Reopen Nominations Fix Bill

This was the ballot for the last Judicial election:

TNP Nation: [Insert your TNP Nation name here]
Justice (3): bootahilley 01 | Cormac | Crushing our Enemies | Flemingovia | Mall | Romanoffia | Tim | Abstain
Attorney General: Leekem | Kiwi | Abstain

Click to expand...

Under the new legislation, permitting the option to "Reopen Nominations", one presumes that the ballot would change to look something like this:

TNP Nation: [Insert your TNP Nation name here]
Justice (3): bootahilley 01 | Cormac | Crushing our Enemies | Flemingovia | Mall | Romanoffia | Tim | Abstain | Reopen Nominations
Attorney General: Leekem | Kiwi | Abstain | Reopen Nominations

Click to expand...

And at the end of the election, the votes would be counted, and if Reopen Nominations recieved a majority of the votes, nominations for that office would be reopened. This is all fine and good for the Attorney General race, but let's take a closer look at the Justice election.

Everyone casts three votes in the Justice Election. So if 10 people voted, that means that to get a majority of the votes, Reopen Nominations would need to receive at least 16 votes (50% of 30 plus 1). Suppose I am a voter who is in favor of reopening nominations, because I really like bootahilley 01 and Tim, but I don't really think the rest of the candidates are up to snuff. I have several options here:

1. I can vote for the two candidates I like and then choose "Reopen Nominations" for my third vote
2. I could choose "Reopen Nominations" for all three votes
3. I could choose Reopen Nominations for two of my votes, and then decide whether I liked Bootsie or Tim better for my third vote
4. I could vote for Bootsie and Tim, and then decide who the lesser of five evils is for my third vote (and ultimately pick Mall)

All of these options have merit. If nominations are NOT reopened, then any votes I cast for Reopen Nominations have been wasted, so Option 4 would have the best chance of representing my interests. However, I want nominations to be reopened - Option 2 gives me the best chance of that happening. However, both of those are large risks. If I choose Option 4, and Reopen Nominations ends up getting 13 votes (out of the needed 16) I'll be kicking myself for not choosing Option 2. But if I chose Option 2, and Reopen Nominations only gets 15 votes, then I've thrown away any influence I could have had over which candidates got elected.

Options 1 and 3 are compromises between those two extremes. I want nominations to be reopened, but I also want to support my candidates if they aren't reopened, so I could hedge my bets and cast votes both ways. None of these options are ideal, because they all force me to weigh 2 competing interests: my interest in reopening nominations, and my interest in who I want to win the election.

Forcing this calculation on voters is not fair, and it hurts the democratic process. If nominations are not reopened, then anyone who voted to reopen nominations has been disenfranchised, deprived of the option to let their preference of candidate influence who wins the election. If you think about it carefully, you will find that the choice to Reopen Nominations is completely separate from the mental ranking of candidates that voters use to inform their vote. I think it would make a lot more sense to formally include Reopen Nominations as a separate ballot question for each race. So instead of the problematic ballot above, voters would see this:

TNP Nation: [Insert your TNP Nation name here]

Justice (3): bootahilley 01 | Cormac | Crushing our Enemies | Flemingovia | Mall | Romanoffia | Tim | Abstain
Reopen Justice Nominations: Yes | No | Abstain

Attorney General: Leekem | Kiwi | Abstain
Reopen Attorney General Nominations: Yes | No | Abstain

Click to expand...

Arranging the ballot in that way would allow all voters to express their preference of candidate, as well as their preference for whether or not to reopen nominations. It makes the decision that faces each voter much more clear, and does not require voters to know the inner mechanics of how "Reopen Nominations" is counted to make the decision that is in their best interest.

As such, I propose the following motion to fix the process of Reopening Nominations:

The Reopen Nominations Fix Bill:

1. The clause in Chapter 4.3 of the Legal Code that describes the process of reopening nominations shall be replaced by the following four clauses, which shall be numbered separately:

• The option to reopen nominations shall appear on the ballot as a separate question for each race.
• Should a majority vote to reopen nominations for a given race, a further 48 hours will be provided for declarations of candidacy.
• Candidates whose names appeared on the first ballot will retain their candidacy unless they choose to withdraw.
• A second round of voting shall follow, and the option to reopen nominations will not appear on the new ballot.

2. The following clause shall be struck:

• If there is only one candidate for a vacancy, a vote shall not be held and they will take office immediately upon the end of the candidacy declaration period.

