First C.E.S [draft] Recommendation: Banning of Write In Candidates

[Fritz]

Yeah, I'm starting to come around to not liking Ernest's act.  Its too complex, has too many restrictions, and with the size of our population being as small as it is, won't work very well.  Lets keep it simple.  I'm in favor of getting rid of write-ins, only if we require all candidates on the ballot to be ranked, to make prefereential voting work better.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have a problem with:

• Section 1, Part a, Numeral 3  

The AFIP has no official chairman... while I may be considered the de facto chairman, we have never voted on one.  I, for one, think it is better that there is no chairman or no council-type doohickey, so it's recognised that everyone in the party is the same.

I figured that the party chairman would be the logical point person to communicate with the Secretary on electoral matters, if that is all that he does in the party, that's up to the party to decide, but the point is to avoid having more than one person claiming to speak for the party as a whole.  In any scheme that gives parties an official role in the putting forth of candidates, it is essential that there be that single point of contact.  A lot of this act is unecessary if parties have no official function, i.e., they have no role in placing candidates on the ballot and party affiliation is not listed on the ballot.  However, certain functions such as the naming of replacement major party candidates are enshrined in the constitution.  Either the law should require parties to name chairmen, or the constitution and law should be modified so that parties have no official role.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The point of this section is show that a party is still active.  It may do so either by putting forth at least one candidate in one race  in each general election or by refiling the party's basic information.  If a party isn't doing anything at all, why should Fritz have to keep track of it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And in real life they have to go through a lot of grief each election cycle to get their candidates on the ballot.  We already have four major parties as it is and to change the point at which a major party becomes a major party will require a constitutional amendment.  I don't see the petition requirement as being onerous at all.  Only one of the declared Senate candidates has so far failed to get 3 first preference votes.  Given the fact that unlike RL, our voters largely take an active role in politics, I can't see where this requirement is likely to keep many serious candidates off the ballot.  Nor do I see it keeping any candidate who has a chance of actually winning the race off the ballot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then they don't get to place their party ID beside their candidates and they don't get to just simply nominate or endorse candidates without going through the petition process, just as happens in real life with microparties such as the Southern Party of South Carolina which in real life only collected around 9.200 of the 10,000 required signatures needed to become a certified party.

One can argue that the point between having that ballot access and not having it should be lower or higher, but I think what I gave is a good starting point for the discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If primaries are going to have any official standing they should be run by the government.  When are you going to have them?  Weekends are the traditional Atlasian time for elections.  I can't see the point of having primaries earlier, and having them later would mean that potential petition candidates and third party endorsers whould have no time to decide what to do as the filing at least seven days before a general election requirement is in the constitution.

The law explictly states that what use, if any, a party makes of the official primary is up to it.  If a party wants to use conventions, or primaries held on another date, draw lots, or any other method, it can.  I'd have no real problem with scrapping Sec. 8(b) (Petition candidates can't be failed primary candidates) or offical primaries altogether, but it does mimic what happens in real life election law.  There is also nothing that prevents regions from scheduling primaries at any time they want to as those elections are wholey seperate from what the Atlasian government does.

[Defarge]

Fritz is right, it is best to keep voting simple, rather than impose endless regulations on the process.  It is best to eliminate write-in candidates all together rather than struggle through an endless labyrinth of constituional sections and ammendments.  

Thus I propose the following.  Eliminate the write-in vote.  However, give the major parties the option of filing a candidate after the deadline.  In other words, if a candidate has the misfortune of being unable to file on time, but has the backing of a major party, give the candidate the oppurtunity to run on a party's ticket.  As a result, we eliminate the drawbacks of the write-in system but still give major candidates the oppurtunity to run.

[Defarge]

I've said it two times already, banning Write-In votes is a stupid idea, it's limiting and taking away the rights of the people.  Consider now if they banned Write-In votes, meaning the Government now completely controls who is put on the ballot....that is scary.

