[Merged into COE Act] Election Law Fix

[Gorundu]

In light of the recent election in which the vote for Speaker essentially became a waste of time, I'm proposing this amendment to our election laws. The added clause is clause 24 in the below text, and is highlighted in green.

I've also decided to make an unrelated formatting change with the current clauses 24-26, specifically by making clauses 25 and 26 subclauses under 24 (numbered 25 below as the additional clause mentioned above is before this clause), to better show that those clauses contain instructions for the reopen nominations process alone. This is highlighted in blue.

Section 4.4: Overall Election Law
20. Citizens will be provided three days to declare their candidacy. Voting will begin two days after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days.
21. Candidates may withdraw from the ballot anytime during an election.
22. Private votes may be sent by private message to a forum account designated for that purpose by the Election Commission. In such an event, the Election Commissioners supervising the election will promptly announce that a vote has been cast privately and who that vote was cast for. The Election Commissioners may not announce any other details about the vote.
23. The option to reopen nominations will appear on the ballot as a separate question for each race.
24. If the number of candidates is less than the number of candidates to be elected for a given race at any point after the candidacy declaration period closes, the process of reopening nominations will occur for that race as provided in the next clause. Any ongoing voting period for that position will be declared null and void.
25. Should a majority vote to reopen nominations for a given race, a further two days will be provided for candidacy declarations.

• Candidates for that race whose names appeared on the first ballot will retain their candidacy unless they choose to withdraw.
• A second round of voting for that race will begin immediately after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the new ballot.

26. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the ballot for any runoff vote.
27. If during any voting round for a given race a candidate becomes invalid, then all votes for that candidate will be removed from voters' preferential ranking. The Election Commission will remove the candidate from the list of candidates and notify all citizens who have voted before the candidate became invalid.
28. If at any point in counting the votes for two or more candidates are tied for one position, the candidate who has the least votes at the latest stage of counting where there is a difference in votes will be eliminated. If this does not break a tie, a runoff vote will be held between the tied candidates.

Section 4.5: General Elections
30. The election of the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, and the Speaker will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
31. If there are more than two candidates for a given race, voters may rank the candidates, with the candidate ranked 1 being the first preference, the candidate ranked 2 being the next preference, and so on.
32. 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.
33. If all of a voter's preferences have been eliminated, the voter's ballot shall not be used in further counting.

 

[Fregerson]

Would clause 24 be better worded as

24. If the number of candidates is less than the number of candidates to be elected for a particular race at any point after the candidacy declaration period closes, the process of reopening nominations will occur as provided in the next clause. Any ongoing voting period for that position will be declared null and void.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

This would only save time if the other races did not reopen nominations. But, if you had this situation where there were no remaining candidates and then another race RONed, all you've done is split the candidacy declarations threads and split the second voting phases. No time saved. With the current law, a 0-candidate RONed race and another RONed race would reopen at the same time and be on the same ballot.

Rather than having a split up voting phase under this situation, what I think could be an acceptable change is a provision to automatically reopen nominations at the end of the voting phase if there were no remaining candidates, instead of hoping that a majority voted to RON. That would also avoid an unusual situation where the results were finalized, the current office holder's term has ended, and the position is vacant during a special election.

 

[Gorundu]

This would only save time if the other races did not reopen nominations. But, if you had this situation where there were no remaining candidates and then another race RONed, all you've done is split the candidacy declarations threads and split the second voting phases. No time saved. With the current law, a 0-candidate RONed race and another RONed race would reopen at the same time and be on the same ballot.

Rather than having a split up voting phase under this situation, what I think could be an acceptable change is a provision to automatically reopen nominations at the end of the voting phase if there were no remaining candidates, instead of hoping that a majority voted to RON. That would also avoid an unusual situation where the results were finalized, the current office holder's term has ended, and the position is vacant during a special election.

I think such a scenario as you described would be extremely rare. A RON race or a 0-candidate race is rare enough alone that I don't really see them both happening at the same time (though I suppose it is more likely for one to occur if the other also occurs). I also wrote this in case of a potential scenario where there are no valid candidates at the end of the candidacy declaration period for whatever reason - it would be stupid to wait two days and go into a five day voting period when you already know no one will be elected.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

The situation we ran into is extremely rare itself. I don't see the value of legislating every fringe case after one example of it. The process we have may be a little inconvenient for the impatient, but it's not broken. This only happened once because the only candidate for the office couldn't accept the criticism they were getting in their campaign thread and decided to bail. If we have a situation where nobody wants to sign up for an office in the three days we give them to sign up, I think we have a bigger problem than the time lost letting the current system run through its cycle. Plus, then we have confusion over the fact that there would be two (or more) separate threads (potentially) starting at different times, and if this occurred during a voting period, you're likely to see people casting ballots in the wrong thread, not understanding what happened. Keep it simple. The added complexity is not worth the time saved.