3. The restriction on running for multiple offices in a single election cycle shall be struck.
4. The rest of the chapter shall be renumbered appropriately.

Click to expand...

Some may notice that this bill is written slightly differently than most - I have remained intentionally vague about numbering of clauses so that bills that edit overlapping portions of the legal code won't run into administrative hiccups, such as clauses referenced in the bill being renumbered before the bill is passed, or deleted entirely, etc. I hope it catches on.

I far prefer this version of the implementation, as otherwise RON is basically useless and will never ever happen.

Can't see any immediate issues.

The problem you are seeking to fix exists, at the moment, only as a hypothetical in your head. We have not even had one election with "Reopen Nominations" on the ballot. In fact, the legislation has been passed less than 24 hours.

It seems only reasonable to see if a problem actually occurs before rushing to fix it. Two third of those expressing an opinion seemed quite happy with the original bill.

Those who voted Aye on your bill preferred it to the status quo. This bill is still superior. And I disagree that we should allow our election system to fail before changing it. There is a fundamental flaw with how nominations are reopened under the current law, I think it would be a lot better to fix it before it becomes a problem than allow the results of a single election to be skewed because of it.

The current system makes it basically impossible for RON to actually happen. It's not like COE is coming up with this wildly out there hypothetical - it's a pretty reasonable prediction of how people might react in these situations.

It is much better to fix something before it breaks than try to patch it up afterwards.

I am always late to the party, and I apologize for that.
But Flem, respectfully, your statement (emphasis added):

flemingovia:

The problem you are seeking to fix exists, at the moment, only as a hypothetical in your head. We have not even had one election with "Reopen Nominations" on the ballot. In fact, the legislation has been passed less than 24 hours.

It seems only reasonable to see if a problem actually occurs before rushing to fix it. Two third of those expressing an opinion seemed quite happy with the original bill.

Click to expand...

makes no sense to me; you admit there is a problem but you don't want to fix it?! (Are we too busy?)


I support CoE's proposed revision.

I also support the revision. I was frankly a little flabbergasted that the flawed version passed(and I was the first to question just how this would be executed). I'm glad to see someone got on the ball and drafted a fix.

I prefer this as well. The first bill was flawed and should never have gotten to the floor for a vote.

I support this proposal. I also voted to support the original bill, for two reasons:

1) Some provision for RoN is better than none, and I believe would work fine in all but the triple-justice elections.

2) Rejecting the original bill would have kept ownership in the original author's name, subject to his preferences on how to change it. Passing it, on the other hand, allowed anybody to propose an amendment to improve the procedure with individual ownership, as COE has done.

This was exactly the issue I raised about the original bill, and the exact solution I had proposed to fix it. (A seperate question for each office.)

Maybe next time some of you will believe me.

gosh, I had not realised that Grosse first pointed this matter out, and suggested this solution.

Naturally, now I understand that, all my fears are allayed. I wholeheartedly support this bill, and suggest that it is renamed "the Grosseschnauzer Fix" in his honour.

My reasons for supporting the original bill were similar to SillyString's: I considered the changes, despite their flaws, an improvement over existing legislation; and I believed that passing first and fixing second was the fastest approach.

I support this new bill. I have some suggestions.

1) I would recommend that the time of opening and the duration of the second round of voting be specified explicitly, to avoid ambiguity.
2) I think it should be made clearer that the extended candidacy declaration period and second round of voting are only for the race in which RON received a majority of votes.
3) A primarily stylistic change, I would suggest using "two days" instead of "48 hours", for consistency with the rest of the electoral law that specifies time intervals in days. Consistency on this point could prove helpful should in the future the Court be asked to clarify a question or review an EC's decision about electoral process timing.

Here is an editted draft along the above lines:

The Reopen Nominations Fix Bill:

1. The clause in Chapter 4.3 of the Legal Code that describes the process of reopening nominations shall be replaced by the following four clauses, which shall be numbered separately:

• The option to reopen nominations shall appear on the ballot as a separate question for each race.
• Should a majority vote to reopen nominations for a given race, a further two days will be provided for candidacy declarations.
• Candidates for that race whose names appeared on the first ballot will retain their candidacy unless they choose to withdraw during the period for candidacy declarations.
• A second round of voting for that race will begin immediately after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the new ballot.

2. The rest of the chapter shall be renumbered appropriately.

Click to expand...

