A possible flaw in our election law

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
Dear RA,

In the recent special election for Speaker, the ballot was very close. On IRC three of us did an informal count when the ballot should have closed and made the tally out to be 17-17.

However, when McM posted the official results, the tally was 18-17, because someone had voted privately. Nobody posted in the thread that they were voting by PM.

Now there has always been the custom in TNP that if you are voting by PM you make a post stating that you are doing do. However, this is not a rule.

I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THERE IS ANY FOUL PLAY IN THIS ELECTION (shouty capitals deliberate). However, in a scenario where the EC supports one of the candidates (which we know by the vote) there is great potential for accusations of ballot-stuffing should their candidate win because of PM votes, and I think our procedures would be tighter if those who vote by PM were required to post in the voting thread that they had done so.

What do you think?
 
The private vote was placed early on in the election.

Also I would say that usually this isn't a problem when there are more than one election commissioners and the voting booth is used for the private votes. In the case where only the Delegate, Speaker or Chief Justice are the election commissioners then maybe there is an issue.

Also I think some people vote privately to prevent people from trying to change their vote or being offended if they don't receive that individuals vote.
 
I think most of us agree private or "secret" voting is a basic right.

But I, for one, would appreciate if, at least, those whose decide to do so reply with a "voted privately" post, to avoid suspicion. Since it most likely compromises secrecy itself, I don't have a real solution to it. I guess what McMasterdonia says is the easier way to have control over it.
 
mcmasterdonia:
The private vote was placed early on in the election.

Also I would say that usually this isn't a problem when there are more than one election commissioners and the voting booth is used for the private votes. In the case where only the Delegate, Speaker or Chief Justice are the election commissioners then maybe there is an issue.

Also I think some people vote privately to prevent people from trying to change their vote or being offended if they don't receive that individuals vote.
Click to expand...
I can see the reason for private voting. As lobbying becomes more commonplace in TNP I can see people wanting to escape the pressure.

I am actually trying to protect, in a small way, election commissioners from accusations of foul play.
 
I agree with flem's suggestion - it would be very easy for the loser of an election to challenge the count in court and put the election commissioner in the awkward position of potentially violating someone's privacy rights.

While we're at it, we should probably rework the law to allow for run-off votes in special elections.
 
I don't agree - requiring those who vote privately to post in the thread would, in some cases, eliminate the privacy of their ballot. For example. in the recent speaker election, if whoever cast the *single* private ballot were to post in the thread, everyone would know that they had voted for Zyvet.
 
It might be useful if the Elections Commissioner(s) post an acknowledgement of a private vote being cast without identification of who, if the voter has not posted a statement that they had voted privately in the voting thread. The EC should do this reasonably soon after the PM is received at the Voting Booth account.

Edited to note that DD and I had the exact same reaction at the exact same time. Or as the saying goes "great minds think alike."
 
Yeah, I could get behind that. Also, SillyString is right - there currently isn't any explicit provision in our laws for what to do if a Special Election doesn't produce a clear winner.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Yeah, I could get behind that. Also, SillyString is right - there currently isn't any explicit provision in our laws for what to do if a Special Election doesn't produce a clear winner.
Click to expand...

Is it the problem of no candidate with a plurality, or no candidate with an overall majority?

edit: grammatical errors
 
I think it may be more the fact that it does not say under the special election section of the legal code what to do if the election is tied, for example. There is no mention of a runoff election or any process which would determine a winner when the results are unclear.

Eluvatar:
That is.. fairly sensible.
Click to expand...

:w00t: I, uh, I... don't know what to say.
 
Yep, DD nailed it - the only mention of a run-off are in the general election procedures.

I (somewhat shockingly) find myself in agreement with DD, Grosse, Eluvatar, and COE as regards public EC acknowledgement of a private vote. This feels weird. :unsure: :P
 
The special election tie problem could be fixed with one sentence; either reference the runoff provisions for general elections or designate an official to cast a tiebreaker vote.

