Recent Changes for "Countback" - Davis Wiki

Countback

JasonAller — 2008-08-10 09:18:22

link fixes

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 7:	Line 7:
- To view the text of the ["ASUCD"] Constitutional Amendment authored by ["JonathonLeathers" Jonathon Leathers] check out the ["Countback Amendment"] page. This page has the current version of the Amendment as well as a simple explanation of how the ["Countback"] Election would work.	+ To view the text of the ["ASUCD"] Constitutional Amendment authored by ["Users/JonathonLeathers" Jonathon Leathers] check out the ["Countback Amendment"] page. This page has the current version of the Amendment as well as a simple explanation of how the ["Countback"] Election would work.
Line 19:	Line 19:
- ["Adam Barr"], once a member of the ["L.E.A.D."] ["Slate" slate], resigned from ["ASUCD Senate"]. His appointed replacement, ["Cari Ham"], is a member of the ["Student Focus"] ["Slate" slate]. If countback were being used ["Cari Ham" Ham] would have been the ''first'' to be eliminated (meaning students who had voted for Barr would rather have ANY OTHER candidate than Ham replace him) and ["JenndelaVega" Jenn de la Vega] (who ran on ["L.E.A.D."]) would have been offered the position.	+ ["Adam Barr"], once a member of the ["L.E.A.D."] ["Slate" slate], resigned from ["ASUCD Senate"]. His appointed replacement, ["Cari Ham"], is a member of the ["Student Focus"] ["Slate" slate]. If countback were being used ["Cari Ham" Ham] would have been the ''first'' to be eliminated (meaning students who had voted for Barr would rather have ANY OTHER candidate than Ham replace him) and ["Users/JenndelaVega" Jenn de la Vega] (who ran on ["L.E.A.D."]) would have been offered the position.
Line 94:	Line 94:
	+ + ''2005-01-28 01:11:54'' [[nbsp]] I like this idea...someone really needs to spearhead this and get it introduced into senate --["Users/MattJojola"]
Line 95:	Line 97:
- ''2005-01-28 01:11:54'' [[nbsp]] I like this idea...someone really needs to spearhead this and get it introduced into senate --["MattJojola"]------ - ''2005-01-28 01:24:37'' [[nbsp]] I believe someone is already on it, but they cant introduce it until the end of the quarter --["PaulAmnuaypayoat"]	+ ''2005-01-28 01:24:37'' [[nbsp]] I believe someone is already on it, but they cant introduce it until the end of the quarter --["Users/PaulAmnuaypayoat"]
Line 98:	Line 99:
- ''2005-01-28 16:08:13'' [[nbsp]] ["Jonathon Leathers"] has been working on it for a while. --["RevChad"]------ - ''2005-01-28 16:10:26'' [[nbsp]] haha. Davis Citizens for Representation has the same acronym as DCR --["MattJojola"]	+ ''2005-01-28 16:08:13'' [[nbsp]] ["Jonathon Leathers"] has been working on it for a while. --["Users/RevChad"]
Line 101:	Line 101:
- ''2005-01-29 00:30:28'' [[nbsp]] Huge problem: Not everyone (or even every ["JenndelaVega" Jenn De La Vega]) is eager to take on the role of senator months after an election has passed. And if people are given the offer to reject an appointment when they're counted-back, the system could just keep bubbling down the list until it got to some candidate that ["Friends Urging Campus Kindness" ran on a lark]. Under the current system where people have to APPLY for a vacant senator position, you know that at the very least every candidate for the job is at least ready to take it on at the time. --["TravisGrathwell"]	+ ''2005-01-28 16:10:26'' [[nbsp]] haha. Davis Citizens for Representation has the same acronym as DCR --["Users/MattJojola"]
Line 103:	Line 103:
- ''2005-01-29 03:47:57'' [[nbsp]] Travis, I understand your concerns, but honestly, the current system of presidential appointments has to change because there is absolutley no garuntee that the Pres will choose an appropriate person to fill a vacancy. At least with countback, you take into account what the voters preferences were. --["PaulAmnuaypayoat"]------ - ''2005-01-29 12:19:33'' [[nbsp]] Travis, is this really a realistic worry? Don't you think most people given the opportunity would jump at the chance to be Senator? They did run after all -- knowing it's a year-long commitment. There would have been 3 potential LEAD candidates in line to replace Adam in a countback. And many more legitimate candidates after that. --["ChrisJerdonek"]	+ ''2005-01-29 00:30:28'' [[nbsp]] Huge problem: Not everyone (or even every ["Users/JenndelaVega" Jenn De La Vega]) is eager to take on the role of senator months after an election has passed. And if people are given the offer to reject an appointment when they're counted-back, the system could just keep bubbling down the list until it got to some candidate that ["Friends Urging Campus Kindness" ran on a lark]. Under the current system where people have to APPLY for a vacant senator position, you know that at the very least every candidate for the job is at least ready to take it on at the time. --["Users/TravisGrathwell"]
Line 106:	Line 105:
- ''2005-01-30 19:48:36'' [[nbsp]] I would have turned down the offer for a senate seat..I have other responsibilities now. You shouldn't eliminate the possibility of someone not wanting to be a senator after the election, months even! Where do you draw the line for "do not hire" candidates when you countback? --["JenndelaVega"]------ - ''2005-01-30 22:34:58'' [[nbsp]] It's okay for someone not wanting to be Senator later on. --["ChrisJerdonek"]------ - ''2005-01-30 22:51:41'' [[nbsp]] Say Jenn doesn't want to take a seat. First: run the simulation assuming Jenn will not accept the seat. Second: is there a limit on the number of candidates who reject the seat before the election data essentially becomes useless? Should we set one? --["BrentLaabs"]------ - ''2005-01-31 00:06:49'' [[nbsp]] Brent, no there shouldnt. Example: we have a race with 1 open seat and 10 candidates, with the first 9 candidates dropping out. We cannot penalize the 1 remaining candidate and make him compete with 9 other people, he should win. Same thing in countback, its the only fair way to do it as far as I know. --["PaulAmnuaypayoat"]------ - ''2005-01-31 21:23:41'' [[nbsp]] I'm going to add language to the Countback Amendment so that if the first 5 people chosen to be a Replacement Senator decide not to serve, then it reverts back to a Presidential appointment with confirmation from the Senate. I will work on getting my platform and this amendment on the Wikik ASAP. --["JonathonLeathers"]------ - ''2005-01-31 23:30:34'' [[nbsp]] i think thats a great idea, even though it would mean that i wouldnt be a senator now. if you need help getting this bill moving, come and talk to me and we can make this happen --["AdamGerber"]	+ ''2005-01-29 03:47:57'' [[nbsp]] Travis, I understand your concerns, but honestly, the current system of presidential appointments has to change because there is absolutley no garuntee that the Pres will choose an appropriate person to fill a vacancy. At least with countback, you take into account what the voters preferences were. --["Users/PaulAmnuaypayoat"]
Line 113:	Line 107:
- ''2005-02-02 15:35:58'' [[nbsp]] Adam, I've discussed this with Senators and others but the basic consensus is that this will get vetoed under the current administration. So it will most likely be held off until after the Winter Elections. --["JonathonLeathers"]	+ ''2005-01-29 12:19:33'' [[nbsp]] Travis, is this really a realistic worry? Don't you think most people given the opportunity would jump at the chance to be Senator? They did run after all -- knowing it's a year-long commitment. There would have been 3 potential LEAD candidates in line to replace Adam in a countback. And many more legitimate candidates after that. --["Users/ChrisJerdonek"]
Line 115:	Line 109:
- ''2005-02-08 01:25:59'' [[nbsp]] !!!! WARNING !!!! Since multiple winner Single-Transferable-Voting (choice voting) is non-monotonic, I believe it's actually possible for removing losing candidates to change the winner of the election. In other words, recalculating who won in this way may result in one of the non-resigning senators losing his seat! I'm not certain of this, I'll have to study the math a bit, but I suggest you hold off on the amendment until a math person prooves this issue. --["ScottRitchie"] - * This is not true. Only ballots cast for the considered candidates, as well as the exhausted candidates, are considered. --["PhilipNeustrom"] - * Ahh, I see, it wasn't exactly clear until I clicked the link for Ackerman's resignation. By the way, are the two candidates that are eliminated in the first round removed because they are [http://www.condorcet.org/emr/criteria.shtml condorcet losers] (rather than just the lowest vote getters)? --["ScottRitchie"]	+ ''2005-01-30 19:48:36'' [[nbsp]] I would have turned down the offer for a senate seat..I have other responsibilities now. You shouldn't eliminate the possibility of someone not wanting to be a senator after the election, months even! Where do you draw the line for "do not hire" candidates when you countback? --["Users/JenndelaVega"]------ + ''2005-01-30 22:34:58'' [[nbsp]] It's okay for someone not wanting to be Senator later on. --["Users/ChrisJerdonek"] + ------ + ''2005-01-30 22:51:41'' [[nbsp]] Say Jenn doesn't want to take a seat. First: run the simulation assuming Jenn will not accept the seat. Second: is there a limit on the number of candidates who reject the seat before the election data essentially becomes useless? Should we set one? --["Users/BrentLaabs"] + ------ + ''2005-01-31 00:06:49'' [[nbsp]] Brent, no there shouldnt. Example: we have a race with 1 open seat and 10 candidates, with the first 9 candidates dropping out. We cannot penalize the 1 remaining candidate and make him compete with 9 other people, he should win. Same thing in countback, its the only fair way to do it as far as I know. --["Users/PaulAmnuaypayoat"] + ------ + ''2005-01-31 21:23:41'' [[nbsp]] I'm going to add language to the Countback Amendment so that if the first 5 people chosen to be a Replacement Senator decide not to serve, then it reverts back to a Presidential appointment with confirmation from the Senate. I will work on getting my platform and this amendment on the Wikik ASAP. --["Users/JonathonLeathers"] + ------ + ''2005-01-31 23:30:34'' [[nbsp]] i think thats a great idea, even though it would mean that i wouldnt be a senator now. if you need help getting this bill moving, come and talk to me and we can make this happen --["Users/AdamGerber"] + ------ + ''2005-02-02 15:35:58'' [[nbsp]] Adam, I've discussed this with Senators and others but the basic consensus is that this will get vetoed under the current administration. So it will most likely be held off until after the Winter Elections. --["Users/JonathonLeathers"] + ------ + ''2005-02-08 01:25:59'' [[nbsp]] !!!! WARNING !!!! Since multiple winner Single-Transferable-Voting (choice voting) is non-monotonic, I believe it's actually possible for removing losing candidates to change the winner of the election. In other words, recalculating who won in this way may result in one of the non-resigning senators losing his seat! I'm not certain of this, I'll have to study the math a bit, but I suggest you hold off on the amendment until a math person prooves this issue. --["Users/ScottRitchie"] + * This is not true. Only ballots cast for the considered candidates, as well as the exhausted candidates, are considered. --["Users/PhilipNeustrom"] + * Ahh, I see, it wasn't exactly clear until I clicked the link for Ackerman's resignation. By the way, are the two candidates that are eliminated in the first round removed because they are [http://www.condorcet.org/emr/criteria.shtml condorcet losers] (rather than just the lowest vote getters)? --["Users/ScottRitchie"]
