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.
-Aris On Saturday, September 17, 2016, Alexis Hunt <[email protected]> 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 > >