(The latter was used in the constitution and election code we had back in 2005, and the Speaker would vote in a tiebreaker involving the Delegate; and the Delegate would cast the tiebreaker in all other instances. And this was the tiebreaker if a runoff ended in a tie.)
 
But won't people take issue with someone who has probably already voted casting a tiebreaker vote? Couldn't issues be raised regarding the "one man one vote" principle?

Bill of Rights:
10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
Click to expand...
 
SillyString:
Yep, DD nailed it - the only mention of a run-off are in the general election procedures.

I (somewhat shockingly) find myself in agreement with DD, Grosse, Eluvatar, and COE as regards public EC acknowledgement of a private vote. This feels weird. :unsure: :P
Click to expand...
Okay, this is seriously sig worthy. It feels strange to me as well! I should propose sensible things in the RA more often! :w00t:

I also echo the sentiment of Eluvatar. I would go further and say that I support Grosse's idea that runoff provisions be added to the special elections section of the Legal Code. Much less of a powderkeg than having one official decide.

Edit: I am certain that if this had been a tie, there would have been changing of votes by certain members during runoff, resulting in a clear winner.
 
I suggest a shorter voting period for the runoff in special elections. Keeping with the same wording as the other clause on run-offs:

If a run-off vote is required it will begin within ONE day of the first vote ending and it shall last for THREE days.
Click to expand...
 
I agree, Hileville. Given the expedience required for a special election it would necessitate a shorter election, and a shorter runoff if it is needed.

Something like this?

Section 4.6: Special Elections
17. A special election will be held in the event of a vacancy in any elected office or position.
18. The Delegate, or if the Delegate is not available, the Speaker, or if the Delegate and Speaker are not available, any Court Justice, will serve as Election Commissioner for the special election.
19. The period for nominations or declarations of candidacy in the special election will last for five days, beginning within two days after the vacancy is noticed.
20. Voting will begin one day after the period for nominations or declarations has closed and last for five days, unless there is only one candidate for each vacancy in which case they will take office immediately.
21. If a run-off vote is required it will begin within one day of the first vote ending and it shall last for three days.
Click to expand...

With 21. being added at the end, no renumbering required!
 
Democratic Donkeys:
I agree, Hileville. Given the expedience required for a special election it would necessitate a shorter election, and a shorter runoff if it is needed.

Something like this?

Section 4.6: Special Elections
17. A special election will be held in the event of a vacancy in any elected office or position.
18. The Delegate, or if the Delegate is not available, the Speaker, or if the Delegate and Speaker are not available, any Court Justice, will serve as Election Commissioner for the special election.
19. The period for nominations or declarations of candidacy in the special election will last for five days, beginning within two days after the vacancy is noticed.
20. Voting will begin one day after the period for nominations or declarations has closed and last for five days, unless there is only one candidate for each vacancy in which case they will take office immediately.
21. If a run-off vote is required it will begin within one day of the first vote ending and it shall last for three days.
Click to expand...

With 21. being added at the end, no renumbering required!
Click to expand...
Works for me.
 
This might be controversial but I don't think we should have run-offs for special elections, it would be too long.

The election commission can already hold their vote back until the end to ensure there is no tie. The only changes I'm keen on here are making election commission's tie-breaking votes formal, and making election commissioners announce the private votes.
 
The whole special election process would be 15 days max with the proposed change. Also it is not as if a runoff would occur with every special election, it didn't happen this time, but it brought up the fact that the legal code has no provision for what would happen if there were no clear winner of the special election.

I'm not sure how I feel about your suggestion that the EC "hold their vote back" to insure that there is no tie. For one, wouldn't that strip them of their personal right to vote if they had to use their vote as a tiebreaker? Also, if the EC was somehow imbued with essentially an extra vote in the case of a tie, wouldn't that be unfair and unconstitutional? Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying...