In such a small, close knit community, it is extremely unlikely that the rights of the people will be taken away because of an oppressive forum leadership.  Plus, God forbid, if they do become opressive, we can go start a new forum.  

I don't see any realistic scenario in which a popular candidate who would win through write-in votes, would be prevented from running by the forum leadership in a system where the parties can put forward candidates after the deadlines.  It is simply unthinkable that the forum's administration would act in such a matter that would abuse the elimination of the write-in vote.

Now, IRL, I agree with you, we should never eliminate the write-in vote from American Democracy.  However, here, in a small, close knit forum community, it simply makes a mockery of the filing deadlines, nothing more.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since the general consensus is that the original Act is too complex, let me offer a minimal version of the Act for your consideration.
It accomplishes the following:

• Eliminates wrtite-ins
• Requires all candidates on the ballot to be ranked by each voter.
• Establishes a standard procedure for special elections.
• Establishes a method of deciding who speaks for a party when it deals with the government.
• Establishes when filing opens so that we don't have people filing to run in elections long before the race is conducted.

Electoral Registration Act

Sec. 1. Registration of Parties
 (a) A party in order to be a "registered party" must file with the Secretary of Forum Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) -
  (1) the official name of the party,
  (2) the by-laws of that party, and
  (3) the chairman of the party.
 (b) The by-laws of a registered party must specify how the by-laws may be amended and how the chairman is selected.
 (c) Parties must file with the Secretary any changes in the information required by subsection (a) of this section within 7 days of such change.
 (d) A party, to keep its registration, must either support at least one candidate in each general election, or refile with the Secretary the information required by subsection (a) of this section no earlier than 14 days  before the general election, and no later than 1 day before the general election  Failure to do so shall result in the deregistration of the party.
 (e) A party may deregister by having its chairman file notice of that decision with the Secretary.
 (f) Existing parties shall be considered registered parties and shall have 30 days from the date this Act becomes law to comply with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section.  Failure to do so will result in the deregistration of the party.

Sec. 2. Registration of Voters
 (a) A voter when registering shall indicate in the Voter Register thread -
  (1) his name,
  (2) his state of residence, and
  (3) that he either -
   (A) belongs to no party,
   (B) is a member of a registered party.
 (b) Voters belonging to a party that is deregistered because of subsection (d), (e), or (f) of section 1 of this Act shall be considered to have no party unless they choose to register as a member of another party,.

Sec. 3. Major and minor parties
 (a)  A "major party" shall be any registered party that has ten registered voters.
 (b) A "minor party" shall be any registered party that is -
  (1) not a major party, and
  (2) has registered voters from a majority of senatorial districts.

Sec. 4. Presidential and vice presidential candidates
 (a) In order for candidates for president and vice-president to appear on the ballot, they must be jointly nominated in a single candidacy by -
  (1) a major party,
  (2) a minor party, or
  (2) a petition submitted to the Secretary, signed by registered voters from a majority of senatorial districts.
 (b) It is permissible for a candidate to appear in multiple candidacies with different running mates upon the presidential ballot or to be a presidential candidate and a vice-presidential candidate in different candidacies.

Sec. 5. Senatorial candidates
 (a) In order for a candidate for senator to have his name upon the ballot, he must file notice with the Secretary.
  (b) Major and minor parties may endorse any single candidate in each senatorial race.

Sec. 6. Party candidates
 (a) Each major or minor party shall determine -
  (1) the requirements, if any, that a candidacy must meet in order to be nominated or endorsed by said party, and
  (2) the method used to determine which candidates shall be nominated or endorsed by said party.
 (b) Nominations and endorsements must be submitted by the chairman of the party in accordance with the by-laws of that party to the Secretary.

