Random Voter ID nonsense

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
See title of thread.

And also, shouldn't each office still list the option to abstain? I believe that right is constitutionally protected, and not showing it as an option throws any election into question.
 
I don't think it's a requirement as much as a way for people who vote privately to ensure their vote is indeed posted, and should they desire to change said vote the correct vote would then be edited.
 
Gross beat me to it. I read the pm and was curious about this and was going to ask the election commissioners for my own curosity. But I wasnt gonna name my title "...nonsense" I was gonna be a little nicer about it.

But yes, what it with random voter# ? And since its self assigned and random what happens if by chance someone picked the same # someone else already had picked? Such as 42 since we all know 42 is the answer to everything.
 
I would, and perhaps this is a bit presumptious, think that the EC would inform the voter that said number was already used and to please choose another.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
And also, shouldn't each office still list the option to abstain? I believe that right is constitutionally protected, and not showing it as an option throws any election into question.
Click to expand...
I see nothing in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Legal Code that requires the election commissioners to list it as an option.
 
As I read the ballot paper for both private and public ballots:

1. Abstain is not an option in this ballot.
2. Voters must vote for three candidates for justice and may not vote for fewer than three.

Remember, the election commissioners run the ballot and this is what they. Have said.
 
flemingovia:
As I read the ballot paper for both private and public ballots:

1. Abstain is not an option in this ballot.
2. Voters must vote for three candidates for justice and may not vote for fewer than three.

Remember, the election commissioners run the ballot and this is what they. Have said.
Click to expand...
One of the private ballots voted for only one justice.
 
As the originator of the voter ID idea, here is the rationale:

In an election where ECs get multiple identical private ballots, no individual voter will able to be sure that their ballot was posted or counted, merely that some ballots are (making no assumptions about whether ballots are missed accidentally or deliberately). Adding an individual voter ID code retains anonymity, while also allowing each voter to verify that their own ballot was posted and is accurate.

Transparency and accountability are improved, while anonymity remains protected. Win/win.
 
As an Electoral Commissioner, I'm going to weigh in.

First, I think it would be ideal to note that this is, practically speaking, vote ID. The system is designed so that numbered voters can't be tracked and profiled between elections. The ID number doesn't either identify the voter or provide any more information about the vote than we already had, because that would be in violation of Legal Code 4.3/12 - it simply labels it.

Second, we believe that the pros outweigh the cons. Right now, if we receive several identical private votes, and then someone changes their vote, it's harder to track down which one to change. Also - right now, if we receive, say, five identical private votes, and accidentally only post four, there isn't the information for anybody to know that that happened. The vote ID system allows end-to-end verifiability.

I'm not sure what you mean by "what is it?" and "where is it found?". Currently as far as I'm aware there isn't any legal provision concerning its use, and we think it's legally sound; if you disagree, please let us know, because we don't want to break the law.

As for the abstention question, I wasn't around when that decision was made, so I'm gonna pass that one to Elu.
 
The missing Abstention option is a clerical error. I had a limited time window in which to post, voting was already 19 hours overdue, and I was exhausted. I will consult with Kostemetsia on how to proceed.
 
Here's the plan: I've edited the OP of the voting topic to list Abstain in the ballot options, and added a bold red note that I made this mistake originally.

We're going to send out a second PM to all voters we have already PMed (as well as a PM I had already been planning to those eligible voters who, for one reason or another, were not listed in the Citizens Registry.) In this second PM we will have the private voting ballot with Abstain in the ballot options, and an explanation.
 
No. The rules of this election have been changed.

In fairness, Election Commissioners have been pretty hardass in the past about their rules being followed to the absolute letter: Deviations from this have caused ballots to be discounted.

Now I have no problem with this. If there are rules they are meant to be followed. But you cannot then turn around and say "this time we will mess about with the rules and it does not matter."

the ECs set the rules for the ballot, which are set out in the OP of the voting thread. this time the rules stated:

1. You must vote for three candidates.
2. You must vote for those named. No abstentions.

Now the rules have been changed to allow for abstentions.

