Voting System Reform Commission

[True Democrat]

I believe once we have established what voting by public post is we should call the other two justices to ensure that anything we produce will not be overturned.

[Peter]

I believe once we have established what voting by public post is we should call the other two justices to ensure that anything we produce will not be overturned.

They may well decide that issuing advisory opinions on the Constitution is illegal (as the real SCOTUS has done), but if they wish to, I won't stop them.

[True Democrat]

Should we use a different board for this, or just this thread?  Also, should we ban all others from typing in this thread to make it easier to read?

[Peter]

Should we use a different board for this, or just this thread?  Also, should we ban all others from typing in this thread to make it easier to read?

We'll be fine here I think. There's no need for a vote until the end and hopefully the way I organise it should mean that we don't have to refer back 12 pages to see whats being discussed.

I will probably start a new thread for the second half of the commission.

[Emsworth]

I will first address the constitutional issue.

The Constitution provides:

All elections to the Senate shall be by public post. (Article I, Section iv, Clause 6)

All elections to the Presidency shall be by public post. (Article II, Section ii, Clause 2)

The meaning of these clauses is, to me, very clear. Undoubtedly, they mean that voters must publicly post their ballots in the election. I can think of no other reasonable interpretation of these words that would pass muster.

It was clearly the intent of the Framers of this clause that voters should publicly post their own ballots. Several clauses of the Constitution support this view. For example:

Campaigning may not occur in the place where voting occurs. (Article V, Section i, Clause 3)

This clause clearly implies that the Constitution foresees a single "place where voting occurs." I find it difficult to fathom that this clause refers to private message boxes: clearly, the most reasonable interpretation is that it refers to a public voting booth.

Another important clause of the Constitution is:

Persons who edit the post in which their vote(s) are contained at the place of voting shall have their vote counted as void. (Article V, Section ii, Clause 9)

Once again, we find a reference to "the place of voting," clearly implying that there is to be a single voting booth in which citizens publicly cast their ballots. But, there is an even clearer implication in the words: "Persons who edit the post in which their vote(s) are contained ..." Here, the Constitution undeniably implies that voters will be posting their own votes.

The idea that it is constitutional for a voter to send his ballot secretly to someone else, who would then post all the ballots without revealing which vote belonged to which person, is a perversion of the Constitution, both in letter and in spirit. It has been said that there is a loophole, because the Constitution does not explicitly say, "each citizen shall cast his vote in a public post." But such an explicit statement is not necessary. It is abundantly clear to me that the requirement that all elections shall be "by public post" requires each voter to publicly cast his own ballot. This is clear to me not only from the two clauses requiring voting by public post themselves, but also from other clauses in the Constitution, which provide context and aid in interpretation. For, if the Constitution allows someone else to post one's ballot, these clauses, taken in context, shall effectively be meaningless.

If we decide that anything but voting by publicly posting one's own ballot is constitutional, we would be blatantly ignoring the clear and undeniable intent of the Framers. Worse still, we would be twisting and perverting the text of the Constitution to achieve our own ends.

[True Democrat]

So, according to Emsworth's ideas, we cannot have secret voting becaue it will be unconstitutional.  Perhaps we should rally behind a constitutional amendment to go with the bill we will propose.

[Emsworth]

To add to my previous post:

An amendment is definitely necessary to ensure secret voting. But "polling" should not be permitted, as it is too open to fraud.

[Colin]

I agree with Vice President Emsworth's arguement. This was one of my main reasons that I believed that the Secret Ballot Act should not be passed. Mr. Republic's argument that it is constitutional on the grounds of the loopholes in the two said clauses above is a mere fallacy and, I am almost sure of it, would have ensured that the act would be challenged and struck down by the Supreme Court.

I believe those two clauses came from the original Dan constitution, although that may not be the case, and were thusly rolled-over into the new Constitution by the Second Constitutional Convention.

To answer the three questions brought forward by the chair I would have to say that those two clauses mean that a person must post their vote in the voting booth, or other approved voting area, for it to be legal. Thus any proposed secret ballot initiative would have to be an amendment. The amendment would have to strike those two clauses and replace them with something like, "All elections to the Presidency shall be by either public post or secret ballot." It would probably have to be much more specific than that to ensure that their is no misunderstandings.

