds silly to me, but whatever. If it's the law.

That the vote is invalid is not something anybody is arguing against, right?

[Јas]

The Examiner Senate Election Tracker - Update

Last Voter: bgwah
Total Valid Votes Cast: 16
Current Quota: 3

Count 1	Votes
South Park Conservative	6	(benconstine1, RowanBrandon, South Park Conservative, dead0man, Persepolis, tmthforu94, PiT)
Bacon King	4	(Bacon King, Al, BRTD, bgwah)
DownWithTheLeft	2	(DownWithTheLeft, AHDuke)
Lief	1	(opebo)
Franzl	1	(Franzl)
afleitch	1	(Speed of Sound)
Purple State	1	(Purple State)
AHDuke*	0
Al*	0
Persepolis	0
Rowan Brandon	0
Inks*	0
Daniel Adams*	0

Notes
* These candidates have not, as of yet, accepted write-in votes cast for them.
¹ benconstine's vote was cast during the period he has been prohibited from voting within and is presumed invalid.

Candidates tied on 1^st preferences, are ranked in order of the number of 2^nd preferences received and so on. For example, in the current instance, Lief, Franzl, afleitch and Purple State are tied on 1 vote, but have received 4, 3, 1 and 0 2^nd preferences respectively.

Full count updates will be published from tomorrow. For information though, if the election ended now the following would be elected: SPC, Bacon King, DWTL, Purple State and Franzl. (However, both Lief and afleitch would jump into slots 4 & 5 by voting for themselves.)

[minionofmidas]

The Examiner Senate Election Tracker - Update

Last Voter: Lunar
Total Valid Votes Cast: 38
Current Quota: 7

Count 1	Votes
Bacon King	9	(Bacon King, Al, BRTD, bgwah, Rob, Ogre Mage, Ebowed, Sensei, Meeker)
South Park Conservative	7	(benconstine1, RowanBrandon, South Park Conservative, dead0man, Persepolis, tmthforu94, PiT, SPC)
afleitch	7	(Speed of Sound, Hawk, Hash, AndrewCT, Verin, bullmoose, Lunar)
Lief	5	(opebo, Lief, Earl, Marokai, Smash)
DownWithTheLeft	4	(DownWithTheLeft, AHDuke, Jedi, Dan Adams)
Franzl	4	(Franzl, Verily, idealist, Happy)
Purple State	2	(Purple State, Fritz)

Notes
¹ benconstine's vote was cast during the period he has been prohibited from voting within and is presumed invalid.

Candidates tied on 1^st preferences, ought to be ranked in order of the number of 2^nd preferences received and so on, but currently aren't.

Bacon King, SPC and Afleitch are currently elected on the first count. I forget if Purple State's elimination or the redistribution of Bacon's surplus is supposed to happen first. It is possible that it makes a difference, but a little unlikely. I think it is 100% certain that both things do in fact have to happen. [/written before checking how that turns out]

3rd Count... I've eliminated Purple State first...

Count 1	Votes
Bacon King	7	(Bacon King, Al, BRTD, bgwah, Rob, Ogre Mage, Ebowed, Sensei, Meeker)
South Park Conservative	7	(benconstine1, RowanBrandon, South Park Conservative, dead0man, Persepolis, tmthforu94, PiT, SPC)
afleitch	7	(Speed of Sound, Hawk, Hash, AndrewCT, Verin, bullmoose, Lunar)
Lief	7 7/9	(opebo, Lief, Earl, Marokai, Smash, Fritz; Al, BRTD, bgwah, Rob, Ogre Mage, Ebowed, Sensei, Lief)
Franzl	5 2/9	(Franzl, Verily, idealist, Happy, Purple State; Bacon King)
DownWithTheLeft	4	(DownWithTheLeft, AHDuke, Jedi, Dan Adams)

Did indeed make no difference - Lief only reaches a quota with the second of these redistributions. Lief now has a surplus, but it's not enough to materially affect the count, and Franzl is elected.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm more confused than I was before I started reading that.