Line 119:	Line 126:
- * Then why does the system report that it has eliminated two candidates simultaneously, declaring them "mathematically impossible" rather than dropping them out one at a time because they're in last place like the rest of the eliminated candidates? --["ScottRitchie"] - * Note that it is still theoretically possible that the ''order'' of the resignations (IE: Nafeh before Sean or Sean before Nafeh rather than both simultaneously) will affect who replaces them (it's not guarenteed to be the same two people as if they had both resigned simultaneously like in the example). In this case whether Nafeh or Sean resigned first, or whether they both resigned simultaneously, would matter. It is still highly unlikely anyone will be able to exploit this, however. I might be wrong on this. --["ScottRitchie"] - * In the first countback you would use the set of exhausted ballots together with ballots cast to the resigning individual. If some of the exhausted ballots elected a candidate then they would have representation. Counting them again would lead to over-representation, so in the second countback you would exclude those ballots that already elected somebody. I guess in theory this means you could end up with two different candidates depending on the order of resignation, but it's also the case that each of the two would be representitive of the original voting preferences. --["PhilipNeustrom"]	+ * Then why does the system report that it has eliminated two candidates simultaneously, declaring them "mathematically impossible" rather than dropping them out one at a time because they're in last place like the rest of the eliminated candidates? --["Users/ScottRitchie"] + * Note that it is still theoretically possible that the ''order'' of the resignations (IE: Nafeh before Sean or Sean before Nafeh rather than both simultaneously) will affect who replaces them (it's not guarenteed to be the same two people as if they had both resigned simultaneously like in the example). In this case whether Nafeh or Sean resigned first, or whether they both resigned simultaneously, would matter. It is still highly unlikely anyone will be able to exploit this, however. I might be wrong on this. --["Users/ScottRitchie"] + * In the first countback you would use the set of exhausted ballots together with ballots cast to the resigning individual. If some of the exhausted ballots elected a candidate then they would have representation. Counting them again would lead to over-representation, so in the second countback you would exclude those ballots that already elected somebody. I guess in theory this means you could end up with two different candidates depending on the order of resignation, but it's also the case that each of the two would be representitive of the original voting preferences. --["Users/PhilipNeustrom"]
Line 123:	Line 130:
- ''2005-02-08 12:16:38'' [[nbsp]] Re: Aggie Editorial Opinion (I wrote this quickly, but I just wanted to get it out) They state that this is "not a failure of the system but a failure of the people in the system." What exactly is the Senate failing to do? The President has the power of appointment, so opposition to the President's appointments is be taken to mean opposition to the character of the individual -- rather than opposition on the grounds that they obtained few votes. The countback system ensures that the individuals given the opportunity to represent the student body are those who actually represent it, rather "Kalen's close personal friends." Why would senators oppose the legitimate appointment of highly ASUCD-involved individuals? Their job is to assure that the candidate is qualified to take office, not whether they represent an accurate cross section of the students. The real issue at hand whether the power of appointment should fall in the President's hands or the people's. --["PhilipNeustrom"]	+ ''2005-02-08 12:16:38'' [[nbsp]] Re: Aggie Editorial Opinion (I wrote this quickly, but I just wanted to get it out) They state that this is "not a failure of the system but a failure of the people in the system." What exactly is the Senate failing to do? The President has the power of appointment, so opposition to the President's appointments is be taken to mean opposition to the character of the individual -- rather than opposition on the grounds that they obtained few votes. The countback system ensures that the individuals given the opportunity to represent the student body are those who actually represent it, rather "Kalen's close personal friends." Why would senators oppose the legitimate appointment of highly ASUCD-involved individuals? Their job is to assure that the candidate is qualified to take office, not whether they represent an accurate cross section of the students. The real issue at hand whether the power of appointment should fall in the President's hands or the people's. --["Users/PhilipNeustrom"]
Line 125:	Line 132:
- ''2005-02-08 16:39:05'' [[nbsp]] The Aggie editorial largely dodged the issue, but it did raise a point that's been raised before: if there are successive "declinings," where do you draw the line? This is the only valid criticism I see that's been raised, and I think it merits being addressed in the legislation in a thoughtful way. (The current text is at ["Countback Amendment"]. I encourage you to look there and help modify.) How many voters must a replacement candidate represent to be considered a valid replacement? The answer should be some fraction of the threshold for the countback elecction. The difficulty is that, in Choice Voting elections with many candidates, even in the original election, the last-elected candidates may not even reach the threshold. This is because of exhausted ballots. This is why voters should be encouraged to meaningfully rank more than a few candidates. For example, in the Ackerman/Ruel Countback, Christina Chin got 86% of the threshold, because there was more than a threshold's worth of exhausted ballots. And I think that's definitely enough. --["ChrisJerdonek"]	+ ''2005-02-08 16:39:05'' [[nbsp]] The Aggie editorial largely dodged the issue, but it did raise a point that's been raised before: if there are successive "declinings," where do you draw the line? This is the only valid criticism I see that's been raised, and I think it merits being addressed in the legislation in a thoughtful way. (The current text is at ["Countback Amendment"]. I encourage you to look there and help modify.) How many voters must a replacement candidate represent to be considered a valid replacement? The answer should be some fraction of the threshold for the countback elecction. The difficulty is that, in Choice Voting elections with many candidates, even in the original election, the last-elected candidates may not even reach the threshold. This is because of exhausted ballots. This is why voters should be encouraged to meaningfully rank more than a few candidates. For example, in the Ackerman/Ruel Countback, Christina Chin got 86% of the threshold, because there was more than a threshold's worth of exhausted ballots. And I think that's definitely enough. --["Users/ChrisJerdonek"]
Line 127:	Line 134:
- ''2005-02-08 23:50:35'' [[nbsp]] I just wrote a letter to the editor about the Aggie Editorial addressing the concerns they raised. I've also changed the Amendment slightly. Candidates elected in the Countback election have to now get 50% of the threshold in the Countback Election to be asked to serve. Once a candidate drops below that, the President can appoint someone. I highly doubt this will ever occur, but it is meant to address the concerns that we would keep going down the list of candidates until someone is chosen that doesn't have much support. And since this actually has to pass a vote of the Senate to get on the ballot and a vote of the students to be enacted, it's definitely worthwhile to address concerns people have. --["JonathonLeathers"]	+ ''2005-02-08 23:50:35'' [[nbsp]] I just wrote a letter to the editor about the Aggie Editorial addressing the concerns they raised. I've also changed the Amendment slightly. Candidates elected in the Countback election have to now get 50% of the threshold in the Countback Election to be asked to serve. Once a candidate drops below that, the President can appoint someone. I highly doubt this will ever occur, but it is meant to address the concerns that we would keep going down the list of candidates until someone is chosen that doesn't have much support. And since this actually has to pass a vote of the Senate to get on the ballot and a vote of the students to be enacted, it's definitely worthwhile to address concerns people have. --["Users/JonathonLeathers"]

