Delegate Election Fairness Act

Jack Holland

Jack Holland

TNPer
Delegate Election Fairness Act:
1. Chapter 4, Section 3 of the Legal Code shall be amended as follows:
16. The Regional Assembly shall choose two Election Commissioners to oversee the election of the Chief Justice and Delegate of the North Pacific. These election commissioners shall, under good behavior, remain in office at their own pleasure until they resign. These Special Election Commissioners may not be removed from office except by the Regional Assembly on conviction of election fraud or abuse of their powers.

17. No Special Election commissioner mentioned above shall be allowed to preside over or run for the position of Chief Justice or Delegate of the North Pacific for the duration of their office.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
We experimented with standing election commissioners in the past, and it didn't work out so well. We would need them and they wouldn't be around. Which is why we have specified officials to act for special elections, and have the Delegate choose ECs for scheduled elections. It works better, and is flexible enough if someone wants to be able to run for elected office after having served as an EC at a prior election.
 
On a procedural note, the second part of the proposal is utterly unnecessary, and the first should read that the following clauses will be inserted into the end of the relevant section.
 
My problem is, could not there possibly be some instances of corruption between the Delegate and the Election Commissioner appointed by that delegate who is also overseeing that Delegate's election. How do we not know some back hand deal is made about possibly interpreting uncertian votes automatically in the delegate's favor?
 
The vast majority of all ballots cast are cast publicly. Any citizen can check behind the ECs and make sure they are counting correctly. In the case where private votes would make the difference in the outcome, and corruption is suspected, the Freedom of Information Act could be used to force the release of private ballots cast for verification.
 
I have an idea, horrible, interresting, viable? Well that is what debate threads are for right?

Well here is my idea:

If Mr. Holland is afraid of some inpropriety between a delegate appointing election commisioners, and in the past standing commissioners didnt work. (I am new, so im unfamilar about what as went on before my time, and i'D also like to take the delegacy at thier word that they are honest as i believe they are and in my short time here have not seen cause to think otherwise)

But for sake of argument:

Can we come up with a proposal that prior to elections the RA could thru the democratic process have procedural controls to nominate and vote for the appointment of the election commissioners? That way the RA in effect appoints the Commisioners and they only serve in that capacity thru that election. And every election we nominate and approve/appoint new ones. Instead of the Delegacy to remove any percieved specter of impropriety? This just brain stormed into my head after skimming this thread. So if anyone has any opinion on if my idea id viable or horrible..im all ears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top