Secret Ballot Procedure Bill

[Joe Republic]

OK I'll begin to try and address all the concerns people have made.  It's still a little early and I'm quite tired, so I'll try my best.

Thank you to Peter for his recommendations regarding this bill.  He has noted that this measure may actually conflict with Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, i.e. "... All elections to the Presidency shall be by public post."  However, I believe that there may be a loophole here that prevents the Senate from going to the trouble of turning this into a messy constitutional amendment process.  As the SoFA reports the summary of the secret votes at the end of the election weekend in the actual voting booth thread, then I would see that as a public post on behalf of the voters, which therefore complies with the Constitution's requirements.  Hopefully the Senate will agree with this logic.

As for some minor details:  Could a senator please introduce the following amendments please?

1. In Section 2, Clause 3, the list of eligible committee members is amended to remove the PPT and all senators as they are listed, and replace them as follows:
* District 1 senator
* District 2 senator
* District 3 senator
* District 4 senator
* District 5 senator
* Mideast Regional senator
* Midwest Regional senator
* Northeast Regional senator
* Pacific Regional senator
* Southeast Regional senator

2. Of the three original committee members, the Deputy SoFA is replaced by the Senate PPT.

[Joe Republic]

I urge Senators to reject this bill. It's confuses the elections way to much, and it creates alot of extra work for the SoFA, and frankly work  that isnt needed. We don't need more committees. The current system is working fine, theres no need to change it. We have never came across anyone who wanted to vote in secret.

I really don't think it's that much extra work for the SoFA.  All he is there for is to see that the votes meet the requirements that are laid out in other legislation, which is what he already does.

I'm afraid the current system is not working fine.  Too many voters (including myself) are coming to the conclusion that public ballots cause a great deal of embarrassment and awkwardness.  The current system puts too much emphasis on who you like more, not whose policies you prefer.  And in turn that turns this into a popularity contest, where people are too afraid of voting for "unpopular" candidates, even if they match their own views.  Then after all of that, there's the chance that you'll get pounced on by certain members who take a personal dislike to the way you voted.  If that isn't a deterrent to new voters, I don't know what is.

Also, the ability to see how everybody else has voted so far during an election can allow for tactical voting, which I'm sure you'll agree is unfair.  By allowing for a secret ballot, people will be discouraged from tactical voting, and encouraged to vote fairly instead.

As for your last sentence, that is incorrect.  I believe this thread shows that there is significant demand for a secret ballot.  Myself, Al, Lewis Trondheim, Nation, Skybridge, Texasgurl and Ian spring immediately to mind.  Even Senator King, who now seems opposed to this, agreed to support the original move for a secret ballot.

[Joe Republic]

Thanks MasterJedi.
--------

I assume there are problems here in the Constitution with Presidential elections having to be done by public post.  The Wiki is down right now, so I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty sure.

Hopefully my earlier reasoning regarding the Constitution will allay your concerns.  I'm keen to not turn this into yet another messy constitutional amendment.

I will not support different systems for President and Senate elections and have enough trouble supporting different systems for federal and regional elections beyond what we already have, since that's what this bill mandates.

I'm unsure what you mean here.  This measure applies to all federal elections - presidential AND senatorial.

Therefore, I am leaning to vote against this, unless someone brings me a reason why it's necessary and why it won't cause great havoc.

Hopefully my response to Governor MAS will at least partially convince you of the need for this bill to pass.

[Joe Republic]

I'll echo Al's response to the fears about fraud.  Surely if we can't trust the people that we've already allowed to get to executive office to count a few ballots, then I think we ought to be worrying about a few other things instead.

I acknowledge Colin's concerns here, but I really feel that this will solve many problems with the current system.  As for the issue of court cases becoming involved - this is why I ensured that the Supreme Court would play a key role in the Electoral Committee (where possible); so that they can ensure that everything is conducted legally and fairly.  If a disenchanted voter or candidate is unhappy with a result and feels the need to challenge the result, so be it.  The secret ballot doesn't really change much, as the Committee can easily testify, and publish the results if really necessary.

I strongly urge the Senate to have faith in this measure.  I'm confident that no doomsday scenario could possibly be worsened by having this supplementary voting system in place.

[Joe Republic]

The fun of election weekend comes from watching the totals rack up and see who's in the lead. With this, that is taken away and it becomes simply cast your ballot and wait three days for the results. Takes away from the fun for no real gain.

