Secret Ballot Procedure Bill

[Sam Spade]

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.

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.

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.

[Sam Spade]

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.

It's ok.  My questions have been answered now.

At least for me, it's a choice between choosing between the problems that you described (in terms of tactical voting) and the problems that Colin described, both of which are issues.

The fact that some people like to aggravate voters after they vote is simply an annoyance.  We cannot stop the fact that certain members of the forum (not mentioning any names) like to be pricks and pick on other people for no reason.

As for right now, I am leaning against it, because I view Colin's concerns as being larger in scope and potentiality of electoral fraud.  Therefore, as for right now, I will either vote Nay or Abstain.

The only way I would even consider voting Aye on this now is if a clause were added saying that after the election was over, every vote by a voter who voted by secret ballot were published publicly on the voting booth thread, and if the voter found out there were improprieties in publishing his vote, he could sue the Committee for voter fraud.  This eliminates the aggravate the voter section of the bill, but does not eliminate the tactical voting section of the bill.  But it helps with the potentiality for fraud, which I consider great in this type of bill otherwise.

I will write an amendment later on this. 

I have no problem with the present proposed amendments, btw.

[Sam Spade]

Actually, the fact that the Supreme Court is involved in this ballot-counting procedure worries me just as greatly as my earlier concerns.  It means that any electoral challenges would translate into the Chief Justice having to remove himself from all election cases dealing with the vote.

And after all, remember that Migrendel was once Supreme Court Chief Justice. 

[Sam Spade]

Aye to both amendments

[Sam Spade]

I would like to propose amending Section 2, Clause 2-3 to read (changes in bold):

2. The Committee will be comprised of three members, consisting of the Secretary of Forum Affairs, the Vice President, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

3. In the event that any of the office holders listed either are themselves candidates in the election or are not present to fulfill their duty, those in the aforementioned situation shall be replaced by the highest office holder in the following list who is not a candidate present in the election and who is present to fulfill the duty:

Secretary of State
Attorney General
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of the Treasury
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
The purpose of this is to keep the Courts from staying out of an election process that they may have to judge on (and therefore recuse themselves from judging), should any improprieties arise.

[Sam Spade]

You could just have the SoFA post a thread with all the ballots cast in an anonymous form post-election, that would eliminate both problems.

Though here's the fundamental issue Colin brings up and it's an important one to think about.

If all ballots are secret and no one knows the results, pretty much nothing will happen election weekend except for behind the scenes angling and maybe some speeches.  COuld this make the pre-election time more interesting?  Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it.  Just a couple of thoughts.

[Sam Spade]

Btw, considering the antics of last night, I will vote in support of this bill, though I think we should get as many amendments as possible in, in order to make this best bill possible.

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

[Sam Spade]

I can only say one thing about this bill: I hope it dies miserably.  There is no way we can prevent any sort of voter fraud from this bill.  Even if we went to a group of people counting the ballots, they could all just agree to be corrupted.

I think we should keep the ballot box open and blame the victims for editing their votes, even if they were manipulated.  They should learn how to read the big bold red print that says they cannot edit or repost their votes and have them counted.

Well, if it does pass, I am sure it can and will be challenged at the SC level.

The rationale proposed by Peter Bell and Joe Republic to get around the Constitutionally-mandated is weak in my mind and could probably be defeated by a good case at the SC level.

[Sam Spade]

Well, if it does pass, I am sure it can and will be challenged at the SC level.

The rationale proposed by Peter Bell and Joe Republic to get around the Constitutionally-mandated is weak in my mind and could probably be defeated by a good case at the SC level.

I never proposed that rationale, and I have been completely silent on it. Make of my deliberate silence what you will.

Fair enough..  Joe Republic's rationale. 

[Sam Spade]

Aye.

[Sam Spade]

You could just have the SoFA post a thread with all the ballots cast in an anonymous form post-election, that would eliminate both problems.

Though here's the fundamental issue Colin brings up and it's an important one to think about.

If all ballots are secret and no one knows the results, pretty much nothing will happen election weekend except for behind the scenes angling and maybe some speeches.  COuld this make the pre-election time more interesting?  Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it.  Just a couple of thoughts.

I think it would make pre-election time more interesting, and I think it would also require the position of SOFA to be separate from that of someone who runs/participates/votes in the fantasy elections.

tactical voting is a bigger problem than keeping it anonymous

You are probably correct on the first angle, Nation.  I tend to disagree on the second, but that's just me.

[Sam Spade]

Let's get a vote on Colin's amendment, Gabu.

[Sam Spade]

Aye on the first Colin amendment (the one up for vote)

[Sam Spade]

Why hasn't there been voting on my amendment?

Gabu struck it out from debate using the frivolous clause of the procedural resolution.

Unfortunately, the 24-hour period to challenge such a ruling and find two Senators who agree with you passed a long time ago.

[Sam Spade]

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.  

I would like to motion for a vote on this amendment, since it has been a 24 hours without any debate on the substance of it.

[Sam Spade]

Aye.

[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.

[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.

[Sam Spade]

Aye to all the King amendments.

Isn't this session over with as of tomorrow afternoon?  Or am I confused.

(there are precautions that will allow this bill to be introduced first next session, but I'm just curious)

[Sam Spade]

Since King is not three people, I fourth this motion.

[Sam Spade]

Aye