Confirmation of Lord Dominator as Election Commissioner

[Cloud]

I note that the term of @Comfed expires on 19 July, and I have received confirmation from him that he does not wish to serve another term. I propose the appointment of @Lord Dominator as his replacement.

@Lord Dominator has been appointed Election Commissioner by Delegate @Simone. I hereby open the floor for debate and discussion on this matter. I would also welcome a statement in support of the nominee from the Delegate.

Should this reach a vote, I intend to put the following motion to the Regional Assembly:

The Regional Assembly, acting on the nomination of the Delegate, appoints Lord Dominator to the Election Commission.

 

[Simone]

Comfed has previously expressed his wish not to serve in the EC when he pre arranged the end of his MoFA tenure. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his service.

I also think LD needs no introduction and I believe he'd definitely be a great addition to the EC team.

 

[Pallaith]

Comfed has previously expressed his wish not to serve in the EC when he pre arranged the end of his MoFA tenure. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his service.

I also think LD needs no introduction and I believe he'd definitely be a great addition to the EC team.

Could you elaborate on why you believe that?

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

For the nominee: do you intend to stand in two or more of the three regularly scheduled elections?

EDIT: Pretend you don't see the earlier version of this post that LD actually responded to which shows I copied and pasted it

 

[Lord Dominator]

For the nominee: do you intend to stand in two or more of the three regularly scheduled elections after the impending judicial election?

I have no intentions of running in any upcoming General elections. I can not speak to my intentions in any specific Judicial election this far ahead of time, though the odds are always at least a 50-50.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

How would you count the below ballots?

Spoiler

Court Justice:
None
Would you like to reopen nominations? < Yes >

Court Justice:
1. < | Cybarropesee |>
2. < Enywon >
4. < Allaith | >
5. < Bivanco >
Would you like to reopen nominations? < | No >

Court Justice:
1. < DillTheDormouse
2-5. < Abstain >
Would you like to reopen nominations? < Yes >

Delegate:
Cil Devonn
Badjack
3. < Aloud
Would you like to reopen nominations? < Ye >
Vice Delegate:
2. Eny1
1. Future English Province
Would you like to reopen nominations < No >
Speaker
1. Gaius , 2. Hillton , 3. I’m1 | Just a Law
No RON

Please assume that in the three judicial election ballots, the candidates are the same across all three and that there is no candidate called “None”.

 

[Lord Dominator]

My read is that the first one counts as an abstention & vote for RON, the second I believe counts all 4 (and the first two for sure - that is the numbering on 4/5 is disputable on intent) with a No vote on RON, and the third a single vote followed by abstentions if that candidate is removed and a yes for RON - and if those were the only three ballots for the election than RON gets its majority for a new Justice election.

The delegate vote is wholly tossed as “Ye” is not yes or no for RON, VD votes are ambiguously ordered but the RON no vote is fine, and the Speaker vote is a mess due to the last two nominees running together but the RON no vote is still understandable.

In all cases one or more things look to deviate from the template for elections, my thoughts are based on the legal minimum of the Election Commission rules, but all those with tossed votes should be notified of such and probably the not tossed but still bad ones for clarity (and consistency).

 

[Comfed]

The delegate vote is wholly tossed as “Ye” is not yes or no for RON

Do you believe that section 5.5 of the Rules of the Election Commission means that voters must submit, verbatim, the words "Yes" or "No"?

 

[Lord Dominator]

Do you believe that section 5.5 of the Rules of the Election Commission means that voters must submit, verbatim, the words "Yes" or "No"?

The particular bit of rules there seemed very cut-and-dry, so yes. If that’s not the standing interpretation of the EC then I get why but I couldn’t find a specific example (or didn’t search properly) to be able to tell.

 

[Comfed]

The particular bit of rules there seemed very cut-and-dry, so yes. If that’s not the standing interpretation of the EC then I get why but I couldn’t find a specific example (or didn’t search properly) to be able to tell.

My impression is that it is not so much the specific words "Yes" or "No" that are important, so much as that the voter clearly vote for or against re-opening nominations. While the words "Yes" and "No" are capitalized, I am not confident that this means that the words must be used verbatim. First, there is a process for reviewing the decisions of the Election Supervisors, and other rules (such as section 5.5) are generally oriented towards counting a ballot whenever possible; I would assume the same principle applies to the RON question. Further, it strikes me that discounting a ballot due a typo, where it is otherwise clear what the intent of the voter was, would be a poor outcome that the Election Commission would want to avoid. Given that the Rules of the Election Commission do not expressly specify that the words "Yes" or "No" must be written verbatim, I would assume that they would not want to enforce such an outcome.

None of this is the standing interpretation of the Election Commission, just my personal view. I don't intend to oppose your nomination.

 

[Lord Dominator]

My impression is that it is not so much the specific words "Yes" or "No" that are important, so much as that the voter clearly vote for or against re-opening nominations. While the words "Yes" and "No" are capitalized, I am not confident that this means that the words must be used verbatim. First, there is a process for reviewing the decisions of the Election Supervisors, and other rules (such as section 5.5) are generally oriented towards counting a ballot whenever possible; I would assume the same principle applies to the RON question. Further, it strikes me that discounting a ballot due a typo, where it is otherwise clear what the intent of the voter was, would be a poor outcome that the Election Commission would want to avoid. Given that the Rules of the Election Commission do not expressly specify that the words "Yes" or "No" must be written verbatim, I would assume that they would not want to enforce such an outcome.

None of this is the standing interpretation of the Election Commission, just my personal view. I don't intend to oppose your nomination.

Entirely fair on the counter reasoning, I did deliberately hew to a rather strict interpretation

 

[Comfed]

Anyways, I move for a vote.

 

[Owenstacey]

I'll second the motion to vote.

 

[St George]

With a motion and a second recognised, a vote will start imminently.

 

[Simone]

I support the vote.

 

[Lord Dominator]

My apologies on the delayed oath, I have been camping and didn't expect to lose internet access as totally as I did.