Sec. 7.  Petition candidates
 (a) Presidential candidacies may be nominated by petition.  Such petitions must be submitted to the Secretary.
 (b) Signing a petition does not change the registration of the signer.
 (c) Voters may sign at most one petition in each election.  Should a voter sign more than one petition for an office, only the first submitted petition that contains the voter's signature shall be considered to have been signed by that voter, even if the voter signed a petition submitted later earlier than he signed the petition submitted earlier.

Sec. 8. Filing deadlines
 (a) Nominations and declarations of candidacy
  (1) no earlier than fourteen days before the election, and
  (2) no later than -
   (A) seven days before the election begins for general elections, or
   (B) one day before the election begins for special elections.
 (b) In the event that a major party's presidential candidacy, nominated in accordance with subsection (a) of this section should withdraw, then the chairman of the party may inform the Secretary of the party's replacement no later than one day before the election.

Sec. 9. Casting Votes
 (a) All elections for a federal office shall be run using an instant runoff system.
 (b) Each voter shall rank all candidates on the ballot with a different integer from one to the number of candidates, with one indicating the candidate the voter prefers most.
 (c) If not all candidates for an office are ranked the ballot for that office shall be invalid and not counted.
 (d) In an election with multiple offices on the ballot, the invalidation of a ballot for one office shall not of itself cause the invalidation of the ballot for other offices.
 (e) The Preferential Voting Act of May 17, 2004 is hereby replaced with this section of this Act.

Sec. 10. Special elections
Special elections held to fill a vacated Senate seat shall begin on the day that is seven days after the vacancy occurs and shall end on the Sunday directly following the Saturday directly following the beginning of the election.

Sec. 11. Regional elections
Nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to elections conducted by the regions.  However, a region may make use of the federal party and voter registrations maintained by the Secretary howsoever it desires.

[Defarge]

I've said it two times already, banning Write-In votes is a stupid idea, it's limiting and taking away the rights of the people.  Consider now if they banned Write-In votes, meaning the Government now completely controls who is put on the ballot....that is scary.

In such a small, close knit community, it is extremely unlikely that the rights of the people will be taken away because of an oppressive forum leadership.  Plus, God forbid, if they do become opressive, we can go start a new forum.  

I don't see any realistic scenario in which a popular candidate who would win through write-in votes, would be prevented from running by the forum leadership in a system where the parties can put forward candidates after the deadlines.  It is simply unthinkable that the forum's administration would act in such a matter that would abuse the elimination of the write-in vote.

Now, IRL, I agree with you, we should never eliminate the write-in vote from American Democracy.  However, here, in a small, close knit forum community, it simply makes a mockery of the filing deadlines, nothing more.

PBrunsel just won the Governorship through a write in campaign.

PBrunsel was endorsed by the Republican and Southern Republican parties

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

PBrunsel just won the Governorship through a write in campaign.

First off, there is nothing in my proposed Act that would prevent regions from using write-in votes if they wish.

Second, PBrunsel's write-in campaign occurred because of special circumstances created by the shifting of Texas, where Reganfan had declared as a candidate for Midwestern governor only to have Texas moved to the Southeastern region after the filing dealine in the Midwest had passed.  Such circumstances are not likely to apply in the future.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We've had a bit of excessive chatter in the voting booths this election, so I'd like to propose the following:

Sanctity of Voting Act
 (a) If anyone should post in an official voting booth thread and post which is a not -
  (1) a vote,
  (2) either an explanation of or a question about either the voting procedure or the ballot being used,
then all votes cast by the offender in that thread shall be deemed null and void.
 (b) A repeat offense under this Act, whether in the same or previous election shall be an impeachable offense.

[JohnFKennedy]

We've had a bit of excessive chatter in the voting booths this election, so I'd like to propose the following:

Sanctity of Voting Act
 (a) If anyone should post in an official voting booth thread and post which is a not -
  (1) a vote,
  (2) either an explanation of or a question about either the voting procedure or the ballot being used,
then all votes cast by the offender in that thread shall be deemed null and void.
 (b) A repeat offense under this Act, whether in the same or previous election shall be an impeachable offense.

