Secret Ballot Procedure Bill

[MasterJedi]

Nay on Colin's amendment.

[DanielX]

Abstain.

I'm not sure if we need all this bloated bureaucracy; I think most people are perfectly fine with announcing their votes to the whole world.

[Sam Spade]

Aye.

[Emsworth]

Whistleblowers, I guess.  Somebody saying a little too much on AIM or Teamspeak.  That is how it works in the real world.

Okay, thanks for the response.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's all a part of the Forum Elite Conspiracy!

[jokerman]

Abstain on the amendment.

[King]

Nay on the amendment as it completely undermines my amendment right after this.

[PBrunsel]

Nay, as I see this as just more time consuming trouble for the Office of Forum Affairs.

[Gabu]

With four against to one in favor, and with two abstaining, and with only eight senators present, this amendment has failed.

[King]

It has been 24 hours and 7 minutes since debate on this amendment occured (a.k.a. there was no debate).  I motion for a recount vote!

Here is the amendment.  If you don't like a particular part of it, then approve of this and then amend the amendment:

King Amendment to Section 2
(a).  Section 2 shall be removed and replaced with the following:

Section 2

1.  Secret ballot votes shall be cast using the SMF Private Messaging (PM) system to a single non-posting account created by the Secretary of Forum Affairs.

2.  The password for this account shall be changed after every general election and then be distributed to the current holders of the offices of Secretary of Forum Affairs, Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs, and a delegate from the Senate who will serve as the Committee on Private Voting to count such votes. The Senate delegate shall be selected by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate or elected by a Senate vote if the President Pro Tempore is not available.

3.  If a special election is called, the Committee on Private Voting from the previous election shall administer the secret ballot votes for the special election.

Section 3

To prevent fraud in the counting of secret ballots, persons who opt to use the secret ballot shall be required to (a) send a single copy of the ballot to the official PM account and (b) post a statement in an official secret ballot signature thread created by one of the secret voting overseers in which they give a signature as notification of their secret ballot vote. If a voter fails to post their signature in the thread before voting closes, their vote shall not be disqualified from counting.

Section 4

1.  Once an election has ended, the Committee must release a list of all voters who have cast a secret ballot and whether their votes are valid or invalid.

2.  The list of invalid votes must include a reason why each vote was disqualified.

3.  If a voter who has given signature is not listed and a record of the vote can be obtained in the Inbox of the private voting account, the vote shall be legally counted.  The election shall not be certified until such votes have been counted.

4(a).  If a voter who has given signature is not listed and a record of the vote cannot be obtained, the voter shall be granted the right to file a civil case against the members of the Committee for voting fraud.

4(b).  If five or more voters who have given signature are not listed and a record of the votes cannot be obtained, the Attorney General shall be granted the right to file a criminal case against the members of the Committee for voting fraud.

4(c).  If a voter is found responsible for either offense of 4(a) or 4(b), the Attorney General shall be granted the right to file a criminal case against the voter for legal fraud.

(b). The clause "The method of vote submission is outlined in Section 2, Clause 4 below." in Section 1, Clause 1 shall be removed.

[Gabu]

It has been 24 hours and 7 minutes since debate on this amendment occured (a.k.a. there was no debate).  I motion for a recount vote!

Per the Official Senate Procedural Resolution, each individual amendment must be given its own slot of 24 hours' debate time, so the debate time for yours starts immediately following the failure of the previous amendment.  The time that the previous amendment was being debated doesn't count.

[Sam Spade]

It has been 24 hours and 7 minutes since debate on this amendment occured (a.k.a. there was no debate).  I motion for a recount vote!

Per the Official Senate Procedural Resolution, each individual amendment must be given its own slot of 24 hours' debate time, so the debate time for yours starts immediately following the failure of the previous amendment.  The time that the previous amendment was being debated doesn't count.

I would argue that this is not necessarily the case.  The clause dealing with that is rather vague and purposely so.  I wanted the PPT to have a little flexibility in these matters.  You have decided as PPT, on the flexibility of this clause.

The reason why I would argue that King can't bring a vote yet is that debate has not yet stopped for 24 hours and it hasn't been three days since the amendment has been introduced so a cloture vote can't be brought.

[Joe Republic]

I'm not sure I like the alternative system that King has proposed.  First of all, the method of selecting Committee members is completely different, and there is a chance that it could only have one member in it (the senator), or even none.  That is, if the SoFA and the entire Senate was up for election, it would be inappropriate for them to also be counting the ballots.