[minionofmidas]

I'm more confused than I was before I started reading that.

What confused you? Maybe I can clarify.

Oh, and it's out of date by now, thanks to my 1000%, pure Simon, tactical vote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm more confused than I was before I started reading that.

What confused you? Maybe I can clarify.

Oh, and it's out of date by now, thanks to my 1000%, pure Simon, tactical vote.

It's nothing, really. The entire system of who gets the most votes and who's vote "surplus" goes to the next person is line is too much for my mind to handle when I've been up until 6am.

Also, just so everyone knows, the court ruled that Ben did violate his voting ban and it was extended by three weeks. So there's no question about his vote being invalid.

[minionofmidas]

The Examiner Senate Election Tracker - Update

Last Voter: moi
Total Valid Votes Cast: 39
Current Quota: 7

Count 1	Votes
Bacon King	9	(Bacon King, Al, BRTD, bgwah, Rob, Ogre Mage, Ebowed, Sensei, Meeker)
South Park Conservative	7	(benconstine1, RowanBrandon, South Park Conservative, dead0man, Persepolis, tmthforu94, PiT, SPC)
afleitch	7	(Speed of Sound, Hawk, Hash, AndrewCT, Verin, bullmoose, Lunar)
Lief	5	(opebo, Lief, Earl, Marokai, Smash)
DownWithTheLeft	4	(DownWithTheLeft, AHDuke, Jedi, Dan Adams)
Franzl	4	(Franzl, Verily, idealist, Happy)
Purple State	3	(Purple State, Fritz, Lewis)

Notes
¹ benconstine's vote was cast during the period he has been prohibited from voting within and is presumed invalid.

Candidates tied on 1^st preferences, ought to be ranked in order of the number of 2^nd preferences received and so on, but currently aren't.

Bacon King, SPC and Afleitch are currently elected on the first count. Bacon King's surplus redistributed.

Count 2	Votes
Bacon King	7	(Bacon King, Al, BRTD, bgwah, Rob, Ogre Mage, Ebowed, Sensei, Meeker)
South Park Conservative	7	(benconstine1, RowanBrandon, South Park Conservative, dead0man, Persepolis, tmthforu94, PiT, SPC)
afleitch	7	(Speed of Sound, Hawk, Hash, AndrewCT, Verin, bullmoose, Lunar)
Lief	6 7/9	(opebo, Lief, Earl, Marokai, Smash; Al, BRTD, bgwah, Rob, Ogre Mage, Ebowed, Sensei, Lief)
Franzl	4 2/9	(Franzl, Verily, idealist, Happy; Bacon King)
DownWithTheLeft	4	(DownWithTheLeft, AHDuke, Jedi, Dan Adams)
Purple State	3	(Purple State, Fritz, Lewis)

Nobody's elected; Purple State eliminated.

Count 3	Votes
Bacon King	7	(Bacon King, Al, BRTD, bgwah, Rob, Ogre Mage, Ebowed, Sensei, Meeker)
South Park Conservative	7	(benconstine1, RowanBrandon, South Park Conservative, dead0man, Persepolis, tmthforu94, PiT, SPC)
afleitch	7	(Speed of Sound, Hawk, Hash, AndrewCT, Verin, bullmoose, Lunar)
Lief	7 7/9	(opebo, Lief, Earl, Marokai, Smash, Fritz; Al, BRTD, bgwah, Rob, Ogre Mage, Ebowed, Sensei, Lief)
Franzl	6 2/9	(Franzl, Verily, idealist, Happy, Purple State, Lewis; Bacon King)
DownWithTheLeft	4	(DownWithTheLeft, AHDuke, Jedi, Dan Adams)

Lief is elected. He also has a surplus, which cannot materially affect the count. Franzl is declared elected without a quota.