An excellent idea Ernest, you really should run for Senate.

[minionofmidas]

The write-ins do make a mockery of the system - and the right to write-in is not a "basic right". In fact, the write-in exists, as fas as I know, only in America, and is just a botched attempt at repairing the unfairness built into the system there by early filing deadlines and high thresholds to get onto the ballot. Better to scrap both than to have both.
I say we ban write-ins and put the filing deadline at 72 hours before the beginning of elections.

I used to be of the opinion that there was no harm in not forcing everybody to rank all the candidates, but the 2B senate race is making me reconsider my position.
Let's rehash that here: There was a far-left candidate, a leftwing candidate (well, center-left in Europe), and a rightwing candidate (far right in Europe - they were both Europeans). The vote was
right 5
left 3
far left 3
If all the preferences had been ranked, the far left guy would have been eliminated (right wing seconds would have been overwhelmingly for the more moderate opponent), then, with the far-left votes, the left winger would have won 6-5.
Now, the entire right wing boycotted the system, and so did one far left voter. The left wing voters did the right thing. As a result, their candidate was eliminated with 2 vs 3 second preferences, and the far left candidate "won" the second round of counting 6-5.
While I'm pleased with who won, this is obviously not how the system is supposed to work. I doubt all the Republicans saw no difference whatsoever between Umengus and Migrendel. I'd also be interested to know if - I'd have to look up who it was - knew that he was winning the election for Migrendel by refusing to put Umengus as second preference.
I say we should at least consider using the full Australian system.
Or, alternatively, we should elect our Senate by a proportional vote. That way, all the political parties would be fairly represented.

-EDIT- it's Hockeydude, and he obviously didn't know what he was doing - he doesn't seem to have understood anything about the election system, in fact. Take a look at page six of the election thread if you don't believe me-EDIT-

[Fritz]

I ws thinking these exact things when I went to sleep this morning.

The same thing happened in D1.  You had a left candidate (Handzus), a center candidate (Andrew), and a right candidate (Phil).  Phils voters did not put down ssecond preferences.  If they had, we would most likely have Andrew in the Senate now.  Because they did not, they are stuck with Handzus.

So thats two elections where the Republicans inadvertently elected the furthest left candidate, by not listing second preferences.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I ws thinking these exact things when I went to sleep this morning.

The same thing happened in D1.  You had a left candidate (Handzus), a center candidate (Andrew), and a right candidate (Phil).  Phils voters did not put down ssecond preferences.  If they had, we would most likely have Andrew in the Senate now.  Because they did not, they are stuck with Handzus.

So thats two elections where the Republicans inadvertently elected the furthest left candidate, by not listing second preferences.

The irony, eh?

[Akno21]

I ws thinking these exact things when I went to sleep this morning.

The same thing happened in D1.  You had a left candidate (Handzus), a center candidate (Andrew), and a right candidate (Phil).  Phils voters did not put down ssecond preferences.  If they had, we would most likely have Andrew in the Senate now.  Because they did not, they are stuck with Handzus.

So thats two elections where the Republicans inadvertently elected the furthest left candidate, by not listing second preferences.

So on second thought, why don't we keep everything how it is. At least until Republicans wake up and start using Preferntial Voting.

[Keystone Phil]

I ws thinking these exact things when I went to sleep this morning.

The same thing happened in D1.  You had a left candidate (Handzus), a center candidate (Andrew), and a right candidate (Phil).  Phils voters did not put down ssecond preferences.  If they had, we would most likely have Andrew in the Senate now.  Because they did not, they are stuck with Handzus.

So thats two elections where the Republicans inadvertently elected the furthest left candidate, by not listing second preferences.

So on second thought, why don't we keep everything how it is. At least until Republicans wake up and start using Preferntial Voting.

Sorry, but I know I won't be using it. I'm not going to be against a system when I am hurt by it and be for it when it helps me. No hypocrites here, Akno.