Countback

TomNelson — 2006-06-12 23:07:48

Fixed Aggie links

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 3:	Line 3:
- Before using Countback, when somebody resigned or otherwise terminated their ["ASUCD Senate"] position they would be replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there were (["Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr] ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallagher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["ASUCD Senate"]. The current previous system, it was thought, gave the ["ASUCD President"] unprecedented authority.	+ Before using Countback, when somebody resigned or otherwise terminated their ["ASUCD Senate"] position they would be replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there were (["Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr], ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallagher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["ASUCD Senate"]. The current previous system, it was thought, gave the ["ASUCD President"] unprecedented authority.
Line 17:	Line 17:
- == Barr's resignation? ==	+ == Barr's resignation? ==
Line 31:	Line 31:
- '''Thomas Lloyd'''	+ '''["Thomas Lloyd"]'''
Line 38:	Line 38:
- '''Keith Shively''' - ''Replaced by:'' Jonathan Leathers	+ '''["Keith Shively"]''' + ''Replaced by:'' Jonathon Leathers
Line 44:	Line 44:
- '''Janine Fiel'''	+ '''["Janine Fiel"]'''
Line 51:	Line 51:
- ''Replaced by:'' Parisa Manteghi	+ ''Replaced by:'' ["Parisa Manteghi"]
Line 56:	Line 56:
- '''Brianna Haag'''	+ '''["Brianna Haag"]'''
Line 83:	Line 83:
- Each pile is the collection of ballots that cause the winning candidates to get their threshold (''and win!''). We then consider only the pile for Senator C and the unrepresented ballots (that did not push anyone past a winning threshold). Then we run the election using those ballots, eliminating the resigning senator. This is a more representitive system because the people without representation are asked to elect the replacement for their candidate.	+ Each pile is the collection of ballots that cause the winning candidates to get their threshold (''and win!''). We then consider only the pile for Senator C and the unrepresented ballots (that did not push anyone past a winning threshold). Then we run the election using those ballots, eliminating the resigning senator. This is a more representitive system because the people without representation are asked to elect the replacement for their candidate.
Line 87:	Line 87:
- * [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6993 "Vacant Seats up for Election"] -- Letter to the editor by ["Jonathon Leathers"]	+ * [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/01/18/Opinion/Letters.To.The.Editor-1319214.shtml "Vacant Seats up for Election"] -- Letter to the editor by ["Jonathon Leathers"]
Line 89:	Line 89:
- * [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6992 Aggie article on the problem of Presidential appointment] - * [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=7390 Aggie Editorial Opinion] - * [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=7594 Response to Editorial] -bottom of the page.	+ * [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/02/04/FrontPage/Recent.Resignations.Prompt.Countback.System-1319453.shtml Aggie article on the problem of Presidential appointment] + * [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/02/08/Opinion/Editorial.Resigning.Senators.The.Real.Problem-1319493.shtml Aggie Editorial Opinion] + * [http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2005/02/17/Opinion/Letters.To.The.Editor-1319632.shtml Response to Editorial] -bottom of the page.

Countback

PhilipNeustrom — 2006-02-19 13:10:18

Revert to version dated 2005-12-20 18:58:38.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 3:	Line 3:
- Before using Countback, when somebody resigned or otherwise terminated their ["ASUCD Senate"] position they would be replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there were (["ASUCD Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr] ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallagher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["ASUCD Senate"]. The current previous system, it was thought, gave the ["ASUCD President"] unprecedented authority.	+ Before using Countback, when somebody resigned or otherwise terminated their ["ASUCD Senate"] position they would be replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there were (["Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr] ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallagher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["ASUCD Senate"]. The current previous system, it was thought, gave the ["ASUCD President"] unprecedented authority.

Countback

GrahamFreeman — 2006-02-19 13:09:08

fixed link

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 3:	Line 3:
- Before using Countback, when somebody resigned or otherwise terminated their ["ASUCD Senate"] position they would be replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there were (["Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr] ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallagher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["ASUCD Senate"]. The current previous system, it was thought, gave the ["ASUCD President"] unprecedented authority.	+ Before using Countback, when somebody resigned or otherwise terminated their ["ASUCD Senate"] position they would be replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there were (["ASUCD Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr] ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallagher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["ASUCD Senate"]. The current previous system, it was thought, gave the ["ASUCD President"] unprecedented authority.

Countback

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-12-20 18:58:38

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 5:	Line 5:
- .The city of Cambridge, MA uses the countback process to fill their choice voting vacancies.	+ The city of Cambridge, MA uses the countback process to fill their choice voting vacancies.

Countback

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-12-20 18:57:47

historical wording

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- As of now, when somebody resigns or otherwise terminates their ["ASUCD Senate"] position they are replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there have been (["Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr] ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallagher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["ASUCD Senate"]. The current system gives the ["ASUCD President"] unprecedented authority.	+ Countback is a way to use information from a previous ["Choice Voting"] election to replace a resigned/terminated candidate. Using the data from the previous election, the resigned/terminated candidate is 'eliminated' from the voting pool. Then the election is conducted with the ballots that caused the eliminated candidate to win (the ballots that gave the candidate the winning threshold) along with the ballots that did not elect a candidate. These are the ballots that have no representation. Whoever wins is given a seat on the ["ASUCD Senate"]. Because we use ["Choice Voting"] for our ["ASUCD Elections"], the person wins is most likely to represent the voting population who voted for the resigning candidate
Line 3:	Line 3:
- A solution: '''Countback'''.	+ Before using Countback, when somebody resigned or otherwise terminated their ["ASUCD Senate"] position they would be replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there were (["Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr] ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallagher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["ASUCD Senate"]. The current previous system, it was thought, gave the ["ASUCD President"] unprecedented authority.
Line 5:	Line 5:
- Using the data from the previous election, the resigned/terminated candidate is 'eliminated' from the voting pool. Then the election is conducted with the ballots that caused the eliminated candidate to win (the ballots that gave the candidate the winning threshold) along with the ballots that did not elect a candidate. These are the ballots that have no representation. Whoever wins is given a seat on the ["ASUCD Senate"]. Because we use ["Choice Voting"] for our ["ASUCD Elections"], the person who wins is most likely to represent the voting population who voted for the resigning candidate. - - The city of Cambridge, MA uses the countback process to fill their choice voting vacancies.	+ .The city of Cambridge, MA uses the countback process to fill their choice voting vacancies.

