NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT SENATE

87^TH SESSION, 2007-2008

Government Bill 86

A BILL TO BE ENTILED

An Act To Authorize Use of Preferential Balloting in Student Body Elections and To Provide For Determination of Preferential Ballot Winners

Short Title: Efficient & Fair Elections Act

Sponsors: Senators Barnes (Corresponding), Beam, Burrell, Chen, Davis, Dawkins, Dunstan, Friel, Gannon, Howard, Lassiter, Mills, Parnell, Phelps, Rogers, Rose, Webb

Signatories: Adam G. Compton, Student Body Treasurer Emeritus

Referred to:

Version: Committee Version (Closed Rule Invoked)

Version Date: February 11, 2008 First Reading: February 13, 2008

WHEREAS, use of preferential ballots in student elections eliminates the need for separate run-off elections in most cases; and,

WHEREAS, eliminating separate run-offs reduces the time consumed on elections, reducing the transition time for Student Government; and,

WHEREAS, compared to a run-off, the initial general election typically enjoys a larger turnout from a wider cross-section of the campus population, ensuring that preferential ballot results better represent the interest of the Student Body; and,

WHEREAS, use of ballot preferences reduces the need for voters to exercise tactical voting for fear that their vote will be “wasted” on losing candidate; now therefore be it,

ENACTED, by the North Carolina State University Student Senate that:

Section 1. Article 1 of Chapter 7 of the Student Body Statutes shall be amended by inserting the following:

§7-1.34A. Use of Preferential Balloting.

Pursuant to §7-1A.103, the following elective contests shall use preferential balloting, as further specified below:

(a) Student Body President, §7-1A.103(a) IRV Majority;

(b) Student Senate President, §7-1A.103(a) IRV Majority;

(c) Student Body Treasurer, §7-1A.103(a) IRV Majority;

(d) Student Body Chief Justice, §7-1A.103(a) IRV Majority;

(e) Student Senator, §7-1A.103(b) STV Plurality;

(f) Student Centers President, §7-1A.103(a) IRV Majority;

(g) Union Activities Board President, §7-1A.103(a) IRV Majority;

(h) Student Centers Board of Directors, §7-1A.103(b) STV Plurality;

(i) Senior Class President, §7-1A.103(a) IRV Majority;

(j) Student Media Board, §7-1A.103(d) STV Plurality/Remainder;

(k) Leaders of the Pack, §7-1A.103(a) IRV Majority;

(l) Contests granted ballot space under §7-1.2(h), §7-1.2(i), or §7-1.6, if so ordered by a Senate Resolution including a §7-1A.103 category applicable to the contest.

Section 2. The appended Preferential Balloting Act is hereby enacted. The Act shall be codified as Chapter 7, Article 1A of the Student Body Statutes, numbered in the form §7-1A.101, with comments omitted from the codification.

Section 3. Automatic Veto Override. Adoption of this Bill by a majority of the statutory membership of the Student Senate shall constitute a preemptive and automatic override of any potential veto by the Student Body President. This provision is enacted as an adoption of a special rule of order, pursuant to §2 of the Senate’s parliamentary authority, and will expire upon the enrollment of this legislation.

Section 4. This act shall effect upon enrollment.

Preferential Balloting Act – Revision 2

Part I. Implementation of Preferential Balloting

§101. Definitions.

In this act, the following definitions shall govern:

(a) An “allocation round” is a distinct complete set of vote allocations in Instant Run-off Voting or Single Transferable Voting created in the process of determining a final allocation awarding seats.

(b) An “allocative tabulation” is a tabulation of results reflecting the applicable preferential vote allocation.

(c) A “blank ballot” is a ballot containing no response from the voter in the particular elective contest.

(d) The “highest preference” refers to the preference the voter has indicated they would most prefer.

(e) A “legal ballot” is a properly cast, complete, non-blank ballot in any particular race.

(f) The term “majority” has its ordinary meaning, which can be considered more than half.

(g) A “preferential ballot” is a ballot for a particular elective contest allowing the voter to sequentially rank each option or candidate in order of preference.

(h) A “preferential vote” is a vote cast on a preferential ballot.

(i) “Tie” refers only exact numeric equality ties.

(j) A “Traditional Run-Off” is a run-off election conducted on separate day from the original election.

§102. Applicability of Preferential Balloting.

Preferential ballots shall be used only when explicitly authorized elsewhere in this chapter. When a preferential ballot is used, the provisions of this act shall supercede any conflicting provisions elsewhere in this chapter.

Comment

This act is largely self-contained, so provisions with conflicting instructions elsewhere are superceded, not removed.

§103. Requirements for Enactment of Preferential Balloting.

