Electoral Corrections Bill

[r3naissanc3r]

Electoral Corrections Bill

1. Chapter 4, Section 4.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

• Regional Assembly members shall be provided five days to declare their candidacy.
• Voting will begin immediately after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days.
• If a run-off vote is required it will begin within one day of the first vote ending and it shall last for five days.
• Private votes may be sent by private message to a forum account designated for that purpose by the Election Commissioners. In such an event, the Election Commissioners shall promptly announce that a vote has been cast privately and who that vote was cast for. The Election Commissioners may not announce any other details about the vote.
• The option to reopen nominations shall appear on the ballot as a separate question for each race.
• Should a majority vote to reopen nominations for a given race, a further two days will be provided for candidacy declarations.
• Candidates for that race whose names appeared on the first ballot will retain their candidacy unless they choose to withdraw during the period for candidacy declarations.
• A second round of voting for that race will begin immediately after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the new ballot.
• If during any voting round for a given race a candidacy becomes invalid, then the voting round for that race will be immediately restarted with any invalid candidacies excluded from the new ballot.

2. Chapter 4, Section 4.4, Clause 16 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

A minimum of two Election Commissioners will be appointed by the Delegate to oversee the candidacy declaration 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 Vice Delegate shall promptly make the appointment. Regional Assembly members serving as government officials are not excluded from appointments under this clause.

3. Chapter 4, Section 4.5, Clause 20 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

The Delegate and the Vice Delegate will serve as Election Commissioners for the special election. If any of the Delegate and the Vice Delegate are not available, the Speaker and, if necessary, the Attorney General will serve as Election Commissioners.

4. Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 11 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

A Regional Assembly member's vote will not be valid unless they maintain Regional Assembly membership for the entire duration of the vote.

Spoiler: Second draft

Electoral Corrections Bill

1. Chapter 4, Section 4.3, Clause 11 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Private votes may be sent by private message to a forum account designated for that purpose by the Election Commissioners. In such an event, the Election Commissioners shall promptly announce that a vote has been cast privately and who that vote was cast for. The Election Commissioners may not announce any other details about the vote.

2. Chapter 4, Section 4.4, Clause 16 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

A minimum of two Election Commissioners will be appointed by the Delegate to oversee the candidacy declaration 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 Vice Delegate shall promptly make the appointment. Regional Assembly members serving as government officials are not excluded from appointments under this clause.

3. Chapter 4, Section 4.5, Clause 20 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

The Delegate and the Vice Delegate will serve as Election Commissioners for the special election. If any of the Delegate and the Vice Delegate are not available, the Speaker and, if necessary, the Attorney General will serve as Election Commissioners.

4. Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 11 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

A Regional Assembly member's vote will not be valid unless they maintain Regional Assembly membership for the entire duration of the vote.

Spoiler: First draft

Electoral Corrections Bill

1. Chapter 4, Section 4.3, Clause 11 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Votes may be sent to an election commissioner by private message. In such an event, the election commissioner shall promptly announce that a vote has been cast privately and who that vote was cast for. The election commissioner may not announce any other details about the vote.

2. Chapter 4, Section 4.4, Clause 16 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

A minimum of two Election Commissioners will be appointed by the Delegate to oversee the candidacy declaration 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 Vice Delegate shall promptly make the appointment. Regional Assembly members serving as government officials are not excluded from appointments under this clause.

3. Chapter 4, Section 4.5, Clause 20 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

The Delegate and the Vice Delegate will serve as Election Commissioners for the special election. If any of the Delegate and the Vice Delegate are not available, the Speaker and, if necessary, the Attorney General will serve as Election Commissioners.

4. Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 11 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Regional Assembly members may not vote in any vote that they did not maintain Regional Assembly membership for the entire duration of.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

I highlight below with BBcode the changes effected by this bill.

---

1. Chapter 4, Section 4.3, Clause 11 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

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. Votes may be sent to an election commissioner by private message. In such an event, the election commissioner shall promptly announce that a vote has been cast privately and who that vote was cast for. The election commissioner may not announce any other details about the vote.

2. Chapter 4, Section 4.4, Clause 16 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

A minimum of two Election Commissioners will be appointed by the Delegate to oversee the candidacy declaration 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 Vice Delegate shall promptly make the appointment. Regional Assembly members serving as government officials are not excluded from appointments under this clause.

3. Chapter 4, Section 4.5, Clause 20 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

The Delegate and the Vice Delegate , or if the Delegate is not available, the Vice Delegate, or if the Delegate and Vice Delegate are not available, the Speaker, will serve as Election Commissioners for the special election. If any of the Delegate and the Vice Delegate are not available, the Speaker and, if necessary, the Attorney General will serve as Election Commissioners.

4. Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 11 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Regional Assembly members may not vote in any vote which began before they were last admitted that they did not maintain Regional Assembly membership for the entire duration of.

---

This bill fixes some electoral issues I have identified while serving as Election Commissioner in the last two elections we've had.

First, it dictates that ECs may not release any information about private ballots besides the ballots themselves. This is generally the practice nowadays, but ECs did in the past release other information about private ballots, they may still legally do under current law, and they have recently considered doing so. I believe it is worth tightening the legal requirement that private ballots remain private.

Second, it requires that at least two ECs serve for each election. Having a single EC (as current law requires for special elections) means that that EC can very easily make a mistake or even intentionally rig an election, by miscounting private ballots.

Third, it creates a legal requirement that votes of RA members who resign midway through a vote (electoral or legislative) be discounted. Again, this is current practice, but its legal status is dubious and I believe it is something worth clarifying.

There is one more issue that I would like to see addressed: what happens to votes for a candidate who withdraws from a race while the vote is still open. In the last judicial election, we had an instance of this, when Chasmanthe lost his RA membership. In that election, the Election Commission decided to discount votes for Chasmanthe as invalid. We decided so based on this clause of the Constitution:

10. Candidates in any election must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly for the fifteen days before the opening of candidacy declarations and throughout the election.

The clause meant that Chasmanthe's candidacy was invalid, and therefore we inferred so were the votes cast for him.

I do not consider this a very satisfactory resolution, as Chasmanthe's voters unfairly had their votes discounted. It also opens elections to manipulation (candidates withdrawing in the last minute in order to invalidate votes and benefit some of the other candidates). I do not have some great alternative in mind, so I am open to suggestions.

 

[SillyString]

I like this bill.

Ideas for candidacy wonkiness:

1) Invalidate all votes for the invalid candidate. As you said, not ideal. Potentially illegal, as previous court rulings have ordered/upheld a restart to voting when candidate lists change in order to ensure all voters have a chance to submit a valid ballot for the candidate of their choice.[note]Leaving a Candidates Name off the Ballot[/note][note]Restarting the Vice Delegate Election[/note]

2) Restart voting with an updated candidate list. Probably in line with prior incidents, but drags out the election in potentially an undesirable way.

3) Amend the law to allow the candidate to continue in the election. Removes the issues with vote protection, but runs into silliness where the candidate cannot take office and triggers a special election (or, if we're drafting a new law, the position might then go to the second-place candidate in the election). Not at all ideal, and would complicate voting (X is winning, but if they forget to take their oath then Y is in second place, and while I want X, I would prefer Z to Y, so should I vote X or Z?)

I think 2 is the best bet. We have precedent of restarting voting, and we also have legally mandated cases of it (when RON wins a majority in the first round of balloting, for example, which restarts not just voting but also nominations again). So it is not really a big huge deal for elections to run a little long - especially in cases where the invalidity of a candidate is established early in voting. And I think we should establish the Restart provision explicitly, rather than relying only on court/EC say-so.

 

[Flemingovia]

"Regional Assembly members may not vote in any vote that they did not maintain Regional Assembly membership for the entire duration of."


Clumsy wording. Also, they may vote - but the vote would be discounted. (I know... pedantic).

I think this wording is more elegant:

"Regional Assembly members' ballot will not be valid unless they maintain Regional Assembly membership for the entire duration of the vote."

 

[SillyString]

I would swap that to "A Regional Assembly member's ballot", but otherwise agree with flem.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Ive read thru this and see no issues other than what Mr. Flem and Ms. String has already proposed.

As far as the 'wonkiness' restart the election or if we dont want to restart it. Either extend voting to give those that voted for a candidate that became invalid a chance to edit their ballot to a diff candidate, or Abstain and RON - whatever their preference would be. Or even close provisional elections on time and if we really want to be realistic give those who voted for an invalid candidate a time period to resubmit their ballot abeit "absentee" so to speak.

Or yeah #2 just restart the thing.

 

[Romanoffia]

I highlight below with BBcode the changes effected by this bill.

---

1. Chapter 4, Section 4.3, Clause 11 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

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. Votes may be sent to an election commissioner by private message. In such an event, the election commissioner shall promptly announce that a vote has been cast privately and who that vote was cast for. The election commissioner may not announce any other details about the vote.

---

I like the Bill but for this one item.

Why would someone send their vote to an Election Commissioner rather than directly to the Voting Booth?

