Hi folks. The ruleset for Agora handwaves the definition of instant runoff voting. From rule 955 (“Determining the Will of Agora”):
> For an instant runoff decision, the outcome is whichever option wins > according to the standard definition of instant runoff. I assume this was originally done because fully specifying IRV takes a fair bit of text, as the method is not simple. There have been blessedly few disputes over this, but IRV is used in some sensitve places - in particular, for the election of officers, which are, in turn, essential to conducting business. I think it’s worth fixing. The closest I can find to a “standard definition” of IRV is from Robert’s Rules, where it’s called “preferential voting”. From <http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1797>: > One method is described here by way of illustration. On the preferential > ballot—for each office to be filled or multiple-choice question to be > decided—the voter is asked to indicate the order in which he prefers all the > candidates or propositions, placing the numeral 1 beside his first > preference, the numeral 2 beside his second preference, and so on for every > possible choice. In counting the votes for a given office or question, the > ballots are arranged in piles according to the indicated first > preferences—one pile for each candidate or proposition. The number of ballots > in each pile is then recorded for the tellers’ report. These piles remain > identified with the names of the same candidates or propositions throughout > the counting procedure until all but one are eliminated as described below. > If more than half of the ballots show one candidate or proposition indicated > as first choice, that choice has a majority in the ordinary sense and the > candidate is elected or the proposition is decided upon. But if there is no > such majority, candidates or propositions are eliminated one by one, > beginning with the least popular, until one prevails, as follows: The ballots > in the thinnest pile—that is, those containing the name designated as first > choice by the fewest number of voters—are redistributed into the other piles > according to the names marked as second choice on these ballots. The number > of ballots in each remaining pile after this distribution is again recorded. > If more than half of the ballots are now in one pile, that candidate or > proposition is elected or decided upon. If not, the next least popular > candidate or proposition is similarly eliminated, by taking the thinnest > remaining pile and redistributing its ballots according to their second > choices into the other piles, except that, if the name eliminated in the last > distribution is indicated as second choice on a ballot, that ballot is placed > according to its third choice. Again the number of ballots in each existing > pile is recorded, and, if necessary, the process is repeated—by > redistributing each time the ballots in the thinnest remaining pile, > according to the marked second choice or most-preferred choice among those > not yet eliminated—until one pile contains more than half of the ballots, the > result being thereby determined. The tellers’ report consists of a table > listing all candidates or propositions, with the number of ballots that were > in each pile after each successive distribution. (Line breaks thus, unfortunately.) This is a bit wordy, but provides a good starting point. I intend to propose the following change to rule 955, in place of the current definition of IRV: > The outcome of an Instant Runoff decision is: > > a. If a single option has the absolute majority of valid ballots specifying > it as the first entry on the list, then the outcome is that option; otherwise > > b. The option with the fewest valid ballots specifying it as the first entry > on the list is identified, and the outcome is the outcome of an Instant > Runoff decision as if that option had been removed from each valid ballot > that contained it. > > If there are multiple such options, the vote collector for the decision > can, and must, select one to remove, specifying that they did so in the > message resolving the decision. Does this contain any obvious scams? Does this accurately capture IRV as performed by Agorans? -o
