change the ballot paper?

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
on IRC a few of us thought it might be an idea to have on our ballot papers "reopen nominations", which would ..... reopen nominations, if voters were unhappy with all the choices on the ballot.

This would only be allowed once per election.

Those originally nominated would remain on the ballot, or would be allowed to be nominated again.

What do you think?
 
Having watched this discussion, I don't see any problems with this.
 
I'm in support of this, but do the candidates nominated still remain nominated?
 
I agree with this idea Flem. I believe if the citizen are dissatisfied with the candidates nominated or who declared candidacy in this topic, they should have a chance to reopen the nomination period and maybe to get candidates they are satisfied with.
 
I'm not opposed to this, but I think the already-nominated candidates should stay nominated, and the new nomination period should be relatively short - 24 or 48 hours, I think. I imagine this option will only be used when people have a specific candidate or two in mind that they want to be on the ballot, and that person is ready to accept their nomination, so a full five-day period should be unnecessary.
 
I agree - already nominated candidates should stay nominated automatically. However they should be able to withdraw if they wish. 48 hours would be an acceptable nomination period in my opinion.
 
And this idea wouldn't be necessary had the nomination/declaration period been left at seven days in the first place.

Often candidates declared or accepted nomination on those last two days, and were pursuaded or reacted to who had already been nominated.
 
It's not a matter of time, Grosse, it's a matter of second chances. If the best candidate withdraws their candidacy on the last day, it doesn't matter whether the period was five or seven or eighteen days - voters might want a chance to suggest a different name.

I'm in favor of this.
 
SillyString:
It's not a matter of time, Grosse, it's a matter of second chances. If the best candidate withdraws their candidacy on the last day, it doesn't matter whether the period was five or seven or eighteen days - voters might want a chance to suggest a different name.

I'm in favor of this.
Click to expand...
:agree: . Well said.
 
How would this work?

Change to the Legal Code

Section 4:3 Overall election Law.

Add 13, as follows, and renumber accordingly.

13. "Reopen Nominations." Ballot papers for elections, special or otherwise, shall include the option to reopen nominations. Should this receive a majority of votes, then the election shall be rerun, with nominations shall open for a period of 48 hours and with those originally nominated remaining on the ballot paper unless they wish their name to be removed. On this second ballot there will not be an option to reopen nominations.
 
flemingovia:
How would this work?

Change to the Legal Code

Section 4:3 Overall election Law.

Add 13, as follows, and renumber accordingly.

13. "Reopen Nominations." Ballot papers for elections, special or otherwise, shall include the option to reopen nominations. Should this receive a majority of votes, then the election shall be rerun, with nominations shall open for a period of 48 hours and with those originally nominated remaining on the ballot paper unless they wish their name to be removed. On this second ballot there will not be an option to reopen nominations.
Click to expand...
I made some changes to reduce possible conflicts (specifying general and special elections, with no "otherwise", to prevent issues with the following bit removing RON from second round balloting) and grammatical issues (run-on sentence in there). How about this?

13. "Reopen Nominations." Ballots for general and special elections shall include the option to reopen nominations. Should this receive a majority of votes, 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. During the second round of voting following this period, the option to reopen nominations shall not appear on the ballot.
Click to expand...
 
All in all this seems to work rather well, mostly.
 
flemingovia:
How would this work?

Change to the Legal Code

Section 4:3 Overall election Law.

Add 13, as follows, and renumber accordingly.

13. "Reopen Nominations." Ballot papers for elections, special or otherwise, shall include the option to reopen nominations. Should this receive a majority of votes, then the election shall be rerun, with nominations shall open for a period of 48 hours and with those originally nominated remaining on the ballot paper unless they wish their name to be removed. On this second ballot there will not be an option to reopen nominations.
Click to expand...
I like this. I would vote for this.

Perfectly constructed, Flem! :clap:
 
I Move the Following change to the Legal Code to vote:


Add the following clause to section 4:3, Overall Election Law, and renumber accordingly.

"Reopen Nominations." Ballots for general and special elections shall include the option to reopen nominations. Should this receive a majority of votes, 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. During the second round of voting following this period, the option to reopen nominations shall not appear on the ballot.
 
So. Formal debate. Any more comments?

I changed the bill to the less specific "renumbering as appropriate". With other legislation going through the house I thought it best not to be too specific about numbering.
 
How would this be structured on ballots? Would there be an option to vote for one of the candidates, OR reopen nominations, or would there be an option to reopen nominations as well as voting for a candidate?

In the first case, the inclusion of a option like that will lead to more frequent runoffs as it will dilute support among actual candidates... and worse may cost someone an election who otherwise might've won.

In the second case, it could lead to a runoff with the same candidates that were on the first ballot, say "45/30/25" splits, with "Reopen/Candidate1/Candidate2". Which isn't so terrible, I guess, but it is pretty strange.
 
OK, so in justice elections, currently we pick three candidates from a list. Suppose 11 people vote, and the results are as follows:

Candidate 1: 10 votes
Candidate 2: 7 votes
Candidate 3: 2 votes
Candidate 4: 1 votes
Reopen nominations: 6 votes
Abstain: 7 votes

In this case, a majority of the voters (6 out of 11) voted to re-open nominations, but it did not receive a majority of the votes, since 26 votes were cast. In fact, unless voters were allowed to select it multiple times on their ballot, it is impossible for it to receive a majority of the votes cast. I think the bill might need to be re-worded to address this sort of thing.

