A question about electoral law

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

In a Cosâ election, does every citizen have to report their vote personally? Do Senäts elections have to have an open ballot, or is it discretional?

See, I have this idea that - hypothetically - if there was one province whose citizens were massively keen on a secret ballot, then the Provincial SoS could collect and announce Senäts results, certifying them to the federal SoS. And the same could happen in Cosâ elections under ERM-200; the people of a province could vote by secret ballot, and the Provincial SoS could announce to the federal SoS or in public, "The results in our province are 2 votes for Party Y, 3 votes for party X, and OVERWHELMING LANDSLIDE FOR THE ZRT!!!" But I get ahead of myself on the last point.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Mar 15, 2012 14:48:07 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

In a Cosâ election, does every citizen have to report their vote personally? Do Senäts elections have to have an open ballot, or is it discretional?

See, I have this idea that - hypothetically - if there was one province whose citizens were massively keen on a secret ballot, then the Provincial SoS could collect and announce Senäts results, certifying them to the federal SoS. And the same could happen in Cosâ elections under ERM-200; the people of a province could vote by secret ballot, and the Provincial SoS could announce to the federal SoS or in public, "The results in our province are 2 votes for Party Y, 3 votes for party X, and OVERWHELMING LANDSLIDE FOR THE ZRT!!!" But I get ahead of myself on the last point.

For the General Election - to elect Senators and representation in the Cosa - those votes are cast singly and openly. Each Citizen is required to inform the SoS of his/ her vote.

This is also how we maintain the "3 Strikes Law" .


On the Provincial Elections - each Province can set up it's own way of recording votes - for the Provincial Offices.

[Hooligan]

Well, let's see:

The current state of Organic Law is that both Article VII, Section 6 (concerning election to the Cosa), and Article IV, Section 7 (relating to election to the Senate) say: Voting is not secret. As soon as one's votes are cast, they become public knowledge.

So at least at present, there doesn't seem to be much wiggle-room. I suppose perhaps there could be some discussion as to the meaning of "they" or something, though?

Hooligan (who bets he represents Party W in the above hypothetical scenario) :-)

[Glüc da Dhi]

Wouldn't it be nice if all provinces would be allowed to organise their own senäts elections if they want (within certain boundaries ofcourse) so they can decide for themselves wheter they want a secret or an open ballot, FPTP or IRV, count party endorsements or not. I guess only cosa elections would be enough to maintain the three strikes rule.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I don't know why we need an open ballot for Three Strikes. All you need to know is if Person X voted, not whom s/he voted for.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

I'm not saying that we do need an open ballot for the 3 Strikes Rule. I was just commenting that currently, that is how we track strikes.

[Istefan Perþonest]

I personally favor a secret ballot myself (now that we're in an era where neutral third-party websites are available to accurately do the counting and reporting who exercised the franchise, the sort of chicanery that used to be possible is no longer a factor). But as Hool points out, the Organic Law is clear on the matter of secrecy in Ziu elections. We need an amendment to the OrgLaw for secret ballots, not a hack that precipitates a crisis by calling out and daring the Uppermost Cort to throw out all of a hypothetical province's votes for Cosa and Senäts.

I can (and will) propose an amendment to at least make the secret ballot an option, but it couldn't be adopted until a referendum passed it . . . which means the next general election will have an open ballot, both Cosa and Senäts.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Damn, it's hard to amend the OrgLaw. We're going to have to do something about that.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Mar 15, 2012 21:54:24 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Damn, it's hard to amend the OrgLaw. We're going to have to do something about that.

Oh no!! It's important that laws are sluggish. If there is the opportunity for rapid change then there is the opportunity - always taken - of stupid change, which will later be regretted.

It's also important that nothing sticks for all time - it must be possible to change every law (no matter what), given the due procedures and cooling-off times.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Spoken like a true conservative, Ián. I do support constitutional entrenchment, just not to that extent.

[Deleted]

It's not that hard to amend the org law. You just need super majorities in the legislature and a ref. by the people.

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

I think, Viteu, she is getting at the supermajorities in *both* house of the legislature. Yes, the referendum is easy-enough.

[Istefan Perþonest]

I imagine to a certain extent views on whether the OrgLaw is too hard to amend depend on how one's place of residence does it. The OrgLaw procedure (a supermajority of each house of the legislature plus a referendum of the voters) is the method of amendment in 31 US states (though several have alternative procedures), and thus is likely to be seen as a perfectly ordinary level of entrenchment by Americans.

[Deleted]

This is true, Istefan. I'm from a state where we need the legislature to support the amendment in two consecutive sessions before the people vote on it. Thus, I tend to think it too easy.

[Eðo Grischun]

I come from a place without a constitution, so I'm happy as it is.