[2351.AP] Elections Act Reform

Assembly
, ,
63

You should read up in this topic to get the answer to that question.

64

Okay, I finally understand! Thanks for explaining and I’m sorry again for the confusion.

66

Alright, since it has been a while and my previous draft is now far back in the thread, here is an updated set of amendments to the Elections Act and related legislation.

The only major change I have made from the previous version is inserting a provision to permit voters to edit their ballot one time prior to the close of the voting period. As ProfessorHenn observed, this provision isn’t likely to be used frequently in a secret ballot system, so it shouldn’t generate too much logistical work for the EC. But it is a helpful failsafe if, for example, a voter realizes they accidentally submitted a spoiled ballot, or significant negative information comes to light about one of the candidates prior to polls closing.

Looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts.

Amendments to the Elections Act

Elections Act

An act establishing elections for office

1. Election Commissioner

(1) An Election Commissioner will be appointed by the Council on Regional Security to administer all forum elections.

(2) The Commissioner will be responsible for the creation of election notices, the organization of election forums, the verification of candidate eligibility, the distribution and collection of ballots, and counting and verifying cast ballots.

(3) The Commissioner may not run for or hold an elected office during their tenure as Commissioner.

  1. This does not prohibit the Commissioner from resigning to seek office via an election or finding an accepted surrogate to oversee the election in their place.

(4) The Commissioner will be a permanent position and shall be replaced as needed due to inactivity or ineligibility by the Council on Regional Security. The Assembly may recall a Commissioner for abuse of power or neglect of responsibilities through regular order.

(5) Any election-related disputes will be arbitrated by the Commissioner; should the dispute be on a matter of law, the Commissioner shall refer it to the High Court. The Commissioner will not finalize any election until all disputes have been settled.

2. Electoral Basics

(1) For forum-based voting, voters have the option to cast either a public or a shall vote by secret ballot., and may not alter it once cast.

  1. The method of casting secret ballots will be selected by the Election Commissioner. The chosen method must utilize an unaffiliated account, group, or server, with the method and all votes remaining available for audit.
  2. Each voter may edit their ballot once after casting it. To edit an already cast ballot, a voter must inform the Election Commissioner of their intent to edit their ballot, then cast a new ballot via the method selected by the Election Commissioner. No voter may edit a ballot after the voting period for the election in which that ballot was initially cast has closed.
  3. Named ballots are not to shall not be released by the Election Commissioner under any circumstances.

(2) In each election, voters can, subject to limitations set for the specific voting method, vote for the Re-Open Nominations option, which shall function like a normal candidate in the election. If, under the voting method used, the option to Re-Open Nominations is a winner, the election process for the exact position won by it shall restart.

(3) To be eligible to be included on a ballot, a candidate must post a campaign in an area designated by the Election Commissioner. The campaign must prominently include a truthful declaration of all potential conflicts of interest the candidate may have within and outside of the South Pacific.

(4) To be eligible to vote in, or stand for, a forum-based election, a citizen must have been accepted by the Citizenship Committee before the period for nominations began for that particular election.

(5) If the voting method used in an election ties candidates, whether for elimination or winning, the Election Commissioner will select a method of arbitration, unless the tie can be resolved by special provisions set for the election in law. If the method chosen involves chance, an unaffiliated Discord bot will be used to generate a result in a public channel randomly using a coin toss or some similar set of pre-defined outcomes.

(6) Under Instant-Runoff Voting, the sole winner is determined as follows;

  1. As their ballot, a voter lists any candidates they wish in descending order of preference.
  2. Until a candidate has received an absolute majority of first-place preferences and thus becomes the winner, the candidate with the fewest first-place preferences is eliminated and the ballots get retallied, ignoring any eliminated candidates and discounting ballots solely listing eliminated candidates.
  3. If candidates tie for elimination, all those receiving the fewest second-place preferences among them are eliminated.

