Special AG Election Petition

Crushing Our Enemies

Crushing Our Enemies

TNPer
-
-
Discord
COE#7110
A petition to review the decision of the election supervisors to restart the voting period, omitting James Urquhart from the ballot, has been submitted:
Election Commissioners,

I hereby submit a petition that the Special AG election should not have been restarted as at the current time, James has not yet lost his citizenship and therefore has not dropped out of the race. He is in fact still on the RA Rolls and thus is still a citizen, despite being banned from the forum.

He is still eligible to run and thus the election should not have been restarted.

Thank you for your time,

Abbey
Click to expand...

Please vote for one of the following four options, or for "None of the Above". A vote for "None of the Above" is not an abstention - it is a vote to indicate that you do not consider any of the four options acceptable. If you vote "None of the Above" please indicate what issues you have with the available options, and suggest a viable alternative. You may also indicate whether or not you believe the election should be halted. If three commissioners vote to halt the election, it will be halted while we deliberate. Please explain your vote! Time is of the essence, and if this vote is inconclusive, we will need to act quickly to come to a consensus on how to proceed. The more information you can provide now, the faster that process will be.

Option One: Uphold the decision.

Option Two: Overrule the decision, because it was not in compliance with the law and the rules of the Election Commission, and continue the election. This would result in the current voting thread being closed, and the original voting thread being reopened for 2 days, 19 hours - the time remaining in the voting period when the thread was closed.

Option Three: Overrule the decision, because it was not in compliance with the law and the rules of the Election Commission, and restart the voting period. This would result in the current voting thread being closed, and a new voting thread being opened, with James Urquhart included on the ballot.

Option Four: Overrule the decision, because it was not in compliance with the law and the rules of the Election Commission, and restart the election. This would result in the current voting thread being closed, and the election restarting from the beginning of candidacy declarations.


You may use the following ballot:
Code: 
[b]Vote:[/b] < Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | Option 4 | None of the Above >

[b]Halt the Election:[/b] < Yes | No >

Per the EC rules, the vote will last three days, but I can close it early if we reach an absolute majority (currently four votes) for a single option.

EDIT: Option One previously read "Uphold the decision, because it is in compliance with the law and the rules of the Election Commission."
 
Vote: Option 3

Halt the Election: No

I didn't chose option 1 because the petition seems valid. Court precedent states that a nation doesn't lose citizenship until they are actually removed from the rolls, and furthermore, a forum ban doesn't result in immediate loss of citizenship. For reference, this is the law on loss of citizenship:
Section 6.2: Loss of Citizenship
11. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of citizens.
12. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
13. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any citizens who fail to post in The North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days.
Click to expand...
So James Urquhart, if elected, will no be able to post his oath of office, and will definitely lose citizenship after 30 days of not posting, but currently, in my view, is both a citizen and a valid candidate. Continuing with the original voting period (option 2) is not a viable option, in my view, because citizens have already been told about the new voting period, and told that their prior votes are no longer valid. Going back to the original voting thread would create too much confusion. Redoing candidacy declarations (option 4) is unnecessary, in my view, because there was no misstep in that stage of the election. That leaves option 3: restart the voting again, which I think addresses the situation as well as we can.

EDIT: Didn't realize he had lost citizenship after voting was restarted.
 
Vote: < Option 2 >

Halt the Election: < No >
Click to expand...
Edit: Struck out this vote in favor of a changed vote below.

I'd like to quickly note that James Urquhart has lost Citizenship at this point for his nation, Civil Servant of James Urquhart, leaving the region. So, while I would like to vote for option 1 for convenience's sake, I see the options as below:
1: The election continues as-is.
2: The action is overturned, and the election is restarted once again with James still not on the ballot due to James losing Citizenship.
3: The action is overturned, and the election is restarted once again with James on the ballot, at which point it is immediately restarted a fourth time for James losing Citizenship.
4: The nuclear option.

I am voting for Option 2 because my actions were not legal at the time, and this would be the option that would fully address that in such a way that the election can continue with the least amount of disruption.
 
I vote for option 1 as it is not valid for the name to be on the ballot and restarting the vote without changing any aspect of it is without purpose.

I agree however that at the time it was made it was incorrect. We should have restarted voting promptly upon the nation leaving the region, not following the forum ban.
 
Vote: < None of the Above >

Halt the Election: < No >

I cannot vote for Option 1, because of the fact that, at the time the decision was made, it was invalid. I do not think we can state that it was correctly done just because it turned out well after the fact. In any other circumstance, I would be voting for Option 2 or Option 3. However, because of the candidate's ensuing loss of citizenship, I do believe that we should continue the current voting thread as it stands.

Firstly, given said subsequent loss of citizenship, even if the legally correct path had been followed in the first place, the voting round would still have had to have been restarted with the now-invalid candidate removed from the ballot. This, happily, coincides with the situation we are now in.

Secondly, I concur with COE's concern about creating confusion among the electorate. If we choose option 2, that will necessitate first informing the electorate that the restarted vote is invalid and the original one is re-validated... and then immediately after that, that the original vote is now invalidated and a new restarted vote is now the correct one - with that newly restarted vote being identical in every way to the earlier invalidated restarted vote. If we choose option 3, it would be slightly less silly, but would still result in the current restarted thread being closed and a new identical one being opened. And for option 4, well, there's just no reason to restart the whole thing entirely.
 
Option One has been edited to read "Uphold the decision." It was erroneous of me to include justification of that within the text of the option. Justification is required by law for options 2-4, but we don't have to conclude that the decision was lawful and in accordance with the rules to uphold it.

