=============================== CFJ 3746 ===============================
An Agoran decision to select the winner of the election has a
voting method of AI-Majority.
Judge: R. Lee
Called by G.: 23 Jun 2019 22:38:15
Assigned to R. Lee: 30 Jun 2019 20:03:14
Judged FALSE by R. Lee: 01 Jul 2019 02:13:12
Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices, Power=3):
Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
decisions and proposals, whose value is either "none" (default)
For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the voting method
This states outright that Agoran decisions have AIs, and any decision with
an AI has a voting method of AI-majority. The fact that the value of the AI
is "none" doesn't mean the AI is nonexistent.
This directly conflicts with the last part of this clause in R2154
(Power=2), but R1950 wins the conflict due to having power=3:
1) If the election is contested, initiate an Agoran decision to
select the winner of the election (the poll). For this
decision, the Vote Collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
the candidates for that election (including those who become
candidates after its initiation), and the voting method is
Judge R. Lee's Arguments:
Under rule 1950, each Agoran Decision has an Adoption index switch with a
default value of "none" and each Decision with an AI has a voting method of
AI majority. The question is do elections (defined in rule 2154), Agoran
Decisions with an Adoption index switch, have an adoption index, requiring
them to use the voting system of AI majority? I find that they don't and
accordingly judge this CFJ FALSE.
Agoran Decisions must use AI majority if they are decisions "with an
adoption index" under rule 1950. I find that this phrasing does not refer
to decisions with an adoption index _switch_, but instead refer to
decisions with an adoption index switch set at a value other than "none".
The application of the AI voting system only to agoran decisions "with an
[AI]" shows a clear intent to only apply it to a subset of Agoran
Decisions, not all of them as a TRUE judgement would hold. And it is not
only a possible textual reading, but by far the best one, to read decisions
with an AI of "none" to not have an AI. After all, that's what "none"
means: not any. It would be atextual* to hold that a decision with an AI
_switch_ set to "not any" still has an AI.
This CFJ is FALSE. The voting system for elections is IRV as provided in
*And worse as a matter of policy, but I need not address policy because I
am required to use direct, textual forward reasoning and the text is clear