S3: The Southern Anonymous Voting Act of 2017 (Tabled)

[diptheriadan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Spenstar3D, diptheriadan

NOTE: Spenstar is sponsoring this bill on behalf of the Governor, dfwlibertylover.

[OneJ]

I see nothing wrong with the bill as far as I'm concerned, so I'll support it.

[Wisconsin+17]

Per my earlier discussion with DFW, I'd like to offer a friendly amendment that the Governor and the Southern Elections secretary be from opposite parties. IE, if the Governor is a federalist that the Southern Elections secretary will be Labor, and vice versa.

As Stalin said, it doesn't matter who votes, it's who counts the votes that matters.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Amendment is friendly

[Blair]

To sound like an old war horse this bill goes completely against everything that I think Atlasia has been about. Since 2004 we've never, ever had anonymous voting. It's been discussed several times, and frankly we've made the right call in avoiding it.

The old adage of 'if it's not broken don't fix it' certainly applies here- there is nothing wrong with our current voting system. In fact if you take the October Election between me and Yankee, imagine the chaos that have existed if it had been a private ballot. I'm sorry to have to march down to the South, but believe me if Truman or Mike had tried to do this I would have been marching to their offices

There's  so many potenial loopholes with something, that may look good at first, but in fact is actually a really bad idea.

1.) A Lack of oversight There is no provision for voters to see if there votes were counted as valid, or to assess whether their votes were unfairly removed. Both the June, and October elections saw voters having to go to the Supreme Court, and get legal help to get their votes to count. Under Secret voting this would not happen- we'd have absolutely no idea what decisions are being made.

2.) Lack of Voter Security Having an external thread comes into the problem of verifying voters- if you take the process outside of the forum then you remove any, and all security and verification that we have on the forum. When we have it in a public thread everyone can see that 'Blair: Blair2015' has voted. If you take it to another booth; say a google form/surveymonkey there's nothing stopping someone filling out their username as 'Blair2015' and voting- you'd then have a complete disaster.

3.) Lack of accountability- When we discussed this before we came to the conclusion that at best we'd need a Mod who isn't registered in Atlasia to oversee this. Having the Governor oversee his own election not only gives undue power to him in potentially corrupting the vote, but also gives him a crucial advantage of being able to see a secret ballot. It's another legal nightmare, and could lead to massive problems.

4.) Vagueness- Bills like this, as we found out with the last election cab be written with the best intentions, and with the ideas in mind but when they actually have to be applied this bill is far too vague, and I fear that if it passes this will only be revealed when we have some of disaster. What happens if the Governor/Election Secretary deletes the thread? What if one of the officials deletes a vote before the other can see.

We have public voting to keep public faith in voting, and to ensure that a forum election game doesn't descend into even more arguments, and controversies about elections.

This is a massive piece of game reform, this is a bigger decision that the constitutional  convention, and is completely swiping aside a system, whilst failing to lay out any safeguards of any sort- bills like this lead to disasters.

If we want to have discussions about secret voting it needs to be done on the whole forum, and with proper, legal and defined safeguards.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

To sound like an old war horse this bill goes completely against everything that I think Atlasia has been about. Since 2004 we've never, ever had anonymous voting. It's been discussed several times, and frankly we've made the right call in avoiding it.

The old adage of 'if it's not broken don't fix it' certainly applies here- there is nothing wrong with our current voting system. In fact if you take the October Election between me and Yankee, imagine the chaos that have existed if it had been a private ballot. I'm sorry to have to march down to the South, but believe me if Truman or Mike had tried to do this I would have been marching to their offices

There's  so many potenial loopholes with something, that may look good at first, but in fact is actually a really bad idea.

1.) A Lack of oversight There is no provision for voters to see if there votes were counted as valid, or to assess whether their votes were unfairly removed. Both the June, and October elections saw voters having to go to the Supreme Court, and get legal help to get their votes to count. Under Secret voting this would not happen- we'd have absolutely no idea what decisions are being made.

