Second Report by the SoFA

[StevenNick]

The Coming Election Crisis
A report written by the Secretary of Forum Affairs to address constitutional vagaries and omissions related specifically to elections and voting.

Voting Laws:  Reforms needed

Introduction:

In the wake of the controversy regarding DemocraticHawk's vote in the District 4 senatorial election, and the problems within the constitution, it is apparent that Atlasia's election laws need to be clarified immediately to avoid any confusion in future elections.  It is of vital importance that the senate take steps now, before the upcoming presidential election, to fix loopholes and vagaries in election law that threaten the existence of our democratic republic.

Section 1:  Vote Editing:

The most glaring vagary of election law is that regarding the editing of posts in the voting booth.  As it stands, the constitution firmly prohibits "amended" votes in presidential elections (Article II, Section II, Clause IV), but contains no such prohibition in the case of senatorial elections.  Even in the case of presidential elections, the constitution offers no definition of "amending."  Due to these constitutional ambiguities, the result of every past election in which a vote was discarded as the result of a voter editing his or her post in the voting booth could be called into question, even challenged in court.

Section 2a:  Challenges to Election Results:

There is not currently any statute of Atlasian law that addresses the process by which election results are to be challenged.  In fact, any legal challenge to official election results is oxymoronic due to the fact there is no provision requiring the Secretary of Forum Affairs, or any other elected or appointed government official, to certify election results.  There is not, nor has there ever been, any "official" election results to challenge in Atlasia's history.  This must be remedied immediately by the senate.

The senate must also move immediately to ensure that no past elections may be challenged.  There are currently no limitations on the period of time after an election has occurred in which a candidate may file a challenge.  Should past candidates who have lost elections due to decisions of dubious constitutionality regarding vote editing challenge past elections, we could face a level of chaos unparalleled in Atlasia's history.

Section 2b:  Challenges to Presidential Election Results:

Although the constitution does vaguely address the issue of contested election results in presidential elections, it does so in a bizarre manner.  Article II, Section II, Clause 5 of the constitution states that should no presidential candidate receive a majority of the vote in a presidential election the senate be required to vote (with a majority) to choose the next president.  Although this scenario has been largely eliminated as a plausible outcome of an election due to the Preferential Voting Act, there is still the remote possibility that two candidates could be left with exactly the same number of votes after all other candidates have been eliminated.  Article II, Section II, Clause 5 of the constitution renders the normal process of preferential voting, which would give the election to the candidate with the greatest number of first preference votes, unconstitutional.

Section 3:  Conclusion:

The senate must act immediately to close these loopholes in the constitution.  It must pass a constitutional amendment that defines the term "amended" as it used in Article II, Section II, Clause IV.  It is the recommendation of the Office of the Secretary of Forum Affairs that the senate enact legislation that would prohibit any change in any post in the voting booth, punishable by invalidation of the vote contained within the post.  This legislation must also apply to senatorial elections.  These changes must be made to ensure that all future elections are fair and valid.

To avoid the possible chaos that may stem from the findings of this report, the senate must act immediately to pass a statute of limitations on all election challenges.  It is the recommendation of the Secretary of Forum Affairs that candidates be given a one week after election results have been certified to file any challenges to those results.  The senate must also establish clear guidelines for the Secretary of Forum Affairs in regards to certifying election results.  It is the recommendation of this office that the senate pass legislation stating that all election results must be certified by the Secretary of Forum Affairs within one week of an election.

The constitution must also be amended to remove Article II, Section II, Clause 5, OR the current preferential voting law must be amended to include proper exceptions to preferential voting in the event that the final two candidates in a presidential election are left with the same number of votes after all other candidates have been eliminated.

Here is a numbered list of the above suggestions:

1.  Article II, Section II, Clause IV must be clarified through senate legislation.
2.  The senate must establish procedures for the certification of election results.
3.  The senate must pass a law imposing a statute of limitations on all election challenges as well as a clear process for challenging election results.
4.  Article II, Section II, Clause 5 must be amended.
OR
5.  The Preferential Voting Act must be amended.

[StevenNick]

I believe I have sufficiently outlined in my first report the need for a new constitution.  However, I do not believe that a new constitution will be put in place by the time of the February elections.  Therefore, I ask the senate to implement the recommendations of the report to allow the February elections to proceed even under the current, flawed constitution.

[Nym90]

The Coming Election Crisis
A report written by the Secretary of Forum Affairs to address constitutional vagaries and omissions related specifically to elections and voting.

