Poll required: PEP 13: Clarify tie resolution

[zware]

This change requires a vote among the core team before it can be merged. Once the poll is opened, the history of amendments note will be amended to include the correct date of the poll closure and a link to the poll.

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4672.org.readthedocs.build/

[tim-one]

LGTM! Thank you 😄

[hugovk]

Two weeks from now will be November:

Suggested change

	* `2025-10-XX <https://discuss.python.org/t/placeholder-replace-me-just-discussion-for-now-should-be-the-poll/73918/87>`__:
	* `2025-11-XX <https://discuss.python.org/t/placeholder-replace-me-just-discussion-for-now-should-be-the-poll/73918/87>`__:

[zware]

🤦‍♂️ so it is, and I had just been reminded of that fact earlier in the evening. I'll get that fixed with the rest of the date and the link when available.

[willingc]

Thanks @zware. Love the simple and direct wording.

[warsaw]

I also like the simple wording. One thing that occurs to me is that the wording here means that all ties (even mid-resolution ties) can be resolved by the software. I think that's fine.

[tim-one]

@warsaw

One thing that occurs to me is that the wording here means that all ties (even mid-resolution ties) can be resolved by the software. I think that's fine.

I believe it's essential. The BetterVoting software has no possibility to pause "in the middle" of scoring to wait for human input on how to resolve a tie.

For a 5-winner SC election, if the winner of the 5th round was picked via breaking a tie, then it would be reasonable to let the tied candidates decide among themselves who gets the seat, and ignore the software's pick. But I wouldn't want to complicate the PEP to cater to that.

There's no real need anyway. If the ballots themselves don't contain enough info to break a tie, "the community" has expressed no preference. "Random" is as good as it gets then.