Mall's election complaint

Great Bights Mum

Great Bights Mum

Grande Dame
-
-
-
-
The election season is usually terrific fun for everyone. Except when it's not. After Roman was left off the ballot, the EC decided to restart the VD election. Mall feels the whole thing should have been a do-over, and has asked the Court to order new elections. And I guess invalidate the results of the Delegate and Speaker elections.

Now, we have had ballot issues in the past. There was newcomer James Martin's bid for delegate. His name was inadvertently left off the ballot and quietly added a day or two later.

Subsequent to that, there was a similar problem which made it to the court. At that time, the Hileville Court ruled that the election should be restarted. Now here is where memory fails me. What did the EC do? Did they restart the whole thing, or just the office in question?

Can we see where all this is going? The next complaint the court hears will be asking for a do-over on the entire nomination process. In the future we will have to extend terms to 6 months, because if elections are going to take up to 2 months, those placed in office will have limited time to get things done.
 
If the Court rules to restart the election for any or all of the offices then it would have to be under the Special Election guidelines (because just restarting the voting this late is a clear violation of the law) which would include nomination procedures.

I do not personally believe precedent or legal grounding exists for restarting all the elections. The Delegate and Speaker elections were not conducted in error and did not disenfranchise any party.
 
The VD election was just started over. So... do you mean that should have been under the Special Election rules? I don't think anyone's asking for that... yet!
 
Great Bights Mum:
The VD election was just started over. So... do you mean that should have been under the Special Election rules? I don't think anyone's asking for that... yet!
Click to expand...
I just did in a brief attached to the Injunction. ;)

I don't see how anyone can justify "just started over" as a valid election procedure. That isn't precedent and it isn't the law. Either way it is invalid. Plus, if you look at the most recent RA activity log, it seems that the last roll call fell conveniently during the initial voting period (which in general is very helpful). How many of those people only check in periodically these days and might have missed the restarted vote? Their Bill of Rights acknowledgements have been violated, in my opinion.
 
OK, that's quite a brief. But the VD office has not been vacated. BW is the VD until someone else is elected. Same as if there was a run-off. The incumbent stays on until the RA sorts it out. BW should still be holding the second most endorsements, and be chairing the Security Council.
 
Great Bights Mum:
OK, that's quite a brief. But the VD office has not been vacated. BW is the VD until someone else is elected. Same as if there was a run-off. The incumbent stays on until the RA sorts it out. BW should still be holding the second most endorsements, and be chairing the Security Council.
Click to expand...
That is a matter of interpretation, not law. Which is why I proposed it to the Court. The fact that the incumbent holds the position does not necessarily mean that the maintaining of the office is the same thing. My interpretation is that the election cycle, since it is clearly defined by law, once complete, automatically vacates the office to the winner. If no winner exists at the end of the timetable, because of instances like this one where the vote was incorrectly (again, IMO) restarted, then the office is vacant, even if the incumbent continues to carry out the duties of the position. Thus, a Special Election would be needed.

That was not the only point made in the brief, however.
 
I guess, in the big picture, I view the law as what we wrote down to map out the best way to get from point A to point B. It is, thankfully, not exhaustive, because to craft legislation of that magnitude would, frankly, be exhausting. (Even for Elu!) There are gaps that must be filled in with Common Sense.

The law isn't explicit on what do do in this instance. It doesn't say "In the event the EC errs..." So we need to look at resolutions that are both Fair and Expeditious. What is the best way to get from A to B without hurting anyone?
 
In a region such as ours, the protection of the process of the law is imperative to the protection of the sanctity of the body. As one that has utilized the imperfections and loopholes to damage the body, I speak from some level of experience when I state that adhering to the rule of law will do more good in the long term than skipping C, D and possibly E just to get from A to B quickest.
 
Yes, Solomon could decide to cut the baby in half, but that disregards the important part about not hurting anyone.

I think in this instance, Mall has not suffered. He was able to cast his vote and have it count. He hasn't pointed out anyone else whose rights were abridged by this process. I am quite sure the politicians in the running are making sure their supporters know about the re-vote. I'm also fairly certain that whether the court grants an injunction or invalidates or extends the voting period or whatever, Mall is not going to win. I mean, have you all seen his platform? Seriously. He is making a fuss over a small thing just because.... well, because he can.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Yes, Solomon could decide to cut the baby in half, but that disregards the important part about not hurting anyone.

I think in this instance, Mall has not suffered. He was able to cast his vote and have it count. He hasn't pointed out anyone else whose rights were abridged by this process. I am quite sure the politicians in the running are making sure their supporters know about the re-vote. I'm also fairly certain that whether the court grants an injunction or invalidates or extends the voting period or whatever, Mall is not going to win. I mean, have you all seen his platform? Seriously. He is making a fuss over a small thing just because.... well, because he can.
Click to expand...
"Because he can" is a sufficient reason and is supported by the Bill or Rights.