Such an act might be subject to abuse, such as an election commissioner entering false votes for which no proof of the validity of the vote can be requested for verification ("The election commissioner may not announce any other details about the vote").

I know the intent of the law as per prohibiting an election commissioner from announcing who actually cast that vote, but it relieves the election commissioner from having to explain to anyone the validity of that vote for verification processes.

A better solution would be a provision for those who wish to vote in an "Australian Ballot" manner. I know that an entirely secret ballot is a tough thing to arrange, but if this could be done, it could remove the propensity for people to vote in a manner that is truly independent from being influenced by who has voted for whom.

Personally, a truly anonymous ballot is the best way (a ballot in which no one knows the progress of the vote nor who has already voted or not). Eluvatar accomplished this fairly efficiently with the voting method for Cabinet members via the RMB. Such a method could be easily adapted for the forum voting booth.

Here's how you can do it on this forum:

Each eligible voter periodically 'Registers' with the election commission with their intent to vote in an upcoming election. The Election Commissioners assign a four digit number to that voter. Then the votes are case by each forum member via PM.

When tallying the votes and publishing the results of an election, each vote is posted along with the four digit number of that voter (thus preserving anonymity of the vote) along with any vote changes during the process, in a results thread. That way, individual voters can check in a totally anonymous way if their vote (according to their voter registration number) was recorded correctly. This would provide the Election Commissioners with evidence to refute any complaints concerning voter fraud or voting fraud.

Thus, if you allow for truly anonymous voting methods, and wait until the results are announced, you preclude the propensity for voters to vote a certain way just because someone popular or unpopular voted for so-and-so.

This alone would make people tend to vote more independently and possibly think about who they vote for (EEK! What a horrible thought! )

 

[falapatorius]

Wouldn't it be easier to eliminate private ballots?

 

[Flemingovia]

Wouldn't it be easier to eliminate private ballots?

Yes, I agree. I have never liked private ballots.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

@Romanoffia: Using the Voting Booth is preferred instead of using personal accounts. That way if there are any issues or accusations made against an election commissioner, the Voting Booth is a neutral account that can be accessed by administrators. Additionally it allows for each election commissioner to check the votes themselves. Even without explicitly mentioning it in the proposal, practically speaking it is required, by virtue of having more than one election commissioner. I would exactly have an issue with specifically stating that the Voting Booth must be PM'd with the ballot.

Lastly - I agree with SillyString above. I think option 2 is preferable to the others.

 

[SillyString]

McM: I will note, there was one election I commissioned alone, and was never given access to the Voting Booth. It was a special election, where the delegate was unavailable and the Speaker delegated it to me as Deputy.

 

[Elegarth]

I highlight below with BBcode the changes effected by this bill.

---

1. Chapter 4, Section 4.3, Clause 11 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

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. Votes may be sent to an election commissioner by private message. In such an event, the election commissioner shall promptly announce that a vote has been cast privately and who that vote was cast for. The election commissioner may not announce any other details about the vote.

---

I like the Bill but for this one item.

Why would someone send their vote to an Election Commissioner rather than directly to the Voting Booth?

Such an act might be subject to abuse, such as an election commissioner entering false votes for which no proof of the validity of the vote can be requested for verification ("The election commissioner may not announce any other details about the vote").

I know the intent of the law as per prohibiting an election commissioner from announcing who actually cast that vote, but it relieves the election commissioner from having to explain to anyone the validity of that vote for verification processes.

A better solution would be a provision for those who wish to vote in an "Australian Ballot" manner. I know that an entirely secret ballot is a tough thing to arrange, but if this could be done, it could remove the propensity for people to vote in a manner that is truly independent from being influenced by who has voted for whom.

Personally, a truly anonymous ballot is the best way (a ballot in which no one knows the progress of the vote nor who has already voted or not). Eluvatar accomplished this fairly efficiently with the voting method for Cabinet members via the RMB. Such a method could be easily adapted for the forum voting booth.

Here's how you can do it on this forum:

Each eligible voter periodically 'Registers' with the election commission with their intent to vote in an upcoming election. The Election Commissioners assign a four digit number to that voter. Then the votes are case by each forum member via PM.

When tallying the votes and publishing the results of an election, each vote is posted along with the four digit number of that voter (thus preserving anonymity of the vote) along with any vote changes during the process, in a results thread. That way, individual voters can check in a totally anonymous way if their vote (according to their voter registration number) was recorded correctly. This would provide the Election Commissioners with evidence to refute any complaints concerning voter fraud or voting fraud.