[Akno21]

I ws thinking these exact things when I went to sleep this morning.

The same thing happened in D1.  You had a left candidate (Handzus), a center candidate (Andrew), and a right candidate (Phil).  Phils voters did not put down ssecond preferences.  If they had, we would most likely have Andrew in the Senate now.  Because they did not, they are stuck with Handzus.

So thats two elections where the Republicans inadvertently elected the furthest left candidate, by not listing second preferences.

So on second thought, why don't we keep everything how it is. At least until Republicans wake up and start using Preferntial Voting.

Sorry, but I know I won't be using it. I'm not going to be against a system when I am hurt by it and be for it when it helps me. No hypocrites here, Akno.

I am all for Preferential Voting. In the 3 elections I have voted in, I have used it all three times, whether it hurts or helps. In a 3-way race, it can really help. If you had instructed your voters to place Andrew second instead of placing nobody second, you'd have a UAC Senator and not a AFIP one.

[Keystone Phil]

I ws thinking these exact things when I went to sleep this morning.

The same thing happened in D1.  You had a left candidate (Handzus), a center candidate (Andrew), and a right candidate (Phil).  Phils voters did not put down ssecond preferences.  If they had, we would most likely have Andrew in the Senate now.  Because they did not, they are stuck with Handzus.

So thats two elections where the Republicans inadvertently elected the furthest left candidate, by not listing second preferences.

So on second thought, why don't we keep everything how it is. At least until Republicans wake up and start using Preferntial Voting.

Sorry, but I know I won't be using it. I'm not going to be against a system when I am hurt by it and be for it when it helps me. No hypocrites here, Akno.

I am all for Preferential Voting. In the 3 elections I have voted in, I have used it all three times, whether it hurts or helps. In a 3-way race, it can really help. If you had instructed your voters to place Andrew second instead of placing nobody second, you'd have a UAC Senator and not a AFIP one.

And what don't you understand? I don't like preferential voting. I am not going to speak against it when it hurts me and speak for it when it helps me, even if it meant a UAC Senator over and AFIP Senator. I'm not a hypocrite. My opinion on this will not change.

[Akno21]

I ws thinking these exact things when I went to sleep this morning.

The same thing happened in D1.  You had a left candidate (Handzus), a center candidate (Andrew), and a right candidate (Phil).  Phils voters did not put down ssecond preferences.  If they had, we would most likely have Andrew in the Senate now.  Because they did not, they are stuck with Handzus.

So thats two elections where the Republicans inadvertently elected the furthest left candidate, by not listing second preferences.

So on second thought, why don't we keep everything how it is. At least until Republicans wake up and start using Preferntial Voting.

Sorry, but I know I won't be using it. I'm not going to be against a system when I am hurt by it and be for it when it helps me. No hypocrites here, Akno.

I am all for Preferential Voting. In the 3 elections I have voted in, I have used it all three times, whether it hurts or helps. In a 3-way race, it can really help. If you had instructed your voters to place Andrew second instead of placing nobody second, you'd have a UAC Senator and not a AFIP one.

And what don't you understand? I don't like preferential voting. I am not going to speak against it when it hurts me and speak for it when it helps me, even if it meant a UAC Senator over and AFIP Senator. I'm not a hypocrite. My opinion on this will not change.

Fine, have it your way. But just don't complain when you are stuck with left-wingers to represent you. I'm not a hypocrite. When have I been against Preferential Voting.

[minionofmidas]

Phil hasn't complained about his representation.
I guess he won't until he starts campaigning again, too.
Still, not using an election system because you disapprove of it is just plain dumb. Should I refuse to vote, in real life, because I disapprove of the 5% threshold? Or, in America, of fptp?

[Keystone Phil]

I ws thinking these exact things when I went to sleep this morning.

The same thing happened in D1.  You had a left candidate (Handzus), a center candidate (Andrew), and a right candidate (Phil).  Phils voters did not put down ssecond preferences.  If they had, we would most likely have Andrew in the Senate now.  Because they did not, they are stuck with Handzus.

