The Open Ballot Amendment

[Istefan Perþonest]

The Open Ballot Amendment

WHEREAS the Organic Law specifically declares that elections to the Cosa and Senäts cannot be secret, and

WHEREAS it would seem to be a nice gesture to the Fiovans that they have the opportunity to convince Talossa to adopt a secret ballot during the next Cosa, now

THEREFORE we, the Ziu, propose the following amendment to the Organic Law:

1. That Section 7 of Article IV is replaced by, "Voting is not secret, unless a three-fifths majority of each house of the Ziu enacts a statute declaring that it shall be secret. Such a statute may only be repealed by a new statute approved by a three-fifths majority of each house of the Ziu."
2. That Section 6 of Article VII is replaced by, "Voting is not secret, unless a three-fifths majority of each house of the Ziu enacts a statute declaring that it shall be secret. Such a statute may only be repealed by a new statute approved by a three-fifths majority of each house of the Ziu."

Uréu q'estadra sa:
Istefan Perþonest, MC CSPP

---

Since I said elsewhere I'd propose this, I guess this is as good a time as any to post it. I am very slightly in favor of the secret ballot myself, but could be convinced otherwise. I do grant it would make it harder for parties to post-hoc hand seats to supporters if who voted for which party was not public information.

[Glüc da Dhi]

I dont know if an amendment can also be a statutory law.
In that case, would it be possible to add to this amendment a clause like this:

"Furthermore voting for cosa or senäts elections will not become secret. As soon as one's vote is cast, it should become public knowledge." So the secret ballot is maintained, but just not as a part of the orglaw.

I am very slightly in favor of the secret ballot myself, but could be convinced otherwise.

Same here. Oops, actually Im slightly against. Dont know where that came from. I probably should read the things I quote:P

[Istefan Perþonest]

Mar 16, 2012 17:34:29 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

I dont know if an amendment can also be a statutory law.

Since the amendment won't likely affect any elections until February/March 2013, I don't see any particular need to try to join an act to the amendment. Surely a statute could be passed on its own in the next eleven months? At worst, the PM could PD something if we got to next year without anything being passed.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

He has a point, though - no sense in deliberately making a hole in the law. It's better to be clear and establish concretely that this does not actually change matters, it only makes it possible to change it by statute later.

[Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN]

An Amendment to the Organic Law automatically repeals any Statue that says otherwise. So, if the OrgLaw says that a ballot is secret once cast, then all Laws of the Kingdom must reflect this or are deemed Inorganic if they state otherwise. Similarly, no Law or PD can be passed saying all ballots are secret if the OrgLaw says otherwise.

My problem with the proposed Amendment above it that it removed the entire section relating to the ballots. Which means the OrgLaw will no longer state is a Ballot has to be secret or not. Which means that it will be down to the StatLaw to regulate if a ballot is secret or not. The problem here is that StatLaw can be changed by the Ziu or a PD quite easily before an election, so we could have secret ballots one election or non secret ballots the next, depending on which party has the most seats in the Ziu or which PM is in charge. Therefore this bill has a major flaw in allowing the laws regarding elections and ballots to be changed fairly easily without referring the matter to the citizens of Talossa.

Whilst I welcome debate on this issue, if we are going to do something which relates to something as powerful as a person's vote, then we must do it properly and in a well thought out matter after a proper debate on a Bill which introduces secret voting into the OrgLaw or to keep the OrgLaw as it current stands.

-- Litz

[Eðo Grischun]

How does everyone feel about this?

Voting is secret until election day. The voting period (which runs from balloting day (15) to election day (14) could be secret and THEN afterwards the SoS could publish his register.

This would satisfy the concerns of those opposing open voting and would still take care of the 3 strikes law, which seems the primary motivator in having an open vote.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Mar 16, 2012 18:39:28 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

Mar 16, 2012 17:34:29 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

I dont know if an amendment can also be a statutory law.