I'm sorry, but you cannot say "the rules have not changed. Abstentions were and are allowed." The OP's edit history shows otherwise, and the ballot should be restarted. It is not a biggie. You just close the thread and open another one.
 
I think the notification to all voters through PM that abstentions are allowed is a fine way of dealing with this, rather than restarting the thread. I accept that abstentions would not have, at any point, gotten someone's ballot discounted, and that the ballot was merely displayed incorrectly, with the option to abstain not present. The correction was made early in the voting period, and before the weekend began - anyone who would have abstained and didn't has ample opportunity to change their vote.
 
I'm concerned about the issue of having to select 3 candidates. I'm a big fan of "plunking" which means you just vote for your one favorite candidate. We shouldn't really have to pick 3 if we don't want to.
 
You don't have to - you can pick one candidate and then abstain twice.

This is just how it has always been, since the new constitution, at least.
 
The Election Commission Election Templates were changed in July 2014 from suggesting a ballot like this:

Code: 
[b]Justice 1:[/b] < Funkadelia | plembobria | Kialga | Severisen | Ivo | flemingovia | Dumont210 | Abstain >

[b]Justice 2:[/b] < Funkadelia | plembobria | Kialga | Severisen | Ivo | flemingovia | Dumont210 | Abstain >

[b]Justice 3:[/b] < Funkadelia | plembobria | Kialga | Severisen | Ivo | flemingovia | Dumont210 | Abstain >

[b]Attorney General:[/b] < Gracius Maximus | JhonsJoe | Abstain >

to one like the current:

Code: 
[b]Court Justice (select 3):[/b] < Funkadelia | plembobria | Kialga | Severisen | Ivo | flemingovia | Dumont210 | Abstain >
[b]Would you like to reopen nominations?[/b] < Yes | No >

[b]Attorney General:[/b] < Gracius Maximus | JhonsJoe | Abstain >
[b]Would you like to reopen nominations?[/b] < Yes | No >

(As part of the revisions to the templates in association with the addition of Reopen Nominations).

I'm quite certain the ballot was not intended to convey that one could not 'plunk' for one candidate. Given the special nature of Abstain not as a candidate but as a standard form for expressing abstention, I think it's clear that one may abstain multiple times. I may only think so because I am familiar with TNP elections. If however some see this as ambiguous, I think it would make sense to suggest future ballots templates to use different wording such as "select up to 3," or a footnote that "One may abstain as many times as one wishes."
 
Yeah, but election commissioners have got a lot more hardass with voters since then. I am not happy with strict standards for voters and shifting sands for commissioners.

EDIT: I have looked at the July 2014 ballot in detail. the ballot paper in that election was not changed mid-election, so I do not see the relevance, other than to say "The ballot paper has been worded as it is since mid 2014.

Having "choose 3" as one option is fine, so long as "abstain" is one of the choices. When it is not, the wording does not work.
 
I don't see shifting sands. There was an oversight and then a correction, just like if a voter made a mistake on their ballot and then corrected it.
 
A correction on a post is one thing. a correction on a ballot paper, mid-election is quite another.

in a case like this it seems incumbent on the Election Commissioners to do the safest thing. Just starting the ballot again seems the obvious course.

EDIT: TNP *loves* precedent. Are we really happy for a precedent to be set where the ECs can make a mistake and change the ballot paper mid election without restarting the poll? Trust me, in time to come this will be cited next time the ECs make a cock up.
 
flemingovia:
A correction on a post is one thing. a correction on a ballot paper, mid-election is quite another.
Click to expand...
I would understand the need for a new election if we were a few days into it. But everyone was informed of the error and it was corrected within about 6 hours. And by the time the correction was made, people still had 118.5 out of a 125 hour voting period.

Shuting down and then restarting elections will do nothing but push people away from voting.
 
in TNP elections a lot of people vote in the first few hours. in this case at least 23 people had already voted when the ballot paper was altered, plus any private ballots not already picked up by the ECs.

that is about a fifth of the electorate.
 
