In the ongoing election for Prime Minister, I vote [G., Aris].
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 12:29, D Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
I temporarily deputise for ADoP to initiate an election for Prime
Minister (for reals this time).
The valid options are G., Corona, and Aris.
The vote collector is the ADoP and the voting method is instant runoff.
On Jun 2, 2019, at 4:56 AM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
wrote:
JUDGEMENT OF A CFJ WITH NO ID
===============================
Whereas there is not much I feel I can add to the Caller's Arguments,
I accept them and judge this CFJ TRUE.
On 5/30/19 12:57 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I assign this CFJ to Trigon (the only judge who is both eligible and
not an interested party).
Begin forwarded message:
From: D Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com>
Date: May 28, 2019 at 9:49:13 AM EDT
To: Agora Business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>
Subject: CFJ re Prime Minister Election
I call for judgement, and submit to the Referee (because the Arbitor
is an interested party), the following statement: “The ADoP did not
EFFECTIVELY commence any election for the office of Prime Minister on 19
May 2019.”
Caller’s Arguments:
Under Rule 104, a notice initiating an Agoran decision is “invalid”
unless it contains “[a] clear description of the valid options.” On 19 May
2019, the ADoP sent two messages purporting to initiate an election for
Prime Minister, but neither of those messages clearly described the valid
options as required by rule. Therefore no PM election was commenced.
In the first attempt,[1] Murphy stated that “the valid options are
the candidates (G. and Corona).” That did not clearly state the valid
options because Aris was also a candidate.
In the second attempt,[2] Murphy stated that “Aris may also be a
candidate” and that, “[i]f voting for Prime Minister is not yet open, then
I open it (details as below except Aris is also a candidate).” That
message did not clearly identify the valid options, because it stated only
that Aris *may* be a candidate, not that e *was* a candidate. Additionally,
that message initiated an election *conditioned* on the old election being
invalid; as a result, a reasonable Agoran reading that message in isolation
would be unable to determine whether the PM election was initiated by
message [1] or [2], and therefore could not know what the “valid options”
were. In my view, that means that message [2] did not contain “[a] clear
description of the valid options.”
Because neither message clearly described the valid options, both
messages failed to initiate an election under Rule 104.
——
[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33821.html
[2]
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33823.html
--
Trigon