 

[Gorundu]

The situation we ran into is extremely rare itself. I don't see the value of legislating every fringe case after one example of it. The process we have may be a little inconvenient for the impatient, but it's not broken. This only happened once because the only candidate for the office couldn't accept the criticism they were getting in their campaign thread and decided to bail. If we have a situation where nobody wants to sign up for an office in the three days we give them to sign up, I think we have a bigger problem than the time lost letting the current system run through its cycle. Plus, then we have confusion over the fact that there would be two (or more) separate threads (potentially) starting at different times, and if this occurred during a voting period, you're likely to see people casting ballots in the wrong thread, not understanding what happened. Keep it simple. The added complexity is not worth the time saved.

Personally, I believe either of these scenarios to be as likely, if not more likely, than RON succeeding on a vote where there is a candidate. We have single-candidate elections all the time, and if something comes up during the election which makes them unable to serve in the office (could be IRL surprises, or it could be some sort of scandal), then we can easily end up with no candidate.

@Fregerson I've seen your proposed wording and I'm thinking on it.

 

[Bobberino]

When?

 

[Fregerson]

The more I think on this, the more I feel that it comes back to the definition on what is considered 1 election. Is the General Election just 3 elections considered separately? (Delegate, Vice-delegate, and Speaker elections) If it is separate, then re-open each race on their own timeline and timetable makes absolute sense. If it is considered as one election, then re-opening each on their own timeline and timetable doesn't exactly work the same way.

There exists 3 arguments about this. One can argue that General Elections is defined as 1 election as a whole, and if RON occurs, the re-opened portion still counts as part of the same election. The other argument can argue on the lines of each race being their on election, and that one election timeline does not affect the other 2 elections. The last argument is that an RONed election works similarly as a special election, so it is 2 separate things all together. The EC definitely didn't use the first argument when considering Dreadton as present for the re-opened Speaker nomination elections.

We can (and should, imo), on a similar note, also consider the situation where we have no candidates at the end of declaration (not impossible, if one-candidate situations have became commonplace); as well as the situation where one candidate runs for multiple positions. Technically, the law does not forbid it.

 

[Gorundu]

The more I think on this, the more I feel that it comes back to the definition on what is considered 1 election. Is the General Election just 3 elections considered separately? (Delegate, Vice-delegate, and Speaker elections) If it is separate, then re-open each race on their own timeline and timetable makes absolute sense. If it is considered as one election, then re-opening each on their own timeline and timetable doesn't exactly work the same way.

There exists 3 arguments about this. One can argue that General Elections is defined as 1 election as a whole, and if RON occurs, the re-opened portion still counts as part of the same election. The other argument can argue on the lines of each race being their on election, and that one election timeline does not affect the other 2 elections. The last argument is that an RONed election works similarly as a special election, so it is 2 separate things all together. The EC definitely didn't use the first argument when considering Dreadton as present for the re-opened Speaker nomination elections.

We can (and should, imo), on a similar note, also consider the situation where we have no candidates at the end of declaration (not impossible, if one-candidate situations have became commonplace); as well as the situation where one candidate runs for multiple positions. Technically, the law does not forbid it.

I think the best way to approach this is to look at wordings in our election laws. Because our Legal Code is an evolving document with different parts authored at different times, it has created some discrepancies. The first thing is that there is a clause to define an "election", clause 4.2.8:

8. "Election" is defined as the period of time that begins on the first day on which candidacy declarations can be made and concludes with the final declaration of results for an election.

Yup, the definition for "election" has the word "election" in it. Oops...
But more to our point, this clause does define an "election" as a time period, so I think it's safe to say all of the General Election is considered one election. The ambiguity doesn't actually lie in what's considered an election, but rather in the timing - specifically, what counts as the "final declaration of results"? If RON happens, does that mean the final declaration of results only happens when the RON race is concluded? The EC's actions would be contrary to this interpretation.

Within an election, the word "race" seems to be most commonly used to distinguish the elections for different positions. For example, in Section 4.3 (emphasis added):

23. The option to reopen nominations will appear on the ballot as a separate question for each race.
24. Should a majority vote to reopen nominations for a given race, a further two days will be provided for candidacy declarations.
25. Candidates for that race whose names appeared on the first ballot will retain their candidacy unless they choose to withdraw.
26. A second round of voting for that race will begin immediately after the candidacy declaration period has closed and last for five days. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the new ballot.
27. The option to reopen nominations will not appear on the ballot for any runoff vote.
28. If during any voting round for a given race a candidate becomes invalid, then all votes for that candidate will be removed from voters' preferential ranking. The Election Commission will remove the candidate from the list of candidates and notify all citizens who have voted before the candidate became invalid.

However, there exist some discrepancies, like in clause 4.5.31 (emphasis added):

31. If there are more than two candidates for an election, voters may rank the candidates, with the candidate ranked 1 being the first preference, the candidate ranked 2 being the next preference, and so on.

(I believe this was actually introduced to the Legal Code as part of the instant runoff election bill which I authored, so my bad...)

So to answer your question, I think the wording you gave earlier in this thread is pretty good, and I'm going to adopt that (but change "particular race" to "given race", since that's what has been used). I'm also going to include in this bill a change in wording for the clause just above.