There is still that element.  Remember that voters have a choice of whether to vote publicly or secretly.  So if people still want to vote according to the current system, they may still do so.  In which case, they can still watch the results as they come in too.  And I would like the thought of having a surprise twist at the end of the weekend, when the results from the secret votes come in too.  It all adds to the fun of it.

However, there is the practical consideration too.  While many people (like you and me) like to watch the results for the fun of it, some others like to watch them to see how best they can vote tactically.  That of course puts some candidates at a disadvantage, which I think is unacceptable.

[Joe Republic]

As Secretary of Forum Affairs, I must urge every Senator to reject this bill. First of all, this adds too much bureaucracy to the already large government. Also, there is no way to make sure that the SoFA will count the ballots correctly and not for personal gain. Once again, please take this bill off the table as soon as possible.

I'm disappointed by this lack of support, but I wonder if you've fully understood it.  There are THREE people to count the ballots, not one.  I've said that so many times I've now lost count.  As for the bureaucracy part, there's actually very little extra effort required.  All it involves is keeping track of a few PMs, and then checking they match the ones received by two other people, and then posting the results like you already do anyway.

[Joe Republic]

I really wish people would read everything I've already said about this bill so far, as I find it really frustrating having to repeat myself.

Thank you to Peter for his recommendations regarding this bill.  He has noted that this measure may actually conflict with Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, i.e. "... All elections to the Presidency shall be by public post."  However, I believe that there may be a loophole here that prevents the Senate from going to the trouble of turning this into a messy constitutional amendment process.  As the SoFA reports the summary of the secret votes at the end of the election weekend in the actual voting booth thread, then I would see that as a public post on behalf of the voters, which therefore complies with the Constitution's requirements.  Hopefully the Senate will agree with this logic.

[Joe Republic]

The last proposed amendment was a clumsy and obvious attempt at a filibuster.

Sam's is a good one though, as I've been convinced of the need to remove the Supreme Sourt Justices from the procedure.

[Joe Republic]

I have an idea about how to implement this Secret Ballot but yet keep a running total and keep preliminary results available. What we have is once a secret ballot is sent to the SoFA that ballot is placed in a special stickied thread on the Fantasy Elections board. Their is no name on the ballot and the entire vote is kept anonymous. This would allow people to see secret ballots and be able to come up with up to date results that would help discussions while keeping the ballots of people who voted by secret ballot anonymous and secret. I think that this is a good compromise between the people who want to keep public ballots due to fun and those that want to see a secret ballot due to voter intimidation.

Unfortunately it doesn't tackle the tactical voting problem.  That's just as important as the anonymity of the vote in my eyes.

[Joe Republic]

I also hope the SE would consider this same type of system.

I'd be a hypocrite if I hadn't considered implementing this system in my own region.  However, it would be impractical to do so when there is only three members of the regional government, and two of them will almost always be candidates in a gubernatorial election.  I imagine the Southeast would come to the same conclusion.

[Joe Republic]

I have one more amendment:

Section 10

Once a secret ballot is submitted to the three electoral comission members the Secretary of Forum Affairs shall, as soon as possible, post this ballot in the official voting booth for that election. This ballot must not include the name of the voter or any definitive markings that could compromise the anonymity of the said secret voter.

This completely undermines the anti-tactical voting intent of the bill.  That is one of the two main reasons for having a secret ballot in the first place.

[Joe Republic]

Let's not forget that this secret ballot measure is optional.  So for the people who still want to vote publicly, they're more than welcome to do so.  People can still keep running totals of those.

[Joe Republic]

This bill was first introduced over a month ago, and was opened before this Senate became 'lame duck'.  Also, I've tried incredibly hard to get regular Atlasians interested in this bill.  People know about it.  I'm not going to sit back and let this bill get bogged down in bureaucratic committees.

(I sound like Queen Amidala in Star Wars Episode I !!!)

[Joe Republic]

I wouldn't think that'd matter all that much, as going that far down that list looking for Committee members would really be a worst-case scenario.  Still, if a senator thinks its really all that worth the trouble, I can't stop you. 

[Joe Republic]

For what it's worth, I strongly urge the Senate to vote against the current amendment, as it completely undermines the anti-tactical voting intent of the bill.

[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.

[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. 

[Joe Republic]

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

Sorry King, no hard feelings.