Voting System Reform Commission

[Sam Spade]

Given that there is not much discussion on previous topics, we shall move onto what should be our final topic:

Prevention of Fraud

What specific offences on the part of the electoral committee should we criminalise?

Beyond criminalisation, are there any particular safeguards we can put in place to stop fraud?

The following, at the very least, ought to be criminalized:
- Revealing or publicly discussing vote totals, results, or individual votes before the election ends
- Revealing a voter's identity without his consent
- Fraudulently counting the results
- Gross negligence in conducting the election

As to specific measures to combat fraud, I fear that I cannot think of any.

Same here.  This basically encompasses my thoughts as well.

[Peter]

This is getting somewhat slow, and since I can think of little to add myself or that could be added by others, we will move into the report drafting phase.

You can see my initial workings of a draft here

As I have already begun to do, I will appendix much of the technical detail for the sake of ordinary citizens and others who have to end up reading through this.

Comments on my drafts are welcome. I will work on more of it this evening.

[Emsworth]

Peter, do you mind if I edit my earlier statement (presented as Appendix 2) for clarity, etc.?

Also, I have a suggestion for Section 2 of the proposed Secret Voting Bill: Instead of ranking the Senators based on district or region, they should be ranked on the basis of seniority (i.e., length of unbroken service).

[Peter]

Peter, do you mind if I edit my earlier statement (presented as Appendix 2) for clarity, etc.?

Not at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Secret Voting Bill presently on the draft is the SVB as it stood before being placed into this Commission's mandate. I strongly suspect the replacement suggested will be somewhat different from that which the Senate had previously considered.

[Peter]

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/User:Pete_bell/Draft

My draft is now complete and is posted above. Comments are as ever welcome

A notice reflecting this has been sent to the Commission members since doubtless some of them will not see this notice.

Hopefully publication within one week should be possible.

[ilikeverin]

The questions that need to be resolved:

1. Yes (though I can be swayed)
2. Yes
3. #1 or #2

[Emsworth]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. #4, and if the list is exhausted #1; members of this list/presidential nominees should also be used to fill in for the SoFA or GM if necessary.

[Sam Spade]

1.  Yes
2.  Yes
3.  #1 or #4, imo.

[Colin]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. #4 or #3. #4 is better than #3 in my mind.

[Peter]

This mob will thusly call itself a majority and vote yes on questions 1 and 2.

I remain in favour of option 1 or 2 (in conjuction with option 4) in question 3 because as I have previously pointed out, it is completely within the realms of possibility, and may indeed be likely that any list of office holders will be exhausted.

Option 3 has little support it appears.

If anybody wishes to reconsider any other section that I have written, you have 48 hours to indicate this here, or I will consider that everybody is happy with what we presently have.

[Peter]

New Section 8 added, part of which I reproduce here:

The political views of individual members of this Commission regarding whether secret voting is desirable form no part of this report as we feel it is best that such a decision be taken by the elected branches of government.

Whilst I have made such a qualifier on the actual report, I will invite Commission members to file their own views alongside the Report itself. In this you can say whatever you want regarding secret voting, including stating your own political view that secret voting is or is not desirable.

[Peter]

48 hours is just about up. Given there have no been no further proposals for discussion, I have now finalised my draft and have performed a spell check.

I now ask that all members of the Commission state their vote on this report:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/User:Pete_bell/Draft

To Concur, to Dissent or to Abstain (or appropriate derivatives)

This vote will ideally be open only 3 days.

In addition to your votes on the report, I invite members to post their own remarks on Secret Voting which may dissent from individual sections or may state views not coverred in the report entirely. You may post these remarks now or when I post the final report.

[Emsworth]

I vote to concur in the whole report.

[Sam Spade]

I concur with the report, Peter.

[Colin]

I concur with the report, though I object to the whole system of the secret ballot.

Will we now proceed to our second stated objective? That of discussing the possibilities of the use of more simplified or more accurate voting systems in Atlasia.

[True Democrat]

I agree with the report.

[KEmperor]

I vote to concur with the report, with the following exception:

I must abstain from those sections of the report that detail a recommendation as to the constitutionality of voting requirements for obvious reasons.

[Peter]

Will we now proceed to our second stated objective? That of discussing the possibilities of the use of more simplified or more accurate voting systems in Atlasia.

Given that I am not wishing to be held in contempt of the Senate, we will do so once this report is published, which will hopefully be tomorrow if the remaining votes come in.

For the record, I concur in my own report. Ordinarily I would abstain from Section 2 due to my judicial position, but since I already have taken a large part in its writing, nothing would be gained from this recusal.

[Peter]

Gabu and Ilikeverin are considered to be absent.

I will now formally report on the elections board. A new thread will be opened for part 2 of our mandate.

[ilikeverin]

For the record, I support it.

[Sam Spade]

This is the original discussion concerning a secret ballot.