I do agree that it would be nice for the EC to announce the receipt of a private vote, but I didn't think that necessarily had to be placed into the legal code. It could just become a custom.
 
I am against forcing EC's to hold their vote to break a tie. I am also against putting a clause that requires private votes to be announced. We really don't need to legislate everything.
 
Hang on, I think I've got a good fix - let's take up r3n's suggestion from a few months ago to eliminate special elections entirely. Following any vacancy in any elected position, a normal election would be held and the winner would be free to serve a full term.

This would decouple elections from particular months, which some see as an upside and others as a downside, but it has other definite upsides. One would be allowing fewer elections overall, keeping us out of the sometimes absurd "election, resignation, special election, recall, special election, end of term, election, repeat" cycle that is sometimes fallen into. Another would be opening up elected offices to a greater number of TNPers - with fixed dates, some people may be permanently unable to run for any office due to the particulars of their schedule, and more variable terms could alleviate that difficulty. Third, and this is particular to the court, once the terms shifted out of alignment a greater degree of continuity might be possible on the court and on specific cases (e.g., not assigning a fresh trial to a justice about to end their term, ensuring any newly elected justice would be serving with two who had some idea of what they were doing, etc).

That neatly sidesteps both issues - there would be no special elections to need runoffs, and in general elections with two ECs, both could confirm the private ballots without needing to make them public.
 
Or -

If someone resigns or otherwise leaves office, have the candidate who had the next highest vote count in the election assume the office, and if not, the next highest vote count after that. Failing that, the Delegate can appoint.
 
SillyString:
Hang on, I think I've got a good fix - let's take up r3n's suggestion from a few months ago to eliminate special elections entirely. Following any vacancy in any elected position, a normal election would be held and the winner would be free to serve a full term.

This would decouple elections from particular months, which some see as an upside and others as a downside, but it has other definite upsides. One would be allowing fewer elections overall, keeping us out of the sometimes absurd "election, resignation, special election, recall, special election, end of term, election, repeat" cycle that is sometimes fallen into. Another would be opening up elected offices to a greater number of TNPers - with fixed dates, some people may be permanently unable to run for any office due to the particulars of their schedule, and more variable terms could alleviate that difficulty. Third, and this is particular to the court, once the terms shifted out of alignment a greater degree of continuity might be possible on the court and on specific cases (e.g., not assigning a fresh trial to a justice about to end their term, ensuring any newly elected justice would be serving with two who had some idea of what they were doing, etc).

That neatly sidesteps both issues - there would be no special elections to need runoffs, and in general elections with two ECs, both could confirm the private ballots without needing to make them public.
Click to expand...

Not a fan of this.

Romanoffia:
Or -

If someone resigns or otherwise leaves office, have the candidate who had the next highest vote count in the election assume the office, and if not, the next highest vote count after that. Failing that, the Delegate can appoint.
Click to expand...
This would be okay if we elected Cabinet Ministers. However since the Offices we are looking at are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, and Court Justices, I would prefer not to cross appoint officials.
 
edit:
Democratic Donkeys:
...wouldn't that strip them of their personal right to vote if they had to use their vote as a tiebreaker? Also, if the EC was somehow imbued with essentially an extra vote in the case of a tie, wouldn't that be unfair and unconstitutional? Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying...
Click to expand...
Yes.

I would look at it that they already have the choice of a tie or not a tie. If we change their law we can take away their right to tie the vote. It's not an extra vote as it's just a different use of their equal right to vote.

They can still vote for who they want at the close, except if it would mean a tie, then abstain instead.
 
Romanoffia:
Or -

If someone resigns or otherwise leaves office, have the candidate who had the next highest vote count in the election assume the office, and if not, the next highest vote count after that. Failing that, the Delegate can appoint.
Click to expand...
Eh, I don't think that works very well. There may not have been another candidate, their opponent may have taken up another position, left the region, or not have time, they may have been voted down decisively such that there cannot possibly be support for them serving, and so on.

