RA Secret Ballot Amendment

[Comfed]

One thing that has occurred throughout this circus of a recall that I have found to be particularly distasteful is the way in which individual people were named and shamed for exercising their right to vote as citizens. The obvious example is Gorundu voting for himself, but many other people have been pinged in public by people who wanted an explanation for their vote. Social pressure should not play a role in how people vote, both because it could unduly influence the result in a negative way and also because it interferes with people's right to vote their conscience as they ought to.

So, I am proposing a bill to make all RA votes and elections operate on a total secret ballot. The way it is implemented is basically that all votes in elections and regular RA votes be cast in the way that private ballots are cast in elections by sending a PM to a designated forum account.Clause 4.4.22 of the Legal Code is amended to read as follows:

The following clause is appended to the end of section 6.3 of the Legal Code.

24. Private votes may be sent by private message to a forum account designated for that purpose by the Speaker. In such an event, the Speaker will promptly announce that a vote has been cast and what that vote was cast for. The Speaker may not announce any other details of the vote.

Spoiler: Marked-Up Version

The following clause is appended to the end of section 6.3 of the Legal Code.

24. Private votes must be sent by private message to a forum account designated for that purpose by the Speaker. In such an event, the Speaker will promptly announce that a vote has been cast and what that vote was cast for. The Speaker may not announce any other details of the vote.

 

[Pallaith]

Can’t wait to see the first controversial RA vote and people cast aspersions about how the Speaker counted the votes.

I’m much more comfortable with this idea for elections but the RA is the legislature of this region. There’s a good reason those votes are public both here and the real world.

 

[Eluvatar]

While I am irked by some of the same things concerning you, I think this is would introduce more problems than it would solve. It would be a heavy administrative burden on the Speaker's office and I don't think I like the idea even besides that.

 

[TlomzKrano]

In the previous General Election, the Election Commission miscounted the votes, never caught their error, and then published the incorrect count as official record.

In the recall motion that just failed, the Speaker miscounted the votes, never caught their error, and then published the incorrect count as official record.

This is not meant as a slight to either the EC or the Speaker, but rather a very clear example that transparency is necessary and our counting procedures are not perfect. While I can understand that some do not wish to be lobbied or subject to social pressure, we must acknowledge that this game is inherently political and any attempt to shroud vote counting and results tallying will do more damage to our democracy than good.

 

[Lord Dominator]

I am opposed as others are, Pallaith sums up my thoughts quite well.

 

[El Fiji Grande]

I wouldn't mandate private votes, but would be supportive of allowing them for RA use. Then people can choose to vote privately and don't ever have to admit having voted at all.

 

[Sanctaria]

The RA is a legislature, and legislative votes should be public. I don't support this outside of elections.

 

[El Fiji Grande]

The RA is a legislature, and legislative votes should be public. I don't support this outside of elections.

Can you explain why legislative votes should be public whereas election votes can be private? We're a small, tight-knit community, and there's evidence for the last several years that private ballots work in elections. That's what ballot IDs are for, and it's why mistakes in counting are caught even when the EC messes up. I don't buy the argument that private ballots make elections any less unaccountable, and don't see how you can apply one argument to the EC while applying a different one to the RA. Elections and Assembly votes really aren't all that different. It is the same citizens voting in both.

 

[Sanctaria]

Can you explain why legislative votes should be public whereas election votes can be private? We're a small, tight-knit community, and there's evidence for the last several years that private ballots work in elections. That's what ballot IDs are for, and it's why mistakes in counting are caught even when the EC messes up. I don't buy the argument that private ballots make elections any less unaccountable, and don't see how you can apply one argument to the EC while applying a different one to the RA. Elections and Assembly votes really aren't all that different. It is the same citizens voting in both.

I have not made any arguments about accountability issues, so if you don't buy that argument, it's not me you need to take it up with.

 

[El Fiji Grande]

I have not made any arguments about accountability issues, so if you don't buy that argument, it's not me you need to take it up with.

Okay. Could you at least answer the first part of my question though?

 

[Eluvatar]

I am opposed to anonymous votes to recall elected officials.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I like RA votes to be public. We each have developed a political identity, and our voting is an expression of that. I can't be the only one who thinks it is interesting.