Also, having a completely separate forum account is just asking for trouble in my eyes.  Who changes the password, who distributes it?  Does just one person have to remember the password at any point?  Does it get changed again after the non-committee member distributes the password?  This method would be even more open to fraud or some kind of error.

On balance, I think I prefer the original version of the bill.  I urge the Senate to vote against the current amendment.

[King]

Also, having a completely separate forum account is just asking for trouble in my eyes.  Who changes the password, who distributes it?  Does just one person have to remember the password at any point?  Does it get changed again after the non-committee member distributes the password?  This method would be even more open to fraud or some kind of error.

The current bill would create a system that would be used by 10 people on average and there would be a high chance that 9 of those votes would be invalid. 

I can guarantee you 100% of the tactical voters that vote between 11:50-11:59PM we are trying to stop would not use this system of sending three indectical personal messages as it takes too long.  That brings me to my next point, if a voter that does use the system puts a on two messages but not on the third have his vote invalid for not sending in an identical message?  Would most voters have the time to send 3 messages?  Would any of our members not as active in the fantasy board who vote even use the system?  They make up 3/4th the vote and if they don't use it then it is a worthless project.  What if flood controls prevent 3 messages to be sent in such a quick pace?  How will we know all 3 votes were the same?  We get over 110 votes and a change would likely go unnoticed.  The current bill at hand would lead to one thing:  a fraudlent pork-barrel project that produces low-turnout elections.

[Gabu]

The current bill would create a system that would be used by 10 people on average and there would be a high chance that 9 of those votes would be invalid.

Er, why?

I can guarantee you 100% of the tactical voters that vote between 11:50-11:59PM we are trying to stop would not use this system of sending three indectical personal messages as it takes too long.

So?  That isn't the point; the point is that tactical voters won't know who to vote for because they won't know the current results.  If even one person casts a secret ballot, it could throw a giant monkey wrench into the plans of tactical voters.

That brings me to my next point, if a voter that does use the system puts a on two messages but not on the third have his vote invalid for not sending in an identical message?

This is mainly a non-issue because of the next comment...

Would most voters have the time to send 3 messages?  Would any of our members not as active in the fantasy board who vote even use the system?  They make up 3/4th the vote and if they don't use it then it is a worthless project.  What if flood controls prevent 3 messages to be sent in such a quick pace?  How will we know all 3 votes were the same? 

See, the thing is that you don't need to make three messages.  You just make one message and send it to three people.  You can specify as many recipients as you want in the "To" box by separating their names with commas, so you don't need to worry about one of them being different because you're only sending one.  It seems to me that it would be easy enough to inform people of this fact.  You could even provide something in the official voting booth that the people can just copy and paste into the "To" box to facilitate the laziest of the lazy.

Regarding the issue you raise about the smiley face, I don't see why it would hurt things to have an amendment specifying what constitutes a different vote.  It seems clear to me that adding a smiley face does not make the vote different and that the only thing that would be different is if the people voted for are actually different.  I don't think this would be a big issue for the reason above, but it's probably a good idea anyway.

[King]

Eh, I still don't like this secret balloting idea anyway.

[Joe Republic]

I also find it interesting that King originally supported the idea of a secret ballot back in February (when he joined Al's short-lived Chartist Caucus).  He now opposes the bill in its current form, based on the principle of it being overly bureaucratic.  So then he proposes an amendment that completely changes the bill, and actually leaves the degree of bureaucracy almost totally unchanged.

I'm not digging at him, but I just wanted to point it out anyway. 

[MasterJedi]

I would like to motion for a vote on King's amendment so it can be defeated voted on.

[Emsworth]

I would like to motion for a vote on King's amendment so it can be defeated voted on.

But it seems to have had minimal debate.

[Gabu]

I would like to motion for a vote on King's amendment so it can be defeated voted on.

But it seems to have had minimal debate.

Yes, I would count the exchange between Joe Republic, King, and I as debate on it, so we need to wait until 24 hours has expired since the last bit of debate.

Also, King, I'm wondering if you want the entire thing voted on as one monolithic amendment or if you want it done section by section?  Personally, I would prefer the latter, as I like section 4 of part (a), but don't like the other sections.

[King]

I also find it interesting that King originally supported the idea of a secret ballot back in February (when he joined Al's short-lived Chartist Caucus).  He now opposes the bill in its current form, based on the principle of it being overly bureaucratic.  So then he proposes an amendment that completely changes the bill, and actually leaves the degree of bureaucracy almost totally unchanged.

