SENATE BILL: Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Act Amendment (rejected)

[bgwah]

I'm using the forum affairs slot for this.

Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Act Amendment



Section 1 of the Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Act shall be amended to read:

1. It shall be a crime against the Republic of Atlasia for any citizen to instruct or encourage a voter who has already cast his or her ballot to take an action that would have the effect of invalidating the ballot.

2. For the purposes of this statute, federal election shall extend to (but is not limited to) any election for President, Vice-President or Senator, any federal impeachment vote, and any public vote sanctioned by Law which requires that an officer of the federal government administer it.

3. The instruction or encouragement of a voter shall be interpreted to include any action which indicates the possibility of invalidating a vote to affect a federal election.

Sponsor: Snowguy716

[bgwah]

I think we should just scrap the entire law, personally. It's hard to prove, and besides, if one succeeds at it they get away with it. You have to have someone tattle.

Tricking someone (or threatening/blackmailing...) into invalidating their vote should be illegal, of course. But that sort of thing can be better taken care of by the CCJA.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Tricking someone (or threatening/blackmailing...) into invalidating their vote should be illegal, of course. But that sort of thing can be better taken care of by the CCJA.

I think the 5th amendment to the CCJA covers that.

[Napoleon]

I support the current law and don't see a need to change it because one person that screwed up doesn't like it.

[tmthforu94]

Let me be clear - the purpose of this bill is to make it illegal for not only the election administrator, but for anyone to campaign for the invalidation of votes. Bgwah, if you would support this bill more by focusing it more on "intimidating", I'd be fine with that.

I believe this is something that not only the election administrator should be forbid to do, but any Atlasian as well.

[Napoleon]

I believe this is something that not only the election administrator should be forbid to do, but any Atlasian as well.

why?

[tmthforu94]

I don't feel compelled to explain my reasoning to a close-minded Senator. If anyone else has any concerns, I'll be glad to explain.

[Napoleon]

I don't feel compelled to explain my reasoning to a close-minded Senator. If anyone else has any concerns, I'll be glad to explain.

Obviously this isn't the same situation. If you can't explain why this is something worth supporting, I will happily oppose it.

When making policy, everyone should know that the proponents are obliged to explain why it should be passed. Opposition has no such obligation. Not that you aren't all too predictable.

[bgwah]

Tricking someone (or threatening/blackmailing...) into invalidating their vote should be illegal, of course. But that sort of thing can be better taken care of by the CCJA.

I think the 5th amendment to the CCJA covers that.

Which is a major reason I think we should just scrap this bill instead of trying to amend it.

[Napoleon]

Tricking someone (or threatening/blackmailing...) into invalidating their vote should be illegal, of course. But that sort of thing can be better taken care of by the CCJA.

I think the 5th amendment to the CCJA covers that.

Which is a major reason I think we should just scrap this bill instead of trying to amend it.

What is wrong with the bill in its original form?

[tmthforu94]

I don't feel compelled to explain my reasoning to a close-minded Senator. If anyone else has any concerns, I'll be glad to explain.

Obviously this isn't the same situation. If you can't explain why this is something worth supporting, I will happily oppose it.

When making policy, everyone should know that the proponents are obliged to explain why it should be passed. Opposition has no such obligation.

Later on this evening I am going to give a definite reasoning because I believe it's right to always explain your reasoning, even though I know nothing I say will change your mind.

Your response to Ben wasn't an "opposition has no such obligation" argument, since you made it clear later in your post that if anyone else had any concerns, you'd be happy to explain it to them. I'm trying to improve Atlasia and work on the GTO as GTO Ambassador, and I'd personally, as would Ben, like to know why people oppose/support legislation we've proposed.

[bgwah]

Tricking someone (or threatening/blackmailing...) into invalidating their vote should be illegal, of course. But that sort of thing can be better taken care of by the CCJA.

I think the 5th amendment to the CCJA covers that.

Which is a major reason I think we should just scrap this bill instead of trying to amend it.

What is wrong with the bill in its original form?

I think it's redundant given the amendment to the CCJA. And I see no reason to hold the elections administrator to a different standard. Like I said, tricking/threatening/intimating should definitely be illegal IMO. Which would include what we believe happened in the June election.

[Napoleon]

Obviously I have an obligation to my constituents to let them know where I stand. We are a democracy after all, and I treasure that.