So thats two elections where the Republicans inadvertently elected the furthest left candidate, by not listing second preferences.

So on second thought, why don't we keep everything how it is. At least until Republicans wake up and start using Preferntial Voting.

Sorry, but I know I won't be using it. I'm not going to be against a system when I am hurt by it and be for it when it helps me. No hypocrites here, Akno.

I am all for Preferential Voting. In the 3 elections I have voted in, I have used it all three times, whether it hurts or helps. In a 3-way race, it can really help. If you had instructed your voters to place Andrew second instead of placing nobody second, you'd have a UAC Senator and not a AFIP one.

And what don't you understand? I don't like preferential voting. I am not going to speak against it when it hurts me and speak for it when it helps me, even if it meant a UAC Senator over and AFIP Senator. I'm not a hypocrite. My opinion on this will not change.

Fine, have it your way. But just don't complain when you are stuck with left-wingers to represent you. I'm not a hypocrite. When have I been against Preferential Voting.

What are you talking about? I never called you a hypocrite. I'm saying I WILL NOT BE ONE by being against it when it hurts, and defending it when it helps. And I'm not complaining that I am stuck with a left winger representing me, atleast not right now. You guys go to the Senate and do what you must, but if you are going to represent the extremes of your party (which I have a feeling you will) then I won't be the only one complaining, but others will be too (since this is far from an extreme left district.)

[JohnFKennedy]

Well if we pass Ernest's Act and you don't use preferential voting your vote won't count Phil.

[Keystone Phil]

Well if we pass Ernest's Act and you don't use preferential voting your vote won't count Phil.

Well let me now voice my opposition to that Act. What if there are three candidates and two of them are total jokes. I have to actually make a decision as to who would get my second vote which could swing the election? Give me a break. I urge my Senators to vote NO on Ernest's Act.

[JohnFKennedy]

Well if we pass Ernest's Act and you don't use preferential voting your vote won't count Phil.

Well let me now voice my opposition to that Act. What if there are three candidates and two of them are total jokes. I have to actually make a decision as to who would get my second vote which could swing the election? Give me a break. I urge my Senators to vote NO on Ernest's Act.

25 million Australasians can't be wrong! This is the system used in Australia and New Zealand.

[Keystone Phil]

Well if we pass Ernest's Act and you don't use preferential voting your vote won't count Phil.

Well let me now voice my opposition to that Act. What if there are three candidates and two of them are total jokes. I have to actually make a decision as to who would get my second vote which could swing the election? Give me a break. I urge my Senators to vote NO on Ernest's Act.

25 million Australasians can't be wrong! This is the system used in Australia and New Zealand.

 

Hey it might work well there but NO Ernest Act in Atlasia!

[JohnFKennedy]

Well if we pass Ernest's Act and you don't use preferential voting your vote won't count Phil.

Well let me now voice my opposition to that Act. What if there are three candidates and two of them are total jokes. I have to actually make a decision as to who would get my second vote which could swing the election? Give me a break. I urge my Senators to vote NO on Ernest's Act.

25 million Australasians can't be wrong! This is the system used in Australia and New Zealand.

 

Hey it might work well there but NO Ernest Act in Atlasia!

Have you read it?

[Keystone Phil]

Well if we pass Ernest's Act and you don't use preferential voting your vote won't count Phil.

Well let me now voice my opposition to that Act. What if there are three candidates and two of them are total jokes. I have to actually make a decision as to who would get my second vote which could swing the election? Give me a break. I urge my Senators to vote NO on Ernest's Act.

25 million Australasians can't be wrong! This is the system used in Australia and New Zealand.

 

Hey it might work well there but NO Ernest Act in Atlasia!

Have you read it?

You just told me that I would have to vote by preferences if I wanted my vote to be counted. That's all I need to know to say that I don't support this Act.