 

[Oracle]

I'm opposed to having an anonymous votes in the Regional Assembly. I am unsure how that would help with anything to be quite honest.

In regards to elections, I am indifferent. Private votes already take place. I guess the part that I don't care for is the requirement aspect of it.

 

[Pauline Bonaparte]

I can really see the motivation here. The sniping, teeth-gnashing, and attacking in the RA Discord channel yesterday is something that was beyond the pale. I've only recently returned to NS from a few years away. Of course, sarcasm and biting wit are hallmarks of this game and always have been. I'm guilty of making the same kinds of acrid remarks as others. But yesterday was like reading a Facebook comment section on a local news article, and some of the hate seemed deadly serious.

So I can see why there's a wish to legislate all that away. The problem, as I see it, is that I don't think it's possible. As Pallaith said, if it's not private DM campaigns it will be questioning the Speaker's motives, or something else.

A respectful political culture is built from the ground up, through mutual respect and maturity. Over the past few weeks on Discord, in between bitter recriminations and arguments, I've seen multiple people ask why it has proven so difficult for TNP to infuse with new blood. I, of course, have my own opinions on this. I won't go into all of them, but a major factor is clearly the at times hateful energy expressed over regional politics.

In my position in the region of Carcassonne I deal with lots of new NS players. Most of them are teenagers or younger. A lot of them don't speak English as a first language. If they saw what happened in the RA chat yesterday they'd run in the other direction.

Often, people say that RA members are choosing to engage in regional politics and should be mature enough to be able to justify their votes. I agree with this - but the corollary is that they should be mature enough to treat others with respect. That, more than private votes, would lead to a better atmosphere in TNP and a region more open to new players

I hope that wasn't too rambling, but it's my thoughts on all this. For this particular solution, I fear that it would just kick the can down the road.

 

[Comfed]

First--I didn't propose this as a silver bullet to cure vitriol or a harsh discourse or anything of that sort, and it's only really tangentially related to that. I talked about people being asked to explain their votes, but the "social" issue I am trying to focus on here is not that people say harsh or even mean things, it's that people shouldn't feel pressured about voting for the "wrong" option. Now obviously that can still happen with a secret ballot but in that case voters know that there is no chance of them facing specific pressure tactics for their vote.

People are comparing this to RL legislatures where votes are not private. I don't think that applies here. Our legislature is open to anyone, unlike RL legislatures which are elected and thus accountable to voters. RA members aren't really accountable to anyone for their votes and are only representing themselves. A better RL analogy here would be a referendum or a plebiscite.

 

[Robespierre]

First--I didn't propose this as a silver bullet to cure vitriol or a harsh discourse or anything of that sort, and it's only really tangentially related to that. I talked about people being asked to explain their votes, but the "social" issue I am trying to focus on here is not that people say harsh or even mean things, it's that people shouldn't feel pressured about voting for the "wrong" option. Now obviously that can still happen with a secret ballot but in that case voters know that there is no chance of them facing specific pressure tactics for their vote.

People are comparing this to RL legislatures where votes are not private. I don't think that applies here. Our legislature is open to anyone, unlike RL legislatures which are elected and thus accountable to voters. RA members aren't really accountable to anyone for their votes and are only representing themselves. A better RL analogy here would be a referendum or a plebiscite.

I can see what you're saying as to how referendums are a more applicable analogy for the work that we do here in the RA. I'd tend to agree on that point, although there are many parliamentary qualities to be observed within our legislature as well.

However, I don't think that mandating private ballots (i.e. universalizing them) is the way to go about this. If you're especially keen on tackling the social aspect(s) of the issue, then I'd say that giving people the option to vote privately might be more beneficial than requiring all RA members to do so. Even so, there are still a lot of questions that would need to be answered regarding administrative/logistical matters with the Speaker's Office during voting periods before I'd be willing to consider supporting something like this.

On its face, I'm currently opposed to this amendment.

 

[Gymna]

I like RA votes to be public. We each have developed a political identity, and our voting is an expression of that. I can't be the only one who thinks it is interesting.

