Voter Eligibility Reform Bill

[Sil Dorsett]

Just for a little bit of context... at the time I'm making this post, the voting phase of the January 2025 General Election is in progress, and I am one of its two Election Supervisors. I was also Vice Delegate responsible for the VD check and a Global Moderator responsible for the Admin check.

All of you knew that. So, what's the point?

During the voting phase of the general election, two citizens (so far...) cast ballots that I had to throw out because they were not citizens at the time voting started. My gripe is that they applied for citizenship prior to the start of voting. I had done by VD and Admin checks in time, but the applications were not processed by the Speaker before voting started, thus leading to their disenfranchisement through no fault of their own, other than just not applying sooner. The problem I have is that the cutoff for citizenship applications is currently variably dependent on the awareness, availability, and motivation of the Vice Delegate, Administration, and the Speaker's Office. I want to eliminate that variability.

The chief concern is ensuring that there isn't some sort of flood of citizenship applications during an election or RA vote that, if processed, could change the outcome. My argument is that such a flood could still happen if done a week before a vote opens. And, regarding elections, with candidacy and campaigning occurring for only five days before a vote, that period could encourage those who are suddenly interested in supporting a candidate to gain citizenship to vote. Again, it is entirely possible for someone who suddenly wants to register their support to gain citizenship even hours before the vote starts if the relevant parties are quick.

Thus, I propose the following, to allow those who gain a sudden interest to register their intent to vote and take part, and not be held up by a Vice Delegate, Administrator or Global Moderator, or Speaker that randomly decides to conveniently take a break. This does not affect or enable a sudden influx of prospective voters applying during an election or RA vote to attempt to influence a vote. You still have to make yourself known before the voting phase begins, and you still have to maintain citizenship throughout the remaining time.

Section 6.3, Clause 24 of the Legal Code is amended to read as follows:

24. A citizen's vote will not be valid unless they were a citizen prior to the start of voting and maintained citizenship for the entire duration of the vote, or they applied for citizenship prior to the start of voting, acquired citizenship during the vote, and maintained citizenship for the entire remaining duration of the vote since acquiring citizenship.

 

[Picairn]

I'm not sure how this bill would somehow not enable a mass influx of new voters by broadening the time period in which they can vote. While it is possible to mobilise our residents to apply earlier before voting opens and then vote, to my knowledge that hasn't happened, or at least not on a grand scale. Perhaps the logistics were too fragmented and cumbersome (campaign for residents to apply one week in advance, then campaign for citizens to vote, and finally campaign for residents-turned-citizens to vote), and explicitly campaigning early to support you in an election that hasn't started will result in backlash.

This, though, would allow candidates to target residents and get them to apply & vote in addition to the regular campaigning among citizens during the campaign period. Worse, it can allow unpopular candidates to fight their way to victory through sheer numbers, defeating opposed citizens with legions of low-engaged residents-turned-citizens.

 

[Gorundu]

This, though, would allow candidates to target residents and get them to apply & vote in addition to the regular campaigning among citizens during the campaign period. Worse, it can allow unpopular candidates to fight their way to victory through sheer numbers, defeating opposed citizens with legions of low-engaged residents-turned-citizens.

None of this is something that couldn’t already happen under the current laws. That’s the argument Sil is making.

 

[Picairn]

None of this is something that couldn’t already happen under the current laws. That’s the argument Sil is making.

Yes, but that hasn't happened, not to my knowledge. I'm concerned that this might open the floodgates.

 

[Simone]

I think the amendment is fine.

I'm not sure how this bill would somehow not enable a mass influx of new voters by broadening the time period in which they can vote. While it is possible to mobilise our residents to apply earlier before voting opens and then vote, to my knowledge that hasn't happened, or at least not on a grand scale. Perhaps the logistics were too fragmented and cumbersome (campaign for residents to apply one week in advance, then campaign for citizens to vote, and finally campaign for residents-turned-citizens to vote), and explicitly campaigning early to support you in an election that hasn't started will result in backlash.

