MA: Mideast Electoral Reform Act (Statute)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: a Person

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm fine with this, although I don't like I.8.e., and II.2. doesn't make sense, as a citizen cannot prosecute someone; that'd be something the Governor has to do.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

My initial statement was unclear.  My only problem with II.2. was "These concerns may be upgraded to charges of electoral crimes at the originator's discretion."

That makes it sound like the person suing can upgrade a lawsuit to prosecution, but prosecution is solely up to the Governor.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't think someone should be able to request a prosecution.  That should be left up to the Governor.  If the Governor chooses to ignore prosecution of violators, that would be reason for recall.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

That should be left up to the Governor.

Well, that's what the 'may' is there for.

Anyways, we'll see what Gass, shua, and Oldiesfreak have to say, and then we can put up any necessary amendments.

The "may" makes it sound like the decision is left to the original suit filer, not the Governor.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Why is a secret ballot necessary or desirable?

Apparently a Person wants a permanent Federalist majority.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Leadership was paying attention.  Voters chose to vote a different way then was suggested - that's a personal thing, not the party's fault.  I welcome this bill.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

On another note, are you willing to accept my changes as friendly amendments?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What are thoughts on the administrator periodically posting who has voted so far?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The court can't choose to upgrade something to be prosecuted.  It's not up to the court to decide who should and should not be prosecuted.  Prosecution is an execution of the laws--i.e. an executive power.  Leaving this up to the court's discretion to upgrade to prosecution would make the bill unconstitutional.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I was on board with a secret ballot, but this now goes to the point of being a Constitutional amendment.  You're using unique interpretations of the constitution to make it so that a sitting Governor who is running again can't be a voting booth administrator.  That's clearly not the intent of the Constitution.

I see no reason to restrict the Governor from being an administrator.  I'm fully on board with a secret ballot, but not if you're going to get to it by butchering the Constitution.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Also, how are you defining the party of the deputy voting booth administrator?  Is it what it is currently or what it was at the time of the previous election?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Here is my proposal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The bill, from a quick read (I'll do a thorough tonight) looks good.  I think "These concerns may be upgraded to charges of electoral crimes at the governor's discretion" is unnecessary, as we don't have to explicitly say that the Governor can prosecute someone for election crimes; that's already covered under current law, but it's not a bill-killer for me.  I just think the bill should be as small as possible due to its already big size, and I think we should avoid unnecessary language.

I also question the wisdom of including "Failure of the governor to prosecute him- or herself for electoral crimes given reasonable cause may be considered grounds for impeachment."  A Governor prosecuting himself for electoral crimes is a conflict of interest.  I'd be more comfortable just saying that a Governor who commits electoral crimes can be impeached.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

One of the things I also find silly about this bill is the fact that it aims to counter 'strategic voting' but still gives the voting booth administrator and his/her deputy the ability to do so and influence results that no one else would be aware of. If we are going to secret ballot voting, it may be a good idea to ban these people from voting, since it would defeat the purpose of this bill if they could still do so...

We could require administrators to vote absentee, but I'm opposed to saying they can't vote.  That'd be a bill killer for me, and it's not constitutional.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How does voting absentee change it?

Someone can't vote strategically according to the votes cast if they vote before the votes are cast.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Insert as a new Section I.9, and push the others down a number:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Seems to work.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I still don't see how this bill prevents either voting administrator from passing on the voting information they are receiving to a third party that would then use that information to engaged in more informed campaigning. As long as all involved stay quiet, there is no way to know that this law is being violated and certain candidates would have a distinct advantage.     

Well that's the problem with having a secret ballot.  There's also no way to prove that someone tries to encourage a voter to invalidate his/her vote if they send the message via PM.

I don't really see a way around this unless you just nix the whole secret ballot idea.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I did a little tweak to make it a bit easier to read; the effect is still the same:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gass?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Thanks, accepted as friendly.

So are we ready to take this to a vote?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I've gotta say... I never expected myself and a Person to be on the same side fighting in support of an electoral reform bill.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think we should just pass it the normal way.  That's what we did with PR-STV.  I see no reason to deviate here.  The Constitution expressly gives the power to the Assembly to change election law.  If the region didn't want us making election laws, they wouldn't have put that in the Constitution.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What is "Clause 1d/g"?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What is "Clause 1d/g"?

1d and 1g. Is there a better way of putting that?

Oops... I read that as being in Section I... my mistake.  We're all good.