I'm not digging at him, but I just wanted to point it out anyway. 

I joined the Chartist Caucus just because I like to join caucuses and I'm not ashamed of that habit!


Oh, and Gabu you can divide it if you want.

[Emsworth]

Yes, I would count the exchange between Joe Republic, King, and I as debate on it, so we need to wait until 24 hours has expired since the last bit of debate.

Not to be picky, but I was under the impression that any post by a Senator counts for the 24-hour rule. (I may be wrong, as the Procedural Resolution is quite complex, and I haven't mastered the whole thing yet.)

[Sam Spade]

Yes, I would count the exchange between Joe Republic, King, and I as debate on it, so we need to wait until 24 hours has expired since the last bit of debate.

Not to be picky, but I was under the impression that any post by a Senator counts for the 24-hour rule. (I may be wrong, as the Procedural Resolution is quite complex, and I haven't mastered the whole thing yet.)

"Without debate" in the procedural resolution means "without debate".  It is up to the PPT to determine what that means, whether it means debate on the issue at hand or whether it means actual posting.

Though I tried to make the thing as universal as possible, there is actually a certain amount of leeway given to the PPT in the organizing of debate and the starting of votes, etc.  This is one of those places. 

If there is still debate until tomorrow, I will motion for a cloture vote to bring a vote tomorrow.

[Gabu]

Yes, I would count the exchange between Joe Republic, King, and I as debate on it, so we need to wait until 24 hours has expired since the last bit of debate.

Not to be picky, but I was under the impression that any post by a Senator counts for the 24-hour rule. (I may be wrong, as the Procedural Resolution is quite complex, and I haven't mastered the whole thing yet.)

It's really a judgement call left up to the PPT.  For example, this post is not debate on the issue, so it doesn't count.

Personally, I think that the last actual piece of debate was my post to King, so... I guess we haven't had any debate for 24 hours.

In that case, I hereby open voting on the following amendments.  I've split up King's giant amendment of section 2 because I consider the topics of the three sections in the replacement to be divorced enough to warrant separate votes.

Replacements for section 2:

#1:

Section 2

1.  Secret ballot votes shall be cast using the SMF Private Messaging (PM) system to a single non-posting account created by the Secretary of Forum Affairs.

2.  The password for this account shall be changed after every general election and then be distributed to the current holders of the offices of Secretary of Forum Affairs, Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs, and a delegate from the Senate who will serve as the Committee on Private Voting to count such votes. The Senate delegate shall be selected by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate or elected by a Senate vote if the President Pro Tempore is not available.

3.  If a special election is called, the Committee on Private Voting from the previous election shall administer the secret ballot votes for the special election.

#2:

Section 3

To prevent fraud in the counting of secret ballots, persons who opt to use the secret ballot shall be required to (a) send a single copy of the ballot to the official PM account and (b) post a statement in an official secret ballot signature thread created by one of the secret voting overseers in which they give a signature as notification of their secret ballot vote. If a voter fails to post their signature in the thread before voting closes, their vote shall not be disqualified from counting.

#3:

Section 4

1.  Once an election has ended, the Committee must release a list of all voters who have cast a secret ballot and whether their votes are valid or invalid.

2.  The list of invalid votes must include a reason why each vote was disqualified.

3.  If a voter who has given signature is not listed and a record of the vote can be obtained in the Inbox of the private voting account, the vote shall be legally counted.  The election shall not be certified until such votes have been counted.

4(a).  If a voter who has given signature is not listed and a record of the vote cannot be obtained, the voter shall be granted the right to file a civil case against the members of the Committee for voting fraud.

4(b).  If five or more voters who have given signature are not listed and a record of the votes cannot be obtained, the Attorney General shall be granted the right to file a criminal case against the members of the Committee for voting fraud.

4(c).  If a voter is found responsible for either offense of 4(a) or 4(b), the Attorney General shall be granted the right to file a criminal case against the voter for legal fraud.

Addition:

(b). The clause "The method of vote submission is outlined in Section 2, Clause 4 below." in Section 1, Clause 1 shall be removed.

All senators in favor, vote "aye"; all against, vote "nay".

[MasterJedi]

Nay to all.

We've got to keep it the way it is.

[Joe Republic]

Once again, for what its worth, I strongly urge the Senate to reject these current amendments.

Sorry King, no hard feelings.