(7) Under Expanding Approval Voting, winners ‒ as many as specified for the respective position ‒ are determined as follows;

  1. As their ballot, a voter either indicates all candidates they approve of, or the option to Re-Open Nominations.
  2. Until enough winners have been found, the most-approved candidate among the non-winners becomes a winner.
  3. The option to Re-Open Nominations wins in place of the winners who have been approved on less than half of all ballots.
  1. As their ballot, a voter lists any candidates of whom they approve in descending order of preference.
  2. In the first round of the election, the first-preference approvals shall be tallied. If a candidate’s first-preference approvals constitute an absolute majority of ballots cast, then that candidate becomes a winner. If no candidate obtains an absolute majority of ballots cast, or if more than one winner is specified for the given election and there is more than one candidate running, then the election shall proceed to a second round.
  3. In the second round of the election, the first- and second-preference approvals shall be tallied. If, ignoring any candidate declared a winner in the first round, a candidate’s total first- and second-preference approvals constitute an absolute majority of ballots cast, then that candidate becomes a winner. If no candidate obtains an absolute majority of ballots cast, or if more winners are specified for the given election, then the election shall proceed to additional rounds until the requisite number of winners is elected.
  4. Any necessary additional rounds shall follow the same tallying method as the first and second rounds.
  5. If more candidates obtain an absolute majority of ballots in a given round than winners specified for the election, then the candidate with the highest total number of approvals in that round shall become a winner.

(8) Under Majority Voting, the sole winner is determined as follows;

  1. As their ballot, a voter indicates the candidate their vote shall go towards.
  2. If a candidate has received an absolute majority of votes, they are the winner; otherwise, the two candidates who have received the most votes advance to a runoff, held under the same rules as this round of voting. Should this runoff result in a tie, then the tie shall be broken according to the general tie-breaking procedure.

3. Office of the Delegate

(1) The Delegate will be elected in a two-round process constituting a single election, with the citizens voting on a slate of nominees on the forums, and candidates advancing from that process being voted on by regional poll on-site.

(2) On the 15th of January and July, the citizens will convene for the first round of Delegate Elections.

  1. Any eligible citizen wishing to run for Delegate may declare their candidacy, and the citizens will debate the merits of their platform. Any player who has been banned from World Assembly membership will be considered ineligible and any candidate who is later discovered to be banned from World Assembly membership will be immediately disqualified. Citizens wishing to run for Delegate must hold a number of endorsements equal to at least 80% of the existing general endorsement cap at the commencement of the election period.
  2. The campaign and debate period will last one weekfour days, after which the citizens will vote for threefour days.
  3. This round of voting for Delegate will use Expanding Approval Voting to determine two winners of positions as candidates in the second round. If candidates tie for being a winner, all of those tied candidates shall be considered winners.

(3) After the winners of the first round have been determined, the second round will commence with them those winners as candidates.

  1. The Election Commissioner will create a six-day-long regional poll through which eligible members may cast their ballots. The poll must provide instructions for them on how to do so, and may only allow Native World Assembly members to participate.
  2. A Dispatch containing the campaigns of all candidates will be created to aid voters in their choice.
  3. Members of the South Pacific Special Forces who are on deployment at the conclusion of the regional poll are eligible to cast a ballot. The Prime Minister shall provide a list of deployed personnel to the Election Commissioner. Members on the list can cast their ballot through a public post on the Regional Message Board which tags the Election Commissioner.
  4. The winner of this round, as decided using Majority Voting, will be declared the Delegate-elect.

(4) The Delegate-elect will be considered formally inaugurated upon achieving the most endorsements. Prior to inauguration, the sole responsibility of the Delegate-elect is to gather endorsements, in coordination with the incumbent Delegate and in cooperation with the Council on Regional Security. The incumbent will continue to hold the office of the Delegate and will remain responsible for all responsibilities of that office, serving out the remainder of their term, until the inauguration of the Delegate-elect.

4. Office of the Prime Minister

(1) On the 15th of January, April, July, and October, the citizens will convene to elect the Prime Minister.