This, though, would allow candidates to target residents and get them to apply & vote in addition to the regular campaigning among citizens during the campaign period. Worse, it can allow unpopular candidates to fight their way to victory through sheer numbers, defeating opposed citizens with legions of low-engaged residents-turned-citizens.

The argument is a fair point. Having said that, any one of us who has a significant number of friends, acquaintances, relatives, followers, or employees (etc) can already ask them to become citizens and vote accordingly. In which case my answer would be "what's the point, exactly, in doing all that in order to win an election for an in-character role in a part of a browser-based computer game?"

 

[St George]

Yes, but that hasn't happened, not to my knowledge. I'm concerned that this might open the floodgates.

What's the difference between that and DM campaigns of those who often don't vote or participate?

 

[Simone]

Yes, but that hasn't happened, not to my knowledge. I'm concerned that this might open the floodgates.

I've seen at least two proposals (one was raised in Cabinet, you can search for it as Delegate anyway). But my response again is "what's the point?" (See above)

 

[Gorundu]

Yes, but that hasn't happened, not to my knowledge. I'm concerned that this might open the floodgates.

Realistically it gives candidates about one more day to do what you described, in comparison to existing laws. Hardly opening the floodgates.

 

[Picairn]

What's the difference between that and DM campaigns of those who often don't vote or participate?

To me, there is a difference between "campaigning existing citizens to vote" vs. "campaigning all residents to apply for citizenship with the sole purpose of voting for you." The latter is potentially much larger in scale and impact to our elections, as ironic as it is for a candidate who has used DM campaigns to say this.

 

[Picairn]

I've seen at least two proposals (one was raised in Cabinet, you can search for it as Delegate anyway). But my response again is "what's the point?" (See above)

The prospect of winning elections is a powerful motivator. Are you sure you won't DM residents under the new law to apply for citizenship and vote for yourself when you run for election in May?

 

[Simone]

The prospect of winning elections is a powerful motivator. Are you sure you won't DM residents under the new law to apply for citizenship and vote for yourself when you run for election in May?

The new law doesn't really change anything - just lets the candidates to prepare a bit later if they want to go down that path (or say get their friends or buddies to switch from one region to TNP).

Realistically it gives candidates about one more day to do what you described, in comparison to existing laws. Hardly opening the floodgates.

This. Since it's maxed out 21 days for VD-Speaker-Admin checks at the moment, shortening it slightly isn't a big deal either way. I support the change but I don't consider it a high priority in terms of whether it changes or not.

 

[Picairn]

The new law doesn't really change anything - just lets the candidates to prepare a bit later if they want to go down that path (or say get their friends or buddies to switch from one region to TNP).

You didn't really answer my question, but alright.

 

[Simone]

You didn't really answer my question, but alright.

I thought I answered it. Anything you want me to clarify?

 

[Picairn]

I thought I answered it. Anything you want me to clarify?

"Are you sure you won't DM residents under the new law to apply for citizenship and vote for yourself when you run for election in May?"

 

[Simone]

"Are you sure you won't DM residents under the new law to apply for citizenship and vote for yourself when you run for election in May?"

The proposed law doesn't really change whether someone does what you've described. Any candidate can do so - the proposed law change merely changes the schedule for anyone who wants to do what you've described in the May election from doing it on say around April 5 (say 24 days or so before the election, give or take a day to account for timezone differences) to maybe a few days later, depending on how the wording ends up in the proposal, assuming it eventually passes.

 

[Gorundu]

The proposed law doesn't really change whether someone does what you've described. Any candidate can do so - the proposed law change merely changes the schedule for anyone who wants to do what you've described in the May election from doing it on say around April 5 (say 24 days or so before the election, give or take a day to account for timezone differences) to maybe a few days later, depending on how the wording ends up in the proposal, assuming it eventually passes.

Not sure why anyone would do this a whole month before the election. It would be start of May.

"Are you sure you won't DM residents under the new law to apply for citizenship and vote for yourself when you run for election in May?"

1. This is a cheap shot.
2. As many people have already explained, people are already able to do this under the current laws, the most this change would do is give candidates one more day or so to get more people to register.
3. Maybe focus on your own election that you are currently losing and answering the questions real (not hypothetical) voters have asked you.