I do not think it is up to us to decide what sufficient notification might be. Just as I do not think it is up the EC to decide that. The Constitution and Legal Code outline when elections take place. They outline when Delegates must notify regarding the specificity. Any subsequent notification must therefore go out of its way to make certain the Regional Assembly is notified in full. Up to and including direct Telegram communication with each individual nation.

A 1hr post notification is simply insufficient under any interpretation.
 
Allow me to cite the very same precedent you did in your brief:

The Court opines the following:

It is the belief of the Court that the accidental omittance of a Candidate from the Ballot does in fact violate that Candidates Rights under Section 9 of the Bill of Rights. It is therefore ordered that the voting period for the Special Election of Vice Delegate is restarted immediately. The Court believes that in such cases where a timetable for elections is present when a violation of the Bill of Rights or Constitution is found in order to keep the legitimacy of the election the timetable must be altered as not doing so would in itself be a violation of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
Unless I'm mistaken, you have cited the exact precedent that invalidates your argument. Did you just scan for an election-related opinion that included the words "special election" in it?
 
Also, da fuq is this? Is the court seriously that unsure of itself, that it goes to the EC, hat in hand, begging pretty please with sugar on it not to certify the election results just yet?
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Allow me to cite the very same precedent you did in your brief:

The Court opines the following:

It is the belief of the Court that the accidental omittance of a Candidate from the Ballot does in fact violate that Candidates Rights under Section 9 of the Bill of Rights. It is therefore ordered that the voting period for the Special Election of Vice Delegate is restarted immediately. The Court believes that in such cases where a timetable for elections is present when a violation of the Bill of Rights or Constitution is found in order to keep the legitimacy of the election the timetable must be altered as not doing so would in itself be a violation of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
Unless I'm mistaken, you have cited the exact precedent that invalidates your argument. Did you just scan for an election-related opinion that included the words "special election" in it?
Click to expand...
Did you just scan a long post and pull things out of context? Yes, that is what you did. Not surprising considering some of your other posts I have read. No, what I posted was precedent related to the specifications of a Special Election as it relates to the matter at hand that was decided by the Court, not the EC, therefore I posted the entire thing instead of highlighting bits and pieces.

The Court operates under the guidelines of stare decisis but that is exclusive to the Court itself and mandates how succeeding cases are determined and handled.

My "argument" is that the EC doesn't have the right to do what it did. If the Court mandated it that would be different, but the EC interpreted the law independently and acted. Precedent of law does not exist so that independent bodies in government can act how they believe the Court would respond. Precedent exists to support Court decisions and definitions in future rulings.

Also, it isn't the only argument in the brief. Good try, though.
 
Of course, if precedents from previous Constitutions were allowed (and I know that they have been dismissed prior so no need to point this fact out), I found this argument regarding the right of the Election Commission to establish its own rules very convincing at the time. That EC ran a smooth series of elections, including a run-off, with no troubles.

He even got a thank you from Flemingovia (then Delegate-elect) for his efforts. Something that those here know is tantamount to treason in and of itself in his usual commentary about said individual.
 
As a newcomer, I'd like to interject that the real problem seems to be that the relevant laws are distinctly ambiguous. All of the interpretations of the election law I've seen expressed with regards to the various controversies in this current election cycle are reasonable, and many of them directly conflict with each other.

It seems to me that the most productive way forward is to decide what we want the metes and bounds of the election law to be, and then write a law that clearly defines that. I decided to become a full time member of TNP after the Ravania trial because this kind of project interests me. If anyone wants to work with me on this (or any other legal issue) - please let me know. I'm open to all ideas and suggestions.
 
This is starting to get a bit off topic, but r3naissanc3r has a bill in the RA called the "Election Streamlining Bill" - it would probably interest you.
 
I don't have permission to post there yet, but I will. It doesn't (yet) address the issue of what powers the term "oversee" grants the EC yet - if anyone wants to jump in and raise that before I do... :)
 
I again suggest that we entirely rewrite the constitution and the legal code. Including this issue, we have seen countless issues where the laws have been faulty or ambiguous in some way or form and it ends up in extended legal, verbal, etc. battles. Just as Malashaan said, the laws regarding elections are ambiguous. You know what else? Most of the laws are ambiguous. Let's take a step back, look at the big picture, and rewrite the government.
 
All laws are ambiguous, because language is ambiguous. New laws are the most ambiguous because we haven't seen them in action to figure out what they actually mean yet. If our laws were intended to be a finished product, the RA would only vote on recalls and NPA overrides.
 
