A possible flaw in our election law

Corinair: I believe there are issues with polls in allowing people to change their votes - it does happen, in both elections and RA votes, and it would be unfortunate if people were stuck with their first vote.

Sanc: I'm astonished that a coin toss is considered permissible to decide RL elections, and I continue to not at all support its use here. A runoff is neither complicated nor convoluted.
 
SillyString:
Sanc: I'm astonished that a coin toss is considered permissible to decide RL elections, and I continue to not at all support its use here. A runoff is neither complicated nor convoluted.
Click to expand...

As we discussed however, a runoff could in turn result in a tie...
 
The randomizer has really got me thinking... What if we were to just have the randomizer choose our elected officials in every instance? It would certainly be more efficient.
 
Eluvatar:
SillyString:
Sanc: I'm astonished that a coin toss is considered permissible to decide RL elections, and I continue to not at all support its use here. A runoff is neither complicated nor convoluted.
Click to expand...

As we discussed however, a runoff could in turn result in a tie...
Click to expand...
We could have a run-off if a general election is tied, and then if the run-off ties, use a tiebreaker. The tiebreaker doesn't have to be random as I think that's quite inappropriate. Once we have a tiebreaking method, we can use that to break special election ties, without a run-off.

Democratic Donkeys:
The randomizer has really got me thinking... What if we were to just have the randomizer choose our elected officials in every instance? It would certainly be more efficient.
Click to expand...
It certainly would be, but Chance is surely the antithesis of Choice, right?
 
Eluvatar:
SillyString:
Sanc: I'm astonished that a coin toss is considered permissible to decide RL elections, and I continue to not at all support its use here. A runoff is neither complicated nor convoluted.
Click to expand...

As we discussed however, a runoff could in turn result in a tie...
Click to expand...
It could - or, more likely, it could result in a different subset of RA members voting leading to a different result.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Or have the EC post in the voting thread with something along the lines of "A vote has been submitted privately"?
Click to expand...
This would probably be the best way to work it out, due to the example previously explained about this one election.

Perhaps everytime a secret vote is received the person in charge can post an update:

"1 private vote received on DATE TIME"

If more arrive

"2 more private votes received for a current total of n private votes"

This way you can protect the secrecy desired by the voter while also allowing the spectators to know how much of a difference can the private votes do
 
SillyString:
Corinair: I believe there are issues with polls in allowing people to change their votes - it does happen, in both elections and RA votes, and it would be unfortunate if people were stuck with their first vote.

Sanc: I'm astonished that a coin toss is considered permissible to decide RL elections, and I continue to not at all support its use here. A runoff is neither complicated nor convoluted.
Click to expand...

No, I'm afraid you are wrong. If you use Google Docs to create a form you can choose an option that allows people to change their vote. I truly think using that would be a more effcient way of counting the votes as well than going over the forums, which can get messy. It would also allow you to keep the voting at the top and allow the debate below it instead of two forum threads which gets cumbersome.
 
I do not believe we are going to move voting to google docs.

For one thing, not all members have gmail accounts, and it would be absurd to require it.
 
Well, on a point of fact, one doesn't have to have a gmail account to fill out a google docs form to vote. What would be problematic is verifying the identity of the voters. It is much easier to keep casting votes on the forum as we have been.
 
SillyString:
I do not believe we are going to move voting to google docs.

For one thing, not all members have gmail accounts, and it would be absurd to require it.
Click to expand...

Crushing Our Enemies:
Well, on a point of fact, one doesn't have to have a gmail account to fill out a google docs form to vote. What would be problematic is verifying the identity of the voters. It is much easier to keep casting votes on the forum as we have been.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I was just about to say that. It can be set to public or just to anyone with the link. As a new person I find it a bit cumbersome to sift through the forums to find things I might need to vote on. Hence my suggestion and as the deputy speaker SillyString I would kindly ask you do research before dismissing another's ideas. No offense intended of course.
 
If I'm ever speaking in my capacity as Deputy Speaker, you'll know it. ;)

Votes on the forum are located in two places - the Elections subforum for any ongoing elections, and the Voting subforum for any RA votes. I don't see any way for off-forum voting to simplify this - and COE raises a good point about the ability to identify and verify voters and votes.

All of this is really getting away from the actual issues that need to be addressed - the lack of provision for special election runoffs, and the desire to ensure a single Election Commissioner does not come under suspicion when reporting the results of elections with private votes cast. Both of these can easily be fixed, once we agree on the correct approach for doing so.
 