All statutes or other acts enacting preferential balloting for an elective contest shall indicate one of the following preferential balloting methodologies to be used:

(a) “IRV Majority” is §201 Instant Run-off Voting conducted with a §301 Full Preference Ballot. It is applicable to single winner races requiring majority election.

(b) “STV Plurality” is §202 Single Transferable Voting conducted with a §302(a) three times positions Partial Preference Ballot. It is applicable to multiple winner and single winner races not requiring majority election.

(c) “STV Plurality – Full Ballot” is §202 Single Transferable Voting conducted with a §301 Full Preference Ballot. It is applicable to multiple winner races not requiring majority election.

(d) “STV Plurality/Remainder” is §203 Single Transferable/Remainder Voting conducted with a §302(a) three times positions Partial Preference Ballot. It is applicable to multiple winner and single winner races not requiring majority election.

(e) “IRV Short Ballot” is §201 Instant Run-off Voting conducted with a §302(b) five vote Partial Preference Ballot. It is applicable to single winner races requiring majority election, but does not guarantee conclusive results and may require a traditional run-off election.

(f) “Condorcet Simulations” is §204 Condorcet Voting conducted with a §302(b) five vote Partial Preference Ballot. It does not necessarily determine a winner, and is applicable to non-candidacy contests (e.g. ballot initiatives and referenda).

Comment

(1) To use preferential balloting in a race, a subsection of this section should be specified, e.g. §103(c) – STV Plurality – Full Ballot. This sets both the allocation method under Part II and the mechanical form of the ballot under Part III.

(2) A contest requires a majority election when its substantive rules (e.g. other statutes, bylaws, and constitutions) require votes/ballots of the majority of voters in an election. IRV reallocates these ballots so that the end winner will have support of a majority of the voters in the election. Applied to multi-seat contests, STV explicitly functions without a majority criterion.

§104. Enactment Presumptions.

In any case where an enactment under §103 is ambiguous or deficient, the “IRV Majority” methodology shall be used for single-winner contests and the “STV Plurality” methodology shall be used for multiple-winner contest.

Comment

If the enactment for a race specifies only §103 and not a subsection, or specifics a caption conflicting with the subsection, §104 resolves the situation.

§105. Reformation of Void Enactments.

In the event that an enactment under §103 would be void due to application of methodology that is incompatible with the elective contest, particularly with regards to majority/plurality or single seat/multi-seat, the Elections Commission shall be empowered to substitute a different methodology in such a way to best effectuate the intent of the Senate.

Comment

Example Situations: A multi-seat race cannot use IRV, and would need to be reformed to STV. Condorcet Simulations cannot be used for races involving candidates, and would be reformed to IRV/STV. Note: STV simplifies to IRV when one seat is available and is not strictly incompatible.

Part II. Allocation of Preferential Votes

§201. Allocation Under Instant Run-off Voting.

Under Instant Run-off Voting, each vote shall be initially allocated to the highest preference on the voter’s legal ballot. If no candidate or option has votes equal to or greater than a majority of legal ballots, votes will be reallocated as further provided by this section. Reallocation shall proceed by determining the candidate or option with the least amount of votes as currently allocated, and then reallocating each of that candidate’s or option’s votes to the next remaining preference on each ballot that was a source of votes. Ties for least amount of votes shall be broken as provided by §211. Reallocation shall be repeated until a candidate or option has votes equal to at least a majority of legal ballots in the contest, and is thereby declared winner. No vote shall be allocated to a candidate or option previously eliminated.

§202. Allocation Under Single Transferable Voting.

(a) Before allocation under Single Transferable Voting, a Quota shall be calculated by dividing the total count of legal non-blank ballots in a contest by the total number of seats available plus one, then adding one to the result and rounding down to the nearest whole number. Quota = Round_down((Ballots/(Seats + 1)) +1).

(b) Under Single Transferable Voting, each vote shall be initially allocated to the highest preference on the voter’s legal ballot. (i) If the candidate or option with the most votes has greater than or equal the Quota, a seat shall be awarded. (Ties for most votes shall be broken as provided by §211.) These votes shall be reallocated by determining, for each ballot providing votes (whole or fractional) to the candidate or option, the fractional vote in excess of the amount needed for the Quota, and then reallocating that fractional vote to the given ballot’s next preference not previously elected or eliminated. (ii) Should no candidate or option have votes equaling or exceeding the Quota, reallocation shall proceed by determining the candidate or option with the least amount of votes as currently allocated, and then reallocating each of that candidate’s or option’s votes to the next preference, not previously elected or eliminated, on each ballot that was a source of votes. Ties for least amount of votes shall be broken as provided by §211. (iii) After each reallocation, either from meeting the Quota or from eliminating the bottom candidate or option, the allocation is reviewed again for Quota meeting under (i) or bottom elimination under (ii) until the point at which all seats have been filled or no candidates remain.