  1. The election period will be organized into three phases:
  1. A four-day declaration of candidacy and campaign period.
  2. A two-day campaign-only period where candidates may campaign, and the citizens will debate the merits of their platforms.
  3. A three-day voting period.
  1. The respective winner, as decided using Instant-Runoff Voting, will be declared the Prime Minister-elect by the Election Commissioner.
  1. Any eligible citizen wishing to run for Prime Minister may declare their candidacy, and the citizens will debate the merits of their platform.
  2. The campaign and debate period will last four days, after which the citizens will vote for four days.
  3. The election will be conducted using Instant-Runoff Voting.
  4. The winner of the election will be declared the Prime Minister-elect by the Election Commissioner.

(2) The term for the incoming Prime Minister will begin the week after elections, on the first of the month. Before this inauguration, any and all election-related disputes must be settled. The outgoing Prime Minister and any appointed Cabinet ministers will maintain their offices until then. Provided that a candidate other than Re-Open Nominations wins the election, the term for the Prime Minister-elect shall begin on the first day of the month immediately following the election period. Any and all election-related disputes must be resolved prior to this inauguration date.


(3) If Re-Open Nominations wins the election, then the term for the Prime Minister-elect shall begin on the day immediately following the date on which the Election Commissioner finalizes the results of the repeated election process. If the repeated election process extends beyond the first day of the month immediately following the initial election period, then the outgoing Prime Minister and any appointed Cabinet ministers shall remain in office in a caretaker capacity until the Prime Minister-elect takes office.

5. Office of the Chair

(1) On the 15th of April and October, the Assembly will convene to elect the Chair of the Assembly.

  1. Any legislator wishing to run for Chair may declare their candidacy, and the Assembly will debate the merits of their platform.
  2. The campaign and debate period will last five days, after which the Assembly will vote for three days.
  3. The sole winner, as decided using Approval Voting, will be declared Chair of the Assembly by the Election Commissioner.

(2) The term for the incoming Chair will begin immediately following the conclusion of the election.

(1) The Assembly shall choose the Chair of the Assembly pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Legislative Procedure Act.

(2) A resolution adopting a Chair shall not constitute an election for purposes of Article 2, Section 2 of the Citizenship Act.

6. Vacancies of Office

(1) A Should the office of Prime Minister become vacant, a special election will be held to fill the vacancy. for a vacancy in the office of the Prime Minister.

  1. The Council on Regional Security shall promptly designate a citizen to serve as caretaker Prime Minister for the duration of the special election process. The caretaker Prime Minister shall hold office until the day after the date on which the Election Commissioner finalizes the results of the special election.

b. If at least half of the term remains as of the date on which the office becomes vacant, the elected Prime Minister elected in the special election will serve until the next regularly scheduled election. If less than half of the term remains, the elected Prime Minister will serve the remainder of the scheduled term and the additional subsequent full term.

(2) Should the office of Delegate become vacant, the next person in the line of succession will become interim Delegate until the next regularly scheduled election or special election, if one is required by law. If no person qualifies for the office, then a special election will be held.

a. If at least half of the Delegate’s term remains as of the date on which the office becomes vacant, then a special election will be held to fill the vacancy.

(3) In the event that the Chair of the Assembly office is vacant, the senior-most Deputy Chair of the Assembly, by order of appointment and availability, shall become Acting Chair of the Assembly subject to the restrictions and regulations of the Chair of the Assembly. The Acting Chair may opt to call for a special election for the Chair or serve out the remainder of the unexpired term.

7. Separation of Powers

(1) Offices of the Coalition are the Delegate, the Prime Minister, appointed Cabinet ministers, the Chair of the Assembly, the Chief Justice, and any of their appointed deputies.

(2) It is not permitted for any individual to hold more than one office within the Coalition’s government.

(3) It is permitted to seek election or appointment to a new office while holding an existing office.

(4) Election or appointment to a new office constitutes explicit resignation of an existing office.

(5) No person occupying the Office of Prime Minister, an appointed Cabinet minister position, or the office of the Delegate may hold any equivalent office in a foreign region or organisation.

87. Constitutional Law

(1) The Elections Act is a constitutional law, and further amendments to it must meet constitutional amendment requirements.

Amendments to the Legislative Procedure Act

Legislative Procedure Act

An act to define the procedural rules of the Assembly

1. Legislative Rules

(1) Any legislator may propose a bill, resolution, or appointment, which will be debated and refined collectively in the Assembly under the guidance of the Chair.