Anyone who's active enough that they're voting as soon as the thread goes up is active enough to check their PMs or the voting thread in the next four days and decide if they need to adjust their vote. This is a non-issue.
 
AS well, may at least put it on paper:

As a candidate in the current election i formally and officially request that the Election Commissioners re-start the current ballot, just as they would if a candidate's name had been left off the ballot paper.

Signed:
Flemingovia.
 
flemingovia:
Elu answered in IRC:

<Eluvatar>: The Election Commission decided that restarting the vote would create more confusion than adjusting the ballot template
Click to expand...
I agree with what Eluvatar said, I, as a voter, would rather they not restart the election.
 
I deleted my post because ELu pointed out that the other EC had not had a chance to give input. Apologies for jumping the gun.
 
The lack of an explanation in the O.P. concerning the ID number was an oversight because it wasn't clear how that was to work. I voted publicly instead of privately because of the lack of clarity about the matter. If this device is ever used in the future, a much clearer explanation needs to be added to the EC boilerplate to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding what and how the ID number is used for.

As to "abstentions," the statutory basis comes from the Election Code itself:
Section 4.2: Election Law Definitions
3. "Abstentions" are not votes for or against any candidate, and may not be used to determine the results of any election. They may be used for quorum, activity, or other purposes.
Click to expand...
The only reason for such a definition in the Election Code itself is because they are permitted in the first place.
 
Permitted and mandated are not the same thing - it's not clear that one is *required* to include the option to abstain.
 
flemingovia:
AS well, may at least put it on paper:

As a candidate in the current election i formally and officially request that the Election Commissioners re-start the current ballot, just as they would if a candidate's name had been left off the ballot paper.

Signed:
Flemingovia.
Click to expand...

The other Commissioner and I have discussed it and are in agreement. We will try to get a formal response to you within 12 hours but I can say that it will be negative, with a number of reasons.
 
ec-seal.png

flemingovia, the ballot paper was misprinted in all of the special elections which have just concluded, initially omitting 'Abstain', and during those elections it was seen as acceptable not to restart the ballot. 'Abstain' votes cast in that election were still counted, because TNP citizens have the legal right to abstain. In this case, we are acting in accordance with that precedent.

Here's how we see it: We've let everyone who voted before we added an 'Abstain' option to the form know that they have the right to abstain. The theoretical possibility exists that someone logged in, voted, hasn't checked their PMs, and hasn't seen the changed OP of the voting topic or this discussion. We've done our due diligence, but we can't do anything for that person.

If we restart the ballot, we do another due diligence process. The people who wanted to abstain but didn't know they could, and don't check their PMs now don't even know that there's another election, because it's happening outside the standard election cycle, so they have no way of knowing it's happening without reading their PMs, which they don't check, so they end up not voting at all. However, we now also risk silencing people who didn't want to abstain, because they, quite reasonably, think they're done voting.

The fact is we think if we restart the ballot we're going to get a result which is less representative of what the people of TNP want. While I can understand how the solution we've come up could be unsatisfying, we've devised it in the belief that it's legal and justified by precedent.

Democratic Donkeys, we do think our interpretation is the correct one, otherwise we wouldn't be advocating it.

Regards,
~The Election Commission
 
The Voting Booth:
flemingovia, the ballot paper was misprinted in all of the special elections which have just concluded, initially omitting 'Abstain', and during those elections it was seen as acceptable not to restart the ballot. 'Abstain' votes cast in that election were still counted, because TNP citizens have the legal right to abstain. In this case, we are acting in accordance with that precedent.
Click to expand...
To elaborate on this point, as an EC for all three of them, Abstain was left off the ballot entirely for the Speaker and Justice Special Elections. It was initially omitted from the Delegate election as well, but amended within a couple minutes after I was alerted of the error. As in this case, the intent in all elections was to permit abstentions, and its omission was an accidental oversight. We counted abstains that were cast as valid votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top