I can really see the motivation here. The sniping, teeth-gnashing, and attacking in the RA Discord channel yesterday is something that was beyond the pale. I've only recently returned to NS from a few years away. Of course, sarcasm and biting wit are hallmarks of this game and always have been. I'm guilty of making the same kinds of acrid remarks as others. But yesterday was like reading a Facebook comment section on a local news article, and some of the hate seemed deadly serious.

So I can see why there's a wish to legislate all that away. The problem, as I see it, is that I don't think it's possible. As Pallaith said, if it's not private DM campaigns it will be questioning the Speaker's motives, or something else.

A respectful political culture is built from the ground up, through mutual respect and maturity. Over the past few weeks on Discord, in between bitter recriminations and arguments, I've seen multiple people ask why it has proven so difficult for TNP to infuse with new blood. I, of course, have my own opinions on this. I won't go into all of them, but a major factor is clearly the at times hateful energy expressed over regional politics.

In my position in the region of Carcassonne I deal with lots of new NS players. Most of them are teenagers or younger. A lot of them don't speak English as a first language. If they saw what happened in the RA chat yesterday they'd run in the other direction.

Often, people say that RA members are choosing to engage in regional politics and should be mature enough to be able to justify their votes. I agree with this - but the corollary is that they should be mature enough to treat others with respect. That, more than private votes, would lead to a better atmosphere in TNP and a region more open to new players

I hope that wasn't too rambling, but it's my thoughts on all this. For this particular solution, I fear that it would just kick the can down the road.

So I am new here and don't have a dog in the fight about recall, but I do find the legislative history interesting and vote history to be neat.

It does seem like a lot of people are very passionate on both sides of the recall issue but it has risen to a level that I was somewhat nervous about posting in any of the relevant threads. I think trying to have more respect for other voters and outlining your positions more than cutting people down for theirs would lead to more new players like me engaging. I find this type of thing interesting enough that it was enough for me to overcome my worries about posting but not all may feel the same.

Just my two cents as a newbie, worth less than the paper it's printed on, but wanted to share and get involved. I don't think that private votes would be beneficial long term.

 

[Attempted Socialism]

I don't want to downplay the toxic nature of the fight over the recall, and part of that has definitely been calling out groups or specific people for their votes in various ways. That has been rather disheartening to watch.
However, I don't think that this is a solution, for a few reasons. First, I have the firm impression that noting how specific people or groups have voted is an outcrop of the (over-)passionate fight, and not an independent cause of discontent. Second, some of the allegations, such as people being pressured, bribed, or otherwise illicitly "convinced" to vote a specific way, would potentially be both worse and easier to make in the absence of evidence. Third, the most vocal people who have been at each other's throats have been fairly open about their vote or their stance. Having a viewpoint is inherent to debate, and we can't ask that people won't give away how they voted during a debate on a topic like this. Fourth, as others have said, if a situation like this happens again, there's nothing to prevent the most agitated amongst us to allege that the Speaker's Office is in on it, taking sides or fixing the vote, putting the Speaker at risk of becoming another casualty in a harsh environment.
I recognise the impetus to find a solution to a real problem that has erupted, but even setting aside the practical implementation I am not sure this will solve the problem.
I share your concern with the pressure that some have felt to either vote "correctly" or to defend their vote in the face of substantial vitriol, but I don't see this as solving that, though I am open to changing my mind.

 

[St George]

People without the courage of character to publicly own their votes in the RA probably shouldn't have the ability to vote at all. Allowing private RA votes would just encourage the worst kind of sneaky, clandestine, untoward behaviour you'd expect to find in places without any moral character, like Europeia.

 

[Comfed]

Again in case I wasn't clear--this isn't the solution to the mania surrounding the recall. This is about a specific problem that I have seen throughout the two votes that I have discussed above.

If you're especially keen on tackling the social aspect(s) of the issue, then I'd say that giving people the option to vote privately might be more beneficial than requiring all RA members to do so.

I am open to considering this, but I feel like doing that still leaves open the possibility of pressure to vote publicly. Given that MJ said that people who don't want to vote publicly lack moral character, I do not think that it's a remote possibility at all.

