Confirmation of Cretox State and lol2639 as Election Commissioners

[Robespierre]

I appoint @Cretox State and @lol2639 to the election commission, subject to the approval of the regional assembly.

The Delegate has appointed @Cretox State and @lol2639 to the Election Commission. I now open the floor for debate and discussion on these appointments.

Additionally, I welcome a statement from @mcmasterdonia in support of these appointments.

Once moved, the motions that I will be putting to vote for these confirmations are as follows:

The Regional Assembly confirms the appointment of Cretox State to the Election Commission.

The Regional Assembly confirms the appointment of lol2639 to the Election Commission.

 

[Cretox]

waves

 

[Yuno]

I motion this for a vote!

 

[St George]

Let's not move to a goddamn vote less than an hour after something is first posted. Jesus.

 

[saintpeter]

I would object to any premature scheduling of the vote.

Nominees: Do you plan to participate in any election in the coming six months?

 

[lol2639]

Nominees: Do you plan to participate in any election in the coming six months?

As of right now, I don't have any serious plans of running in an election. However, I'm not going to completely rule out the possibility. So in short, No. But I might change my mind.

 

[Pallaith]

I have no new question or thoughts for Cretox. I would like to ask @lol2639 how familiar he is with electoral procedure, what (if anything) he has done to study up on the role, and get a sense for his availability during the day (that is, will be likely to require opening and closing elections earlier in the day to respond quickly to them, or is he flexible enough to do it whenever it happens). The only thing that really gives me any sort of pause when confirming ECs now is if we're going to have elections that drag out unnecessarily because of timing issues.

 

[Cretox]

Nominees: Do you plan to participate in any election in the coming six months?

I may run in the May General (pun intended). It's unlikely that I'll run in the July Judicial. Way too early to talk about the September General. It's unlikely that I'll run in any special elections in that time.

 

[lol2639]

I have no new question or thoughts for Cretox. I would like to ask @lol2639 how familiar he is with electoral procedure, what (if anything) he has done to study up on the role, and get a sense for his availability during the day (that is, will be likely to require opening and closing elections earlier in the day to respond quickly to them, or is he flexible enough to do it whenever it happens). The only thing that really gives me any sort of pause when confirming ECs now is if we're going to have elections that drag out unnecessarily because of timing issues.

To answer your first question, I've reviewed the election commission laws and procedures, I know enough to properly participate as a member of the Election Commission, and if there is something I'm unsure of I won't hesitate to ask my more experienced election commissioners for help. Onto your second concern my flexibility and availability. I can promise you, That my flexibility and availability won't be an issue. I have my phone on me essentially 24/7 and my computer has the forum and discord open whenever it's on (even during school hours). I will be able to open an election and close it when it's needed. If you doubt my availability, I encourage you to monitor me on the discord and forum.

 

[Peeps]

Blatantly stealing this idea from @Fregerson.

@lol2639
You get a vote like this for a delegate by-election, the valid candidates are Cretox, Tlomz, McMasterdonia, and Pallaith.

Delegate:
1. Tlomz
2. Cretox
3. McMasterdonia
4. St George
Re-open nominations:
N/A

How would you count this vote? Why would you count it that way?

@Cretox State
You get a vote like this for a delegate by-election, the valid candidates are lol2639, Tlomz, McMasterdonia, and Pallaith.

Delegate:
1. McMasterdonia
2. lol2639
3. Abstain
4. Pallaith
Re-open nominations:
Yes

How would you count this vote? Why would you count it that way?

 

[lol2639]

@lol2639
You get a vote like this for a delegate by-election, the valid candidates are Cretox, Tlomz, McMasterdonia, and Pallaith.

How would you count this vote? Why would you count it that way?

Firstly, I would contact this person either by discord, forum, or nation-states. If that fails then I'd follow the procedure from the "irregular ballot" section of the EC rules, any part of the ballot that is done correctly will be counted so their first 3 votes would be counted as 1.Tlomz 2.Cretox and 3.Mcmasterdonia. St Geroge isn't a candidate so a vote towards them isn't valid. Lastly, their RON vote would not be counted since only "yes" and "no" are acceptable votes.

Edit: As pointed out by Cretox, this is wrong. From the exact same section irregular ballots. A mistake on the RON part of the ballot would invalidate the whole ballot. So in this situation, I wouldn't count the ballot.

 

[Cretox]

You get a vote like this for a delegate by-election, the valid candidates are lol2639, Tlomz, McMasterdonia, and Pallaith... How would you count this vote? Why would you count it that way?

Delegate:
1. McMasterdonia
2. lol2639
3. Abstain
4. Pallaith
Re-open nominations:
Yes

I'm assuming a voting form along these lines:

[b]Delegate:[/b]
1. < lol2639 | Tlomz | McMasterdonia | Pallaith | Abstain >
2. < lol2639 | Tlomz | McMasterdonia | Pallaith >
3. < lol2639 | Tlomz | McMasterdonia | Pallaith >
4. < lol2639 | Tlomz | McMasterdonia | Pallaith >

[b]Would you like to reopen nominations?[/b] < Yes | No >

I am also assuming that voting instructions for this election reflect those in this thread. Rules stated in that thread are valid under the latter half of clause 1.3 of the Rules of the Election Commission if they are not also stated in the Rules of the Election Commission or the Legal Code.