[Fritz]

How does this "redistributing" thing work?  Someone point me to the rules, please.  I understand the part about eliminating the lowest, and moving those voters votes to 2nd choices (as is apparantly happening with my vote).  I'm not following the "redistribution" of the "surplus".  Count 3 above has Bacon King with 7 votes but still lists 9 voters. 

[Verily]

How does this "redistributing" thing work?  Someone point me to the rules, please.  I understand the part about eliminating the lowest, and moving those voters votes to 2nd choices (as is apparantly happening with my vote).  I'm not following the "redistribution" of the "surplus".  Count 3 above has Bacon King with 7 votes but still lists 9 voters. 

The nine voters just list the nine people who preferenced Bacon King first.

The two surplus votes are divided by the number of Bacon King first preferences (9) and then distributed proportionally to the candidates second-preferenced by those who first-preferenced Bacon King. There are therefore 18/9 to distribute. Eight of Bacon King's first preferencers gave Lief their second preference, while one gave Franzl their second preference. So Lief gains 16/9 of a vote while Franzl gains 2/9 of a vote.

[Јas]

How does this "redistributing" thing work?  Someone point me to the rules, please. 

The Proportional Representation Act sets out the rules on how these election counts are to be conducted.

I understand the part about eliminating the lowest, and moving those voters votes to 2nd choices (as is apparantly happening with my vote).  I'm not following the "redistribution" of the "surplus".  Count 3 above has Bacon King with 7 votes but still lists 9 voters. 

This election system (STV) is essentially the IRV system adapted for multiple seat constituencies. In an IRV election, the target for a candidate is a majority (half the votes + 1). In an STV election this is adapted so that for a 2-seater, the target is one third of the votes + 1; for a 3-seater, the target is one quarter + 1 and so on. In the current election, we have 5 seats, so the target (technically called the 'quota') is one sixth of the votes + 1.

Where candidates receive votes above and beyond the quota, this is their surplus. As this system is predicated at least somewhat on the idea of proportional representation, surpluses are redistributed. So in the above example, Bacon King has a surplus of 2 votes. The surplus is redistributed by looking at the second preferences of the 9 people who voted for Bacon King - and each are passed on to the second preference at a reduced value. That value being the result of the formula surplus/total votes or in this case ²/₉.

The system is quite complex, however it does tend to reflect the preferences of the voters and has ensured competitive elections for these seats in an era in Atlasia of fewer candidates and generally uncompetitive elections. Feel free to ask any further questions you ma have.

[Smid]

How does this "redistributing" thing work?  Someone point me to the rules, please.  I understand the part about eliminating the lowest, and moving those voters votes to 2nd choices (as is apparantly happening with my vote).  I'm not following the "redistribution" of the "surplus".  Count 3 above has Bacon King with 7 votes but still lists 9 voters. 

It's actually not too hard a system, once you get used to it.

The quota is determined by the formula: q = [v/(1+n)]+1, where:
q = the quota,
v = the total number of votes, and
n = the number of candidates to be elected.

There are five candidates, and to keep things simple, I'll work off 100 votes cast.

(note that if one candidate were elected, 1+n = 2, which is where the "50% +1 vote" concept in IRV originates).

If there are five candidates, and each gets 1/6th of the vote, plus one vote each, the most the next candidate could achieve would be 1/6th of the vote less five votes - and not reach quota. This ensures that only the requisite number of candidates is elected.

Now, by way of example (and using, as I said, 100 votes cast), the quota would work out to be:

q = (100/6)+1, or 17 votes. After five people are elected, there will only be 15 votes remaining (5x17=85), which is less than the one quota required meaning that if the sixth candidate still had all votes remaining, they still wouldn't have enough to get elected and therefore only five can be elected.

Say there are 10 candidates for the five positions:

A - 9 votes
B - 12 votes
C - 30 votes
D - 3 votes
E - 17 votes
F - 4 votes
G - 5 votes
H - 10 votes
I - 6 votes
J - 4 votes
Total = 100 votes.