Thus, if you allow for truly anonymous voting methods, and wait until the results are announced, you preclude the propensity for voters to vote a certain way just because someone popular or unpopular voted for so-and-so.

This alone would make people tend to vote more independently and possibly think about who they vote for (EEK! What a horrible thought! )

---

Isn't this unnecessarily complex, when it would be easier to just eliminate the secret/private voting? I don't honestly see the point of private ballots, specially since most people votes openly and there are ways to actually weed out or deduce who voted for who on private ballots (since the RA kept a public file showing who has voted on what votings, and the rests comes from some work).

In any way, while I am not an expert on TNP laws yet, all the proposed changes seems solid and make sense, with the corrections mentioned by Silly String and somone else...

And regarding a candidate going off, you could also extend the time or make a special process for those whose votes were cast for the invalidated candidate to resubmit their vote, or consider them abstentions (after a certain amount of time, for example) instead of re-starting the whole thing

 

[SillyString]

Isn't this unnecessarily complex, when it would be easier to just eliminate the secret/private voting? I don't honestly see the point of private ballots, specially since most people votes openly and there are ways to actually weed out or deduce who voted for who on private ballots (since the RA kept a public file showing who has voted on what votings, and the rests comes from some work).

This isn't accurate, actually - the Speaker's Office keeps a document that tracks RA votes, but private ballots aren't permitted in RA votes (or at least, have never been tried). Nobody keeps a public file of who voted in elections, or how they voted. So long as people do not announce within voting threads that they voted privately, their votes are secure.

I like having private voting available, and I feel strongly that it should be kept. There are times when people do not want to broadcast who they have voted for, or when they do not wish to be lobbied by a different candidate seeking to get them to change their vote. These are both legitimate concerns, and it is not a huge hassle for ECs to account for them.

 

[Elegarth]

Isn't this unnecessarily complex, when it would be easier to just eliminate the secret/private voting? I don't honestly see the point of private ballots, specially since most people votes openly and there are ways to actually weed out or deduce who voted for who on private ballots (since the RA kept a public file showing who has voted on what votings, and the rests comes from some work).

This isn't accurate, actually - the Speaker's Office keeps a document that tracks RA votes, but private ballots aren't permitted in RA votes (or at least, have never been tried). Nobody keeps a public file of who voted in elections, or how they voted. So long as people do not announce within voting threads that they voted privately, their votes are secure.

I like having private voting available, and I feel strongly that it should be kept. There are times when people do not want to broadcast who they have voted for, or when they do not wish to be lobbied by a different candidate seeking to get them to change their vote. These are both legitimate concerns, and it is not a huge hassle for ECs to account for them.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

 

[Romanoffia]

Wouldn't it be easier to eliminate private ballots?

Yes, I agree. I have never liked private ballots.

Of course it would be easier to eliminate private ballots altogether. Actually, all things considered, it would greatly simplify the election process entirely upon further examination.

At first, I was thinking in terms of a totally anonymous balloting system for a number of quite legitimate reason. However, I must concede that in the context of TNP and the regional forum, having an anonymous ballot system is indeed adding an RL method to the process that would over-complicate matters and cause more confuddlement to an already convoluted system.

So, in rational, reasonable, logical and objective terms, perhaps totally eliminating private ballots is indeed the best way to go.


[edited for clarity - what is this world coming to when I do that? ]

 

[falapatorius]

However, I must concede that in the context of TNP and the regional forum, having an anonymous ballot system is indeed adding an RL method to the process that would over-complicate matters and cause more confuddlement to an already convoluted system.

ufmgyvmf... sorry, I fainted when I saw that. Another instance of logic, and rational thought!??

*on topic*

Using the Voting Booth is preferred instead of using personal accounts. That way if there are any issues or accusations made against an election commissioner, the Voting Booth is a neutral account that can be accessed by administrators.

This seems best.

I would exactly have an issue with specifically stating that the Voting Booth must be PM'd with the ballot.

Umm, to clarify.. did you mean you wouldn't have an issue with this? If yes, then.. If not.. then no.

 

[Yrkidding]

I like it but agree with the wording change that flem proposed (with the "A" at the beginning). I also agree that using the Voting Booth is probably the best method for the PM's though. Other than that I have one little petty problem.

The Delegate and the Vice Delegate will serve as Election Commissioners for the special election. If any of the Delegate and the Vice Delegate are not available, the Speaker and, if necessary, the Attorney General will serve as Election Commissioners.