There are 2 issues with this ballot under the above assumptions: the Abstain vote for (3) and the incorrect RON question. The RON question stated on the voting form is "Would you like to reopen nominations?" That question isn't present on the submitted ballot. Instead, the voter uses "Re-open nominations:." Under the assumed instructions given in the voting thread, "[ballots] not submitted according to these guidelines are invalid." This RON vote was not submitted according to guidelines. Further, clause 5.1 of the Rules of the Election Commission states that 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." This voter did not vote Yes or No to that specific RON question, or in fact any RON question. Therefore, I will not count their vote for the office of Delegate. In accordance with clause 5.6 of the Rules of the Election Commission, I will promptly send the voter a forum PM and NS telegram. I'll also reach out via Discord if possible. I'll bring up the ballot to whomever is supervising the election with me. If this ballot is critical to the outcome of the election or if my co-supervisor and I disagree, I'll bring it up to the wider EC. Should someone disagree with my interpretation of the ballot, they are free to pursue recourse through the appropriate channels outlined in the Rules of the Election Commission.

For good measure, let's say the voter did in fact cast a valid RON vote. "Abstain" is not presented as an option for preference 3. However, the ballot does follow the overall ballot guidelines, and clause 5.2 of the Rules of the Election Commission states that in "all [non-RON] cases, any portion of a ballot that is properly completed will be counted, even if other portions of the ballot are not." I will count the voter as having voted for McMasterdonia, lol2639, and Pallaith in that order, with a Yes for the RON question. I will contact the voter by forum PM and NS TG, along with Discord PM if possible.

If that fails then I'd follow the procedure from the "irregular ballot" section of the EC rules, any part of the ballot that is done correctly will be counted so their first 3 votes would be counted as 1.Tlomz 2.Cretox and 3.Mcmasterdonia. St Geroge isn't candidate so a vote towards them isn't valid. Lastly their RON vote would not be counted since only "yes" and "no" are acceptable votes.

This is incorrect. Clause 5.2 of the Rules only applies in cases other than the RON question. Clause 5.1 requires that their vote for Delegate not be counted, given that they did not vote Yes or No to the RON question.

 

[Gorundu]

Spoiler: Original post

Firstly, I would contact this person either by discord, forum, or nation-states. If that fails then I'd follow the procedure from the "irregular ballot" section of the EC rules, any part of the ballot that is done correctly will be counted so their first 3 votes would be counted as 1.Tlomz 2.Cretox and 3.Mcmasterdonia. St Geroge isn't candidate so a vote towards them isn't valid. Lastly their RON vote would not be counted since only "yes" and "no" are acceptable votes.

You may want to review the first clause of the "irregular ballot" section in the EC rules and modify your answer.

EDIT: I apparently missed the bottom of Cretox's post above. He was entirely correct in that regard.

However, I disagree with Cretox on some of his other answers. I don't believe the instructions on the voting threads are binding in any way. Clause 1.3 simply states that the Chief Election Commissioner may use their discretion where no rules exist, but that doesn't mean their discretion follows the voting thread instructions word-for-word. The way the ballot is presented makes it quite clear that the voter has answered the re-open nominations questions, even if not in the format prescribed in the voting thread.

In terms of counting the preferences, I have always felt that putting abstain invalidates the rest of the preferences beneath it, but I do understand Cretox's point that everything except the 3rd preference is completed correctly and therefore should be counted.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Since it seems the conversation has died down, I move for a vote on both nominations.

 

[St George]

Second

 

[Bobberino]

Third. Damn you MJ!

 

[Robespierre]

Since it seems the conversation has died down, I move for a vote on both nominations.

Second

The motion(s) for a vote, as well as their/its second(s), have/has been recognized by the Speaker’s Office.

A vote is scheduled to begin in approximately an hour on both appointees and each vote will last for a period of five days.

 

[Cretox]

EDIT: I apparently missed the bottom of Cretox's post above. He was entirely correct in that regard.

However, I disagree with Cretox on some of his other answers. I don't believe the instructions on the voting threads are binding in any way. Clause 1.3 simply states that the Chief Election Commissioner may use their discretion where no rules exist, but that doesn't mean their discretion follows the voting thread instructions word-for-word. The way the ballot is presented makes it quite clear that the voter has answered the re-open nominations questions, even if not in the format prescribed in the voting thread.

In terms of counting the preferences, I have always felt that putting abstain invalidates the rest of the preferences beneath it, but I do understand Cretox's point that everything except the 3rd preference is completed correctly and therefore should be counted.

This is an excellent example of why multiple ECers supervise each election, and why the certification/objection process is what it is. Voting thread OPs very explicitly state that ballots "not submitted according to these guidelines are invalid." The only way this authority can be in compliance with the EC rules is if it's derived from the CEC's discretionary power. I realize that I'm taking a literal interpretation of the EC rules when I say that the ballot should be discarded due to the lack of a RON question. However, the voter did not actually answer a RON question. Nor did the voter use the correct voting form. Obviously, the first line of defense against these issues is to just contact the voter about their ballot.

I stand by my stance on the Abstain issue. I'd omit the abstain preference and count the remainder of the ballot (assuming the ballot itself is valid).