The candidate with the most votes is declared. In this case, it's candidate C. Because C only requires 17 votes to be elected but received 30 votes, they have a suplus of 13 votes. Obviously those votes need to be distributed to subsequent preferences, but which ones should be transferred? I believe that at one stage, a random sample was selected and distributed, but now they instead use the concept of a "transfer value." Each of those votes equally assisted in getting candidate C elected, and therefore is transferred to their subsequent preference, but since it was partially used to elect candidate C, it is transferred at less value than a full vote.

The transfer value is the surplus vote divided by the total vote received by the candidate. In this case, it would be 13/30 or 0.4333.

Assuming the preferences for C's votes were as follows:
A - 4 votes (1.7333)
B - 2 votes (0.8667)
D - 12 votes (5.2)
E - 3 votes (1.3)
F - 6 votes (2.6)
G - 1 votes (0.4333)
H - 2 votes (0.8667)
I - 0 votes (0)
J - 0 votes (0).

Multiply the votes being transferred by their transfer value. I'll put that number in brackets above.

Updated, the tally is:

A - 10.7333 votes
B - 12.8667 votes
C - ELECTED
D - 8.2 votes
E - 18.3 votes
F - 6.6 votes
G - 5.4333 votes
H - 10.8667 votes
I - 6 votes
J - 4 votes

At this point, E is elected, as 18.3 votes is greater than the quota of 17. Three of E's votes were transferred from C, so they only have a transfer value of 0.4333, and they are now multiplied by the new transfer value (1.3/17=0.0710). E's original votes therefore each have a transfer value of 0.0710 and the votes received from C have a transfer value of just (0.0710x0.4333=0.0308). Nonetheless, assume that of E's original votes, 9 flowed to H, 4 to I and 4 to J, and of the votes received from C, one went to each of D, H and I. The new vote tally is:

A - 10.7333
B - 12.8667
C - ELECTED
D - 8.2308
E - ELECTED
F - 6.6
G - 5.4333
H - 11.5368
I - 6.3149
J - 4.2842

As no candidate now has a quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. This is candidate J, with just over 4.2842 votes (4 original votes, 4 of E's original votes, 1 of C's original votes via E). These votes are now all transferred according to their current value. Since J's first-preference votes haven't helped get anyone elected yet, they are transferred at their full value of 1. The others maintain whatever was their transfer value when they were preferenced to J.

Let's assume that 2 of J's original first preference votes flow to D, while the other two flow to I. The preference votes received by J flow - 1 of E's original votes to F, the remainder all flow to A.

This means that the new totals are:

A - 10.9772
B - 12.8667
C - ELECTED
D - 10.2308
E - ELECTED
F - 6.671
G - 5.4333
H - 11.5368
I - 8.3149
J - EXCLUDED

Again, no candidate has enough votes to be elected, so the candidate with the fewest votes, G, is excluded and votes are transferred the same way J's votes were. This process continues until all five candidates are elected (although for the sake of sanity, I'll leave it there).

It's reasonably time consuming, and looks complex, the maths looks difficult and the transfer values and people having "11.5368 votes" seems counter-intuitive and confusing, but the process itself is not all that challenging once you understand what's happening. We used to use this process all the time for student elections at uni, and it's the means by which Australian Senators are elected, likewise Upper House Members in a number of State Parliaments - Victoria's being very similar to Atlasian Senate elections, with five candidates being elected in each Region (ie, n=5 in the formula above, the same as for the Atlasian Senate).

If you want to get really bogged down in the math of it all, have a look at this link: http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/External/SenateStateDop-13745-NSW.pdf

That's the distribution of preferences for the Senate positions in the state of New South Wales at the last federal election in Australia (other states available here: http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/SenateResultsMenu-13745.htm). The NSW one was the biggest, with 79 candidates contesting the election for the six Senate seats and 4,193,234 votes cast (all needing to be distributed similarly to above). The quota was 599,034. If you want any more info about it, feel free to PM me.