2.) Lack of Voter Security Having an external thread comes into the problem of verifying voters- if you take the process outside of the forum then you remove any, and all security and verification that we have on the forum. When we have it in a public thread everyone can see that 'Blair: Blair2015' has voted. If you take it to another booth; say a google form/surveymonkey there's nothing stopping someone filling out their username as 'Blair2015' and voting- you'd then have a complete disaster.

3.) Lack of accountability- When we discussed this before we came to the conclusion that at best we'd need a Mod who isn't registered in Atlasia to oversee this. Having the Governor oversee his own election not only gives undue power to him in potentially corrupting the vote, but also gives him a crucial advantage of being able to see a secret ballot. It's another legal nightmare, and could lead to massive problems.

4.) Vagueness- Bills like this, as we found out with the last election cab be written with the best intentions, and with the ideas in mind but when they actually have to be applied this bill is far too vague, and I fear that if it passes this will only be revealed when we have some of disaster. What happens if the Governor/Election Secretary deletes the thread? What if one of the officials deletes a vote before the other can see.

We have public voting to keep public faith in voting, and to ensure that a forum election game doesn't descend into even more arguments, and controversies about elections.

This is a massive piece of game reform, this is a bigger decision that the constitutional  convention, and is completely swiping aside a system, whilst failing to lay out any safeguards of any sort- bills like this lead to disasters.

If we want to have discussions about secret voting it needs to be done on the whole forum, and with proper, legal and defined safeguards.

These are all points I strongly considered when crafting this bill and I proceeded on with it despite these shortcomings. We will have a clear cut verification system and all votes will be verified through means of PM before any results are officially published. When you say that the system is "fine the way it is now", that is quite incorrect. People get pestered by PM's to vote and get harassed if they don't vote the way you want them to, this means that people can no longer be pestered constantly at election time by all parties in the game about how and when they are voting.

[Blair]

To sound like an old war horse this bill goes completely against everything that I think Atlasia has been about. Since 2004 we've never, ever had anonymous voting. It's been discussed several times, and frankly we've made the right call in avoiding it.

The old adage of 'if it's not broken don't fix it' certainly applies here- there is nothing wrong with our current voting system. In fact if you take the October Election between me and Yankee, imagine the chaos that have existed if it had been a private ballot. I'm sorry to have to march down to the South, but believe me if Truman or Mike had tried to do this I would have been marching to their offices

There's  so many potenial loopholes with something, that may look good at first, but in fact is actually a really bad idea.

1.) A Lack of oversight There is no provision for voters to see if there votes were counted as valid, or to assess whether their votes were unfairly removed. Both the June, and October elections saw voters having to go to the Supreme Court, and get legal help to get their votes to count. Under Secret voting this would not happen- we'd have absolutely no idea what decisions are being made.

2.) Lack of Voter Security Having an external thread comes into the problem of verifying voters- if you take the process outside of the forum then you remove any, and all security and verification that we have on the forum. When we have it in a public thread everyone can see that 'Blair: Blair2015' has voted. If you take it to another booth; say a google form/surveymonkey there's nothing stopping someone filling out their username as 'Blair2015' and voting- you'd then have a complete disaster.

3.) Lack of accountability- When we discussed this before we came to the conclusion that at best we'd need a Mod who isn't registered in Atlasia to oversee this. Having the Governor oversee his own election not only gives undue power to him in potentially corrupting the vote, but also gives him a crucial advantage of being able to see a secret ballot. It's another legal nightmare, and could lead to massive problems.

4.) Vagueness- Bills like this, as we found out with the last election cab be written with the best intentions, and with the ideas in mind but when they actually have to be applied this bill is far too vague, and I fear that if it passes this will only be revealed when we have some of disaster. What happens if the Governor/Election Secretary deletes the thread? What if one of the officials deletes a vote before the other can see.

We have public voting to keep public faith in voting, and to ensure that a forum election game doesn't descend into even more arguments, and controversies about elections.