They can still vote for who they want at the close, except if it would mean a tie, then abstain instead.
Click to expand...
A person's vote is theirs to give, or to hold, as they wish - requiring ECs to abstain if their vote would cause a tie would fundamentally violate that. It would also needlessly politicize the choice of ECs, pushing the delegate to name people who they feel would vote for the candidate they themselves support.
 
Here's an interesting thought.

What if ECs announced the result of a private vote after it had been cast? I think that if vote changing in order to secure a win was a concern of the RA, we would have fixed it by mandating all private votes. So in that case PM votes would mainly be just to conceal identity, therefore announcing the vote that had been cast protects your identity while allowing tallies and related shtuffs to continue without being affected by (as proven in this case, game-changing) result swings.
 
I do not like the idea of wandering terms of office and election dates. It wouldn't take very long to have a general election being held every three or four weeks as each elected office would be on its own schedule.
If mid-fixed term vacancies are becoming a problem, then maybe we need to look at going back to three month terms, rather than four months.
As to tie breaking in runoffs, maybe there are other devices that can be used. We shouldn't mix in the issue of ECs or others voting privately with the issue of breaking ties. If the idea of the highest office breaking a tie is deemed a poor one, then let's think of some other approach that doesn't intermix the two issues.
 
IRL ties in FPTP systems are usually done by coin toss.

Can't we trust the ECs to get the two candidates online and do a coin toss? I think bots on IRC channels can do coin tosses, if not there's online things.
 
Well, one could use random.org:

http://www.random.org/lists/?mode=advanced
List items:[note]Put in in the ballot order, which I assume to have been nomination order[/note]
Code: 
Zyvetskistaahn
bootahilley01
Democratic Donkeys
King Durk the Awesome
Choose Randomization:
User pregenerated randomization based on persistent identifier "tnp-special-speaker-election-november-2013"
Click [Randomize]

=>
random.org:
List Randomizer

There were 4 items in your list. Here they are, randomized with pregenerated randomization based on persistent identifier tnp-special-speaker-election-november-2013:

  1. Zyvetskistaahn
  2. Democratic Donkeys
  3. bootahilley01
  4. King Durk the Awesome
Timestamp: 2013-11-24 19:07:19 UTC
Click to expand...

If we used this, a tie between Zyvet and DD would be broken in favor of Zyvet.
 
I'm not at all in favor of pseudorandomized tiebreaking - randomness is not a characteristic to be cultivated in elections. Runoff votes work fine when there is a tie.
 
SillyString:
I'm not at all in favor of pseudorandomized tiebreaking - randomness is not a characteristic to be cultivated in elections. Runoff votes work fine when there is a tie.
Click to expand...
I agree with Silly on this.

I am fine with run-offs for general elections, we need a fallback option for the rare cases when the run-off results in a tie.

Once we have invented an acceptable fallback option, we might as well (to save election time) omit run-offs from special elections and use just that tiebreaker if a special election ties.
 
"Randomness" works fine IRL when there's a tie. I don't support any unnecessary convoluted means of sorting out a tie just for TNP.
 
IIRC, we have used that randomizer site in the distant past as I am familar with it, and NS is the only context I can think of that it would have come to my attention.

I have no problem with using it as a tie breaker in either general or special elections.
 
I may be new around here and I can understand the need for posting the vote publically when it has something to do with the assembly, but if we are electing an official then why not just have a poll? That way everyone can vote and the counts are accurate up front without anyone but those in charge of the poll seeing who has voted.
 
I think randomisers in FPTP systems when there are more than 2 candidates that obtain votes is problematic, as it isn't exactly representative of the choices of the majority of the RA. I think that run-offs, occurring right away after the first vote. Even better, why not just go with STV?

As for PM votes, I have no problem with where this bill seems to be heading towards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top