Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 20, 2018 18:25:25 GMT -6
I wanted to do this waaay earlier, but I never got around to it. This post will be mostly a summary of some issues discussed in the Electoral Commission and some further discussion points.
According to the law the Electoral Commission was dissolved on the 14th of July. I was away with limited connection that day and the week following it, so I only got to do the most urgent business. Many thanks to the members of the EC for their contributions. I do plan to write them another message with some additional reflections, but I'm not sure I will get around to that
The EC has agreed that transcripts of the discussion will be saved for reference by future Electoral Commissions, legislators or the corts. Once I get around to putting everything in a document, I will send it to the royal archivist as well. For Member of the Ziu who have a reason to look into these transcripts they will be available upon request.
Regarding the certification, as said before the Cosa and Senate results as listed in their respective threads have been verified by majority vote of the EC. Certification of individual votes is no longer required by law, although the form still exists on the database and has been used The raw provincial results have not been certified. These results are still official, as 14 days since the election have passed an no extension of the deadline has been requested.
The main reason this hasn't happened is that I had asked the database admin to make a change to a single vote that was considered invalid. This is because this citizen had voted on witt and then voted in the database before I had entered the vote myself. The first vote was cast on witt and therefore that one is considered valid. The database vote differed from the witt vote with regards to the provincial vote. This does not affect the results, first of all because it happened in a province with no elections to the provincial assembly. Second of all, because neither vote would influence the party balance if there had been a provincial election. However, the change requested was never made. As the deadline has since passed I'm not sure whether I should still ask for the change in the database to be made, as the EC has already ruled the provincial vote to be invalid or should not, because the results are now official by law and this vote does not affect the result.
Other issues that have been discussed by the EC:
* One vote was received in the Maricopan Senate race for RUMP (CMS). Voting for a party only is not a valid vote for a senate race, however this vote also contains the initials of a candidate in the election, Sir Cresti Mataiwos Siervicül. A majority of the EC ruled that the vote as a whole is a valid vote for Sir Cresti.
* One voter voted by email, using the email adress to which the ballot was sent, but did not include the PSC (or replied directly to the ballot which also contains the psc). According to Lex.B.6.3. "Every ballot or vote cast on Wittenberg, and every ballot or vote cast otherwise that contains the voter's correct PSC, shall be counted. But if a ballot or vote not cast on Wittenberg does not contain the voter's correct PSC, the Chancery shall attempt by whatever means the Secretary of State deems necessary and sufficient to determine whether the vote is valid, and shall not count the vote unless its validity can be so established ..."My reasoning for determining the vote was valid is the following: the person who sent the mail did have access to the email address to which the psc was sent. This should mean the voter had access to the psc as well. Therefore the validity of the vote should be no less certain than any other vote cast with a psc by the person who had access to the email address. The Lexhatx also says I should report this to the CpI, which I did by informing the chief justice who was a member of the EC. (The rest of the EC was informed as well obviously). I belief this requirement is probably a leftover from when the CpI basically was the EC and should probably be changed now. I interpreted the vote as valid. The EC did not make any further corrections.
* Two witt voters and one mail voters voted for a party without indicating for which part (Cosa or provincial). The law is clear that votes cast specifically for the Cosa do not count for provincial elections, however it does not (as far as I'm aware) state what should happen to unspeficied votes. In my view when no part is indicated, the intent of the vote should primarily be considered a vote for the Cosa, as this is the most prominently featured part of the election and the main item around which the election is centered. Additionally, I do not believe voting for a party is unambiguous intent to vote for the same party in provincial elections, as voters might not even be aware of those. I therefore counted votes where the part was unspecified only as votes for the cosa and not for the provincial part. The EC did not make any further corrections.
* One witt voter voted for a party "across the board". I believe this suggests clear intent to vote for the party for all relevant parts and have interpreted the vote as a vote for that party for both the Cosa and the provincial election. The EC did not make any further corrections.
* One secret voter who entered their vote into the database voted FREEDEMD for the Cosa. This is not a registered party but strongly resembles the initials of a different party, FREEDEMS. I do not believe the vote itself needs to be corrected in the database. Firstly because it is simply how the vote was entered. Secondly, because this would require finding the vote first and having to look at the secret ballot votes of many voters. This does not mean that the vote needs to be interpreted as a vote for an unregistered party. The EC did not make any further corrections. With regards to the interpretation I have added the vote to the total of the FREEDEMS as I believe the intent here was abundantly clear.
Then, with regards to the party registration of unregistered parties. This has been discussed by the EC. In the end however, I made the decision myself. I did consider the opinions of the EC and also some of the posts made on witt, especially the well thought out arguments put forth by the then Attorney-General in the decision. The whole situation is very awkward, especially in the light of the earlier decision that has been made that did allow a party to register after the elections to the 50th Cosa. Additionally the email ballot stated that "You can vote for a non-registered party, but unless that part later registers, you risk having your vote discarded.", allowing for write-ins and suggesting to voters that a write-in party could theoretically still register. What in the end weighed stronger though is the OrgLaw. Reading the OrgLaw I think the conclusion has to be that registration consists of two parts, one of those being the filing of an application, and this can only happen 24 hours BEFORE balloting day. This means registrations after the elections are not valid.