This is a massive piece of game reform, this is a bigger decision that the constitutional  convention, and is completely swiping aside a system, whilst failing to lay out any safeguards of any sort- bills like this lead to disasters.

If we want to have discussions about secret voting it needs to be done on the whole forum, and with proper, legal and defined safeguards.

These are all points I strongly considered when crafting this bill and I proceeded on with it despite these shortcomings. We will have a clear cut verification system and all votes will be verified through means of PM before any results are officially published. When you say that the system is "fine the way it is now", that is quite incorrect. People get pestered by PM's to vote and get harassed if they don't vote the way you want them to, this means that people can no longer be pestered constantly at election time by all parties in the game about how and when they are voting.

So we're changing a voting system that we've had for 12 years in this game because people are being pestered by PM? Why not introduce a 'No-PM' list for people.

Trust me, I know as both a Party Chair that the PM peestering will not end when you introduce private voting. This bill will not end PM campaigning at all.

I'm very concerned Governor. Not just with this reform, but with the fact that there's at least 5 practical problems with this bill.

This isn't the way to change an electoral system

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I will now address your concerns one by one.

1. I see no reason the Supreme Court could not order us to release these results to them and them alone to make a case.

2. There are a couple of ways in doing this that Peebs and I have discussed. The first is sending a private link, similar to the tests Clyde ran, for each ballot with their name filled out already so that there is no risk of "voter fraud", the other way is requiring voters to contact us by PM after they vote to ensure that, yes, I really did vote and I affirm that this is my ballot that was cast.

3. That is the main reason why we have opposing parties overseeing this, I am open to another person from one or both of the other regions coming in and helping to oversee this

4. I don't think it's vague, and if you think it's all that vague you could always help to propose changes through amendments.

I am sure by now you have noticed that some want to change voting to GM ran elections, where most of us would get "no say" whatsoever in voting, I believe that this or that are the most likely 2 paths going forward and that the present system will end up dying due to unpopularity, Representative Blair.

[OneJ]

All of this debating over this topic just gave me a brilliant idea.

[Wisconsin+17]

Bill doesn't strike me as vague in the slightest. The reason for having the governor and the one validating the election from two different parties is to alleviate the concerns over the count.

[Blair]

I will now address your concerns one by one.

1. I see no reason the Supreme Court could not order us to release these results to them and them alone to make a case.

The issue I raised wasn't the Supreme Court having access, but rather citizens having access. To take the example of the October Election I believe at least 5 ballots were contested in courts because citizens noticed that there were issues, and they were then challenged. I honestly don't want to think how much of a disaster any electoral dispute would be under this situation. There's a reason why we've had open ballots for the last 12 years- they work!

2. There are a couple of ways in doing this that Peebs and I have discussed. The first is sending a private link, similar to the tests Clyde ran, for each ballot with their name filled out already so that there is no risk of "voter fraud", the other way is requiring voters to contact us by PM after they vote to ensure that, yes, I really did vote and I affirm that this is my ballot that was cast.

This is the vagueness I mentioned- this isn't in the bill. It's fine when you and Peebs are both running elections but what happens if in 3/6/9 months when there could be completely different people running the election, and there's absolutely nothing in the law that codifies how it works. That's not even going into the logistics/mechanics of having to send out PM's/get feedback from people.

3. That is the main reason why we have opposing parties overseeing this, I am open to another person from one or both of the other regions coming in and helping to oversee this

Again, I'm not concerned that either you or Peebs are going to cheat the system. I'm concerned that an ill thought out, vague law is going to be used by someone in the future to fix an election.

4. I don't think it's vague, and if you think it's all that vague you could always help to propose changes through amendments.

I am sure by now you have noticed that some want to change voting to GM ran elections, where most of us would get "no say" whatsoever in voting, I believe that this or that are the most likely 2 paths going forward and that the present system will end up dying due to unpopularity, Representative Blair.

The present game isn't unpopular because we've got public voting...