(2) To be brought to a vote, a specific draft of a bill, resolution, or appointment must

  1. receive a motion to vote by a legislator,
  2. receive a second by another legislator,
  3. be affirmed to be in proper formatting by the Chair, and
  4. have been at debate for a minimum period of time equivalent to the length of its voting period.

(3) General laws, amendments, resolutions, and appointments will remain at vote for three days. Constitutional laws, constitutional amendments, resolutions dealing with matters of constitutional law, and treaties will remain at vote for five days.

(4) General laws, amendments, resolutions, and treaties require a simple majority of those voting to pass. Appointments, unless otherwise specified, require a simple majority of those voting to pass. Constitutional laws, constitutional amendments, and resolutions dealing with matters of constitutional law require a three-fifths supermajority of those voting to pass.

(5) Should a debate lead to multiple competing bills or resolutions on the same matter, the Chair will separately and simultaneously bring the competing bills or resolutions to vote, in the same manner as regular business is done. The bill or resolution that receives the most votes in favor and meets minimum threshold requirements for passage will become law.

(6) Any bill, resolution or amendment which has been inactive for more than one month may be considered defunct and archived at the discretion of the Chair.

(7) Any legislator may motion to cancel voting and withdraw a bill that has been brought to a vote so revisions can be made. The Chair may cancel voting on the bill, provided that there is a reason deemed sufficient by the Chair and no objection is raised within 24 hours of the motion being made and seconded. Should the motion and seconding be made within the final 24 hours of voting, the legislation shall not pass or fail until the Chair makes a ruling on the motion.

(8) Should any bill, resolution or amendment fail to become law, any proposal which is judged by the Chair as being substantially similar to that failed legislation shall be prevented from going to vote for two weeks after the closure of the vote. The Chair may waive this restriction should a legislator motion for them to do so, provided that there is a reason deemed sufficient by the Chair and no objection is raised within 24 hours of the motion being made and seconded.

(9) Should any bill, resolution or amendment become law, the document itself, its debate thread, and its voting thread and results shall all be archived.

2. Office of the Chair

(1) Only legislators shall be eligible to serve as Chair of the Assembly.

(2) The Assembly shall choose the Chair by resolution.

  1. Every resolution to adopt a Chair shall identify the legislator who shall serve as Chair and the length of the term for which that legislator shall serve as Chair.
  2. In no event shall any resolution to adopt a Chair provide for a term of service longer than twelve months.

(3) The Chair shall serve until the expiration of the term specified in the motion adopting them as Chair, adoption by the Assembly of a resolution to vacate the chair, resignation, recall, loss of citizenship, or loss of legislator status.

(4) In the event that the Chair of the Assembly office is vacant, the senior-most Deputy Chair of the Assembly, by order of appointment and availability, shall become Chair of the Assembly.

2. Powers and Responsibilities of the Chair

(65) The Chair may freely appoint any number of deputies, who will be authorized to perform those legislative duties of the Chair that the Chair permits. Any changes in the roster of deputies must be posted publicly.

(16) The Chair is responsible for creating voting threads and recording votes. In the event that the Chair does not perform these duties in a reasonable time frame, any legislator may create voting threads and record votes.

(27) The legislative history of each law will be recorded by the Chair. Legislative history will include reference to debate threads, voting results, and amendment history.

(48) The Chair may correct typographical errors, grammatical errors, naming or formatting inconsistencies at any time, as long as these corrections do not alter the original intent of the law, following a three day period in which the corrections are presented to the Assembly for comments. Any such corrections must be recorded with the legislative history of each law.

(59) The Chair may delay votes for a reasonable time frame if done for the purposes of vote scheduling or to avoid preemption of active debate by a vote.

(310) The Chair must document the use of their discretionary powers including a rationale for using those powers in the relevant debate thread.

3. Constitutional Law

(1) The Legislative Procedure Act is a constitutional law, and further amendments to it must meet constitutional amendment requirements.

Amendments to the Charter

VIII. SEPARATION OF POWERS

(1) Offices of the Coalition are the Delegate, the Prime Minister, appointed Cabinet ministers, the Chair of the Assembly, the Chief Justice, and any of their appointed deputies.