Voting Laws: Reforms needed

Introduction:

In the wake of the controversy regarding DemocraticHawk's vote in the District 4 senatorial election, and the problems within the constitution, it is apparent that Atlasia's election laws need to be clarified immediately to avoid any confusion in future elections. It is of vital importance that the senate take steps now, before the upcoming presidential election, to fix loopholes and vagaries in election law that threaten the existence of our democratic republic.

Section 1: Vote Editing:

The most glaring vagary of election law is that regarding the editing of posts in the voting booth. As it stands, the constitution firmly prohibits "amended" votes in presidential elections (Article II, Section II, Clause IV), but contains no such prohibition in the case of senatorial elections. Even in the case of presidential elections, the constitution offers no definition of "amending." Due to these constitutional ambiguities, the result of every past election in which a vote was discarded as the result of a voter editing his or her post in the voting booth could be called into question, even challenged in court.

Section 2a: Challenges to Election Results:

There is not currently any statute of Atlasian law that addresses the process by which election results are to be challenged. In fact, any legal challenge to official election results is oxymoronic due to the fact there is no provision requiring the Secretary of Forum Affairs, or any other elected or appointed government official, to certify election results. There is not, nor has there ever been, any "official" election results to challenge in Atlasia's history. This must be remedied immediately by the senate.

The senate must also move immediately to ensure that no past elections may be challenged. There are currently no limitations on the period of time after an election has occurred in which a candidate may file a challenge. Should past candidates who have lost elections due to decisions of dubious constitutionality regarding vote editing challenge past elections, we could face a level of chaos unparalleled in Atlasia's history.

Section 2b: Challenges to Presidential Election Results:

Although the constitution does vaguely address the issue of contested election results in presidential elections, it does so in a bizarre manner. Article II, Section II, Clause 5 of the constitution states that should no presidential candidate receive a majority of the vote in a presidential election the senate be required to vote (with a majority) to choose the next president. Although this scenario has been largely eliminated as a plausible outcome of an election due to the Preferential Voting Act, there is still the remote possibility that two candidates could be left with exactly the same number of votes after all other candidates have been eliminated. Article II, Section II, Clause 5 of the constitution renders the normal process of preferential voting, which would give the election to the candidate with the greatest number of first preference votes, unconstitutional.

Section 3: Conclusion:

The senate must act immediately to close these loopholes in the constitution. It must pass a constitutional amendment that defines the term "amended" as it used in Article II, Section II, Clause IV. It is the recommendation of the Office of the Secretary of Forum Affairs that the senate enact legislation that would prohibit any change in any post in the voting booth, punishable by invalidation of the vote contained within the post. This legislation must also apply to senatorial elections. These changes must be made to ensure that all future elections are fair and valid.

To avoid the possible chaos that may stem from the findings of this report, the senate must act immediately to pass a statute of limitations on all election challenges. It is the recommendation of the Secretary of Forum Affairs that candidates be given a one week after election results have been certified to file any challenges to those results. The senate must also establish clear guidelines for the Secretary of Forum Affairs in regards to certifying election results. It is the recommendation of this office that the senate pass legislation stating that all election results must be certified by the Secretary of Forum Affairs within one week of an election.

The constitution must also be amended to remove Article II, Section II, Clause 5, OR the current preferential voting law must be amended to include proper exceptions to preferential voting in the event that the final two candidates in a presidential election are left with the same number of votes after all other candidates have been eliminated.

Here is a numbered list of the above suggestions:

1. Article II, Section II, Clause IV must be clarified through senate legislation.
2. The senate must establish procedures for the certification of election results.
3. The senate must pass a law imposing a statute of limitations on all election challenges as well as a clear process for challenging election results.
4. Article II, Section II, Clause 5 must be amended.
OR
5. The Preferential Voting Act must be amended.

Regarding Vote Editing, yes, I agree something definitely must be done there. In the last election we had quite a few people arguing for a very strict interpretation of election law when it came to modifying a post (assuming that a post even equated to a vote, which it hadn't in the past, but...), but at the same time arguing for a very loose interpretation when it comes to the prohibition against editing votes, which technically only applied to Presidential Elections. Everyone agreed that it should apply to Senate elections as well, even those who were arguing that the law must be strictly followed to the letter.

[StevenNick]

Regarding Vote Editing, yes, I agree something definitely must be done there. In the last election we had quite a few people arguing for a very strict interpretation of election law when it came to modifying a post (assuming that a post even equated to a vote, which it hadn't in the past, but...), but at the same time arguing for a very loose interpretation when it comes to the prohibition against editing votes, which technically only applied to Presidential Elections. Everyone agreed that it should apply to Senate elections as well, even those who were arguing that the law must be strictly followed to the letter.