Comment

(1) It is mathematically impossible for more candidates to have the Quota than there are seats. The Quota is the smallest integer with this property.

(2) With a single seat, STV operates to the same effect as IRV. The Quota simplifies to a simple majority.

(3) If multiple candidates have a Quota, only the one with most votes is awarded a seat in the given round. However, all candidates with a Quota will eventually be awarded a seat in a later round.

§203. Allocation Under Single Transferable/Remainder Voting.

Allocation under Single Transferable/Remainder Voting shall proceed as in §202, except that reallocation of votes shall stop as soon as the number of candidates or options not eliminated equals the number of seats available, regardless of whether or not all candidates or options remaining have met the Quota. All such remaining candidates shall be awarded a seat.

Comment

STV/Remainder is particularly useful for electing write-in candidates when a contest is missing a sufficient number of ballot candidates. Ordinarily, it is impossible to be elected as a write-in unless a Quota of voters ranked the write-in candidate in some position. Effectively, STV/Remainder allows a fall-back to first-past the post plurality voting if needed to fill all seats.

§204. Condorcet Simulated Voting.

Under Condorcet Simulated Voting, a set of simulated head-to-head races shall be created reflecting all unique combinations of two candidates or options. The preferential ballots shall be then used to determine a winner of each simulated election, by awarding each ballot in each simulation to the candidate or option that has a higher preference on that ballot. Should a candidate or option prevail in all simulated elections entered, such candidate or option is the Condorcet winner. Otherwise, there shall be determined a Circular Condorcet Set, which shall contain the fewest number of candidates or options such that no candidate or option excluded from the set prevails against any member of the set in any simulated election.

Comment

The intent of this statute is that Circular Condorcet Sets be resolved external to the Board of Elections.

§211. Resolution of Ties in Vote Allocation.

In the event of tie during allocation of preferential votes, the following procedures shall be attempted in sequence until one of them resolves the tie:

(a) The tie shall be resolved by creating a set of simulated head-to-head races reflecting all unique combinations of two candidates or options drawn from the tied pool. All preferential ballots in the contest shall be then used to determine a winner of each simulated election, by awarding each ballot in each simulation to the candidate or option that has a higher preference on that ballot. For ties in which the winner advances, the tie shall be considered resolved if one candidate or option prevailed in all simulated elections entered. For ties in which the loser is eliminated, the tie shall be considered resolved if one candidate or option lost all simulated elections entered.

(b) The tie shall be resolved by comparing the allocated votes to the tied candidates or options during the most recent allocation round in which they were not tied.

(c) The tabulation software shall resolve the tie by lot. In the event such method resolves a tie for last elimination of the allocation, the losing candidate shall have a right to demand a tie be declared and a traditional run-off election held. Such demand must be made to the Elections Commission within eighteen (18) hours of the public release of the results. The Elections Commission shall notify all candidates holding this right of the fact it is available within three (3) hours of the public release of the results.

Comment

In IRV/STV, ties must be resolved, or the allocation stops, resulting in a traditional run-off. Subsection (a) effectively simulates asking the electorate how they would resolve the particular tie. Subsection (b) rewards candidates that received more high rankings in the first and early rounds. Subsection (c) allows tabulations to not freeze on identical ties. In practice, the winner of such a tie will often also be eliminated in a later round.

§212. Allocation of Write-In Votes.

In allocation of votes under §201, §202, §203 or §204, votes for write-in candidates shall be eliminated and reallocated to the next preference on the relevant ballot, unless the particular write-in candidate appears on the lesser of: (i) 50 legal ballots, (ii) a majority of non blank legal ballots, (iii) a Quota of legal ballots, for allocations under §202, or (iv) 10 legal ballots, for allocations under §203. Nothing in this section shall have the effect of modifying requirements for quantities of write-ins required for election.

Comment

Minimums for write-in votes simplify tabulation by reducing the allocation round decisions to those between viable candidates for election. For §204 Condorcet Simulations, the number of simulated elections increases dramatically with addition of write-in votes.

§221. Occurrence of Traditional Run-off Election under IRV.

For §201 Instant Run-off Voting in contests requiring a majority of votes to be elected, a traditional run-off election must be ordered when, due to exhaustion of preference ballots, no candidate receives a majority of votes in the final allocation round. Such run-off shall be conducted with the last two (2) candidates or options remaining in the allocation round, and shall use a non-preference ballot.

Comment

When IRV is used with a partial preference ballot, preference exhaustion may occur, necessitating an additional election to obtain a majority. This cannot occur with a full preference ballot except in the unusual case of write-in candidates reaching the final allocation round.

§222. Occurrence of Traditional Run-off Election under STV.