With all due respect I believe Lumine published a piece asking about GM ran elections- that's hardly a mandate for the entire game wanting to change it's electoral system. I really don't understand your argument above- it's like saying 'oh someone proposed something alternative' so I'm going to propose something even more out of the mainstream.

Where's the mandate for this change? Where's the reasoning? If you want to stop people getting nagging PM's then we should pass the No-PM list, or people should de-register.


This entire bill, and your comments still don't address the fundamental flaw in this- there's an inequality of power. By allowing members of the forum (aka the Governor or Election Secretary) to see how members voted in a secret ballot it's no longer a secret ballot. If members, and active participants can see how people voted it's not a secret ballot.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

A completely secret ballot is nearly impossible to administer

[Terry the Fat Shark]

and again Mr. Representative, with all due respect, I am not completely dropping this, if you want to help fix it, you can offer amendments.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm going to have to agree with Blair on this one. Secret ballot elections work in real life because they are highly decentralized and overseen by thousands of officials who each certify that the election was free, fair, and conducted in accordance with the law. In the county where I live, a precinct of 900 voters has a minimum of five election officials: a Democratic Clerk, a Republican Clerk, a Democratic Judge, a Republican Judge, and an Inspector chosen by the majority party. All five of these officials monitor the voting from the moment the polls open to the moment they close, and each must certify that there were no irregularities at the end of the day. Because this is conducted at the precinct level, even if all five officials are corrupt, it's highly unlikely to affect the results, as they are responsible for only a tiny fraction of the votes cast. Under this bill, two people - the Governor and the SES - would run the entire election on their own; no provision exists mandating that they be from separate parties. I might trust DFW and Peebs to administer this honestly, but it's impossible to know that no future Governor/SES will try to rig an election, and this bill as presently constituted makes it far too easy for someone to do so.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I will table this bill until March if the parties so opposed to this agree to help amend it to address these concerns and make it a reality.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think that we should explore the concept at least as a test case and it would be a good place to do it at the regional level.


That said, I think it is wise to make sure it is thoroughly reviewed, examined and structured to avoid any problems or questions that might arise concerning the accountability, transparency, and oversight necessary to ensure now and in the future that it will work and preserve the integrity of the system.

It is not my place to dictate or tell a region what to do. It is my position though as President to advise and encourage regions to pursue actions that bring stability and activity to their regions and thereby promote the strength and engagement on the regional level as well as the nation as a whole.

[OneJ]

Just in case if y'all didn't know, I'll be hosting a poll in a little bit for all, especially Southern, Atlasians for this very issue.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We've heard lots on the floor from citizens Truman and Blair.

Why can't the Southern Delegates have our say on this? I would like to vote on this bill with the friendly amendment.

Have a little faith in us, DFW.

As for citizens Truman and Blair, propose amendments either in the thread or via PM. My box is always open and I'm always willing to keep an open mind. That would be more constructive.

[Wisconsin+17]

Hi, can Diptherian add me to the list of the Sponsors? Thank you. I like the bill.

[Blackacre]

As the bill's sponsor, I wish to withdraw this legislation and table it for another day, as per the wishes of my friend the Governor

[diptheriadan]

I'm going to side with Ben here and say that this is something we're going to work on. If there's a way we can make it work, why not give it the will?

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I believe that once the bill is withdrawn, you cannot add sponsorship to it.

[Wisconsin+17]

I see that dip added his name as sponsor and then blocked the withdrawal.

I've spoken with DFW and he says that the rules are unclear, I'm going to ask Dip for a rules vote, but I'm not sure how that would proceed. I'd like to clarify this.

[diptheriadan]

To my understanding, once Spenstar became sponsor of the bill, you ceded all rights to what to do with the bill. Also, since Ben is co-sponsor and still wants to debate the bill, I don't believe I can withdraw the bill. Regardless, putting it off isn't going to do anything but waste time and resources.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

If the bill is not withdrawn at this moment, I will veto any finished product until I can re-introduce the bill with proper wording and a proper sponsor at a proper time.