Since the amendment won't likely affect any elections until February/March 2013, I don't see any particular need to try to join an act to the amendment. Surely a statute could be passed on its own in the next eleven months? At worst, the PM could PD something if we got to next year without anything being passed.

Please dont take two steps at once. The way it is now, this amendment would in theory be a change from an open to a secret ballot, while your intention is (I believe) to change the subject from an organic to a statutory matter.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Okay, let's see what people think of the new language.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Much better

[Eðo Grischun]

No. The Organic Law can't be that flimsy. A constitution can't have loop holes built into it. With a constitution it is or it isn't. It's the law of the land, not the law of the land unless said loophole can be achieved.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

In my opinion , I would prefer to see some tried and true methods of successful secret voting techniques.

IF we change the whole method of voting , then I want to know what we are going to use instead.

Once I see a method that I am confident works, records the votes properly, and reports the results in a manner that can be verified- then I can entertain the idea of changing the method we vote.

I keep seeing people wanting to change the way we vote now from the one man, one vote method to the multiple "IF I can't have him, I'll settle on her" method.

And most of you know how I feel about that!

Lay out the new method, show me it works, then I'll be willing to vote to change the law.

Not the other way around.

[Istefan Perþonest]

Incidentally, although I did change this a bit in my revision, I'm a bit puzzled at the following objection:

Mar 17, 2012 8:07:04 GMT -6 Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN said:

The problem here is that StatLaw can be changed by the Ziu or a PD quite easily before an election, so we could have secret ballots one election or non secret ballots the next, depending on which party has the most seats in the Ziu or which PM is in charge. Therefore this bill has a major flaw in allowing the laws regarding elections and ballots to be changed fairly easily without referring the matter to the citizens of Talossa.

Australia, Britain, New Zealand, and the United States all share the "major flaw" that whether ballots are open or secret is no more entrenched than any other statutory law. (In the US and Australia, there may be entrenchment on the state level, but the federal power over the manner of elections allows the national legislature to overcome that with a mere statute.) I am quite interested to know why the Prime Minister thinks this would be especially problematic for Talossa.

[Deleted]

Mar 19, 2012 19:24:33 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

Incidentally, although I did change this a bit in my revision, I'm a bit puzzled at the following objection:

Mar 17, 2012 8:07:04 GMT -6 Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN said:

The problem here is that StatLaw can be changed by the Ziu or a PD quite easily before an election, so we could have secret ballots one election or non secret ballots the next, depending on which party has the most seats in the Ziu or which PM is in charge. Therefore this bill has a major flaw in allowing the laws regarding elections and ballots to be changed fairly easily without referring the matter to the citizens of Talossa.

Well, for starters, the US does not have "prime dictates" which, with only two signatures, carry the full force of statutory law. So, as the PM points out, future prime ministers could issue a PD and each general election could have entirely different electoral processes.

I'm with Capt. Mick. If you want to change a process, propose a new process which we have reasonable expectation will work. I'm not voting for a codified goal with the hope that we can figure out the "how" some other time.

Australia, Britain, New Zealand, and the United States all share the "major flaw" that whether ballots are open or secret is no more entrenched than any other statutory law. (In the US and Australia, there may be entrenchment on the state level, but the federal power over the manner of elections allows the national legislature to overcome that with a mere statute.) I am quite interested to know why the Prime Minister thinks this would be especially problematic for Talossa.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Mar 19, 2012 19:06:36 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

I keep seeing people wanting to change the way we vote now from the one man, one vote method to the multiple "IF I can't have him, I'll settle on her" method.

You know, IRV is a method of one man, one vote. There actually has been a court case on that issue . But maybe this is not the right thread or the right moment to start with that discussion again.

[Eðo Grischun]

Also, why are you wanting to create duplicate paragraphs? We have just passed an amendment through the houses (still to be ratified) that takes care of another area of duplication in the OrgLaw. This amendment would see a further amendment to remove the duplication.

I would amend article 6 then just remove article 7 or have article 7 deal with something else (even though I don't like the amendment as it stands, but if I did that's how I would do it) We don't need to state something twice, no?