If I understand this correctly it means that if one of the Delegate or Vice Delegate is missing then the Speaker will fill in for the missing person and if both are missing than the Attorney General will fill in the other spot. I just want to make sure that's the right interpretation there? If so, I might change the wording to "If either the Delegate or the Vice Delegate are not available, the Speaker will serve as the second Election Commissioner. If both are unavailable, the Attorney General will serve alongside the Speaker as the second Commissioner."

 

[SillyString]

Yrkidding, alternatively, the AG might need to fill in for the Speaker if they're unavailable to fill in.

Though now I'm wondering what would happen if three of the four, or all of them, were unavailable. Or if the entire elected government resigned en masse. Who would pick commissioners?

 

[Elegarth]

Yrkidding, alternatively, the AG might need to fill in for the Speaker if they're unavailable to fill in.

Though now I'm wondering what would happen if three of the four, or all of them, were unavailable. Or if the entire elected government resigned en masse. Who would pick commissioners?

I guess the Security Council could do it? Or any remaining executive officer??

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Yrkidding, alternatively, the AG might need to fill in for the Speaker if they're unavailable to fill in.

Though now I'm wondering what would happen if three of the four, or all of them, were unavailable. Or if the entire elected government resigned en masse. Who would pick commissioners?

Anarchy!

 

[Romanoffia]

Yrkidding, alternatively, the AG might need to fill in for the Speaker if they're unavailable to fill in.

Though now I'm wondering what would happen if three of the four, or all of them, were unavailable. Or if the entire elected government resigned en masse. Who would pick commissioners?

Anarchy!

I would suppose that at that point there would be no government at all, and anarchy would be the correct term.

That has happened before when we've expanded the government to the point that their are, pardon my tongue-in-cheek turn of phrase, more Chiefs than Indians. And this is why government should be so compact that it never comes down to a situation whereby there are not enough people to fill all the positions (which has happended) and anarchy results (which has almost happened at times). But I diverge (or maybe not, as the case may be).

But back on topic...

OK, I have concluded by the force of Flemingovia's simply put and elegant solution to the matter...

Why the Hell do we need private voting anyway?

I mean, we already how people are going to vote before they vote anyway, so what's the point of an overly complicated system of voting?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

McM: I will note, there was one election I commissioned alone, and was never given access to the Voting Booth. It was a special election, where the delegate was unavailable and the Speaker delegated it to me as Deputy.

Admin requests

 

[SillyString]

Well yes, but the point is I ran it under this account.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

Thank you all for your comments.

"Regional Assembly members may not vote in any vote that they did not maintain Regional Assembly membership for the entire duration of."

Clumsy wording. Also, they may vote - but the vote would be discounted. (I know... pedantic).

I think this wording is more elegant:

"Regional Assembly members' ballot will not be valid unless they maintain Regional Assembly membership for the entire duration of the vote."

Regarding the "pedantic" remark, I was preserving the current wording of that clause, "Regional Assembly members may not vote in any vote which began before they were last admitted."

As for the rest, I agree that my wording is clumsy, I will edit it accordingly.

I highlight below with BBcode the changes effected by this bill.

---

1. Chapter 4, Section 4.3, Clause 11 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

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. Votes may be sent to an election commissioner by private message. In such an event, the election commissioner shall promptly announce that a vote has been cast privately and who that vote was cast for. The election commissioner may not announce any other details about the vote.

---

I like the Bill but for this one item.

Why would someone send their vote to an Election Commissioner rather than directly to the Voting Booth?

Such an act might be subject to abuse, such as an election commissioner entering false votes for which no proof of the validity of the vote can be requested for verification ("The election commissioner may not announce any other details about the vote").

I know the intent of the law as per prohibiting an election commissioner from announcing who actually cast that vote, but it relieves the election commissioner from having to explain to anyone the validity of that vote for verification processes.

A better solution would be a provision for those who wish to vote in an "Australian Ballot" manner. I know that an entirely secret ballot is a tough thing to arrange, but if this could be done, it could remove the propensity for people to vote in a manner that is truly independent from being influenced by who has voted for whom.

Personally, a truly anonymous ballot is the best way (a ballot in which no one knows the progress of the vote nor who has already voted or not). Eluvatar accomplished this fairly efficiently with the voting method for Cabinet members via the RMB. Such a method could be easily adapted for the forum voting booth.

Here's how you can do it on this forum:

Each eligible voter periodically 'Registers' with the election commission with their intent to vote in an upcoming election. The Election Commissioners assign a four digit number to that voter. Then the votes are case by each forum member via PM.