(2) No individual may hold more than one Office of the Coalition at any time.

(3) It is permitted to seek election or appointment to a new office while holding an existing office.

(4) Election, appointment, or appointment and Assembly confirmation to a new office constitutes explicit resignation of an existing office.

(5) No person occupying the Office of Prime Minister, an appointed Cabinet minister position, or the office of the Delegate may hold any equivalent office in a foreign region or organisation.

The number of each ensuing Article should also be increased to account for this new Article.

67

Currently, secret ballots (private votes) are sent to the @election-commission group, not to Kringle specifically, but this provision would require the creation of a new account on the forum to handle those ballots. Thoughts on adding “unaffiliated account, group, or server”?

This comes up a bit so I’ll just provide comment on this first introduction of it, but I generally don’t like specific references to Articles and Sections when writing laws. Things shift around with some frequency and it leaves us with less potential litigation to refer to a process, vice a clause.

I get the reason for including it, but I think it’s ultimately redundant to call it out specific.

Otherwise, looks neat.

68

Regarding the whole new Chair thing, will the current chair stay until the end of the term established by current law (or by the law when he was elected) or will their term be canceled?

69

Moving the separation of powers to the Charter makes sense. In regards to everything else:

  1. Moving the election procedures for the Chair out the Elections Act is pointless and confusing. There’s no benefit from this and it means that all elections aren’t regulated in the same document.

  2. Your new “election” system for Chair is insane and confusing. Good government is regular and predictable, and having the Chair serving arbitrary and inconsistent terms of office is neither.

  3. Allowing people to “edit” votes is a nightmare from the point of view of administering an election. Once a ballot is cast it is cast and it’s up to the voter to make sure they did it right.

  4. “Expanding Approval Voting” just creates a new election system that people are even less likely to understand, making the problem worse.

So in conclusion, hard no. This set of proposals is actively harmful to democracy and I’d have been hard pressed to come up with a worse set if I’d been trying.

1 Like
70

I don’t think the Chair needs to be elected in the same way that the Prime Minister or Delegate needs to be. The Elections Act regulates elections open to all citizens; the Legislative Procedure Act regulates the internal procedures of the legislature, including who administers those procedures. It’s perhaps suboptimal to have an article entitled “Election of the Chair” but it’s an internal procedure of the Assembly, not an election of our head of state or head of government that is open to all citizens.

We have plenty of government positions that serve arbitrary and inconsistent terms. You hold one of them! I do think, however, if we desire a term length for the Chair, that it would be more reasonable to set a fixed term length for such resolutions. That would be analogous to all our other positions that serve until recall or resignation, except with a specified term length (which I think might not be a bad idea for some of those other positions too, but that’s a whole other discussion).

I agree it’s the voter’s responsibility to ensure their ballot is cast correctly, but I’m not sure how ballot editing would be an administrative nightmare. Maybe I’m missing something, but isn’t it an option to simply look at all ballots after the election has concluded?

I’d personally be more swayed by an argument that ballot editing could still prove confusing for voters, because then they’d have to keep track of when the deadline is for editing their ballot, whether their ballot as a whole is invalidated if they edit it after the deadline, etc.

This I actually do agree with :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like
71

Come to think of it, this makes sense. If the election for most positions is in Law X, then all elections for other positions must be described in the same law. Consistency is of utmost importance.

Well, they used the same argument about it being an administrative position so elections for it are kind of useless, just like they did with the LC, and I simply don’t agree. Again, consistency is important and avoids confusion and unnecessary mess. But what was said by Pronun has a logical basis that must be taken into account.

I understand this point, but I like the possibility of being able to edit votes. I don’t think it will create so much mess but if, by chance, it does happen, then we will have to take action.

Same. For the third time I repeat: consistency is important. If you want IRV, Expanding Approval Voting or whatever, then this should be used for all elections for government positions made here on the forum. I see no reason to use method X in the election of the Delegate, for example, and method Y for PM.

72

Alright, quite a bit to respond to. Here we go.