Three new email addresses of voters were added during the election on the basis of something other than a witt message or an email from their previous address. In two cases I received the address in some form through facebook. In both case I scrolled back in time on their profiles which in both cases gave strong indications that these profiles belong to the person that once gained Talossan citizen. In one case I got the email address of a dandelion who had already been granted full citizenship earlier from the Talossan parent of the dandelion. As dandelions are usually registered by their parents I believe we need to trust the parent on this, otherwise it would basically be impossible for a dandelion to ever get citizenship. This will not actually matter for the election results as said citizen did not actually vote, but obviously it might impact future elections.
There is one potential difficulty with the interpretation of Senate results, which has no significant effect here, but could have in the future, relating to how ties are dealt with. In case of a tie for the fewest number of votes used to determine which candidate gets eliminated, the law prescribes first looking at the raw number of first preferences, then second preferences and so on. However, using the current database it is possible for a voter to vote for the same candidate multiple times (as first, second, third, fourth and fifth preference). It is obvious to me that in such cases only the first preference counts and the others preferences do not add any new information and therefore do not count. This could be open to interpretation however. (There is one example of this in the Maricopan vote. Twice I put an asterisk behind Albrec'ht Cheleir where I counted 1 second preference, but could have counted 2 if I counted the second preference of one voter who listed S:reu Cheleir as first and second preference.) The EC did not make any changes to the interpretation now, but it was requested that this concern was shared on a public forum so it could lead to further discussion.
I found out too late that the law actually requires the chancery to provide phone details, which I did not. In previous elections a vote by phone option was only available for North America, but as far as I'm aware it was never in the election rules. It was also not in this years election rules. This concern has also been shared with the EC after the elections. No complaints have been received about this by voters and based on previous use of voting by phone it seems very unlikely that this would have changed the election results in anyway.
That said I do believe the law should be changed in this regard. The SoS cannot be required to post his personal phone number on the internet as this would be a violation of privacy at the same time there is no reimbursement for getting a separate phone number for Talossan business. If no one else does I will come up with a bill for this.
I think that is all of it. When I get around to it I will put the election results in a document as well and send it to the royal archivist in case the database ever stops working.
-Glüc da Dhi,
Secretary of State
According to the law the Electoral Commission was dissolved on the 14th of July. I was away with limited connection that day and the week following it, so I only got to do the most urgent business. Many thanks to the members of the EC for their contributions. I do plan to write them another message with some additional reflections, but I'm not sure I will get around to that
The EC has agreed that transcripts of the discussion will be saved for reference by future Electoral Commissions, legislators or the corts. Once I get around to putting everything in a document, I will send it to the royal archivist as well. For Member of the Ziu who have a reason to look into these transcripts they will be available upon request.
Regarding the certification, as said before the Cosa and Senate results as listed in their respective threads have been verified by majority vote of the EC. Certification of individual votes is no longer required by law, although the form still exists on the database and has been used The raw provincial results have not been certified. These results are still official, as 14 days since the election have passed an no extension of the deadline has been requested.
The main reason this hasn't happened is that I had asked the database admin to make a change to a single vote that was considered invalid. This is because this citizen had voted on witt and then voted in the database before I had entered the vote myself. The first vote was cast on witt and therefore that one is considered valid. The database vote differed from the witt vote with regards to the provincial vote. This does not affect the results, first of all because it happened in a province with no elections to the provincial assembly. Second of all, because neither vote would influence the party balance if there had been a provincial election. However, the change requested was never made. As the deadline has since passed I'm not sure whether I should still ask for the change in the database to be made, as the EC has already ruled the provincial vote to be invalid or should not, because the results are now official by law and this vote does not affect the result.
Other issues that have been discussed by the EC:
* One vote was received in the Maricopan Senate race for RUMP (CMS). Voting for a party only is not a valid vote for a senate race, however this vote also contains the initials of a candidate in the election, Sir Cresti Mataiwos Siervicül. A majority of the EC ruled that the vote as a whole is a valid vote for Sir Cresti.
* One voter voted by email, using the email adress to which the ballot was sent, but did not include the PSC (or replied directly to the ballot which also contains the psc). According to Lex.B.6.3. "Every ballot or vote cast on Wittenberg, and every ballot or vote cast otherwise that contains the voter's correct PSC, shall be counted. But if a ballot or vote not cast on Wittenberg does not contain the voter's correct PSC, the Chancery shall attempt by whatever means the Secretary of State deems necessary and sufficient to determine whether the vote is valid, and shall not count the vote unless its validity can be so established ..."My reasoning for determining the vote was valid is the following: the person who sent the mail did have access to the email address to which the psc was sent. This should mean the voter had access to the psc as well. Therefore the validity of the vote should be no less certain than any other vote cast with a psc by the person who had access to the email address. The Lexhatx also says I should report this to the CpI, which I did by informing the chief justice who was a member of the EC. (The rest of the EC was informed as well obviously). I belief this requirement is probably a leftover from when the CpI basically was the EC and should probably be changed now. I interpreted the vote as valid. The EC did not make any further corrections.