When tallying the votes and publishing the results of an election, each vote is posted along with the four digit number of that voter (thus preserving anonymity of the vote) along with any vote changes during the process, in a results thread. That way, individual voters can check in a totally anonymous way if their vote (according to their voter registration number) was recorded correctly. This would provide the Election Commissioners with evidence to refute any complaints concerning voter fraud or voting fraud.

Thus, if you allow for truly anonymous voting methods, and wait until the results are announced, you preclude the propensity for voters to vote a certain way just because someone popular or unpopular voted for so-and-so.

This alone would make people tend to vote more independently and possibly think about who they vote for (EEK! What a horrible thought! )

---

To be clear here, the edit was not intended to change how private ballots are cast. Private ballots would continue to be sent to the Voting Booth, exactly as they are now. The edit only intended to make sure that private ballots remain private, and the ECs do not announce who cast them.

The current law uses the wording "private message to an election commissioner", which technically speaking makes ballots sent to the voting booth invalid or at least not private. I preserved this wording, which is where the issue arose from. I will change this to be "private message to an account designated by the election commission for this purpose".

Wouldn't it be easier to eliminate private ballots?

I am not in favor of eliminating private ballots. I consider being able to cast a private ballot an important part of the democratic process, and that we should continue to provide our members with the option to do so.

Private ballots do not complicate our voting process very much. People who want to vote privately can PM their votes to the voting booth, and the rest can just post them in a thread.

I like it but agree with the wording change that flem proposed (with the "A" at the beginning). I also agree that using the Voting Booth is probably the best method for the PM's though. Other than that I have one little petty problem.

The Delegate and the Vice Delegate will serve as Election Commissioners for the special election. If any of the Delegate and the Vice Delegate are not available, the Speaker and, if necessary, the Attorney General will serve as Election Commissioners.

If I understand this correctly it means that if one of the Delegate or Vice Delegate is missing then the Speaker will fill in for the missing person and if both are missing than the Attorney General will fill in the other spot. I just want to make sure that's the right interpretation there? If so, I might change the wording to "If either the Delegate or the Vice Delegate are not available, the Speaker will serve as the second Election Commissioner. If both are unavailable, the Attorney General will serve alongside the Speaker as the second Commissioner."

What you say is correct, though there is one more scenario which I think my wording covers and yours does not: The Speaker and one of Delegate/Vice Delegate are not available, in which case the AG fills in. I'd prefer to keep my wording so that it can cover this case as well.

Though now I'm wondering what would happen if three of the four, or all of them, were unavailable. Or if the entire elected government resigned en masse. Who would pick commissioners?

I think it's rather unlikely we'd have so many officers simultaneously unavailable. But we could extend the provision to also include either the SC or Executive Officers.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

New draft that addresses the above. I am leaving the case of invalid candidacies after voting has started for later.

---

Electoral Corrections Bill

1. Chapter 4, Section 4.3, Clause 11 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

Private votes may be sent by private message to a forum account designated for that purpose by the Election Commissioners. In such an event, the Election Commissioners shall promptly announce that a vote has been cast privately and who that vote was cast for. The Election Commissioners may not announce any other details about the vote.

2. Chapter 4, Section 4.4, Clause 16 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

A minimum of two Election Commissioners will be appointed by the Delegate to oversee the candidacy declaration 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 Vice Delegate shall promptly make the appointment. Regional Assembly members serving as government officials are not excluded from appointments under this clause.

3. Chapter 4, Section 4.5, Clause 20 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

The Delegate and the Vice Delegate will serve as Election Commissioners for the special election. If any of the Delegate and the Vice Delegate are not available, the Speaker and, if necessary, the Attorney General will serve as Election Commissioners.

4. Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 11 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

A Regional Assembly member's vote will not be valid unless they maintain Regional Assembly membership for the entire duration of the vote.

 

[Romanoffia]

OK, I see what you mean given this last edit.

Vote changes or vote confirmations that come through the Election Commissioners for verification purposes and in the event the election results are questioned and verification required. I see.

The language could be tighter and the process more defined involving votes cast via PM to an election commissioner.

Also, you could add in a simple "Auditing" clause in which any candidate can call for an audit in disputed elections but which does it in a quick manner - such as the contesting candidate appoints a proxy who goes over the voting results with the Election Commissioners and in which said proxy is bound by law not to reveal private votes or specific corrections either publicly or privately to anyone. If a clear record of events is compromised by issues of obfuscation or nebulosity, a re-vote can be issued for questionable votes.

Of course, the whole matter could be solved by eliminating private votes as Flem suggested.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

The language could be tighter and the process more defined involving votes cast via PM to an election commissioner.