 

[Skaraborg]

How would this bill work if the voter failed to be given citizenship because say the speaker didn’t complete their check before the end of the election which is entirely possible?

 

[Gorundu]

How would this bill work if the voter failed to be given citizenship because say the speaker didn’t complete their check before the end of the election which is entirely possible?

Then they would not be an eligible voter. But if the Speaker didn't process citizenship applications for five days then we got bigger problems.

 

[St George]

In the past, Vice Delegates have rejected applications for citizenship made too close to an election, it's ironic we're now in a situation where we'd welcome such.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

In the past, Vice Delegates have rejected applications for citizenship made too close to an election, it's ironic we're now in a situation where we'd welcome such.

How far in the past was that? I've never seen that! That seems weird considering elections are when we usually get a few of our lapsed citizens back.

 

[St George]

How far in the past was that? I've never seen that! That seems weird considering elections are when we usually get a few of our lapsed citizens back.

It's very much in the past - we're talking pre-my DOS, Democratic Donkeys denied both myself and Rachel Anumia. We passed through due to the RA.

 

[Jinkies]

Unsure of how to feel about this.

A pre-election citizenship storm was what we freedom fighters under Funkadelia in Lazarus used to (righteously and correctly) frustrate the 'Lazarene Resistance' by (A) delegitimizing the fraudulent elections they went on to hold and/or (B) getting Funkadelia to an election victory regardless, and if (B) failed because of their corruption, getting him close to victory as possible and then using (A) as a reason to get him into the seat regardless. Fact of the matter is, this is not too different from the system that was present in Lazarus prior to our liberation of it.

See how this works? Not convinced it wouldn't be an invitation for a bad actor to do the same in TNP.

 

[Comfed]

I largely agree with Madjack that unengaged TNPers (that is, natives) showing up to vote is not a huge concern. The problem, rather, is the potential for external people to be brought in to stack the vote in favour of a candidate.

Unsure of how to feel about this.

A pre-election citizenship storm was what we freedom fighters under Funkadelia in Lazarus used to (righteously and correctly) frustrate the 'Lazarene Resistance' by (A) delegitimizing the fraudulent elections they went on to hold and/or (B) getting Funkadelia to an election victory regardless, and if (B) failed because of their corruption, getting him close to victory as possible and then using (A) as a reason to get him into the seat regardless. Fact of the matter is, this is not too different from the system that was present in Lazarus prior to our liberation of it.

See how this works? Not convinced it wouldn't be an invitation for a bad actor to do the same in TNP.

The situation you describe could still happen under the current system. This change would only make it slightly easier, because applicants not accepted prior to the election would be able to vote, but under the current system it's entirely possible for those people's applications to be accepted right before the election anyways.

We are also less vulnerable to external vote-stacking than 2017 Lazarus, because our voter base is larger. Sinkers have to contend with a voter base of 10-20 people, meaning that it only takes a few imported voters to potentially move the needle. On the other hand, general elections here usually get in the range of 80-90 voters, making it much harder for vote-stacking to change the result unless the election is close. The best defence against that sort of behaviour is a combination of a large native voting base, reasonable restrictions on voters joining in the vicinity of an election, and vigilance from the Vice Delegate concerning suspicious applications submitted shortly prior to an election, especially if it seems like a coordinated action, or all the applicants come from the same region.

 

[Pallaith]

I’ve seen a version of this argument every time we revise citizenship laws.

Setting aside the implications that people concerned with this change are exaggerating or bringing up concerns that are applicable to status quo, I believe it comes down to 1)how much of a risk you’re willing to take and 2)how reasonable you feel current rules and changing them would be.