That’s interesting, given that this provision is an exact copy of the one currently in the Elections Act, which means we have been ignoring this gap all along. But I agree, your proposal is an easy fix.

Fair point. I do tend to think that section references are important (and thus worth the effort to keep updated as necessary through ensuing legislative changes) when pin-point accuracy or specificity is necessary. An example that comes to mind in this draft is the reference to the meaning of the term “election” in Citizenship Act, which is basically a cross reference to a definition. We could describe the underlying process / role that elections play in citizenship checks, but a cross reference to that very specific (and very important) provision just seems like a neater, more direct way of connecting the two statutes. Otherwise, I see your point and will try to edit accordingly.

Yes, I agree. Will edit.

I agree with Pronoun here. It made sense to regulate all elections in the same document when those elections were fundamentally the same, i.e., had the same body of voters and constituents. Since the citizen / legislator split, that is no longer the case with respect to the Chair. The PM and Delegate are elected by and thus ultimately accountable to the citizenry; the Chair is a purely creature of the Assembly. If anything, it makes sense to regulate these different offices in different pieces of legislation.

As for the awkward title of “Election of the Chair,” I am going to make some edits to streamline that provision, which should address any stylistic concerns.

I understand the basis for this criticism, but I’m not sure it’s universally true. For example, the House of Commons has no fixed term of office. Much like the Chair proposal, there is an outside limit on how long one set of MPs can remain in office without an election, but the government can always call one before then. Indeed, even now we don’t know exactly when the next UK election will take place, only the last possible date on which it could. That system seems to have operated tolerably well despite its lack of regularity and predictability; indeed, the one attempt to fix terms of Parliament was abandoned after only eleven years.

Ultimately, it will be up to the Assembly itself to strike the balance between predictability and flexibility. After all, it could make no change to the Chair’s current term and election timeline by simply adopting resolutions every six months providing that the chosen Chair will serve a six month term. On the other hand, it might not. But I fail to see the threat to democracy in permitting the Assembly, after due deliberation, to affirmatively choose a different term length for its leader.

I will admit that I am somewhat non-committal on vote editing. I added it in because there seemed a critical mass of folks who were in support, or at least enough that we should have the debate over a real legislative proposal rather than in theory.

That said, I do agree with Pronoun that vote editing–at least the system proposed–doesn’t seem likely to generate an administrative nightmare. The EC would simply count the final ballot cast within the election period.

I am puzzled by this statement. You of course don’t have to like the proposals; indeed, as I pointed out above, I can see the basis for some of your arguments, even if I don’t ultimately agree with them. But what I can’t see is how any of these proposals are harmful to democracy. The two you critiqued most harshly–vote editing and permitting the Assembly to choose the term of its leader–strike me as democracy enabling, rather than inhibiting.

73

I don’t think “this system works tolerably well” is a winning argument.

74

I was too flip in putting it that way. The House of Commons electoral system has operated in this way, balancing predictability and flexibility, for over three hundred years. It is a testament to its success and workability that the only attempt to impose fixed terms in office for MPs was swiftly jettisoned for being overly rigid. I don’t mean to claim that it is unquestionably the best system imaginable, only that Belschaft’s argument that any electoral system that did not prioritize regularity and predictability would be insane is not universally accurate.

75

Not to put a rush on this, but we now have less than a month before the next election is scheduled to begin… meaning we will either need to start finishing the debate/drafting/voting by then or prepare to use the existing system again!

I have not been as active in this debate as I would have liked, but I do have some comments that will be coming in the next day or two.

76

To be fair, I don’t care that much either way — I brought it up as a possible alternative to the ideas being discussed of having more similar ballots across elections,.

77

I don’t think we need this provision. I have said, and continue to maintain that our region would not suffer from having a vacancy in office lasting a few days. Further, there could be a scenario where an outgoing PM/Cabinet might try to maintain power indefinitely by tying up an election and getting RON to win.

Echoing my response above. The region can survive a few days without the PM. Also, just because there is no PM in office does not mean their Ministers also vacated the office, a caretaker Cabinet can serve just fine in the interim.