I also wanted to bring up another issue. Currently, and for some reason for special elections only, the Legal Code provides that:

18. If there is only one candidate for a vacancy, a vote shall not be held and they will take office immediately upon the end of the candidacy declaration period.

Click to expand...

In light of the addition of the RON option, I believe it no longer makes sense to maintain this provision: voters should be provided with the opportunity to vote RON if they are not satisfied with the sole candidate that came forward. Therefore, I would suggest including a repeal of this provision to this bill.

I can agree with r3n's suggestions.

I've taken r3n's suggestions, and added a repeal of Chapter 4 clause 18 in the bill.

Hmm. The draft we have now seems pretty solid, move to vote?

If we move on on this in time for the vote to close before the ongoing election concludes, we should probably include a delayed enactment clause to the draft to make sure it only takes effect after the end of the election.

No. Let it come into effect halfway through the ballot. that way the new court's first order of business can be a legal challenge to their own legitimacy.

Delicious.

I will probably just move it to vote at the point in the election cycle where I can be reasonably sure it won't pass until after the winners are announced.

So why cant we vote to have this format instituted forthwith? It just concerns how the ballot appears in the future, i do not see how it would impact elections that have already happened.

Well, if it passed in the middle of the election cycle, it might make things complicated, because it would ostensibly be changing the rules mid-stream. I didn't want to create a legal crisis during a judicial election.

Anyway, we have reached the point where we don't have to worry about that anymore, so I move for a vote.

This bill is now in formal debate. It will last for 5 days, after which a vote shall be scheduled.

Well we could always put that the propossal take effect next rounds of elections? Im still new. I read the elections are every 4 months in the Constabillatution correct? And I saw we just had justice elections and I could not participate because I havent been a RA/citizen for the 15 day requirement...

So when is the next rounds of elections?

April. Also, I don't think there actually is a 15-day requirement for running for any political office.

PaulWallLibertarian42:

Well we could always put that the propossal take effect next rounds of elections?

Click to expand...

We could have, but I decided to just wait for a bit to avoid lengthening the bill and adding confusion.

PaulWallLibertarian42:

I read the elections are every 4 months in the Constabillatution correct?

Click to expand...

Yes and no. Judicial Elections are in March, July, and November (4 months apart) and General Elections (for delegate, vice delegate, and speaker) are in January, May, and September (also 4 months apart). But all together, it ends up only being 2 months between elections, on average. Of course, when people resign from elected positions, it can trigger an election earlier than scheduled. That seems to happen rather a lot in this region.

PaulWallLibertarian42:

And I saw we just had justice elections and I could not participate because I havent been a RA/citizen for the 15 day requirement...

Click to expand...

I believe that is incorrect, but I'm not totally sure. I seem to recall that we repealed that restriction, and that the information you saw in the RA application topic is out of date. I think that there is no requirement to be an RA member for any amount of time before being permitted to vote or run in an election. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

PaulWallLibertarian42:

So when is the next rounds of elections?

Click to expand...

The next scheduled election will begin May 1st, for Delegate, Vice Delegate, and Speaker.

I then am in favor of putting this to a vote and hopefully have it enacted ahead of the may elections

I fully intend to support this legislation and I have nothing futher to add. Other than I 2nd? COE'S motion to put this to a vote. I need to study up on my RA etiquette and procedural handbook

PaulWallLibertarian42:

I need to study up on my RA etiquette and procedural handbook

Click to expand...

Read this for details! You can also click on the "Laws" link at the top of the page, and check out the RA Procedure, as well as sections of the constitution and the legal code.

I have added two clauses to the bill - one removing the restriction on running for multiple offices (which never really made sense in the first place, and even less so now that nominations can be reopened), and one removing the requirement to announce the dates of the election cycle 30 days in advance (seriously? Why is that still law?). The updated version of the bill is in the OP.

Crushing Our Enemies:

I have added two clauses to the bill - one removing the restriction on running for multiple offices (which never really made sense in the first place, and even less so now that nominations can be reopened), and one removing the requirement to announce the dates of the election cycle 30 days in advance (seriously? Why is that still law?). The updated version of the bill is in the OP.

Click to expand...

I disagree with the removal of the restriction against running for multiple offices.

Since the reopening nominations and second round of voting is, in effect, a special election, it becomes a separate vote for the office, and the nomination of a candidate defeated for another office in the original round of voting shouldn't be deemed as a candidacy for multiple offices.
It also protects against the possibility of someone being on the second round ballot for multiple offices due to the reopening of nominations for multiple offices. We're better off keeping the restriction and possibily rewording so as to not apply when nominations are reopened for a single office.