If you have any specific suggestions, they are welcome.

Also, you could add in a simple "Auditing" clause in which any candidate can call for an audit in disputed elections but which does it in a quick manner - such as the contesting candidate appoints a proxy who goes over the voting results with the Election Commissioners and in which said proxy is bound by law not to reveal private votes or specific corrections either publicly or privately to anyone. If a clear record of events is compromised by issues of obfuscation or nebulosity, a re-vote can be issued for questionable votes.

Legislating a procedure for auditing votes is an interesting idea. The audit should be performed by the Court (at least when there are no conflicts), as otherwise having contesting candidates appoint "proxies" is open to abuse and defeats the point of having private ballots in the first place.

What do others think about such a procedure?

Of course, the whole matter could be solved by eliminating private votes as Flem suggested.

I am not willing to edit this proposal to eliminate private votes. If people want such a change, it will need to come through a separate bill.

 

[SillyString]

I'm not sure an audit procedure makes sense. If the election is not a judicial one, it is possible that a member of the Court could already be serving as an election commissioner, affecting the perceived neutrality of any audit, and if it is a judicial one, it definitely ruins the point of private voting.

Much like RL voter fraud, it doesn't really seem like a huge issue to me. As long as we have at least 2 ECs and there isn't widespread belief that those ECs would deliberately work together to rig the election, I think what we have now works well enough.

 

[Romanoffia]

The language could be tighter and the process more defined involving votes cast via PM to an election commissioner.

If you have any specific suggestions, they are welcome.

Also, you could add in a simple "Auditing" clause in which any candidate can call for an audit in disputed elections but which does it in a quick manner - such as the contesting candidate appoints a proxy who goes over the voting results with the Election Commissioners and in which said proxy is bound by law not to reveal private votes or specific corrections either publicly or privately to anyone. If a clear record of events is compromised by issues of obfuscation or nebulosity, a re-vote can be issued for questionable votes.

Legislating a procedure for auditing votes is an interesting idea. The audit should be performed by the Court (at least when there are no conflicts), as otherwise having contesting candidates appoint "proxies" is open to abuse and defeats the point of having private ballots in the first place.

What do others think about such a procedure?

Of course, the whole matter could be solved by eliminating private votes as Flem suggested.

I am not willing to edit this proposal to eliminate private votes. If people want such a change, it will need to come through a separate bill.

Eliminating private votes was a semi-sarcastic point, although it does have its merits.

As for audits, you bring up a good point concerning 'proxies'. Perhaps the 'proxies' might be simply observers appointed by the disputing candidates? Also Having the Court handle any such audits is actually the proper and logical way to do audits (mainly because if a candidate contests an election it is tantamount to suing the Election Commission, for lack of a better description). But I think legislation for an auditing process might be worth a good look.

I'm not sure an audit procedure makes sense. If the election is not a judicial one, it is possible that a member of the Court could already be serving as an election commissioner, affecting the perceived neutrality of any audit, and if it is a judicial one, it definitely ruins the point of private voting.

Much like RL voter fraud, it doesn't really seem like a huge issue to me. As long as we have at least 2 ECs and there isn't widespread belief that those ECs would deliberately work together to rig the election, I think what we have now works well enough.

RL voter fraud is a really big problem considering how many absentee ballots I have seen thrown out in my neck of the woods because the ballots were clearly cast by dead people who had been dead for 50 years or more; or the number of people caught voting in several counties, etc).

The Court, in instances excepting Judicial Elections, should, by nature, should be neutral by nature.

 

[SillyString]

RL voter fraud is a really big problem considering how many absentee ballots I have seen thrown out in my neck of the woods because the ballots were clearly cast by dead people who had been dead for 50 years or more; or the number of people caught voting in several counties, etc).

There is more fraud in absentee balloting than in any other category of election fraud, with a total of 491 occurrences between 2000 and 2012 - or an average of 41 per year, nationwide.

I can live with a rate like that.

The Court, in instances excepting Judicial Elections, should, by nature, should be neutral by nature.

The Court should be able to be impartial in trials and reviews of the law, and members are expected to recuse themselves if not - but the existence of recusal indicates that we recognize that as human beings, members of the Court are not going to be impartial on all matters.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

We could just scrap elections all together and let the IRCabal/Oligarchy draw straws for positions . (Tongue in cheek if you can't tell by the smiley sticking out it's tongue)

 

[SillyString]

That doesn't seem like a very good test of ability, artistic or otherwise.