I think this is a bit cumbersome to both the EC and the voter. The forums tell both parties when a ballot (post) is edited, and the timestamp. If the EC sees the edit, then they can check the timestamp to ensure it was during the election window.

78

The same argument could be made that as the Prime Minister and Delegate are elected differently the processes for these shouldn’t be included in the same law. A single election law covering all ballots is a matter of efficiency, so that anyone wanting to find out details of how and when elections are to occur only needs to reference one document.

The Speaker of the House of Commons does not serve indefinitely - they are elected by Parliament at the start of every new term. By convention incumbent Speakers are not (usually) opposed in this, but the specific reasons for this stem from the British constitution and the overwhelming power of the executive. The non-partisan and independent speaker is one of the checks on the power of the executive in the British constitution.

As TSP lacks the overmighty executive of the UK there is no reason to create an indefinite Chairship - it’s not needed as a counterbalance.

Regular elections provide a chance to refresh political leadership, for whatever reason needed - be it out of touch with the public mood, unresponsive or otherwise complacent, corrupt, or become ineffective.

An indefinite term should only ever be considered when immunity to political pressure is of paramount importance. That is why we don’t elect justices, as the role is apolitical by design and elections would compromise this.

The Speaker of the Assembly is not only a political office, but one of great power (far more power than most realise). For these reasons it must remain subject to regular election for the health of regional democracy.

Vote-editing adds an element of confusion to the process and requires the EC to determine whether or not it was done in the correct time period, and then what to do if it wasn’t. Let’s say a vote is changed so as to be for Candidate B instead of Candidate A at 7.01Ppm - the cut of is 7pm MST. The vote stays counted for Candidate A, who wins 22 to 21.

But the voter in question says that they live in Arizona and there Daylight Savings Time isn’t a thing - for them is was 6.01PM. What does the EC do now? It’s up to them on how the election is decided, based on whether or not an edited ballot is valid, itself determined by daytime savings time.

What if it’s not an issue of time-stamp? The EC can see there is an error on a ballot - do they notify the voter whilst they still have time to edit the vote? Is that interfering with the result? Does that advantage people who vote early - and have more time to edit their ballots - over those who vote late?

From a former EC’s perspective - and someone involved in elections IRL - you want the Election Commissioner to be counting the votes, not adjudicating their validity. Some minimal degree of adjudication is always going to be required (and has robust procedures governing it) but once a vote is cast, it is cast and allowing anyone to change it creates avenues to political corruption and election interference. IRL you have a chance to check your ballot and make sure you put the cross in the right box, but you can’t ask for it to be taken out of the ballot box if you change your mind. We have a preview option before you send a DM or post in the thread.

Regular and transparent elections are the cornerstone of democratic governance. As your proposal is contrary to these principles it is self-evidently harmful.

1 Like
79

Detailing the procedures for selecting a Chair under the Legislative Procedure Act is a byproduct of changing the process to choose a Chair by Assembly resolution. If you disagree with that decision and still feel the Chair should be chosen in an election, then of course you’d feel it should be under the Elections Act! But critiquing which law we put that provision under is putting the cart before the horse; the actual, substantive legislative change here is whether or not we choose a Chair by resolution, and not which law we list that under.

The Chair of the Assembly is a position filled internally by the Assembly, and Assembly procedures — including the powers and responsibilities of the Chair — are already governed by the Legislative Procedure Act. I don’t think it’s a stretch to let the Assembly select its Chair by Assembly resolution in much the same way the Assembly typically operates, particularly when in our current system only legislators can vote in the Chair election but failure to vote results in loss of citizenship.

I’m not attached to ballot editing, but this would be a problem even without it. What would be your preferred solution? Personally, if the deadline is listed as 2023-12-19T02:00:00Z (which is displayed in your time zone!), I think that’s pretty clear :stuck_out_tongue:

80

Fair. I must say that I remain largely neutral. But if the prevailing sentiment is opposed, I would rather abandon vote editing than see it sink the entire proposal.

Maybe we are just looking at this differently, but I draw a distinction between whether we need a provision of law and whether that provision is simply beneficial or an improvement on the status quo. Even if a proposal is not necessary in the sense that our government would suffer grave harm in the absence of its enactment, I still support legislation that, on balance, is likely to produce more positive outcomes than negative.