Countback

JimSchwab — 2005-07-24 18:39:44

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 5:	Line 5:
- Using the data from the previous election, the resigned/terminated candidate is 'eliminated' from the voting pool. Then the election is conducted with the ballots that caused the eliminated candidate to win (the ballots that gave the candidate the winning threshold) along with the ballots that did not elect a candidate. These are the ballots that have no representation. Whoever wins is given a seat on the ["ASUCD Senate"]. Because we use ["Choice Voting"] for our ["ASUCD Election" ASUCD Elections], the person who wins is most likely to represent the voting population who voted for the resigning candidate.	+ Using the data from the previous election, the resigned/terminated candidate is 'eliminated' from the voting pool. Then the election is conducted with the ballots that caused the eliminated candidate to win (the ballots that gave the candidate the winning threshold) along with the ballots that did not elect a candidate. These are the ballots that have no representation. Whoever wins is given a seat on the ["ASUCD Senate"]. Because we use ["Choice Voting"] for our ["ASUCD Elections"], the person who wins is most likely to represent the voting population who voted for the resigning candidate.

Countback

MiriamKaufman — 2005-04-10 20:22:43

senate link

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- As of now, when somebody resigns or otherwise terminates their ["ASUCD"] ["Senate"] position they are replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there have been (["Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr] ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallagher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["Senate"]. The current system gives the ["ASUCD President"] unprecedented authority.	+ As of now, when somebody resigns or otherwise terminates their ["ASUCD Senate"] position they are replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there have been (["Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr] ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallagher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["ASUCD Senate"]. The current system gives the ["ASUCD President"] unprecedented authority.
Line 5:	Line 5:
- Using the data from the previous election, the resigned/terminated candidate is 'eliminated' from the voting pool. Then the election is conducted with the ballots that caused the eliminated candidate to win (the ballots that gave the candidate the winning threshold) along with the ballots that did not elect a candidate. These are the ballots that have no representation. Whoever wins is given a seat on the ["Senate"]. Because we use ["Choice Voting"] for our ["ASUCD Election" ASUCD Elections], the person who wins is most likely to represent the voting population who voted for the resigning candidate.	+ Using the data from the previous election, the resigned/terminated candidate is 'eliminated' from the voting pool. Then the election is conducted with the ballots that caused the eliminated candidate to win (the ballots that gave the candidate the winning threshold) along with the ballots that did not elect a candidate. These are the ballots that have no representation. Whoever wins is given a seat on the ["ASUCD Senate"]. Because we use ["Choice Voting"] for our ["ASUCD Election" ASUCD Elections], the person who wins is most likely to represent the voting population who voted for the resigning candidate.
Line 21:	Line 21:
- ["Adam Barr"], once a member of the ["L.E.A.D."] ["Slate" slate], resigned from ["Senate"]. His appointed replacement, ["Cari Ham"], is a member of the ["Student Focus"] ["Slate" slate]. If countback were being used ["Cari Ham" Ham] would have been the ''first'' to be eliminated (meaning students who had voted for Barr would rather have ANY OTHER candidate than Ham replace him) and ["JenndelaVega" Jenn de la Vega] (who ran on ["L.E.A.D."]) would have been offered the position.	+ ["Adam Barr"], once a member of the ["L.E.A.D."] ["Slate" slate], resigned from ["ASUCD Senate"]. His appointed replacement, ["Cari Ham"], is a member of the ["Student Focus"] ["Slate" slate]. If countback were being used ["Cari Ham" Ham] would have been the ''first'' to be eliminated (meaning students who had voted for Barr would rather have ANY OTHER candidate than Ham replace him) and ["JenndelaVega" Jenn de la Vega] (who ran on ["L.E.A.D."]) would have been offered the position.
Line 74:	Line 74:
- ''This is a pretend countback where we assume 6 people ran for ["Senate"] and we are counting back to elect a replacement for senator C. Here's our pile of ballots'':	+ ''This is a pretend countback where we assume 6 people ran for ["ASUCD Senate"] and we are counting back to elect a replacement for senator C. Here's our pile of ballots'':

Countback

RobRoy — 2005-03-14 07:58:45

added more on 2004

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 30:	Line 30:
	+ + ==Here is the complete tally of the Fall 2004 Election Countback Results:== + + '''Thomas Lloyd''' + + ''Replaced by:'' Homer DeAla + * Final votes: 422.379853203 + * Threshold: 510 + * Percent threshold obtained: 82.8195790594 + + '''Keith Shively''' + ''Replaced by:'' Jonathan Leathers + * Final votes: 441.274275309 + * Threshold: 510 + * Percent threshold obtained: 86.5243677076 + + '''Janine Fiel''' + ''Replaced by:'' Homer DeAla + * Final votes: 510.0 + * Threshold: 510 + * Percent threshold obtained: 100.0 + + '''Nafeh Malik''' + ''Replaced by:'' Parisa Manteghi + * Final votes: 444.637030916 + * Threshold: 510 + * Percent threshold obtained: 87.1837315522 + + '''Brianna Haag''' + ''Replaced by:'' Christina Chin + * Final votes: 510.0 + * Threshold: 510 + * Percent threshold obtained: 100.0 + + '''Sean Ruel''' + ''Replaced by:'' Parisa Manteghi + * Final votes: 423.711094717 + * Threshold: 510 + * Percent threshold obtained: 83.0806068072 +

Countback

KristenBirdsall — 2005-03-01 12:09:35

added link

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 53:	Line 53:
	+ * [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=7594 Response to Editorial] -bottom of the page.

Countback

ScottRitchie — 2005-02-09 14:30:21

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 80:	Line 80:
- * Note that it is still theoretically possible that the ''order'' of the resignations (IE: Nafeh before Sean or Sean before Nafeh rather than both simultaneously) will affect who replaces them (it's not guarenteed to be the same two people as if they had both resigned simultaneously like in the example). In this case whether Nafeh or Sean resigned first, or whether they both resigned simultaneously, would matter. It is still highly unlikely anyone will be able to exploit this, however. I might be wrong on this. --["Scott Ritchie"]	+ * Then why does the system report that it has eliminated two candidates simultaneously, declaring them "mathematically impossible" rather than dropping them out one at a time because they're in last place like the rest of the eliminated candidates? --["ScottRitchie"] + * Note that it is still theoretically possible that the ''order'' of the resignations (IE: Nafeh before Sean or Sean before Nafeh rather than both simultaneously) will affect who replaces them (it's not guarenteed to be the same two people as if they had both resigned simultaneously like in the example). In this case whether Nafeh or Sean resigned first, or whether they both resigned simultaneously, would matter. It is still highly unlikely anyone will be able to exploit this, however. I might be wrong on this. --["ScottRitchie"]

Countback

JonathonLeathers — 2005-02-08 23:50:35

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 86:	Line 86:
	+ ------ + ''2005-02-08 23:50:35'' [[nbsp]] I just wrote a letter to the editor about the Aggie Editorial addressing the concerns they raised. I've also changed the Amendment slightly. Candidates elected in the Countback election have to now get 50% of the threshold in the Countback Election to be asked to serve. Once a candidate drops below that, the President can appoint someone. I highly doubt this will ever occur, but it is meant to address the concerns that we would keep going down the list of candidates until someone is chosen that doesn't have much support. And since this actually has to pass a vote of the Senate to get on the ballot and a vote of the students to be enacted, it's definitely worthwhile to address concerns people have. --["JonathonLeathers"]