Even so, there are still a lot of questions that would need to be answered regarding administrative/logistical matters with the Speaker's Office during voting periods before I'd be willing to consider supporting something like this.

I don't think the issues with administration and transparency are as big as they are made out to be. While I can't feasibly decide what the Speaker's office does in this case, the system for private voting used by the Election Commission is quite transparent already. The problem with the recent election in which several ballots were counted wrong wasn't even related to private voting, it was because the votes, once already posted either by the voters or the designated ballot box account, were miscounted by the election supervisors and no one caught the error.

People without the courage of character to publicly own their votes in the RA probably shouldn't have the ability to vote at all. Allowing private RA votes would just encourage the worst kind of sneaky, clandestine, untoward behaviour you'd expect to find in places without any moral character, like Europeia.

I would be interested to hear what sort of nefarious behaviours allowing you think allowing people to vote anonymously would bring.

 

[Monkemafiatopia]

I would be interested to hear what sort of nefarious behaviours allowing you think allowing people to vote anonymously would bring.

I'm more interested to hear how you would balance anonymous voting and simultaneously prevent fraudulent voting, Double voting, and non citizens voting. as for why anonymous voting doesn't work in this setting, I am not the most knowledgeable but I do know, if you aren't willing to attach yourself to a vote for or against something, because the majority disagrees, then you should stop and reconsider, and be open to hearing from both sides. anonymous voting makes it impossible for voters to discuss with the voter in question about where their opinions may differ, impossible to come to agreements and impossible to CIVILY discuss their views.

 

[AraFuttio]

Firstly, I have to massively disagree with MJ. I think that the toxic atmosphere of the recall vote has shown why some people may not feel comfortable with publicly voting, and I don’t think that people wanting to vote privately have a lack of character.

However, I think the main problem with this whole thing is that we basically need a happy medium. The problem with that is that will be very difficult to find. People should definitely be given the option to vote privately in order to avoid the potential onslaught of attacks from the other side of the vote, but I don’t think it should be compulsory, however I think in a democracy where people can change their votes, something that comes with that is that people will be pressured into changing your vote.

I think we need more awareness and regulation of using blackmail, or being quite mean to people, like we saw in the Discord; potentially we need punishments for these kinds of actions. You can convince or try to persuade people, but you can’t abuse people. I don’t think we need an end to public voting altogether, there are other ways to combat the problems we have seen.

 

[Skaraborg]

I think one thing you could do is you can vote private during the vote and the “Ra Booth” will add it to the vote. Then when the results are counted everyone who has voted both public and private are shown so at one point your vote is going to be public anyways . It’s a bit of a compromise.

 

[St George]

I think one thing you could do is you can vote private during the vote and the “Ra Booth” will add it to the vote. Then when the results are counted everyone who has voted both public and private are shown so at one point your vote is going to be public anyways . It’s a bit of a compromise.

This would be the only way I could support private RA voting. It would be a good measure for preventing fraud or mistakes being covered up - not that this Speaker's Office would engage in such.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

If you can't handle being pressured and whipped for a vote and won't take accountability for your decisions, don't be a politician.

No support. Zero. No chance.

 

[Bobberino]

No.

 

[Comfed]

If you can't handle being pressured and whipped for a vote and won't take accountability for your decisions, don't be a politician.

No support. Zero. No chance.

Exercising your right to vote in the Regional Assembly is hardly the same thing as being an official who is accountable. And besides, it's this exact vote whipping that we seem to be incapable of doing with respect for our fellow citizens. If people, especially new players, know that they could be attacked for the mere act of casting their vote, at a certain point we are going to drive people away, because who wants to deal with that?

I think one thing you could do is you can vote private during the vote and the “Ra Booth” will add it to the vote. Then when the results are counted everyone who has voted both public and private are shown so at one point your vote is going to be public anyways . It’s a bit of a compromise.

I mean that completely defeats the point of having a secret ballot.

 

[Wymondham]

If you can't handle being pressured and whipped for a vote and won't take accountability for your decisions, don't be a politician.

No support. Zero. No chance.