For point 1) I would point to what Comfed said. This change slightly increases the opportunity for mischief by extending the period last minute applicants have to get access to the ballot. Perhaps that slight increase isn’t worth the trade off, which in my view will amount to 1-2 additional votes each election. But it is fair to point out that last minute vote stacking shenanigans are already possible with the current system. I think it’s completely reasonable for people to feel no adjustment to that risk is desirable, and maybe making the change and touting it could make that mischief more appealing. I also think it’s completely reasonable for people to argue that it’s a huge win getting those additional 1-2 voters in the voting pool. If we want to maximize odds of this I would ask the Speaker’s office to be more vigilant and make the effort it used to make, to process all applications ahead of the start of voting. They used to make it a point of pride to do that and they were very good about it.

For point 2) that’s a matter of personal taste and principle. Our system has a line, a deadline, and we’re all aware of what it is. It’s incumbent on us to take the action we need to in order to meet the deadline or we only have ourselves to blame. The Speaker could be faster but there’s nothing wrong with them doing their job and the chips falling where they may. Changing the law for a few people each election who could have gotten in line faster may rub some people the wrong way, I suppose that’s fair, because it’s not like anyone did anything wrong with the status quo. That being said, I think that is a bit harsh a viewpoint. I don’t think this change is changing all that much, it’s just honoring people who got in line before voting started, instead of closing the door and leaving the line to twist in the wind. It’s kind of like letting anyone in line to vote, vote, but closing the door to anyone who hadn’t arrived yet.

Personally, I don’t think this is going to make a dramatic difference in what happens in elections and I believe securing the votes of the 1-2 people who will benefit is worth it - I like to err on the side of greater access and accommodation for the vote. I accept the (in my view) minimal increase in risk by making this change because I don’t believe anyone is going to take advantage of it, and those who will are probably pretty easy to spot. And I am fine honoring people who were already in line when voting started. It wouldn’t hurt to have more vigilance in getting the word out for access to the ballot or processing apps ahead of the election though. Huh I guess this paragraph was sort of a TL;DR of my post but that’s where I’m at.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Yes, but that hasn't happened, not to my knowledge. I'm concerned that this might open the floodgates.

This argument was also made when we abolished the separation between citizenship and the RA membership (probably an argument made by me I don’t remember). Ultimately that didn’t eventuate.

Any intention to bring in an influx of members to influence the voting is more likely to be carefully coordinated and done in advance. This has happened in other regions.

It is more likely to be beneficial to our democracy if we heavily promote the elections and use it to encourage nations to register so they can vote. If they are proactive enough to register and meet the checks in time, then they should vote. For this reason, I support the amendment.

 

[El Fiji Grande]

I am in favor of the amendment as proposed by Sil. I agree with the considerations Ghost has outlined in his detailed post.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Before I go any further with this, I'd like to look at the technical requirements of implementing this.

For elections, I don't see it as being more complicated than observing the Citizenship Application thread and adjusting the Voter Roll tab in the voting spreadsheet as necessary.

For Regional Assembly bills and motions, however, I could see things being a bit more complicated. The Speaker's Office depends on the Citizen ID number assigned when one gains citizenship for determining who is an eligible voter and for operating the vote tabulation tab on the Citizen/Resident Registry spreadsheet. I would like to know what the Speaker's Office has in mind for accommodating those who are in pending status when a vote starts.

 

[Matzerati]

Before I go any further with this, I'd like to look at the technical requirements of implementing this.

For elections, I don't see it as being more complicated than observing the Citizenship Application thread and adjusting the Voter Roll tab in the voting spreadsheet as necessary.

For Regional Assembly bills and motions, however, I could see things being a bit more complicated. The Speaker's Office depends on the Citizen ID number assigned when one gains citizenship for determining who is an eligible voter and for operating the vote tabulation tab on the Citizen/Resident Registry spreadsheet. I would like to know what the Speaker's Office has in mind for accommodating those who are in pending status when a vote starts.

The Citizen ID could just be changed to the newest citizen ID instead of the one that was the newest when a vote starts.
The current way is that the ID used in the opening of the vote is the one that is used for the determining of the eligible votes. If this bill becomes law, the new way would be that the Speaker's Office could just use the newest ID. Therefore I support the proposed change.
There will, however, always be the probabillity that some applications will not be processed before a vote ends (say someone applies like 2 days before closure).