Countback

ChrisJerdonek — 2005-02-08 16:48:35

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 79:	Line 79:
	+ * Scott, pairwise methods are not used in STV. It's always the last place candidate. --CHRIS
Line 84:	Line 85:
- ''2005-02-08 16:39:05'' [[nbsp]] The Aggie editorial largely dodged the issue, but it did raise a point that's been raised before: if there are successive "declinings," where do you draw the line? This is the only valid criticism I see that's been raised, and I think it merits being addressed in the legislation in a thoughtful way. How many voters must a replacement candidate represent to be considered a valid replacement? The answer should be some fraction of the threshold for the countback elecction. The difficulty is that, in Choice Voting elections with many candidates, even in the original election, the last-elected candidates may not even reach the threshold. This is because of exhausted ballots. This is why voters should be encouraged to meaningfully rank more than a few candidates. --["ChrisJerdonek"]	+ ''2005-02-08 16:39:05'' [[nbsp]] The Aggie editorial largely dodged the issue, but it did raise a point that's been raised before: if there are successive "declinings," where do you draw the line? This is the only valid criticism I see that's been raised, and I think it merits being addressed in the legislation in a thoughtful way. (The current text is at ["Countback Amendment"]. I encourage you to look there and help modify.) How many voters must a replacement candidate represent to be considered a valid replacement? The answer should be some fraction of the threshold for the countback elecction. The difficulty is that, in Choice Voting elections with many candidates, even in the original election, the last-elected candidates may not even reach the threshold. This is because of exhausted ballots. This is why voters should be encouraged to meaningfully rank more than a few candidates. For example, in the Ackerman/Ruel Countback, Christina Chin got 86% of the threshold, because there was more than a threshold's worth of exhausted ballots. And I think that's definitely enough. --["ChrisJerdonek"]

Countback

ChrisJerdonek — 2005-02-08 16:39:05

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 83:	Line 83:
	+ ------ + ''2005-02-08 16:39:05'' [[nbsp]] The Aggie editorial largely dodged the issue, but it did raise a point that's been raised before: if there are successive "declinings," where do you draw the line? This is the only valid criticism I see that's been raised, and I think it merits being addressed in the legislation in a thoughtful way. How many voters must a replacement candidate represent to be considered a valid replacement? The answer should be some fraction of the threshold for the countback elecction. The difficulty is that, in Choice Voting elections with many candidates, even in the original election, the last-elected candidates may not even reach the threshold. This is because of exhausted ballots. This is why voters should be encouraged to meaningfully rank more than a few candidates. --["ChrisJerdonek"]

Countback

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-02-08 12:31:17

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 82:	Line 82:
- ''2005-02-08 12:16:38'' [[nbsp]] Re: Aggie Editorial Opinion (I wrote this quickly, but I just wanted to get it out) They state that this is "not a failure of the system but a failure of the people in the system." What exactly is the Senate failing to do? The President has the power of appointment, so opposition to the President's appointments is be taken to mean opposition to the character of the individual -- rather than opposition on the grounds that they obtained few votes. The countback system ensures that the individuals given the opportunity to represent the student body are those who actually represent it, rather "Kalen's close personal friends." Why would senators oppose the legitimate appointment of highly ASUCD-involved individuals the grounds that they are Kalen's friends? Their job is to assure that the candidate is qualified to take office, not whether they represent an accurate cross section of the students. The real issue at hand whether the power of appointment should fall in the President's hands or the people's. --["PhilipNeustrom"]	+ ''2005-02-08 12:16:38'' [[nbsp]] Re: Aggie Editorial Opinion (I wrote this quickly, but I just wanted to get it out) They state that this is "not a failure of the system but a failure of the people in the system." What exactly is the Senate failing to do? The President has the power of appointment, so opposition to the President's appointments is be taken to mean opposition to the character of the individual -- rather than opposition on the grounds that they obtained few votes. The countback system ensures that the individuals given the opportunity to represent the student body are those who actually represent it, rather "Kalen's close personal friends." Why would senators oppose the legitimate appointment of highly ASUCD-involved individuals? Their job is to assure that the candidate is qualified to take office, not whether they represent an accurate cross section of the students. The real issue at hand whether the power of appointment should fall in the President's hands or the people's. --["PhilipNeustrom"]

Countback

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-02-08 12:30:06

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 80:	Line 80:
	+ * In the first countback you would use the set of exhausted ballots together with ballots cast to the resigning individual. If some of the exhausted ballots elected a candidate then they would have representation. Counting them again would lead to over-representation, so in the second countback you would exclude those ballots that already elected somebody. I guess in theory this means you could end up with two different candidates depending on the order of resignation, but it's also the case that each of the two would be representitive of the original voting preferences. --["PhilipNeustrom"]

Countback

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-02-08 12:16:38

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 80:	Line 80:
	+ ------ + ''2005-02-08 12:16:38'' [[nbsp]] Re: Aggie Editorial Opinion (I wrote this quickly, but I just wanted to get it out) They state that this is "not a failure of the system but a failure of the people in the system." What exactly is the Senate failing to do? The President has the power of appointment, so opposition to the President's appointments is be taken to mean opposition to the character of the individual -- rather than opposition on the grounds that they obtained few votes. The countback system ensures that the individuals given the opportunity to represent the student body are those who actually represent it, rather "Kalen's close personal friends." Why would senators oppose the legitimate appointment of highly ASUCD-involved individuals the grounds that they are Kalen's friends? Their job is to assure that the candidate is qualified to take office, not whether they represent an accurate cross section of the students. The real issue at hand whether the power of appointment should fall in the President's hands or the people's. --["PhilipNeustrom"]

Countback

ScottRitchie — 2005-02-08 04:48:34

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 79:	Line 79:
	+ * Note that it is still theoretically possible that the ''order'' of the resignations (IE: Nafeh before Sean or Sean before Nafeh rather than both simultaneously) will affect who replaces them (it's not guarenteed to be the same two people as if they had both resigned simultaneously like in the example). In this case whether Nafeh or Sean resigned first, or whether they both resigned simultaneously, would matter. It is still highly unlikely anyone will be able to exploit this, however. I might be wrong on this. --["Scott Ritchie"]

Countback

ScottRitchie — 2005-02-08 04:37:51

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 78:	Line 78:
- * Ahh, I see, it wasn't exactly clear until I clicked the link for Ackerman's resignation. By the way, are the two candidates that are eliminated in the first round removed because they are condorcet losers (rather than just the lowest vote getters)? --["ScottRitchie"]	+ * Ahh, I see, it wasn't exactly clear until I clicked the link for Ackerman's resignation. By the way, are the two candidates that are eliminated in the first round removed because they are [http://www.condorcet.org/emr/criteria.shtml condorcet losers] (rather than just the lowest vote getters)? --["ScottRitchie"]

Countback

ScottRitchie — 2005-02-08 04:11:38

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 78:	Line 78:
	+ * Ahh, I see, it wasn't exactly clear until I clicked the link for Ackerman's resignation. By the way, are the two candidates that are eliminated in the first round removed because they are condorcet losers (rather than just the lowest vote getters)? --["ScottRitchie"]

Countback

ChrisJerdonek — 2005-02-08 03:34:50

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 78:	Line 78:
- * Scott, you're a third right. What you mean to say is that removing a winning candidate can alter the other winners. And yes, that can happen. But that's not the system being proposed (and it shouldn't be). See Philip's comment. --CHRIS

Countback

ChrisJerdonek — 2005-02-08 03:27:29

comment

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 78:	Line 78:
	+ * Scott, you're a third right. What you mean to say is that removing a winning candidate can alter the other winners. And yes, that can happen. But that's not the system being proposed (and it shouldn't be). See Philip's comment. --CHRIS

Countback

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-02-08 03:09:46

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 77:	Line 77:
	+ * This is not true. Only ballots cast for the considered candidates, as well as the exhausted candidates, are considered. --["PhilipNeustrom"]

Countback

ScottRitchie — 2005-02-08 01:25:59

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 75:	Line 75:
	+ ------ + ''2005-02-08 01:25:59'' [[nbsp]] !!!! WARNING !!!! Since multiple winner Single-Transferable-Voting (choice voting) is non-monotonic, I believe it's actually possible for removing losing candidates to change the winner of the election. In other words, recalculating who won in this way may result in one of the non-resigning senators losing his seat! I'm not certain of this, I'll have to study the math a bit, but I suggest you hold off on the amendment until a math person prooves this issue. --["ScottRitchie"]

Countback

MattJojola — 2005-02-08 01:09:18

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 52:	Line 52:
-	+ * [http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=7390 Aggie Editorial Opinion]

Countback

JonathonLeathers — 2005-02-02 15:40:12

added a link to the amendment

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 8:	Line 8:
	+ + To view the text of the ["ASUCD"] Constitutional Amendment authored by ["JonathonLeathers" Jonathon Leathers] check out the ["Countback Amendment"] page. This page has the current version of the Amendment as well as a simple explanation of how the ["Countback"] Election would work.