I think it is good to ensure administrators can't interfere with the elections they administarte, we have a similar law in the Northeast. The best solution to this would be to implement Governor Winfield's Vote Sanctity Act nationwide. It is proven to work.

[bgwah]

I would like to introduce the following amendment:


Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Act Repeal
1) The Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Act is repealed effective immediately.

[tmthforu94]

The best solution to this would be to implement Governor Winfield's Vote Sanctity Act nationwide. It is proven to work.

Then what would Winfield have to campaign on?

 I agree, though concerns that have been expressed in the Mideast Assembly are why I think there should be a small amount of time available to edit your ballot. Not everyone has great, high-speed internet (yes Yankee, I'm looking at you.)

My purpose of this bill was because I find it questionable that it's wrong for an election administrator to ask someone to invalidate their vote but it's okay for everyone else. As the author of this bill, I hope Snowguy will consider accepting bgwah's amendment is friendly, though I wouldn't mind merging this with Napoleon's idea of some sort of Vote Sanctity Act.

[bgwah]

I think allowing 20 minutes to edit your vote is a reasonable way to typos, mistakes, and newbies who may be unaware of the rules.

[Napoleon]

When I was a newbie, I was asked to edit my ballot. I remember finding it odd that one could change a cast ballot, but at the time I saw no reason to think much of it, or really about Atlasia in general. However, experience has helped me understand that this practice allows too much abuse. I have seen in my own region the effects of the Vote Sanctity Act. There has been no need for editing. Everyone, including newbies, understands in our region that a valid ballot may not be edited. With that said, any attempts to dilute the discussion by bringing up irrelevancies like internet connection speed should be ignored.

I think it is proper that election administrators don't have the ability to encourage vote invalidation. It helps maintained a sense of impartiality that is important in a democracy. Referring back to Invaligate, which I suppose really set off thisa whole thing, I found two things offensive. The first was, as I said, the election administrator attempting to have voters invalidate their votes. While a rather convenient blackmail made prosecution a failure, this law is still a good policy to have for future cases. One was in place in the Northeast before I joined this game.

The second problem was the abhorrent tactics used to achieve an invalidation. We have coveted this fairly thoroughly with an amendment to the CCJA. Therefore, I find myself unable to support any change to the current policy that doesn't remove the cause of the problem, to be correctly identified as vote editing.

[tmthforu94]

While a rather convenient blackmail made prosecution a failure

What evidence do you have to back that claim?

From my interpretation of the CCJA amendment that was made, someone can still "politely ask" someone to invalidate their vote, just as long as they aren't abrasive about it.

I'd support not allowing voter's to edit their ballot after 5 minutes, though even from there I'd be willing to come down a couple minutes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The cause of the problem is not vote editing. The cause of the problem is the person who is abusing the law to achieve his unjust ends. Go after them, and ride them into the ground.

Removing vote editing entirely is the wrong approach. It would be like banning all forms of "advised/consulted investing" as a response to all these ponzi schemes being uncovered, lately.

Or dare I say, banning all guns because guns can be used to kill. 

An interesting strategy. If something is abused, get rid of it. The trouble is, anything can be abused. The intimidation and such will take place before the election. The schemers will find a new industry which to use as a front, and the murderers will switch to knives or poison. I guess then we would just stop having elections, or ban every form of cuting utencil. Sorry cooks, these things have too much potential for abuse. Find another way to dice onions. We are sorry for the inconvenience.

Imagine if we got rid of all posters as a response to an account being hacked. Those damned posters serve only to be abused you know.

The other problem is that such a law is completely worthless since there is no way to prove whether or not someone edited a vote within the first 2 minutes. This fact of life produced by the forum software creates inequality of enforcement based largely on wealth, IE that supposed irrelevancy of the connection speed.

The fact is you can't ban vote editing as long as the forum doesn't display whether editing took place in the first two minutes. You can only reduce it to that level of 2 minutes. At which point you might as well raise it to a level appropriate to allow an equal opportunity for all posters to edit their posts for correction purposes.

[bgwah]

Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Act Repeal
1) The Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Act is repealed effective immediately.

We are now voting on the above amendment. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.


Aye

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Aye

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Aye

[Napoleon]

Nay

[Ban my account ffs!]

Nay

There should be a law on the books that punishes anybody caught trying to invalidate votes.  Just because it's hard to try the person involved doesn't mean we should just get rid of the law.

[bgwah]

The amendment has passed with 3 ayes, 2 nays, and 4 non-voting abstentions.