I believe the speaker does send out a weekly telegram, it tends to contain whats at vote to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't seem unlikely to that end that they also send out one once something is going for vote too ;)
 
SillyString:
If I'm ever speaking in my capacity as Deputy Speaker, you'll know it. ;)

Votes on the forum are located in two places - the Elections subforum for any ongoing elections, and the Voting subforum for any RA votes. I don't see any way for off-forum voting to simplify this - and COE raises a good point about the ability to identify and verify voters and votes.

All of this is really getting away from the actual issues that need to be addressed - the lack of provision for special election runoffs, and the desire to ensure a single Election Commissioner does not come under suspicion when reporting the results of elections with private votes cast. Both of these can easily be fixed, once we agree on the correct approach for doing so.
Click to expand...

Abacathea:
I believe the speaker does send out a weekly telegram, it tends to contain whats at vote to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't seem unlikely to that end that they also send out one once something is going for vote too ;)
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and I suppose you are right about getting off topic. I do like your idea Abacathea. :)
 
The Digest currently includes information about recently closed votes, recently opened votes, and topics under discussion in the RA over the previous week.

I do not foresee us adding an additional telegram for individual items, in a desire to avoid spamming RA members (many of whom check their nations only sporadically), but the Digest ought to be sufficient.

Edit: That's as Deputy Speaker, though Zyvetboss is free to overrule me or institute notifications on his own, of course. I'm far too lazy to bother. :P
 
I think that adding vote notifications would be a bad idea.

As a whole though I think that SillyString has the right idea on this proposal and definitely no moving to google docs :P
 
As for private votes being cast, I think I might even go further than what has been suggested here. Other than requiring the EC to announce that a vote has been cast, I think it would also be a good idea to get them to note who the vote was cast for (without stating who cast it, of course). (We could even get them to post a screenshot, if we wanna be really paranoid - not sure whether it's needed, though.)

As far as I can see, the legal code never actually states when a run-off vote is required - only the procedure in the case that it is. That might be something we could address as well. Having one seems sensible to me in the case of special elections as well, with a shortened duration.
 
Here is a draft for insertion into our laws:

"When a vote is cast by private message to the election commissioner, the election commissioner shall post the fact that a vote has been cast privately, and shall post who that vote was cast for."
 
flemingovia:
Here is a draft for insertion into our laws:

"When a vote is cast by private message to the election commissioner, the election commissioner shall post the fact that a vote has been cast privately, and shall post who that vote was cast for."
Click to expand...

That doesn't say when they would have to post it, so it is without effect. However, I expect we don't want to require any particular time window as that would be unfair to our election commissioners.
 
"When a vote is cast by private message to the election commissioner, the election commissioner shall promptly post the fact that a vote has been cast privately, and shall post who that vote was cast for."
 
I see nothing wrong with election transparency, so while someone does have the ability to vote privately, to state "privately voting" should at least remove the possibility for accusations of vote stuffing.

I'm inclined to agree with the suggested reforms the RA is currently debating vs the currently existing "norm".
 
I think we have probably debated this as much as it is going to be debated:

I have slightly reworded it, but my proposal to the Regional Assembly is:

"When a vote is cast by private message to the election commissioner, the election commissioner shall promptly post in the voting thread the fact that a vote has been cast privately, and shall inform the Assembly who that vote was cast for."
Click to expand...

This will be inserted as appropriate into our election laws, with renumbering as necessary.

Does this find a seconder?
 
I second it.

I'm not 100% sure that this is the best, but I think it'll be worth a try, so I will be voting for it when it reaches the floor.

I hate it when people don't vote for the things they seconded.

That said, aren't seconds obsolete now? I second it regardless.
 
This proposal is now in formal debate.

If I may ask for a minor amendment to the bill to specify where in the legal code it would actually be added:
1. In the Codified Law of The North Pacific, Section 4.3 a new clause is inserted that shall be numbered as clause 12 and shall read as follows:
When a vote is cast by private message to the election commissioner, the election commissioner shall promptly post in the voting thread the fact that a vote has been cast privately, and shall inform the Assembly who that vote was cast for.
Click to expand...
2. Clauses 12 through 20 of Chapter 4 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific are renumbered as clauses 13 through 21
Click to expand...
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
This proposal is now in formal debate.