Countback

JonathonLeathers — 2005-02-02 15:35:58

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 71:	Line 71:
	+ ------ + ''2005-02-02 15:35:58'' [[nbsp]] Adam, I've discussed this with Senators and others but the basic consensus is that this will get vetoed under the current administration. So it will most likely be held off until after the Winter Elections. --["JonathonLeathers"]

Countback

AdamGerber — 2005-01-31 23:32:07

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 70:	Line 70:
- ''2005-01-31 23:30:34'' [[nbsp]] i think thats a great idea, even though it would mean that i wouldnt be a senator now. if you need help getting this bill moving, come and talk to me and we can make this happen - ["Adam Gerber"] --["AdamGerber"]	+ ''2005-01-31 23:30:34'' [[nbsp]] i think thats a great idea, even though it would mean that i wouldnt be a senator now. if you need help getting this bill moving, come and talk to me and we can make this happen --["AdamGerber"]

Countback

AdamGerber — 2005-01-31 23:30:34

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 69:	Line 69:
- ''2005-01-31 21:23:41'' [[nbsp]] I'm going to add language to the Countback Amendment so that if the first 5 people chosen to be a Replacement Senator decide not to serve, then it reverts back to a Presidential appointment with confirmation from the Senate. I will work on getting my platform and this amendment on the Wikik ASAP. --["JonathonLeathers"]	+ ''2005-01-31 21:23:41'' [[nbsp]] I'm going to add language to the Countback Amendment so that if the first 5 people chosen to be a Replacement Senator decide not to serve, then it reverts back to a Presidential appointment with confirmation from the Senate. I will work on getting my platform and this amendment on the Wikik ASAP. --["JonathonLeathers"]------ + ''2005-01-31 23:30:34'' [[nbsp]] i think thats a great idea, even though it would mean that i wouldnt be a senator now. if you need help getting this bill moving, come and talk to me and we can make this happen - ["Adam Gerber"] --["AdamGerber"]

Countback

JonathonLeathers — 2005-01-31 21:23:41

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 68:	Line 68:
- ''2005-01-31 00:06:49'' [[nbsp]] Brent, no there shouldnt. Example: we have a race with 1 open seat and 10 candidates, with the first 9 candidates dropping out. We cannot penalize the 1 remaining candidate and make him compete with 9 other people, he should win. Same thing in countback, its the only fair way to do it as far as I know. --["PaulAmnuaypayoat"]	+ ''2005-01-31 00:06:49'' [[nbsp]] Brent, no there shouldnt. Example: we have a race with 1 open seat and 10 candidates, with the first 9 candidates dropping out. We cannot penalize the 1 remaining candidate and make him compete with 9 other people, he should win. Same thing in countback, its the only fair way to do it as far as I know. --["PaulAmnuaypayoat"]------ + ''2005-01-31 21:23:41'' [[nbsp]] I'm going to add language to the Countback Amendment so that if the first 5 people chosen to be a Replacement Senator decide not to serve, then it reverts back to a Presidential appointment with confirmation from the Senate. I will work on getting my platform and this amendment on the Wikik ASAP. --["JonathonLeathers"]

Countback

PaulAmnuaypayoat — 2005-01-31 00:06:49

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 67:	Line 67:
- ''2005-01-30 22:51:41'' [[nbsp]] Say Jenn doesn't want to take a seat. First: run the simulation assuming Jenn will not accept the seat. Second: is there a limit on the number of candidates who reject the seat before the election data essentially becomes useless? Should we set one? --["BrentLaabs"]	+ ''2005-01-30 22:51:41'' [[nbsp]] Say Jenn doesn't want to take a seat. First: run the simulation assuming Jenn will not accept the seat. Second: is there a limit on the number of candidates who reject the seat before the election data essentially becomes useless? Should we set one? --["BrentLaabs"]------ + ''2005-01-31 00:06:49'' [[nbsp]] Brent, no there shouldnt. Example: we have a race with 1 open seat and 10 candidates, with the first 9 candidates dropping out. We cannot penalize the 1 remaining candidate and make him compete with 9 other people, he should win. Same thing in countback, its the only fair way to do it as far as I know. --["PaulAmnuaypayoat"]

Countback

BrentLaabs — 2005-01-30 22:51:41

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 66:	Line 66:
- ''2005-01-30 22:34:58'' [[nbsp]] It's okay for someone not wanting to be Senator later on. --["ChrisJerdonek"]	+ ''2005-01-30 22:34:58'' [[nbsp]] It's okay for someone not wanting to be Senator later on. --["ChrisJerdonek"]------ + ''2005-01-30 22:51:41'' [[nbsp]] Say Jenn doesn't want to take a seat. First: run the simulation assuming Jenn will not accept the seat. Second: is there a limit on the number of candidates who reject the seat before the election data essentially becomes useless? Should we set one? --["BrentLaabs"]

Countback

ChrisJerdonek — 2005-01-30 22:34:58

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 65:	Line 65:
- ''2005-01-30 19:48:36'' [[nbsp]] I would have turned down the offer for a senate seat..I have other responsibilities now. You shouldn't eliminate the possibility of someone not wanting to be a senator after the election, months even! Where do you draw the line for "do not hire" candidates when you countback? --["JenndelaVega"]	+ ''2005-01-30 19:48:36'' [[nbsp]] I would have turned down the offer for a senate seat..I have other responsibilities now. You shouldn't eliminate the possibility of someone not wanting to be a senator after the election, months even! Where do you draw the line for "do not hire" candidates when you countback? --["JenndelaVega"]------ + ''2005-01-30 22:34:58'' [[nbsp]] It's okay for someone not wanting to be Senator later on. --["ChrisJerdonek"]

Countback

JenndelaVega — 2005-01-30 19:48:36

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 64:	Line 64:
	+ ------ + ''2005-01-30 19:48:36'' [[nbsp]] I would have turned down the offer for a senate seat..I have other responsibilities now. You shouldn't eliminate the possibility of someone not wanting to be a senator after the election, months even! Where do you draw the line for "do not hire" candidates when you countback? --["JenndelaVega"]

Countback

ChrisJerdonek — 2005-01-29 12:47:40

the "what if" part needs reworking for consistent look/phrasing & wiki link

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 7:	Line 7:
- = Example =	+ The city of Cambridge, MA uses the countback process to fill their choice voting vacancies. + + = What if ASUCD had used Countback to fill... = + + == Malik and Ruel's resignations? == + + The 1026 ballots that went to elect Malik and Ruel, together with the 485 exhausted ballots, would have elected replacements Parisa Manteghi and Christina Chin, both Student Focus candidates. Nafeh Malik and Sean Ruel were Student Focus Senators. Here is the countback tally: + + [http://davischoicevoting.org/countback/malik_ruel/Fall%202004%20Countback%20Round.htm Malik and Ruel countback tally (courtesy of DCR)] + + == Barr's resignation? == +
Line 10:	Line 21:
- == Further detail ==	+ [http://davischoicevoting.org/countback/barr_countback.txt Barr countback tally (courtesy of DCR)] + + == Ackerman's resignation? == + + The 350 ballots that went to elect James Ackerman in Fall 2003, along with the 327 exhausted ballots, would have elected replacement Leticia Miller. Ackerman was a Student Focus senator, and Miller was a Student Focus candidate. Here is the tally, courtesy of DCR: + + [http://davischoicevoting.org/countback/ackerman/Vacancy%20Round.htm Ackerman countback tally] + + = Further detail =

Countback

ChrisJerdonek — 2005-01-29 12:20:30

deleted duplicate comment

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 44:	Line 44:
- ''2005-01-29 12:13:24'' [[nbsp]] Travis, is this a realistic worry? DonThere were 3 LEAD senators in line that could replace Adam. Under countback, the replacements are serious enough that they actually campaigned and collected all the signatures. --["ChrisJerdonek"]------