* Two witt voters and one mail voters voted for a party without indicating for which part (Cosa or provincial). The law is clear that votes cast specifically for the Cosa do not count for provincial elections, however it does not (as far as I'm aware) state what should happen to unspeficied votes. In my view when no part is indicated, the intent of the vote should primarily be considered a vote for the Cosa, as this is the most prominently featured part of the election and the main item around which the election is centered. Additionally, I do not believe voting for a party is unambiguous intent to vote for the same party in provincial elections, as voters might not even be aware of those. I therefore counted votes where the part was unspecified only as votes for the cosa and not for the provincial part. The EC did not make any further corrections.
* One witt voter voted for a party "across the board". I believe this suggests clear intent to vote for the party for all relevant parts and have interpreted the vote as a vote for that party for both the Cosa and the provincial election. The EC did not make any further corrections.
* One secret voter who entered their vote into the database voted FREEDEMD for the Cosa. This is not a registered party but strongly resembles the initials of a different party, FREEDEMS. I do not believe the vote itself needs to be corrected in the database. Firstly because it is simply how the vote was entered. Secondly, because this would require finding the vote first and having to look at the secret ballot votes of many voters. This does not mean that the vote needs to be interpreted as a vote for an unregistered party. The EC did not make any further corrections. With regards to the interpretation I have added the vote to the total of the FREEDEMS as I believe the intent here was abundantly clear.
Then, with regards to the party registration of unregistered parties. This has been discussed by the EC. In the end however, I made the decision myself. I did consider the opinions of the EC and also some of the posts made on witt, especially the well thought out arguments put forth by the then Attorney-General in the decision. The whole situation is very awkward, especially in the light of the earlier decision that has been made that did allow a party to register after the elections to the 50th Cosa. Additionally the email ballot stated that "You can vote for a non-registered party, but unless that part later registers, you risk having your vote discarded.", allowing for write-ins and suggesting to voters that a write-in party could theoretically still register. What in the end weighed stronger though is the OrgLaw. Reading the OrgLaw I think the conclusion has to be that registration consists of two parts, one of those being the filing of an application, and this can only happen 24 hours BEFORE balloting day. This means registrations after the elections are not valid.
Three new email addresses of voters were added during the election on the basis of something other than a witt message or an email from their previous address. In two cases I received the address in some form through facebook. In both case I scrolled back in time on their profiles which in both cases gave strong indications that these profiles belong to the person that once gained Talossan citizen. In one case I got the email address of a dandelion who had already been granted full citizenship earlier from the Talossan parent of the dandelion. As dandelions are usually registered by their parents I believe we need to trust the parent on this, otherwise it would basically be impossible for a dandelion to ever get citizenship. This will not actually matter for the election results as said citizen did not actually vote, but obviously it might impact future elections.
There is one potential difficulty with the interpretation of Senate results, which has no significant effect here, but could have in the future, relating to how ties are dealt with. In case of a tie for the fewest number of votes used to determine which candidate gets eliminated, the law prescribes first looking at the raw number of first preferences, then second preferences and so on. However, using the current database it is possible for a voter to vote for the same candidate multiple times (as first, second, third, fourth and fifth preference). It is obvious to me that in such cases only the first preference counts and the others preferences do not add any new information and therefore do not count. This could be open to interpretation however. (There is one example of this in the Maricopan vote. Twice I put an asterisk behind Albrec'ht Cheleir where I counted 1 second preference, but could have counted 2 if I counted the second preference of one voter who listed S:reu Cheleir as first and second preference.) The EC did not make any changes to the interpretation now, but it was requested that this concern was shared on a public forum so it could lead to further discussion.
I found out too late that the law actually requires the chancery to provide phone details, which I did not. In previous elections a vote by phone option was only available for North America, but as far as I'm aware it was never in the election rules. It was also not in this years election rules. This concern has also been shared with the EC after the elections. No complaints have been received about this by voters and based on previous use of voting by phone it seems very unlikely that this would have changed the election results in anyway.
That said I do believe the law should be changed in this regard. The SoS cannot be required to post his personal phone number on the internet as this would be a violation of privacy at the same time there is no reimbursement for getting a separate phone number for Talossan business. If no one else does I will come up with a bill for this.
I think that is all of it. When I get around to it I will put the election results in a document as well and send it to the royal archivist in case the database ever stops working.
-Glüc da Dhi,
Secretary of State