If I may ask for a minor amendment to the bill to specify where in the legal code it would actually be added:
1. In the Codified Law of The North Pacific, Section 4.3 a new clause is inserted that shall be numbered as clause 12 and shall read as follows:
When a vote is cast by private message to the election commissioner, the election commissioner shall promptly post in the voting thread the fact that a vote has been cast privately, and shall inform the Assembly who that vote was cast for.
Click to expand...
2. Clauses 12 through 20 of Chapter 4 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific are renumbered as clauses 13 through 21
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Happy to accept the amendment.
 
I'm not even sure what debate there needs to be right now, unless there are those who disagree with the proposal as it stands. This proposal, in my opinion, addresses the procedural concerns that were mentioned by Flem quite well.
 
Here's my real suggestion. Warning - it's extensive, but it should definitely cover a number of issues.

The following shall be inserted into the beginning of Section 3, and currently existing clauses shall be renumbered as appropriate:
Section 3.1: Chief Justice Selection
2. Whenever the position is vacant, the Justices shall elect a Chief Justice from among themselves by a majority vote.
3. In the event that a Chief Justice has not been elected by seven days after the conclusion of a Judicial election, including the conclusion of any required run-off votes, the Chief Justice shall be the Justice who received the highest number of votes in said election. In the event of a tie for highest number of votes, the Chief Justice shall be the one among those tied with the longest period of membership in the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...

Section 4.2, clause 7, shall be amended to read:
7. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it . An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice, or when an election winner or appointee fails to post the Oath of Office. Pending an election, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body.
Click to expand...

Section 4.3 shall be amended to read:
Section 4.3: Overall Election Law
8. Regional Assembly members shall be provided five days to declare their candidacy.
9. Voting will begin immediately after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days.
10. If a run-off vote is required it will begin within one days of the first vote ending and it shall last for five days.
11. When a vote is cast by private message to an election commissioner, the election commissioner shall promptly post in the voting thread the fact that a vote has been cast privately, and shall inform the Assembly who that vote was cast for.
Click to expand...

Section 4.4 shall be amended to read:
Section 4.4: General and Judicial Elections
12. Election Commissioners will be appointed by the Delegate to oversee the nomination and election processes at least one week before the beginning of the month in which the election is to be held. If an appointment of Election Commissioners has not been made by that time, the Chief Justice shall promptly make the appointment.
13. The election cycle for the terms of the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, and the Speaker will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
14. The election cycle for the terms of the Justices and the Attorney General will begin on the first days of the months of March, July, and November.
Click to expand...

Section 4.5 shall be struck.

Section 4.6 shall be amended to read:
Section 4.5: Special Elections
15. A special election will be held in the event of a vacancy in any elected office or position, unless the election would be unable to conclude prior to the beginning of the scheduled election cycle for that office.
16. 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.
17. 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...

Section 5.4 shall have the following clause inserted, and all ensuing clauses shall be renumbered as appropriate:
27. Non-incumbent candidates for Delegate or Vice Delegate may not obtain an endorsement level during the election cycle greater than the level authorized for members of the Security Council under this chapter.
Click to expand...

Any other renumberings made necessary by this amendment shall be applied as appropriate.
Click to expand...

I can suggest a smaller kludge, but this will overall be hugely beneficial.

What does it do?

1) It establishes "overall election law" as properly dominant to the specifics of "general", "judicial", and "special" elections, in line with the basic meaning of language as it is used.

2) It standardizes the election period for both types of elections.

3) It moves matters dealing with internal court functions to the judiciary section, and with endorsement caps to the regional security section.

4) Cleans up redundancies, tightens the formatting, and overall improves legal clarity.
 
1. Are scheduled elections currently too long?
2. Why does law regulating endorsement counts of candidates in elections for Delegate (relevant only during an election) belong in the Security law, invisible to someone reading the election law?

I do approve of the reduction in verbiate of the definition of Vacancy clause, and moving some of its contents elsewhere, as well as everything else I haven't questioned (I think), of course.
 
1) In my opinion, yes. :P

2) Two reason. First, that clause actually doesn't place any restrictions on them - it's a somewhat redundant reminder that they're not yet elected and cannot surpass the VD in endorsements. It's worth keeping in case we do apply a separate endorsement cap for non-SC members. Second, while it does occur during elections, the subject matter is a matter of regional security. The candidates may not exceed a certain level of endorsements, and the tracking and enforcement of that is for the SC/VD, not the EC.
 
I would agree that the current election period is too long. After my first read through I approve of the suggestions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top