Closing Election Loopholes Act of 2016 (PASSED)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Just to clarify, under current law, say, there could be a Cris/Tmthforu94 ticket running and also a Griffin/Tmthforu94 running, correct? And this would remove that ability?

As I understand the current body law, votes in presidential elections are counted as votes for the ticket as a whole, not as separate votes for president and vice president. Thus, in an election where Griffin/Duke receive 25% of first preferences, Cris/Tmthforu94 receive 45%, and Griffin/Tmthforu94 receive 30%, Tmthforu94 would not be able to combine the votes he won as Griffin's running mate with the votes he won as Cris' running mate. The adoption of version A would change this to count votes for president separately from votes for vice president, while version B would continue the "vote for the ticket" practice and prohibit candidates from running as part of more than one ticket.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Personally, I think 1(b) is the better option. It is quite common for voters to list only the name of the presidential candidate on their ballot: under 1(a), those votes would be ruled invalid (despite everyone knowing who they meant to vote for. Given the prevalence of cross-party endorsements in Atlasia, I don't see the need for a candidate to run as part of multiple tickets.

I'm not sure about barring people from editing their votes entirely: typos do happen, after all. Perhaps we could shorten the time frame to, say, five minutes as a compromise?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

INVALGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE MUST HOLD HEARINGS NOW!!! 

Those communist fascist godless theocratic cronies won't get away with this!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

So, do I take this that there is no interest in ensuring that we have a clarified process for certification of elections?

Dkrol introduced a separate bill to address this.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I also prefer version 1a to version 1b.

I feel that 1a would result in a large number of votes being unnecessarily invalidated based on an unimportant technicality. Historically speaking, it is extremely rare to have one person running on multiple tickets in a presidential election: if the Wiki is to be believed, it has happened exactly once in the last 11 years. By contrast, it is quite common for voters to list only the name of the presidential candidate on their ballots; under Section 1a, their ballots would not be counted despite everyone knowing who they intended to vote for. 1b puts the burden of complying with election law on the candidates, not the voters, and thus - in my view - is more inclusive.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

What is the consensus on repealing/softening the 20 minute rule? Do we want to cut down on the time allowed for edits (say, to 10 minutes) or leave it as-is?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe this incorporates the consensus on the 20-minute rule, as well as the suggestions of Yankee and Talleyrand.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Motion for a final vote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE!