45RZ5 - The Common Sense Act

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Would the good Senator from Cezembre honor us and explain his reasoning for this Bill?

[Glüc da Dhi]

Of course.

Esteemed Mençei, Fellow Senators,

During the last elections, citizens cast their vote in many different ways. This act concerns those who specified their vote to be for the Cosa but left the provincial part blank, even though the provincial election for their province was conducted by the chancery. There were a few of those votes this time. Not many, but enough to make a substantial difference on a provincial level. The chancery decided to count those votes as votes on a provincial level as well. I disagree with that decision, because a literal intrepretation of the vote would suggest that the vote is only intended for the cosa (after all, that is what is specified) and diverting from that literal intrepretation would require some legal backing imho. However the chancery believed that this was not required and that precedent points in the direction of counting those votes for both cosa and provincial elections. I respect the opinion of the chancery in this.

However, I still disagree that this is the correct intrepretation of these votes. Provincial matters are often very different from national matters. This is demonstrated by the number of voters who vote differently at provincial and national level during previous general elections. A minority of course, but still a substantial number in some provinces. A voter may very well be informed enough about national poltics to make somewhat informed choice, but not enough about provincial matters. For someone who intends to vote nationally, but not provincially, a vote like this: "cosa: party X" seems like a very logical vote to me.

When a voter votes like this: "Party X" we are required to make subjective assumptions. After all, it is not exactly specified. This is different for a vote that is specified for the Cosa. Here we can make assumptions under the current law, but we can also stick with the literal interpretation. We cant really be sure of the intention of the voters of course, but considering the points mentioned above, I do believe that in this case we should go with the safest interpretation.

This is why I proposed the Common Sense Act (The title probably is a little bit presumptious admittedly. This wasnt really my intention. I probably should have thought of something else). The act is cosponsored by our beloved SoS himself, the senator from Maricopa and it does leave room for provincial differences in intrepretation.

Because of this, I would urge my fellow senators to vote PER on 45RZ5

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Will a Citizen be able to reply to the GE Ballot stating "All votes go to Party X " ?

Or will they be required to specify for each offering how they want their vote recorded ?

[Glüc da Dhi]

The act only mentions votes that are specified to be cosa votes. This won't change the policy regarding other votes, such as"All votes go to Party X". So, yes to the first question and no to the second one.

[Glüc da Dhi]

I would like to ask the esteemed senator from Vuode why he voted against this act.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

May 7, 2013 16:56:24 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

I would like to ask the esteemed senator from Vuode why he voted against this act.

The Senator from Vuode may be out of contact for a week or so. He is currently planning on taking a hike on the Appalachia Trail going on a camping trip in the mountains near his home.