That is essentially how I feel about these provisions. True, the region could probably survive without a Prime Minister (and Cabinet in the case RON wins) for a short period. But we have such offices for a reason. At least from the standpoint of continuity of government and regional leadership, it is better to have an executive than not. So then the question becomes whether the risks of having a caretaker executive outweigh those benefits. And I simply don’t see any substantial risks created by these provisions. True, a PM or Cabinet could try to stay in office by promoting a RON win, but that is an immense amount of effort just to secure a few more days in office. It’s hard to imagine the incumbent government successfully persuading the citizenry to vote RON more than once. Or, if the government is so popular and the other candidates so weak that such a result would be possible, then it would make more sense for the incumbent PM just to run for reelection. Continuously endorsing RON seems a curious way to maintain power. As for the CRS provision, it is, of course, conceivable that the CRS could install a stooge as caretaker PM. But we trust the CRS with much more radical authority–including the power to dissolve the executive and judicial branches and rule by decree. So I’m comfortable entrusting them with this relatively modest and time-delimited power.

The PM and Delegate elections are identical across all substantive dimensions-- voter qualifications, candidate qualifications, and scope of office. All citizens can vote, candidates need only be citizens to run, and the offices at stake are region-wide in authority and responsibility. True, the actual method of counting the votes differs, but that does not change the fundamental nature of the election, i.e., one for a regional officer accountable to the citizenry as a whole. On the other hand, the Chair election is different–only legislators can vote, only legislators can run, and the office’s authority and responsibility are confined to the Assembly.

The difference is akin to that of the election processes for Speaker of the House of Commons or Speaker of the US House of Representatives vs. elections for MPs or Congressional Representatives. The latter are elected by the people directly and are ultimately accountable to them. The Speakers are elected internally by the members of those respective chambers, not pursuant to a general election law, but rather pursuant to those bodies rules of procedure.

I won’t quote all of your response for the sake of space. But I think we are talking past each other here, as I agree with almost everything you said.

To begin with, this proposal does not create an infinite Chairship. Every resolution adopting a Chair must specify the term that Chair will serve, and no resolution can adopt a term longer than 12 months. In that sense, this Chair election procedure operates in a similar–albeit not identical–way to that of the Commons Speaker (and the Commons more generally). The law specifies the maximum term length (one year in the case of the Assembly Speaker, five in the case of the Commons Speaker and MPs). But legislators have the ability to provide for a shorter term should they wish.

I agree with your position that indefinite terms should be reserved for those offices that must be immune to political pressure, and I further agree that the Chair is not such an office. Hence why I have advocated throughout this debate for an outer bound on the length of term that an Assembly resolution adopting a Chair could provide. Indeed, I made an argument similar to yours in responding to the suggestion that an outer bound would be unnecessary (see here.)

Admittedly, a term of 12 months would be the longest non-indefinite term of any regional official. But I don’t think that is inconsistent with the Chair’s role. To be sure, the Chair is not as independent and apolitical as the Speaker of the House of Commons. Nevertheless, both Cryo and Blockbuster have taken a relatively neutral approach to the role–for example, by abstaining from most Assembly votes. Certainly their posture has been far more apolitical than, say, the US House Speaker. I can’t speak to practice prior to Cryo, but I am generally supportive of this stance, especially given the Chair’s responsibility for administering and certifying the results of Assembly votes. And, in any event, the Assembly need not adopt a resolution providing the maximum term length should it prefer a less independent, more immediately accountable Chair.

81

Are there any further thoughts, comments, concerns, or points of debate on this proposal? If not, it may be worth moving to a vote so that we can at least have a result in time for the next election.

82

Fully agree. Let’s get it wrapped up.

83

I’d rather we take our time to find a set of reforms with broader support, or consider different issues separately, instead of going for some “all or nothing, take it or leave it” approach. Personally, I’m still opposed to expanding approval voting; it creates more problems than it solves, and the problems it’s supposed to solve haven’t been clearly shown to be problems at all thus far in this debate.

2 Likes