All of the people who argued for a "strict interpretation" of election law in regards to editing votes in senate elections were dead wrong.  There is nothing there to interpret.  There is nothing anywhere that says that you can't edit your vote in a senate election.  Whether or not everyone agreed that that prohibition on editing votes should apply in senate elections doesn't make it so.

[Nym90]

Regarding Vote Editing, yes, I agree something definitely must be done there. In the last election we had quite a few people arguing for a very strict interpretation of election law when it came to modifying a post (assuming that a post even equated to a vote, which it hadn't in the past, but...), but at the same time arguing for a very loose interpretation when it comes to the prohibition against editing votes, which technically only applied to Presidential Elections. Everyone agreed that it should apply to Senate elections as well, even those who were arguing that the law must be strictly followed to the letter.

All of the people who argued for a "strict interpretation" of election law in regards to editing votes in senate elections were dead wrong. There is nothing there to interpret. There is nothing anywhere that says that you can't edit your vote in a senate election. Whether or not everyone agreed that that prohibition on editing votes should apply in senate elections doesn't make it so.

True, though the majority of the vast opinion of all Atlasians, including many Constitutional scholars who were in direct position to influence the case, seemed to be that Democratic Hawk's vote shouldn't count, when in fact there was no such prohibition against altered votes. That was most of my point, and I'm glad this was raised as an example of what needs to change.

I was also trying to point out that it was somewhat hypocritical to argue that his vote must be tossed because we need to strictly follow the law; this seemed to be the most common reason cited for why it shouldn't count by those who favored that position.

[StevenNick]

I was also trying to point out that it was somewhat hypocritical to argue that his vote must be tossed because we need to strictly follow the law; this seemed to be the most common reason cited for why it shouldn't count by those who favored that position.

In retrospect, there was nothing unconstitutional about DemoHawk's vote.  But I don't think it's exactly a case of hypocracy that so many wanted his vote thrown out.  Most people genuinly thought that there was a provision that made vote editing illegal in all elections.  I for one was extremely shocked to find that there wasn't.

[minionofmidas]

I was also trying to point out that it was somewhat hypocritical to argue that his vote must be tossed because we need to strictly follow the law; this seemed to be the most common reason cited for why it shouldn't count by those who favored that position.

In retrospect, there was nothing unconstitutional about DemoHawk's vote.  But I don't think it's exactly a case of hypocracy that so many wanted his vote thrown out.  Most people genuinly thought that there was a provision that made vote editing illegal in all elections.  I for one was extremely shocked to find that there wasn't.

Yeah, I don't think anybody knew that...

[Nym90]

I was also trying to point out that it was somewhat hypocritical to argue that his vote must be tossed because we need to strictly follow the law; this seemed to be the most common reason cited for why it shouldn't count by those who favored that position.

In retrospect, there was nothing unconstitutional about DemoHawk's vote.  But I don't think it's exactly a case of hypocracy that so many wanted his vote thrown out.  Most people genuinly thought that there was a provision that made vote editing illegal in all elections.  I for one was extremely shocked to find that there wasn't.

Yeah, I don't think anybody knew that...

Actually they did. It was mentioned a few times, but everyone basically agreed that the law should apply uniformly to both Senate and Presidential elections.

The esteemed Senator from District 1, for example, gave this opinion...

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

The intent of the law is quite clear, even if the letter is not. Human oversight cannot be just cause for this case.

Well, I don't agree that it's clear. I don't agree that it's clear that editing ANY portion of the post in which the vote is made is exactly the same as editing the text that constitutes the voter's actual expression of preference.

I would also point out that there were no formal challenges to the allowing of such votes in the June Presidential Elections. Perhaps this was because those votes did not change the results of any races, but there were still no official challanges made.

It seems clear to me that the law means what it says and, inspite of it's unfortunate placement and wording in the Constitution, is meant to extend to all races.

If this is not the case, then I judge this to be a regional issue and thus Governor Htmldon should decide the law for this election, with a national decision pending for the next election.

This is why it bugs me when people call the Democrats "power-hungry" but imply that everyone else is completely consistent and just trying to do what's right. We are the ones with the consistent standard; a loose interpretation of the Constitution, EVEN WHEN IT DOESN'T BENEFIT US. Others have a loose or a (questionably) tight interpretation as they see fit, and then go into a barrage of name-calling and accusation tossing to try to force their opponents into being intimidated into backing down.

[minionofmidas]

Okay.
As per (real life) Republicans on this board not as "powerhungry", yeah, I have never had the slightest clue where that was supposed to come from.