In relation to the quasi-judicial function in reviewing the decisions of supervisors of elections, what qualities (and, if considered relevant, experiences) do you have that would assist in carrying out that function?
I have been the chief overseer for student council elections IRL, and have been quite familiar with voting methods and counting. This is to the extent that I have previously created a spreadsheet just to do IRV voting system, allowing for up to 5 candidates. I do plan to expand it about 8 candidates and edit to fit the qualification laws under TNP laws and even contribute it so that future ECs don't have to manually do instant runoffs if necessary.
A quality that I think would help me in doing duties is my care to details. A huge emphasis on details is important especially when working with vote counting, as you have to decide the validity of a vote under present laws. With a strong attention to detail, it would help in the application of laws to review the decisions or even make those decisions with regards to vote.
As for the sample voting slip:
Delegate:
1. Bobberino
Would you like to reopen nominations? < Yes | No >
To quote section 5 clause 1 of the Rules of the EC:
1. If a voter does not vote Yes or No to a question to re-open nominations for a given office, their vote for that office will not be counted.
Therefore, this would be not a valid vote for the purpose of counting for Delegate.
However, clause 2 of the same section also states that:
2. In all other cases, any portion of a ballot that is properly completed will be counted, even if other portions of the ballot are not.
Therefore, the rest of the vote will be examined separately.
Vice Delegate: McMasterdonia
Would you like to reopen nominations? No
Now this is obviously, a vote for McMasterdonia for VD, and no to reopening nominations.
Attorney General:
1. Abstain
2. Lady Raven Wing
3. Lord Lore
Would you like to reopen nominations? No
Speaker: abc | Abstain
Would you like to reopen nominations? Yes
We refer to the Legal Code, Section 5, clause 31:
31. All first preference votes shall be counted first. If no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate with the least votes shall be eliminated, and the next preference of all voters who had voted for the eliminated candidate as first preference shall be counted, with the process repeated until a candidate achieves a majority.
For the Speaker vote, since abc is the only candidate listed, it could be assumed as being their first preference.
As for the Attorney General vote, this is a legal grey area. Although the law legally only allows for votes with more than 2 candidate to have ranked choice, we noted that in the September 2019 election, a vote for Speaker which listed the 2 candidates in a ranked format was allowed to be counted even when there was only 2 speaker candidates then, between Gorundu and Dreadton. Furthermore, with the Clause 30 of Section 5 of the Legal Code, it can be assumed that the choice "Lady Raven Wing" is first preference, and therefore counted as a vote for Lady Raven Wing.
Therefore, in my opinion, the speaker vote would be for abc with Yes for reopening nomination, and for the AG, if would be a vote for Lady Raven Wing with no for reopening nomination.