The first bit seems fine. The second bit though... Okay, I don't really
know the precedent on this, but it seems like a fairly minor thing to have
someone win over. I mean if someone fixes a game-braking error, or even a
major one, that makes sense. But this doesn't even break anything. It just
means that the election mechanics don't function quite as intended.


On Saturday, September 17, 2016, Alexis Hunt <> wrote:

> The Speaker is supposed to get two votes in the election for Prime
> Minister, but elections for offices use FPTP which doesn't count voting
> strength.
> Proposal: Voting Strength Fix (AI=1)
> {{{
> Amend rule 2422 (Voting Strength) by inserting "on an Agoran decision"
> after each occurrence of "entity".
> Amend rule 2423 (First Among Equals) by replacing the second paragraph
> with:
>       On any Agoran decision to adopt a Proposal, the holder of the
>       office of Prime Minister has voting strength one greater than
>       e would have if e did not hold the office.
> Amend rule 955 by replacing (Determining the Will of Agora) by replacing
> the text with:
>       Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which determines how
>       voters may vote on it and how to calculate the outcome. The strength of
>       a ballot is the voting strength of the voter who cast it on that Agoran
>       decision.
>       The following voting methods are defined:
>       (1) AI-majority: the valid votes are FOR and AGAINST.  Let F be
>           the total strength of all valid ballots cast FOR a decision, A be   
>        the same for AGAINST, and AI becthe adoption index of the
>           decision.  The outcome is ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A > 1
>           (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise REJECTED.
>       (2) Instant runoff: the valid votes are ordered lists of
>           options, and the outcome is whichever option wins according
>           to the standard definition of instant runoff. For this purpose, a   
>        ballot of strength N is treated as if it were N distinct ballots
>           expressing the same preferences. In case multiple valid
>           options tie for the lowest number of votes at any stage, the
>           vote collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the
>           decision's resolution, select one such option to eliminate; if,
>           for N > 1, all eir possible choices in the next N stages would
>           result in the same set of options being eliminated, e need
>           not specify the order of elimination.
>       (3) First-past-the-post (default): the valid votes are the
>           options, and the outcome is whichever option received the
>           highest total strength of valid ballots. In case of a tie, the vote
>           collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the decision's
>           resolution, select one of the leaders as the outcome.
> }}}
> Also, I feel I deserve a reward for fixing this bug:
> Proposal: New Speaker (AI=1){{{Enact a new Power-1 rule reading:
>       Upon enactment of this rule, Alexis wins and then this rule repeals 
> itself.
> }}}-Alexis

Reply via email to