Request for review of election commissioner's conduct

I thank the court for the opportunity to submit briefs.

First I would like to speak in general about voting procedure in TNP. Voters in TNP have got used to Election Commissioners and Speakers interpreting voting instructions extremely strictly. Many of us (myself included) have had votes disallowed for using unauthorised words, wrong colour font, wrong size font or otherwise posting not in accordance with instructions. We have also got used to a changing landscape in voting regulations. That is why we read the OP very carefully and most of us cut and paste from the OP, just to make sure we do not get it wrong.

In the case of the election in question the ballot was originally printed incorrectly. The option to abstain was omitted. This gave voters three choices: Some people assumed there was an error and voted abstain anyway – running the risk that their vote would be discounted. Some people, perhaps, obeyed the ballot paper as printed and did not vote Abstain as an option. Others, myself included, delayed voting until it was sorted out? The mistake was corrected within hours, but not before fully a third of the Regional Assembly had voted.

Why does this matter? It matters because it is well known in TNP elections that voting early is strategically important. It helps a candidate gain momentum and traction. Some people vote according to the herd; a delayed vote has less power than an early one. Voters like myself who delayed because of this error were, therefore, disadvantaged.

But there is a wider issue. Some people have pointed out that mistakes are often made and corrected on TNP ballots – as if previous cock ups justify this current one. In fact, I think this highlights that a principle needs to be established. Therefore I am seeking a ruling that in future elections (shenanigans mean that it is probably too late for this one) significant errors on the ballot paper, such as the omission of a candidate name or a voting option, ought to necessitate the restarting of the ballot.

In the current case, such a thing would have been easy to do at the outset: close the thread, open a new vote, PM those who had voted. It would have taken around ten minutes, and would have been democratically a far more robust solution.

Please note: I am not seeking such a ruling for piddling little errors of punctuation or grammar. It is only mistakes that materially affect the options on the ballot that I feel ought to be covered by this ruling.

The Election Commissioners in this election made a mistake. These things happen, and I am satisfied that they corrected their error as quickly as humanly possible. But when mistakes happen we ought to learn from them, and this instance has given us a chance to make our systems more robust in the future.

I thank the court

flemingovia:

Many of us (myself included) have had votes disallowed for using unauthorised words, wrong colour font, wrong size font or otherwise posting not in accordance with instructions.

Click to expand...

Indeed we have seen this before, but only in the RA, thus far. And only for certain people.

I would also like to add to your commentary (with which I entirely agree) for the Court's consumption, that such rigid and anal-retentive applications of the 'rules' when the intent of the vote is obviously clear is tantamount to a violation of the legitimate right to freedom of expression as detailed in the Bill of Rights which clearly implies and has always been understood to imply freedom of expression:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

Click to expand...

I do not say this often, but you are absolutely correct and will join this request.

The period for brief submission ended yesterday. The Court is currently deliberating.

The Court took into consideration the Request for Review filed here by flemingovia. The thread is located here.


The Court took into consideration the brief filed here by flemingovia.


The Court took into consideration the past Court ruling on the powers of Election Commissioners here


The Court took into consideration the relevant Clause of the Constitution:

Constitutioin: Article 2:

6. The number of votes required to achieve quorum for any vote of the Regional Assembly except elections will be determined by law.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant Section of the Bill of Rights:

Bill of Rights:

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant Clauses of the Legal Code:

Legal Code: Section 4.2:

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.
4. "Candidates" are those citizens who, during the period of the Election Cycle designated for candidacy declarations, declare themselves or accept a nomination by another citizen as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that Election Cycle.
5. "Election Commissioner" is an individual designated to supervise a given election. No Election Commissioner may run in the election they are overseeing.

Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

The Court finds that in the case of the March 2015 Judicial Election, the voting period should not have been restarted. The terms "abstentions" (a vote to "abstain") and "candidates" have distinct definitions in the Legal Code. The exclusion of a candidate's name on an election ballot infringes upon their rights as defined in Section 9 of the Bill of Rights, as seen in the Court ruling on the powers of Election Commissioners. When the option to "abstain" is excluded from the ballot, there is no such right to inclusion, or a violation of any other law of the North Pacific. The Legal Code specifically defines a vote to "abstain" as a vote that "may not be used to determine the results of any election". Therefore, a vote of 'abstain' cannot legally have any effect on the outcome of an election. There is no quorum requirement that must be achieved for elections, per Clause 6 of Article 2 of the Constitution. As there is no quorum requirement, an election will remain valid regardless of whether or not 'abstain' votes are included or excluded. The citizens of the North Pacific may always vote 'abstain' to meet activity requirements for maintaining citizenship. The Court appreciates the attempts by the Election Commissioners to notify the citizenry of a change in the ballot.


The Court resolves that its decision allows for the following guidelines on the response by Election Commissioners to a ballot where an option on the ballot has been excluded:

Election Guidelines:

In the event that:

I. A candidate is omitted from an official ballot despite having followed appropriate procedure for their candidacy,

The Electoral Commission must:
A. Restart the respective voting period;
B. Notify all eligible voters via Private Message, regardless of their voting status;
C. Publicly recognise the omission in the relevant elections subforum and publicise all relevant dates;
D. Take whatever steps they deem necessary to prevent the omission of candidates in the future.

II. The option to "Abstain" is omitted from an official ballot,
A. If the Electoral Commission have not indicated refusal to accept abstentions from voters during the voting period,

1. The voting period does not need to be restarted;
2. The Election Commission may edit the Ballot to explicitly include the option to "Abstain";
3. The Election Commission must notify all eligible voters of the change in the ballot, using both public and private means.

B. If the Electoral Commission have indicated refusal to accept abstentions from voters during the voting period,

The Electoral Commission must:
1. Restart the respective voting period;
2. Notify all eligible voters via Private Message, regardless of their voting status;
3. Publicly recognise the omission in the relevant elections subforum and publicise all relevant dates;
4. Take whatever steps they deem necessary to prevent the refusal of abstentions in the future.

Click to expand...

In all other situations not covered by the law of the North Pacific or by the aforementioned guidelines, the Election Commissioners may use their discretion, in a legal manner, in supervising and overseeing an election cycle as is their duty stated by Clause 5 of Section 4.2 of the Legal Code.

Thank you to the Court for a clear and concise ruling.

I thank the court as well.

Thanks you for a prompt resolution of the issue. While I fear we still have problems stacked up for the future, at least now ECs will have some clearer guidance as to their responsibilities.

I thank the THOs for their decision and service.

Severisen:

I thank the THOs for their decision and service.

Click to expand...

AS do I.