With that in mind, this is my new vote:

Vote: Option 1

Halt the Election: No

I agree with the petitioner that the voting period should not have been restarted when it was. However, since James Urquhart has lost citizenship, the correct course of action is to continue the current round of voting, without altering the ballot. It would be foolish to restart the vote again with the exact same ballot. A new vote with the same ballot would not produce fairer results than the current vote - if anything, we risk depressed turnout from the confusion created by a third PM from the voting booth informing citizens that even if they've voted twice already, they have to vote again.
 
Vote: < Option 1 >

Halt the Election: < No >

The decision to restart the vote was not in compliance with the law since James Urquhart was still a citizen at the time of the restarted vote. However, since the Speaker's Office has now recognized James Urquhart's loss of citizenship after leaving the region, continuing the current vote seems to be the correct course of action.
 
Following a conversation in the public EC Discord channel, and the edit of the OP, I change my vote to the following:
Vote: < Option 1 >

Halt the Election: < No >
Click to expand...

[5:33 PM] COE: @Election Commissioner URGENT: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9092831/
[5:34 PM] COE: All EC's have a vote, including current election supervisors
[5:43 PM] COE: If one of the options gets four votes, I can end the vote early. Otherwise, it will last three days
[5:44 PM] Darcania: Voted
[5:44 PM] COE: Oh crap, he left the region
[5:47 PM] Darcania: Yes
[5:49 PM] Darcania: Can't have this be too easy, can we
[5:50 PM] COE: So basically, restarting the vote was the correct move, you just did it 16 hours too early
[5:50 PM] Siwale: Exactly. I can't seem to find that option though :stuck_out_tongue:
[5:51 PM] COE: I'm tempted to go none of the above now, and say "Establish precedent that the decision was incorrect, but continue the current voting period because restarting now is just a waste of time that will have no effect on the outcome of the election, even a theoretical one"
[5:52 PM] Darcania: if someone proposes that as an option I'm willing to change my vote to agree
[5:52 PM] Siwale: Me too
[5:58 PM] COE: OK, it is worth noting here that I probably shouldn't have included "because it is in compliance with the law and the rules of the Election Commission" in option 1
[5:58 PM] COE: To exercise any of our powers to alter the election schedule, we have to determine that the decision under review was not in compliance with the law and the EC rules
[5:59 PM] COE: But that doesn't mean we can't make that determination, and then elect not to exercise those powers
[6:00 PM] COE: Which seems to be Elu's perspective
[6:01 PM] Siwale: I feel like we are all on a similar page but are all voting differently given the options we have to select from.
[6:01 PM] SillyString: Yeah, I originally intepreted Option 1 as elu did, but then rethought it
[6:02 PM] SillyString: but if we can rephrase option 1 I think that's best
[6:02 PM] COE: We most certainly can
[6:02 PM] Darcania: perhaps in future we can use that same template with the causal dependent clauses removed :P
[6:02 PM] Eluvatar: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=10101896&t=9092831
[6:02 PM] COE: Well, the "because" clauses are important for options 2-4
[6:03 PM] Eluvatar: My preferred solution is adding an option 5 that reflects what SillyString and I are saying.
[6:03 PM] COE: There's a problem with that
[6:03 PM] SillyString: The law only lays out 4 options
[6:04 PM] COE: And I can only end the vote early if one of those four options gets an absolute majority
[6:04 PM] Eluvatar: so...
[6:04 PM] SillyString: So, I think I disagree on the "because" clauses being more important for options 2-4. I think there could plausibly be cases where we might say that the decision of the supervisors was in compliance with the law, but we're still overruling them
[6:04 PM] Eluvatar: "b. Overrule the decision and continue the election" ?
[6:04 PM] COE: Because Zyvet didn't like my language about "if the outcome is no longer in doubt"
[6:04 PM] Eluvatar: No, that goes back to the original vote topic which is now incorrect.
[6:04 PM] SillyString: right
[6:04 PM] COE: @SillyString that would be illegal
[6:05 PM] SillyString: I don't think it would necessarily be, just as I dn't think it's illegal for us to say "that was wrong when it happened but it's now ok"
[6:05 PM] COE:
19. If the full Election Commission determines that the actions under review are not in compliance with the law or their adopted rules, they will have the power, by majority vote, to overrule them. If deemed necessary, they will also have the power, by majority vote, to restart the election, or designate different commissioners to supervise the election.
Click to expand...
[6:05 PM] SillyString: just because the ECs have made a legal decision doesn't mean theirs was the only legal decision
[6:05 PM] Eluvatar: But I imagine the supervisors should have discretion within the law and rules
[6:05 PM] Eluvatar: to choose which legal decision to take
[6:06 PM] SillyString: k nevermind I missed the clause after 18 :P
[6:06 PM] COE: Yeah, that was my compromise with punk d
[6:06 PM] COE: OK, so how about I strip the "because" language from clause one, because it is not required by law, and not reflective of what the rules actually say we're voting on
[6:06 PM] Eluvatar: Fine by me
[6:07 PM] COE: And then we all indicate that we recognize that the decision was not legal, but that the best course of action is to uphold it
[6:08 PM] Eluvatar: When you put it that way... :stuck_out_tongue:
[6:08 PM] SillyString: shush eru
[6:10 PM] COE: Kind of like when the court let Douria stay in the RA when they determined that he shouldn't have been let in in the first place
[6:12 PM] COE: Option One has been edited to read "Uphold the decision."
 
Seeing an absolute majority of the election commission, I hereby close the vote. The decision of the election supervisors to restart the voting period, omitting James Urquhart from the ballot, is upheld. It is noted by all those who voted, however, that the decision was incorrect at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top