Crushing Our Enemies:

[...] and one removing the requirement to announce the dates of the election cycle 30 days in advance (seriously? Why is that still law?).

Click to expand...

This addition is not necessary as that text is already repealed by the recently passed Election Provisions Amendment Act (see here for all the changes it makes). The changes of that act will take effect at the end of the ongoing Judicial election cycle.

Regarding the other addition, I had in the past expressed some reservations about its effects in practice. Judging from behavior in prior elections, I expect we will get a flood of candidates running for all offices. In most cases such superfluous candidacies will be pruned by the electorate, but it is possible they may cause prolonging of election periods (e.g., more frequent ties, or candidates winning multiple offices).

On the other hand, the flexibility the change provides can be useful in certain elections. Furthermore, the clean language and simple solution to the RON issue are appealing to me---I am in general very averse to adding even more text to the electoral law, given the effort we have put into streamlining it. So, I am going to support this addition to the bill.

Ah, right you are, r3n. That clause has been removed from my bill.

Grosse, the legal code is very clear about when the election cycle ends - when the final results are announced. Reopening nominations and revoting take place before the final results are announced, and so the election cycle is still ongoing. Even if your interpretation is valid, it does not appear to be congruent with the EC's interpretation, and that one is the one that matters. Removing the restriction will prevent similar catastrophes in the future.

I will not support the removal of that provision. I think you are inviting a disaster that has occurred in the past which promoted it to be adopted in the first place.

Pray tell what disaster I am inviting.

You know ive been thinking (COE removing the provision of running fpr multiple offices).

I know im a n00b. But it seems counter productive and conflict of intrest when you have people in multiple positions, im in the RA, NPA, Ministry, Court Justice and AG speaker! Maybe I dont quite understand how things are done. But I find it counter productive to be in the RA, be appointed to a cabinet executive Ministry position, and then probably be a justice or something too.

If youre in the RA youre in the RA. If you accept an executive appointment to a cabinet position or run as delegate then youre in the executive if your a judge or AG then youre in the judiciary. I find it a conflict of intrest to accept for example a cabinet position in the executive thrn come back and weigh in and vote on RA legislative proposals...to in effect be in all branches of government. Legislative, Executive, Judical, and Military Industrial complex...Or maybe I am just not understanding how it is done. Anyway I am probably off topic, but COE amending the 2 offices at once thing made me think about it.

Anyway, i am generally in favor if this ever makes it to a vote on changing how the ballot looks and works in favor of reopening nominations on the ballots.

There are already legal restrictions on serving in certain positions concurrently.

String, I have no issue with you personally I am just using this as an example, youre a court justice yet youre weighing in on proposed legisative matters. That is what I mean. Youre judiciary. Interpret law not engage in helping shape it. Thats like taking Chief Justice Roberts and electing him to to senate. Thats what I meant. And im not using you personally. It is just an convient example to point out. Like I said maybe I just dont understand the structure.

One has to be a member of the RA to hold a position in the judiciary at the same time. For the longest time it hasn't caused any problems, so I see no reason to complicate things any further with 'separation of powers' nonsense that only makes more sense IRL or something.

fair point. I guess im a purist. I like Seperation of powers esp on a role playing game simulation based on running nations. it would be a more accurate simulation.

however, I have caused enough debate the last several days I shall agree with you my most humble Lord Nwahs to agree to disagree!

still, as to the proposal if it ever makes a final draft to vote I'll support it.

PaulWallLibertarian42:

Like I said maybe I just dont understand the structure.

Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe...

hey can the nomination fix nominate me to be Vice Delegate? *Grins wide at DD*

I have to agree with The Schnauz on a number of points on this matter.

I have an easy solution.

You get a choice of voting for up to three candidates for justice or "none of the above".

You arrange the ballot like this:

Candidate One: Yes | No
Candidate Two: Yes | No
Candidate Three: Yes| No
Candidate Four: Yes | No

None of The Above: (Place and "X" here and cast no other votes)

"None of The Above" is treated as a candidate and and nominations for a single open position are re-opened.

Or, we could do what sensible electoral systems do and you get to vote from one slate presented and that is it.



Addendum on edit: We had an election procedure that worked just fine and then someone gets a brilliant idea and gets it all upgef*cked.