Mideast Secret Ballot Public Consultation

[afleitch]

The previous election was held with no secret ballot system in place. But as directed to me by the Secret Ballot Reconsideration Initiative passed in January it is important to draw up new legislation concerning the provision of a secret ballot, but not before a public consultation.

Hence this seperate thread.

May I draw your attention to the previous legislation. First of all.

Section 1

Voters shall have the option of voting either publically or via secret ballot in regional level elections.

Any voter who casts both a public and secret vote shall have both votes disqualified.

This seems reasonable unless there is a general belief that a secret ballot is unnecessary. If not, then I recommend that Section 1 shall be retained in the new legislation.

Section 2
The conduct of regional elections shall be done by the following procedure:

A thread entitled "Official Mideast Voting Information", which will have basic information of the election as well as the profiles of the officials that must receive all the votes, shall be set up in the Voting Booth board

During the voting period all votes must be PMed to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Superior Judge, District Senator for Maryland and Mideast Senator simultaneously.

After the election the Superior Court Judge is to hold a public judicial hearing on the fantasy government board in which the aforementioned officials are to take an oath guarenteeing to make an accurate count of the votes and keep the secrecy of voters. Individual voters are only to be mentioned by the order their ballots were PMed (e.g. Voter 1, Voter 2, etc).
The official election result shall be announced by the Superior Judge after the other officials reach a consensus on the result.

This section was considered unwieldy and had not been adhered to and should be reviewed as should Section 3.

Section 3
A violation by any of the aforementioned public officials shall be punished by immediate removal from office, suspension of voting rights for six months and a ban from holding public office in the Mideast for one year.

Which was condiered to be too harsh and grossly disproportionate to the offense, considering Section 2 had been violated several times before the legislation was repealed. Section 3 I believe should be abandoned entirely or replaced with a less harsh reponse to any violation of the electoral rules and regulations.

I would ask for the citizens of the Mideast to air their opinions on a replacement Secret Ballot system, and whether or not there is a need or desire for one to be in place. A Public Consultation is therefore convened

[Dave from Michigan]

personally I think we should abandon secret ballot

[Frodo]

Section 2 can be a bit less unwieldy if voters were afforded options on whom to send their secret ballots to.  For instance, as opposed to sending it to every single elected official, simply say that voters can send their secret ballots to any one elected official in the Mideast, be he Governor, Lt. Governor, or Superior Court Judge.  Keep it simple and convenient for everyone involved. 

[afleitch]

Section 2 can be a bit less unwieldy if voters were afforded options on whom to send their secret ballots to.  For instance, as opposed to sending it to every single elected official, simply say that voters can send their secret ballots to any one elected official in the Mideast, be he Governor, Lt. Governor, or Superior Court Judge.  Keep it simple and convenient for everyone involved. 

I would go with that, or at least to two individuals, for example the Lt Governor and the Superior Court Judge. I do not believe they should be sent to the Governor, particularly as the Governor often puts forward his own propositions to be voted on.

[Peter]

First of all, I would like to thank the Governor for holding this consultation.

Second, I would like to state that I voted against the adoption of the secret ballot in the Mideast in the first instance, and I will vote against re-adopting it in thepresent circumstances. Whilst federal elections are to a degree afflicted by tactical voting, our regional elections never have been - the principal argument in favour of secret voting is to prevent tactical voting.

Its principal detraction is that it creates a bureaucratic process that delays certification of election results - we seem to have gotten all the negatives with none of the positives.

Nonetheless, I will assist to create the best possible secret ballot system if it is what people want.

PMing to five persons has been shown to be unwieldy, especially as the District Senator for Maryland isn't in the Mideast - this needs to be reduced to either 2 or 3. One person creates too much potential for corruption, and 4 or more is still unwieldy. The Maryland Senator should definitely not be one of these, and realistically I think it can safely be restricted to simply the Governor or Lt Governor, or if one of these is absent, also the Superior Court Judge. If there is further absenteeism, then the statute should simply state that secret voting is not required in that instance.

The Voting Booth Administrator (usually the Governor) should be given a degree of latitude in how he informs voters of the presence of secret voting - clearly a separate thread as was previously stipulated is not necessary.

Whilst I believe that we should reduce the rigidity of the mechanism involved, I must however continue to advocate strong penalties for actual corruption - if the administrators do throw the vote, they should be punished strongly. However, more discretion for situations where there is no corruption and just minor technical problems should be introduced.

[afleitch]

I think It is possible to have two propositions. The first asking whether or not a secret ballot is desired and a second proposing the system to be conformed and adopted should people vote in favour of the secret ballot. If people vote against the adoption of a secret ballot, then the second proposition, regardless of the result is disregarded.

It still means that an alternative system should be drawn up. I would be more than happy to agree with Pete in having only 2 or 3 officiating, having a public oath and decleration of the results of any votes received by PM and by the imposition of a penalty should the system be willingly[i/] abused.