Even I can draw a straw.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

New draft. This one implements option 2 regarding invalid candidacies after a vote has started. It also incorporates some suggestions I had made here and which were not included in that bill because of a clerical error.

---

Electoral Corrections Bill

1. Chapter 4, Section 4.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

• Regional Assembly members shall be provided five days to declare their candidacy.
• Voting will begin immediately after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days.
• If a run-off vote is required it will begin within one day of the first vote ending and it shall last for five days.
• Private votes may be sent by private message to a forum account designated for that purpose by the Election Commissioners. In such an event, the Election Commissioners shall promptly announce that a vote has been cast privately and who that vote was cast for. The Election Commissioners may not announce any other details about the vote.
• The option to reopen nominations shall appear on the ballot as a separate question for each race.
• Should a majority vote to reopen nominations for a given race, a further two days will be provided for candidacy declarations.
• Candidates for that race whose names appeared on the first ballot will retain their candidacy unless they choose to withdraw during the period for candidacy declarations.
• A second round of voting for that race will begin immediately after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the new ballot.
• If during any voting round for a given race a candidacy becomes invalid, then the voting round for that race will be immediately restarted with any invalid candidacies excluded from the new ballot.

• 
  
  2. Chapter 4, Section 4.4, Clause 16 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
  

A minimum of two Election Commissioners will be appointed by the Delegate to oversee the candidacy declaration 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 Vice Delegate shall promptly make the appointment. Regional Assembly members serving as government officials are not excluded from appointments under this clause.

3. Chapter 4, Section 4.5, Clause 20 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

The Delegate and the Vice Delegate will serve as Election Commissioners for the special election. If any of the Delegate and the Vice Delegate are not available, the Speaker and, if necessary, the Attorney General will serve as Election Commissioners.

4. Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 11 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

A Regional Assembly member's vote will not be valid unless they maintain Regional Assembly membership for the entire duration of the vote.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

New draft. This one implements option 2 regarding invalid candidacies after a vote has started. It also incorporates some suggestions I had made here and which were not included in that bill because of a clerical error (looking at the OP of that thread, they were included in one of the updated drafts, but were overlooked in later ones).

---

Electoral Corrections Bill

1. Chapter 4, Section 4.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

• Regional Assembly members shall be provided five days to declare their candidacy.
• Voting will begin immediately after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days.
• If a run-off vote is required it will begin within one day of the first vote ending and it shall last for five days.
• Private votes may be sent by private message to a forum account designated for that purpose by the Election Commissioners. In such an event, the Election Commissioners shall promptly announce that a vote has been cast privately and who that vote was cast for. The Election Commissioners may not announce any other details about the vote.
• The option to reopen nominations shall appear on the ballot as a separate question for each race.
• Should a majority vote to reopen nominations for a given race, a further two days will be provided for candidacy declarations.
• Candidates for that race whose names appeared on the first ballot will retain their candidacy unless they choose to withdraw during the period for candidacy declarations.
• A second round of voting for that race will begin immediately after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the new ballot.
• If during any voting round for a given race a candidacy becomes invalid, then the voting round for that race will be immediately restarted with any invalid candidacies excluded from the new ballot.

2. Chapter 4, Section 4.4, Clause 16 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

A minimum of two Election Commissioners will be appointed by the Delegate to oversee the candidacy declaration 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 Vice Delegate shall promptly make the appointment. Regional Assembly members serving as government officials are not excluded from appointments under this clause.

3. Chapter 4, Section 4.5, Clause 20 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

The Delegate and the Vice Delegate will serve as Election Commissioners for the special election. If any of the Delegate and the Vice Delegate are not available, the Speaker and, if necessary, the Attorney General will serve as Election Commissioners.

4. Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 11 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

A Regional Assembly member's vote will not be valid unless they maintain Regional Assembly membership for the entire duration of the vote.

 

[Tomb]

I think that this draft is very well planned and written.
What I really like about this bill is that it clarifies the voting process in terms of how long the voting process takes, how to deal with situations in which special elections are held or in which an RA member loses their membership in the RA more explicitly. I also like the fact that it clearly defines a time frame for events such as RON and run off races. So due to the well planned content and structure of this bill and the variety of the situations it deals with, it would have my support.

~Tomb

 

[Elegarth]

I would support the latest draft without any objections

 

[r3naissanc3r]

I move we vote.

 

[Tomb]

I second the motion.

~Tomb

 

[Romanoffia]

Excellent draft. Will support it.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

The bill is now in formal debate. Due to the motion having been made yesterday, formal debate shall last for four days, at which time a vote shall be scheduled.