[Verily]

The Examiner Senate Election Tracker - Update

Last Voter: Eraserhead
Total Valid Votes Cast: 47
Current Quota: 8

Count 1	Votes
Bacon King	9	(Bacon King, Al, BRTD, bgwah, Rob, Ogre Mage, Ebowed, Sensei, Meeker)
South Park Conservative	8	(benconstine, RowanBrandon, South Park Conservative, dead0man, Persepolis, tmthforu94, PiT, Inks, NCYankee)
afleitch	8	(Speed of Sound, Hawk, Hash, AndrewCT, Verin, bullmoose, Lunar, Gustaf)
Franzl	7	(Franzl, Verily, idealist, Happy, Torie, Moderate, Jamespol)
Lief	6	(opebo, Lief, Earl, Marokai, Smash, Eraserhead)
DownWithTheLeft	5	(DownWithTheLeft, AHDuke, Jedi, Dan Adams, BrandonH)
Purple State	4	(Purple State, Fritz, Lewis, devilman)

Bacon, SPC and Afleitch are elected. Bacon King's surplus is redistributed.

Count 2	Votes
Bacon King	8	(Bacon King, Al, BRTD, bgwah, Rob, Ogre Mage, Ebowed, Sensei, Meeker)
South Park Conservative	8	(benconstine, RowanBrandon, South Park Conservative, dead0man, Persepolis, tmthforu94, PiT, Inks, NCYankee)
afleitch	8	(Speed of Sound, Hawk, Hash, AndrewCT, Verin, bullmoose, Lunar, Gustaf)
Franzl	7 1/9	(Franzl, Verily, idealist, Happy, Torie, Moderate, Jamespol, Eraserhead)
Lief	6 8/9	(opebo, Lief, Earl, Marokai, Smash)
DownWithTheLeft	5	(DownWithTheLeft, AHDuke, Jedi, Dan Adams, BrandonH)
Purple State	4	(Purple State, Fritz, Lewis, devilman)

Purple State is eliminated. His votes are redistributed.

Count 3	Votes
Bacon King	8	(Bacon King, Al, BRTD, bgwah, Rob, Ogre Mage, Ebowed, Sensei, Meeker)
South Park Conservative	8	(benconstine, RowanBrandon, South Park Conservative, dead0man, Persepolis, tmthforu94, PiT, Inks, NCYankee)
afleitch	8	(Speed of Sound, Hawk, Hash, AndrewCT, Verin, bullmoose, Lunar, Gustaf)
Franzl	10 1/9	(Franzl, Verily, idealist, Happy, Torie, Moderate, Jamespol; Purple State, Lewis, devilman)
Lief	7 8/9	(opebo, Lief, Earl, Marokai, Smash, Eraserhead; Fritz)
DownWithTheLeft	5	(DownWithTheLeft, AHDuke, Jedi, Dan Adams, BrandonH)

Franzl is elected. His surplus is too small to make a difference, and Lief is elected without a quota.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Ugh, I'm not liking my chances right now.

[Fritz]

Thanks to those who explained to me how this all works.

(Boy, I'm glad I'm not the SoFA around here anymore!)

[bgwah]

Thanks to those who explained to me how this all works.

(Boy, I'm glad I'm not the SoFA around here anymore!)

I certainly lost some interest in the position when we started this system.

[Јas]

Thanks to those who explained to me how this all works.

(Boy, I'm glad I'm not the SoFA around here anymore!)

I certainly lost some interest in the position when we started this system.

Without the system, the mid-terms would hardly need a SoFA at all.

[Verily]

Modified my post to include jamespol, who does appear to be a valid voter (my apologies).

[Devilman88]

Isn't SPC and South Park Conservative the same person?

[Јas]

Isn't SPC and South Park Conservative the same person?

Yes - looks like a typo. The second SPC should be Inks.