Big agree. This is a political simulator. It says so on the front page of the game. Politics is at the centre of NS and pressure, whipping, politicking and everything surrounding IC methods to try to sway someone else's vote within the bounds of our regional laws are to be expected.

Our WFE used to say 'where the democracy is strong, the debate robust and the rum plentiful'. Perhaps we should restore it to the WFE if individuals are seemingly unware of what they're getting themselves in for when they join TNP. Frankly, if people can't handle the heat, I suggest they get out of the kitchen.

 

[Pallaith]

I think there’s a difference between robust debate and strong opinions, and bullying and mean-spirited posting. It should be possible to have a vigorous debate and efforts to sway opinion without crossing the line to disrespect and maligning others. My concern is these corrective actions would stifle the former in order to prevent the latter. And worst of all, it’s still possible for that line to be crossed even if this change is done, because these arguments happened whether someone had already voted or not. You will still have to contend with that problem, this just eliminates one aspect of it.

The other thing that’s tricky about this is that we’re applying the concept of a legislature having its decisions be fully transparent and public, which is obviously a good thing, to a setup where all citizens are automatically the members of the legislature. As is so often the case in TNP, this is a situation where people wear multiple hats. Our citizens are also our legislators. They have a right to their own vote and arguably a right to privacy, which many of them exercise when voting for our elected officials. But when it comes to legislation, they are wearing their legislator hat, a place where silent and anonymous votes are a concern. How do you square that circle?

 

[Kyle]

I think there’s a difference between robust debate and strong opinions, and bullying and mean-spirited posting. It should be possible to have a vigorous debate and efforts to sway opinion without crossing the line to disrespect and maligning others. My concern is these corrective actions would stifle the former in order to prevent the latter. And worst of all, it’s still possible for that line to be crossed even if this change is done, because these arguments happened whether someone had already voted or not. You will still have to contend with that problem, this just eliminates one aspect of it.

The other thing that’s tricky about this is that we’re applying the concept of a legislature having its decisions be fully transparent and public, which is obviously a good thing, to a setup where all citizens are automatically the members of the legislature. As is so often the case in TNP, this is a situation where people wear multiple hats. Our citizens are also our legislators. They have a right to their own vote and arguably a right to privacy, which many of them exercise when voting for our elected officials. But when it comes to legislation, they are wearing their legislator hat, a place where silent and anonymous votes are a concern. How do you square that circle?

Agreed. While I am not yet fully convinced on the need for private voting, I think people may be conflating the TNP RA with real-life legislatures. We do not represent a constituency, we represent ourselves (or the nation in our head, if you are into RPing it like that), and thus we don't have to have this sort of accountability that members of real-life legislatures would have. It's more akin to maybe the town hall meetings in New Hampshire or the Landsgemeinde of Glarus in Switzerland.

An idea that I will float (but I will not defend, because I myself am not yet fully convinced on the need for private voting), is that certain votes can be moved to be private, or the option of privacy can be given. Kinda like how people move to vote on or object to the length of the vote. A certain vote can be moved to being private. If we're circling back to the idea of TNP RA being a legislature, it's just like those closed-door sessions or secret balloting that are actually done in RL legislatures, but only for certain votes that the body agrees will be done privately.

 

[Eluvatar]

I am familiar with one context IRL which is fairly analagous to our Regional Assembly: New England Town Meeting. This is an assembly of hundreds of voters who make decisions on behalf of everyone else in the town. In many towns, any voter is entitled to show up to a Town Meeting.

These meetings have strict rules of decorum: it is not in order to address other speakers by name, or make personal attacks.

Perhaps we need stricter rules in the Regional Assembly to put the breaks on heated back and forth.

 

[Pallaith]

I am familiar with one context IRL which is fairly analagous to our Regional Assembly: New England Town Meeting. This is an assembly of hundreds of voters who make decisions on behalf of everyone else in the town. In many towns, any voter is entitled to show up to a Town Meeting.

These meetings have strict rules of decorum: it is not in order to address other speakers by name, or make personal attacks.

Perhaps we need stricter rules in the Regional Assembly to put the breaks on heated back and forth.

But this problem seems to be most acute on the Discord, so how would that be done given the different environment? And what do those rules, and their execution, look like?