For §202 Single Transferable Voting contests in which insufficient candidates or options reach the Quota to fill all available seats, a traditional run-off election may be order to fill the remaining seats. Such an election must be ordered if one or more non-elected candidates received at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the Quota amount. To the extent available, such run-off shall include twice as many candidates or options as seats remaining, such candidates or options being the last eliminated in the tabulation rounds. The commission may include additional candidates if interests of equity so require. All traditional run-offs under this section shall be conducted with a full preference ballot and tabulated under §202 Single Transferable Voting.

Comment

When STV is used with a partial preference ballot and without the §203 remainder plurality option, it is possible insufficient candidates will reach Quota and be elected. This is particularly a risk when the required number of rankings is low in proportion to the number of candidates on the ballot. The 75% Quota requirement of this section is intended to significantly reduce the occurrence of run-offs where all ballot candidates were elected and only write-in candidates remain unelected.

Part III. Ballot Mechanics

§301. Full Preference Ballot.

On any elective contest using a Full Preference Ballot, to cast a legal ballot the voter must rank all choices presented on the ballot. If a write-in allowed in the contest and used by the voter, the voter must rank it in addition to the choices presented on the ballot.

Comment

Only a full preference ballot ensures that in IRV/STV allocation, every ballot has a place to be allocated in every round. Otherwise, ballots may become exhausted and unallocated, potentially resulting in no majority or Quota in the final round.

§302. Partial Preference Ballot.

(a) The requirements for a three times positions Partial Preference Ballot shall be the same as a Full Preference Ballot, except that the voter shall only be required to rank the following number of candidates or options, if such number is available on the ballot: (i) five (5), in the case that a single position is available; (ii) twenty-five (25), in the case that nine or more positions are available, or (ii) three (3) times the number of positions available, in all other cases.

(b) The requirements for a five vote Partial Preference Ballot shall be the same as a Full Preference Ballot, except that the voter shall not be required to rank more than five (5) options or candidates.

Comment

Partial preference ballots are useful when a large number of options are presented and ensuring majority is relatively unimportant. Note that the extreme, where a voter ranks only one candidate, simplifies to non-preferential voting. For part (a), 3 options must be selected per seat, but never less than 5 or more than 25.

Part IV. Special Provisions

§401. Provisional Ballots.

In contests using preferential balloting, the Elections Commission shall be empowered to refuse provisional ballots otherwise allowed under Article I unless the provisional voter provides clear and complying information he or she was improperly denied access to the online polls. In a preferential ballot contest, the Elections Commission shall tabulate a provisional ballot only if inspection of the online results reveals the provisional votes would have materially affected the end result of the election.

Comment

Provisional preferential ballots are mechanically difficult to tabulate, and should be avoided insomuch as possible.

§402. Quantity of Write-in Slots.

Use of preferentially balloting shall not increase or decrease the number of write-in slots otherwise available in an elective contest.

Comment

In the ordinary case, this results in a number of write-in slots equal to the number of seats.

§403. No Margin Run-off.

Except as provided in §211(c) of this Act, no candidate in an elective contest preferentially balloted shall be empowered to demand a run-off that does not occur automatically. Provisions elsewhere providing for run-offs in the event of close margin results shall be specifically inapplicable to preferential balloting.

§404. Form of Results.

For purposes of announcement postings of results, only basic results are required. For archive purposes, full results are required, and full results shall be made generally available to any party to inspect on request once available. These forms of results shall be defined as follows:

(a) Instant Run-off Voting. For elective contests with votes allocated under §201, basic results shall consist of a listing of the votes in the last allocation round, indicating a majority for the winner and the balance for losers whose votes had not previously been reallocated. Detailed results shall include the results of each allocation round, including the initial allocation, a listing of which round each candidate was eliminated, and the method for resolving any ties.

(b) Single Transferable Voting. For elective contests with votes allocated under §202 or §203, basic results shall consist of a statement of the Quota, a listing each candidate or option meeting the Quota, and a listing of other candidates or options whose votes have not been reallocated. Detailed results shall include the results of each allocation round, including the initial allocation, a listing of which round each candidate met Quota or was eliminated, and the method for resolving any ties.

(c) Condorcet Voting. For elective contest under §204, basic and detailed results shall consist of a matrix of the results of each simulated election.

§405. Raw Tabulation Release.

Substantially simultaneous with the initial release of results from a preferential election, a raw tabulation shall be released in electronic format. This raw tabulation shall list the number of votes each distinct ordering of ballot options received.

Comment

This raw tabulation is necessary for any party wishing to validate or challenge the allocative tabulation, which can be very complex in large contests.

§406. Appeals Concerning Allocative Tabulations.

For purposes of appeals, the final allocative tabulation released by the Board of Elections shall enjoy a presumption of correctness in application of the allocation methodology of §§201 et seq of this Act. The Board shall summarily dismiss any appeal alleging error in methodology not substantiated with evidence of actual error.