Countback

ChrisJerdonek — 2005-01-29 12:19:33

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 44:	Line 44:
- ''2005-01-29 12:13:24'' [[nbsp]] Travis, is this a realistic worry? DonThere were 3 LEAD senators in line that could replace Adam. Under countback, the replacements are serious enough that they actually campaigned and collected all the signatures. --["ChrisJerdonek"]	+ ''2005-01-29 12:13:24'' [[nbsp]] Travis, is this a realistic worry? DonThere were 3 LEAD senators in line that could replace Adam. Under countback, the replacements are serious enough that they actually campaigned and collected all the signatures. --["ChrisJerdonek"]------ + ''2005-01-29 12:19:33'' [[nbsp]] Travis, is this really a realistic worry? Don't you think most people given the opportunity would jump at the chance to be Senator? They did run after all -- knowing it's a year-long commitment. There would have been 3 potential LEAD candidates in line to replace Adam in a countback. And many more legitimate candidates after that. --["ChrisJerdonek"]

Countback

ChrisJerdonek — 2005-01-29 12:13:24

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 43:	Line 43:
- ''2005-01-29 03:47:57'' [[nbsp]] Travis, I understand your concerns, but honestly, the current system of presidential appointments has to change because there is absolutley no garuntee that the Pres will choose an appropriate person to fill a vacancy. At least with countback, you take into account what the voters preferences were. --["PaulAmnuaypayoat"]	+ ''2005-01-29 03:47:57'' [[nbsp]] Travis, I understand your concerns, but honestly, the current system of presidential appointments has to change because there is absolutley no garuntee that the Pres will choose an appropriate person to fill a vacancy. At least with countback, you take into account what the voters preferences were. --["PaulAmnuaypayoat"]------ + ''2005-01-29 12:13:24'' [[nbsp]] Travis, is this a realistic worry? DonThere were 3 LEAD senators in line that could replace Adam. Under countback, the replacements are serious enough that they actually campaigned and collected all the signatures. --["ChrisJerdonek"]

Countback

PaulAmnuaypayoat — 2005-01-29 03:47:57

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 42:	Line 42:
	+ ------ + ''2005-01-29 03:47:57'' [[nbsp]] Travis, I understand your concerns, but honestly, the current system of presidential appointments has to change because there is absolutley no garuntee that the Pres will choose an appropriate person to fill a vacancy. At least with countback, you take into account what the voters preferences were. --["PaulAmnuaypayoat"]

Countback

TravisGrathwell — 2005-01-29 00:31:32

comment boxes encourage linking errors

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 41:	Line 41:
- ''2005-01-29 00:30:28'' [[nbsp]] Huge problem: Not everyone (or even every ["Jenn De La Vega"]) is eager to take on the role of senator months after an election has passed. And if people are given the offer to reject an appointment when they're counted-back, the system could just keep bubbling down the list until it got to some candidate that ["Friends for Urging Campus Kindness" ran on a lark]. Under the current system where people have to APPLY for a vacant senator position, you know that at the very least every candidate for the job is at least ready to take it on at the time. --["TravisGrathwell"]	+ ''2005-01-29 00:30:28'' [[nbsp]] Huge problem: Not everyone (or even every ["JenndelaVega" Jenn De La Vega]) is eager to take on the role of senator months after an election has passed. And if people are given the offer to reject an appointment when they're counted-back, the system could just keep bubbling down the list until it got to some candidate that ["Friends Urging Campus Kindness" ran on a lark]. Under the current system where people have to APPLY for a vacant senator position, you know that at the very least every candidate for the job is at least ready to take it on at the time. --["TravisGrathwell"]

Countback

TravisGrathwell — 2005-01-29 00:30:28

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 40:	Line 40:
	+ ------ + ''2005-01-29 00:30:28'' [[nbsp]] Huge problem: Not everyone (or even every ["Jenn De La Vega"]) is eager to take on the role of senator months after an election has passed. And if people are given the offer to reject an appointment when they're counted-back, the system could just keep bubbling down the list until it got to some candidate that ["Friends for Urging Campus Kindness" ran on a lark]. Under the current system where people have to APPLY for a vacant senator position, you know that at the very least every candidate for the job is at least ready to take it on at the time. --["TravisGrathwell"]

Countback

KrisFricke — 2005-01-28 17:39:54

reworded the part about voters loathing Ham again

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 8:	Line 8:
- ["Adam Barr"], once a member of the ["L.E.A.D."] ["Slate" slate], resigned from ["Senate"]. His appointed replacement, ["Cari Ham"], is a member of the ["Student Focus"] ["Slate" slate]. If countback were being used ["Cari Ham" Ham] would have been the ''first'' to be eliminated (meaning students who had voted for Barr would rather have candidate other than Ham in office) and ["JenndelaVega" Jenn de la Vega] (who ran on ["L.E.A.D."]) would have been offered the position.	+ ["Adam Barr"], once a member of the ["L.E.A.D."] ["Slate" slate], resigned from ["Senate"]. His appointed replacement, ["Cari Ham"], is a member of the ["Student Focus"] ["Slate" slate]. If countback were being used ["Cari Ham" Ham] would have been the ''first'' to be eliminated (meaning students who had voted for Barr would rather have ANY OTHER candidate than Ham replace him) and ["JenndelaVega" Jenn de la Vega] (who ran on ["L.E.A.D."]) would have been offered the position.

Countback

RevChad — 2005-01-28 17:31:26

rewording

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 8:	Line 8:
- ["Adam Barr"], once a member of the ["L.E.A.D."] ["Slate" slate], resigned from ["Senate"]. His appointed replacement, ["Cari Ham"], is a member of the ["Student Focus"] ["Slate" slate]. If countback were being used ["Cari Ham" Ham] would have been the ''first'' to be eliminated (meaning she was the least favourite candidate of those who had voted for Barr) and ["JenndelaVega" Jen de la Vega] (who ran on ["L.E.A.D."]) would have been offered the position.	+ ["Adam Barr"], once a member of the ["L.E.A.D."] ["Slate" slate], resigned from ["Senate"]. His appointed replacement, ["Cari Ham"], is a member of the ["Student Focus"] ["Slate" slate]. If countback were being used ["Cari Ham" Ham] would have been the ''first'' to be eliminated (meaning students who had voted for Barr would rather have candidate other than Ham in office) and ["JenndelaVega" Jenn de la Vega] (who ran on ["L.E.A.D."]) would have been offered the position.

Countback

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-01-28 17:28:32

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 15:	Line 15:
- \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="100px">Senator A\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| - \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="100px">Senator B\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| - \|\|<bgcolor="#ccc0ff" width="100px">Senator C\|\|<bgcolor="#ccc0ff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccc0ff">\|\| - \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="100px">Senator D\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| - \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="100px">Senator E\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| - \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="100px">Senator F\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| - \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="100px">Senator G\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| - \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="100px">Didn't push a candiate past a threshold\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="110px">\|\|<width="90px">\|\|	+ \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="150px">Senator A\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="150px">Senator B\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccc0ff" width="150px">Senator C\|\|<bgcolor="#ccc0ff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccc0ff">\|\| + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="150px">Senator D\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="150px">Senator E\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="150px">Senator F\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="150px">Senator G\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="150px">Didn't elect candidate\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="110px">\|\|<width="90px">\|\|