 

[Sil Dorsett]

I think the incident that prompted this could have been mitigated with more aggressive moderator intervention. The problem is that I think there's a distinct lack of respect for when moderation intervenes. It's either a case of they didn't do enough, or they did too much. It really feels like there's no sweet spot.

I have no problem with there being a healthy in-character debate, but when out-of-character civility is lost, moderation needs to step in. People need to understand and accept that. If they have a problem with the way a situation was handled, the mod team has an appeal procedure to follow, and throwing a tantrum at the moderator that made the action is not part of that procedure.

Personally, I think there should be disciplinary action taken against those who fight moderators for doing their jobs. There isn't enough of that happening.

 

[St George]

I mean that completely defeats the point of having a secret ballot.

Sounds great then, let's do it.

 

[HEM]

In RL United States there are motions and mechanisms around what type of vote is held. For example, in the House of Representatives most votes are conducted by tabulation via pressing a button, but a member can call the question of having a roll call vote where each Congressperson has to say their vote allowed.

It's not an exact 1-to-1 comparison, but there may be a case for establishing some type of procedure for a secret ballot on rare occasions, if this is a problem that only flares up every so often. I say may be, as I haven't been around long enough to really gauge. But if the Assembly, as a whole, faced periodic contentious debates and starts to think — "woah this is getting too hot we need to cool this down for everyone's sake" maybe having a motion, of which people need to approve, for a secret ballot on those rare occasions could be worthwhile.

 

[AraFuttio]

It's not an exact 1-to-1 comparison, but there may be a case for establishing some type of procedure for a secret ballot on rare occasions, if this is a problem that only flares up every so often. I say may be, as I haven't been around long enough to really gauge. But if the Assembly, as a whole, faced periodic contentious debates and starts to think — "woah this is getting too hot we need to cool this down for everyone's sake" maybe having a motion, of which people need to approve, for a secret ballot on those rare occasions could be worthwhile.

I like this idea. I don’t think having a secret ballot is necessary for a vote on quite a small change to the Legal Code, or just a routine vote to confirm someone to the EC where there is no objection, for example. It would just create unnecessary hassle. It’s times like the recall vote when a secret ballot might be needed. Although I do think it is a better idea to have the Speaker making the final decision on a secret ballot; people can motion it but the Speaker, with their (assumed) neutrality and judgment, should make the final call.

 

[Simone]

Again in case I wasn't clear--this isn't the solution to the mania surrounding the recall. This is about a specific problem that I have seen throughout the two votes that I have discussed above.

I am open to considering this, but I feel like doing that still leaves open the possibility of pressure to vote publicly. Given that MJ said that people who don't want to vote publicly lack moral character, I do not think that it's a remote possibility at all.

I don't think the issues with administration and transparency are as big as they are made out to be. While I can't feasibly decide what the Speaker's office does in this case, the system for private voting used by the Election Commission is quite transparent already. The problem with the recent election in which several ballots were counted wrong wasn't even related to private voting, it was because the votes, once already posted either by the voters or the designated ballot box account, were miscounted by the election supervisors and no one caught the error.

I would be interested to hear what sort of nefarious behaviours allowing you think allowing people to vote anonymously would bring.

I mean, mistakes happen - on long spreadsheets on a clear day with a group of volunteers counting votes, human errors are bound to turn up. Happens IRL in elections with paper ballots, happens in NS.

I am not opposed to having the Election Commission run RA recalls on principle, that's for the rest of the RA to decide.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

the system for private voting used by the Election Commission is quite transparent already

The private ballot ID system is set only so that the voter can verify that the ballot was recorded as intended. It does not defend against other vulnerabilities.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

I will always oppose mandatory secret ballots. It makes it too easy to rig votes and even legitimate elections will be constantly bombarded by accusations of impropriety, especially if they're close.

The only way I'd be open to the idea would be if the votes were secret only during the voting period but were revealed after the voting is closed.

 

[Comfed]

Do people seriously think that everyone will assume the election supervisors rigged the election if it was conducted by a private ballot? I hardly think TNPers are that conspiracy-minded.