EDIT: I suppose if there were a *lot* of abstentions, it would be possible for it to receive a majority of the votes. Nonetheless, it seems like it's much harder to force nominations to reopen in a justice election than any other race.
 
I would argue that in that case the first two candidates are elected, then the nominations reopen for the third spot. But I think this would be down to the election commissioner, wouldn't it?
 
I do suspect, CoE, that if "Reopen nominations" was an option in the current Justice election it may well have won. Just a hunch.
 
In the current election, each voter is only casting one vote, though.

I think we may need a bit more regulation here to decide what ought to happen in multi-winner races like justice elections. Also, I think if nominations are re-opened no candidates should be elected in the first round of voting. The addition of new candidates could seriously alter people's candidate preferences, especially when they're trying to elect a cohesive body of justices. I think we need some language like "if 're-open nominations' is selected by a majority of voters, no candidates will be elected and an additional 48 hours will be provided for declarations of candidacy."
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
OK, so in justice elections, currently we pick three candidates from a list. Suppose 11 people vote, and the results are as follows:

Candidate 1: 10 votes
Candidate 2: 7 votes
Candidate 3: 2 votes
Candidate 4: 1 votes
Reopen nominations: 6 votes
Abstain: 7 votes

In this case, a majority of the voters (6 out of 11) voted to re-open nominations, but it did not receive a majority of the votes, since 26 votes were cast. In fact, unless voters were allowed to select it multiple times on their ballot, it is impossible for it to receive a majority of the votes cast. I think the bill might need to be re-worded to address this sort of thing.

EDIT: I suppose if there were a *lot* of abstentions, it would be possible for it to receive a majority of the votes. Nonetheless, it seems like it's much harder to force nominations to reopen in a justice election than any other race.
Click to expand...
Under the amended proposal 'reopen nominations' would not have received the majority of votes and therefore would not trigger a reopening of nominations. I think that's fair. I would suggest the following changes, though:

"Reopen Nominations." Ballots for general and special elections shall include the option to reopen nominations. Should this receive a majority of votes, the current round of voting will close with no declaration of results and 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. During the second round of voting following this period round of voting following this second nominations period, the option to reopen nominations shall not appear on the ballot.
Click to expand...

The first change clarifies that the in-progress voting closes without a declaration of results, therefore maintaining the current election cycle.

The second change removes the unnecessary statement that a candidate can withdraw their candidacy, which they could do anyway during a period for declaration of candidacy.

The third and fourth change are simply my preference for clarifying that last sentence.
 
Ator, suppose that two very good candidates ran, and all the others were crap. I think that under this system, most people would think that if they voted for the two good ones, and then put "reopen nominations" as their third choice, that their ballot would reflect their interest in supporting two of the candidates, but reopening nominations for a third. This is not the case, and those people would be voting against their interest, because while they have cast a vote to reopen nominations, they have cast *two* votes *against* reopening nominations.

I think if reopen nominations is selected on a majority of *ballots* in an election, then nominations should be reopened.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Ator, suppose that two very good candidates ran, and all the others were crap. I think that under this system, most people would think that if they voted for the two good ones, and then put "reopen nominations" as their third choice, that their ballot would reflect their interest in supporting two of the candidates, but reopening nominations for a third. This is not the case, and those people would be voting against their interest, because while they have cast a vote to reopen nominations, they have cast *two* votes *against* reopening nominations.

I think if reopen nominations is selected on a majority of *ballots* in an election, then nominations should be reopened.
Click to expand...
That's fine with me.
 
The only way to avoid confusion is to list the "reopen nominations" as a separate question for that office. If a majority of the ballots are for reopening then the specific votes or abstentions for that office would be nullified.
Making it the equivalent of a "none of the above" option would lead to confusion, I think, since our election procedure already has "abstain" as an option among the candidates.
Having reopen nominations as a separate question keeps that practice unchanged, and simply has the new process as a veto by the voters of that election to be reopened and a new voting period startedl
 
Well I believe the option to abstain is fine. Like in tis recent election for justice, we just had more than 20 people abstained. In my most humble opinion since this happen it would be in the delegate discretion to reopen the nominations. Lucky thing they picked the right candidate anyway, but still in an election where abstain takes more than 3/4 of the voting body, the delegate should automatically reopen nominations. I fine it would be better this way and would cause less ambiguities than adding a total different option which means the exact. same thing. If people reopen nominations its means they don't like the candidates and if people abstained, it means the same thing. So to prevent an election like this from occurring again this type of law should enacted.
 
I believe the procedure in the current proposal as put to a vote is going to cause confusion and problems.
I think my suggestion that "reopen nominations" as a separate question for each office avoids that confusion and makes the option easier to understand.
I will have to vote against the proposal in its current form, and urge the R.A., to likewise vote against the bill to force a rewrite.
 
I like the idea of this bill, but I think the issue of elections with multiple votes per ballot needs to be sorted before I can vote aye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top