I agree that all laws contain a degree of ambiguity. However, I believe the laws in question contain a needless degree of ambiguity. The fact that perfect clarity is an impossible task does not mean that we shouldn't strive to make the law as clear as possible.

There may be something to be said for writing from scratch, it can be easier to start anew than amend what exists. I haven't been here long enough to get a feel for which process would be more efficient in the current circumstances.
 
I rather like the proposal, but that's just because the prospect of writing a whole new set of laws is my twisted idea of fun; it's probably not the most practical thing to do right now. It works with a small group, but trying to write a whole law set with a large body like the RA would probably be chaos.
 
If you're going to continue discussing new law proposals then I'd suggest moving to a more appropriate venue.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
All laws are ambiguous, because language is ambiguous. New laws are the most ambiguous because we haven't seen them in action to figure out what they actually mean yet. If our laws were intended to be a finished product, the RA would only vote on recalls and NPA overrides.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It is possible to create a constitution without ambiguity.

Just ban anyone who has sat polotical science or law 101 from being involved in the drafting, and ban any cut and pasting from real-life legal systems.

But there is already one new constitution on the table that contains no ambiguity or loopholes, and which is concise, clear and workable.

If you like I can link you to it. :P
 
Do tell us oh great Flemingovia! What is this clear and unambiguous law of which you speak? What could possibly be so concise and workable?
 
Ah, McM, I think you know what I am speaking of. But I will not mention it by name, because when I do the courts get all po-faced and defensive.

I think it makes them feel inadequate,
 
Sanc:
If you're going to continue discussing new law proposals then I'd suggest moving to a more appropriate venue.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, rather than taking potshots at the Court, you could pay attention to this?
 
And there was me thinking this was a public gallery. However, I will defer to your command, and not even allude to an alternative system again.
 
However, I will defer to your command, and not even allude to an alternative system again.
Click to expand...

Anyone want to set the over/under on this? Within this forum, I'll say 2 weeks...tops. :P
 
flemingovia:
And there was me thinking this was a public gallery. However, I will defer to your command, and not even allude to an alternative system again.
Click to expand...

That wasn't what I was asking. I was asking that the threads in this forums remain vaguely on topic and that conversations that don't belong here go in the appropriate place. You wouldn't have a go at the speaker for asking that you take off-topic discussion out of RA threads, would you? No. So don't moan at me because I do the same.

Thanks.
 
I have an entirely off-topic comment to make with regard to going off-topic. I have noted that recently there is some distress over people going off-topic. This is mainly from folks who have been here for less than 2 years.

It has been my observation over the years that TNPers are notorious for going off-topic, threadjacking, unapologetic gravedigging, and all manner of behavior that is considered a faux pas elsewhere. Previously, I would say at least 50% of threads would deteriorate into absurdity before being abandoned. Newcomers may have found it a bit untidy, but hey, it's home. :tb2:
 
Oh - I forgot to mention double-posting (except in the OOC where it is severely frowned upon.)

I urge everyone to resist the temptation to look at the court decision on this and go "tl;dr." It is really something! It is thorough, understandable and really sorts out the issues. I give the judges an A+.
 
r3n deserves the bulk of the credit on this one. It took time (obviously :P) to write this up and he should be commended for it.

An off topic comment...shoot me...but I will be contacting r3n to ask him to (should abbey decide not to rescind her resignation) run for the vacant position of justice.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Oh - I forgot to mention double-posting (except in the OOC where it is severely frowned upon.)

I urge everyone to resist the temptation to look at the court decision on this and go "tl;dr." It is really something! It is thorough, understandable and really sorts out the issues. I give the judges an A+.
Click to expand...
I agree. It is an interesting read. I would give it an A-, A+ for effort but B for content (only since I disagree with several points personally).
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
language is ambiguous.
Click to expand...
This is a filthy, slanderous lie, for which you should be deeply ashamed. :fish:
Great Bights Mum:
It has been my observation over the years that TNPers are notorious for going off-topic, threadjacking, unapologetic gravedigging, and all manner of behavior that is considered a faux pas elsewhere. Previously, I would say at least 50% of threads would deteriorate into absurdity before being abandoned. Newcomers may have found it a bit untidy, but hey, it's home. :tb2:
Click to expand...
GBM, you may appreciate a quote I have kept around for years and years - long enough that I have forgotten its original poster, but I do know it was originally from TWP:

"If you don't like offtopic threads, find another region. Its what we do." ^_^
 
That is pretty funny. But in TNP instead of saying "find another region." we would say "understand our idiosyncrasies and be tolerant and accepting of them - it's TRADITION!"
 
Great Bights Mum:
That is pretty funny. But in TNP instead of saying "find another region." we would say "understand our idiosyncrasies and be tolerant and accepting of them - it's TRADITION!"
Click to expand...
so true... very true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top