Countback

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-01-28 17:17:36

added some, still needs clarity

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 5:	Line 5:
- Using the data from the previous election, the resigned/terminated candidate is 'eliminated' from the voting pool as are all of the previous winners. Then the election is conducted as before. Whoever wins is given a seat on the ["Senate"]. Because we use ["Choice Voting"] for our ["ASUCD Election" ASUCD Elections], the person who wins is most likely to represent the voting population who voted for the resigning candidate.	+ Using the data from the previous election, the resigned/terminated candidate is 'eliminated' from the voting pool. Then the election is conducted with the ballots that caused the eliminated candidate to win (the ballots that gave the candidate the winning threshold) along with the ballots that did not elect a candidate. These are the ballots that have no representation. Whoever wins is given a seat on the ["Senate"]. Because we use ["Choice Voting"] for our ["ASUCD Election" ASUCD Elections], the person who wins is most likely to represent the voting population who voted for the resigning candidate.
Line 9:	Line 9:
	+ + == Further detail == + ''photo request: nicer graphics of this'' + + ''This is a pretend countback where we assume 6 people ran for ["Senate"] and we are counting back to elect a replacement for senator C. Here's our pile of ballots'': + + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="100px">Senator A\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="100px">Senator B\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccc0ff" width="100px">Senator C\|\|<bgcolor="#ccc0ff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccc0ff">\|\| + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="100px">Senator D\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="100px">Senator E\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="100px">Senator F\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="100px">Senator G\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="200px">\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff">\|\| + \|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="100px">Didn't push a candiate past a threshold\|\|<bgcolor="#ccddff" width="110px">\|\|<width="90px">\|\| + + Each pile is the collection of ballots that cause the winning candidates to get their threshold (''and win!''). We then consider only the pile for Senator C and the unrepresented ballots (that did not push anyone past a winning threshold). Then we run the election using those ballots, eliminating the resigning senator. This is a more representitive system because the people without representation are asked to elect the replacement for their candidate. +

Countback

KrisFricke — 2005-01-28 16:12:09

noted: first to be eliminated = least favourite person

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 8:	Line 8:
- ["Adam Barr"], once a member of the ["L.E.A.D."] ["Slate" slate], resigned from ["Senate"]. His appointed replacement, ["Cari Ham"], is a member of the ["Student Focus"] ["Slate" slate]. If countback were being used ["Cari Ham" Ham] would have been the ''first'' to be eliminated and ["JenndelaVega" Jen de la Vega] (who ran on ["L.E.A.D."]) would have been offered the position.	+ ["Adam Barr"], once a member of the ["L.E.A.D."] ["Slate" slate], resigned from ["Senate"]. His appointed replacement, ["Cari Ham"], is a member of the ["Student Focus"] ["Slate" slate]. If countback were being used ["Cari Ham" Ham] would have been the ''first'' to be eliminated (meaning she was the least favourite candidate of those who had voted for Barr) and ["JenndelaVega" Jen de la Vega] (who ran on ["L.E.A.D."]) would have been offered the position.

Countback

MattJojola — 2005-01-28 16:10:26

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 21:	Line 21:
- ''2005-01-28 16:08:13'' [[nbsp]] ["Jonathon Leathers"] has been working on it for a while. --["RevChad"]	+ ''2005-01-28 16:08:13'' [[nbsp]] ["Jonathon Leathers"] has been working on it for a while. --["RevChad"]------ + ''2005-01-28 16:10:26'' [[nbsp]] haha. Davis Citizens for Representation has the same acronym as DCR --["MattJojola"]

Countback

RevChad — 2005-01-28 16:08:13

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 20:	Line 20:
	+ ------ + ''2005-01-28 16:08:13'' [[nbsp]] ["Jonathon Leathers"] has been working on it for a while. --["RevChad"]

Countback

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-01-28 03:34:03

cleared that up i hope

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 5:	Line 5:
- Using the data from the previous election, the resigned/terminated candidate is 'eliminated' from the voting pool and the election is conducted as before. Whoever wins (that didn't win before) is given a seat on the ["Senate"]. Because we use ["Choice Voting"] for our ["ASUCD Election" ASUCD Elections], the person who wins is most likely to represent the voting population who voted for the resigning candidate.	+ Using the data from the previous election, the resigned/terminated candidate is 'eliminated' from the voting pool as are all of the previous winners. Then the election is conducted as before. Whoever wins is given a seat on the ["Senate"]. Because we use ["Choice Voting"] for our ["ASUCD Election" ASUCD Elections], the person who wins is most likely to represent the voting population who voted for the resigning candidate.
Line 20:	Line 20:
- ------ - ''2005-01-28 03:22:40'' [[nbsp]] so what happens if a seated senator wouldn't have been elected under countback? which of the two new people are selected? --["BrentLaabs"]

Countback

BrentLaabs — 2005-01-28 03:22:40

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 20:	Line 20:
	+ ------ + ''2005-01-28 03:22:40'' [[nbsp]] so what happens if a seated senator wouldn't have been elected under countback? which of the two new people are selected? --["BrentLaabs"]

Countback

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-01-28 01:31:49

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 12:	Line 12:
- * [http://davischoicevoting.org Davis Citizens for Representation]	+ * [http://davischoicevoting.org Davis Citizens for Representation] -- has sample countback elections + * [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6992 Aggie article on the problem of Presidential appointment]

Countback

PaulAmnuaypayoat — 2005-01-28 01:24:37

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 17:	Line 17:
- ''2005-01-28 01:11:54'' [[nbsp]] I like this idea...someone really needs to spearhead this and get it introduced into senate --["MattJojola"]	+ ''2005-01-28 01:11:54'' [[nbsp]] I like this idea...someone really needs to spearhead this and get it introduced into senate --["MattJojola"]------ + ''2005-01-28 01:24:37'' [[nbsp]] I believe someone is already on it, but they cant introduce it until the end of the quarter --["PaulAmnuaypayoat"]

Countback

MattJojola — 2005-01-28 01:11:54

Comment added.

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 16:	Line 16:
	+ ------ + ''2005-01-28 01:11:54'' [[nbsp]] I like this idea...someone really needs to spearhead this and get it introduced into senate --["MattJojola"]

Countback

MattJojola — 2005-01-28 01:11:12

this page yearns for comments

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 13:	Line 13:
	+ + + [[Comments]]

Countback

PaulAmnuaypayoat — 2005-01-28 00:49:12

Countback

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-01-28 00:46:19

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- As of now, when somebody resigns or otherwise terminates their ["ASUCD"] ["Senate"] position they are replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there have been (["Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr] ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallagher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["Senate"]. The current system gives the ["ASUCD President"] unpresidented authority.	+ As of now, when somebody resigns or otherwise terminates their ["ASUCD"] ["Senate"] position they are replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there have been (["Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr] ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallagher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["Senate"]. The current system gives the ["ASUCD President"] unprecedented authority.

Countback

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-01-28 00:45:12

duhhhh i can spell Gallagher

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- As of now, when somebody resigns or otherwise terminates their ["ASUCD"] ["Senate"] position they are replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there have been (["Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr] ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallegher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["Senate"]. The current system gives the ["ASUCD President"] unpresidented authority.	+ As of now, when somebody resigns or otherwise terminates their ["ASUCD"] ["Senate"] position they are replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there have been (["Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr] ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallagher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["Senate"]. The current system gives the ["ASUCD President"] unpresidented authority.

Countback

PhilipNeustrom — 2005-01-28 00:44:26

got this started

Differences for Countback

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+ As of now, when somebody resigns or otherwise terminates their ["ASUCD"] ["Senate"] position they are replaced by an appointee chosen by the ["ASUCD President"]. In the period from the Winter of the 04' school year to the Winter of the 05' year there have been (["Senator Ackerman Scandal" Ackerman], ["Adam Barr" Barr] ["Sean Ruel" Ruel], ["Nafeh Malik" Malik]) 4 resignations. So this means ["Kalen Gallegher"] got to choose 4 voting, acting members of the ["Senate"]. The current system gives the ["ASUCD President"] unpresidented authority. + + A solution: '''Countback'''. + + Using the data from the previous election, the resigned/terminated candidate is 'eliminated' from the voting pool and the election is conducted as before. Whoever wins (that didn't win before) is given a seat on the ["Senate"]. Because we use ["Choice Voting"] for our ["ASUCD Election" ASUCD Elections], the person who wins is most likely to represent the voting population who voted for the resigning candidate. + + = Example = + ["Adam Barr"], once a member of the ["L.E.A.D."] slate, resigned from ["Senate"]. His appointed replacement, ["Cari Ham"], is a member of the ["Student Focus"] slate. If countback were being used ["Cari Ham" Ham] would have been the ''first'' to be eliminated and ["JenndelaVega" Jen de la Vega] (who ran on ["L.E.A.D."]) would have been offered the position. + + = More information = + * [http://californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6993 "Vacant Seats up for Election"] -- Letter to the editor by ["Jonathon Leathers"] + * [http://davischoicevoting.org Davis Citizens for Representation]