If this amendment is passed you would then need to define the secret ballot using a piece of legislation comparable to the Secret Ballot Act. That is the only way I can see it being Constitutional.   

[Sam Spade]

I agree with the general gist that Emsworth and Colin are saying with regards to the constitutionality and potential implementation of a secret ballot, fwiw.

I really have nothing to add right now otherwise on the issue.

[Peter]

I tend to agree with the Vice President.

From my (slightly distant) memory of our original framing, the reason these clauses were included was to stop the use of the polling feature in our elections because it was obviously recognised they were too open to fraud. Thusly, we placed a requirement in the Constitution that all votes must be publically posted. I carried this over in my draft for our Second Constitution with a slight change in wording IIRC.

I wish to maintain the Constitution's prohibition on the polling feature, whilst making a secret ballot possible under as it is now clear that an Amendment is necessary.

I originally submitted this proposal for an Amendment to Gov. Joe Republic when the bill was first under consideration:

1. The requirement that elections to the Senate and the Presidency be by public post is repealed.
2. Under no circumstances shall a polling method which allows a person to anonymously vote be used in any election or vote mandated under this Constitution. This clause shall not be construed to require that a person's vote is publicly disclosed to all citizens.
3. This Amendment shall only become operative if ratified within one calendar year from the date of its submission to the Regions by the Senate.

[KEmperor]

No one ever told me I was on this commission.  Heh.

[KEmperor]

Reading over the past three pages, I am afraid I must refrain from commenting on the constitutionality of any proposals.

[Emsworth]

1. The requirement that elections to the Senate and the Presidency be by public post is repealed.
2. Under no circumstances shall a polling method which allows a person to anonymously vote be used in any election or vote mandated under this Constitution. This clause shall not be construed to require that a person's vote is publicly disclosed to all citizens.
3. This Amendment shall only become operative if ratified within one calendar year from the date of its submission to the Regions by the Senate.

The Amendment's language seems acceptable to me. I see no problem with the wording, which is quite clear.

[Sam Spade]

1. The requirement that elections to the Senate and the Presidency be by public post is repealed.
2. Under no circumstances shall a polling method which allows a person to anonymously vote be used in any election or vote mandated under this Constitution. This clause shall not be construed to require that a person's vote is publicly disclosed to all citizens.
3. This Amendment shall only become operative if ratified within one calendar year from the date of its submission to the Regions by the Senate.

The Amendment's language seems acceptable to me. I see no problem with the wording, which is quite clear.

Agreed.

[True Democrat]

1. The requirement that elections to the Senate and the Presidency be by public post is repealed.
2. Under no circumstances shall a polling method which allows a person to anonymously vote be used in any election or vote mandated under this Constitution. This clause shall not be construed to require that a person's vote is publicly disclosed to all citizens.
3. This Amendment shall only become operative if ratified within one calendar year from the date of its submission to the Regions by the Senate.

The Amendment's language seems acceptable to me. I see no problem with the wording, which is quite clear.

Agreed.

Looks ok to me too.

[Colin]

1. The requirement that elections to the Senate and the Presidency be by public post is repealed.
2. Under no circumstances shall a polling method which allows a person to anonymously vote be used in any election or vote mandated under this Constitution. This clause shall not be construed to require that a person's vote is publicly disclosed to all citizens.
3. This Amendment shall only become operative if ratified within one calendar year from the date of its submission to the Regions by the Senate.

The Amendment's language seems acceptable to me. I see no problem with the wording, which is quite clear.

Agreed.

Looks ok to me too.

The wording seems acceptable although I am still not in favour of the idea of a secret ballot.

[KEmperor]

I strongly oppose a secret ballot, but the wording is decent.

[Joe Republic]

I wonder if anybody on this Commission is actually in favor of a secret ballot.

[Gabu]

I wonder if anybody on this Commission is actually in favor of a secret ballot.

I am, personally, if it's done right.  I've seen way too many instances where a person has been harassed because of the way that he voted in an election.  This whole thing where Harry considers anyone who sixth-preferenced him to be part of some grand conspiracy against him is a good example.  Keystone Phil has provided plenty of other good examples.  I, myself, have sometimes felt not completely at liberty to vote the way I want on occasion because of what I felt might happen if I voted against someone.  It would make people able to lean on other people a lot less.

As for Peter Bell's amendment, I think it looks good to me.

[Colin]

I wonder if anybody on this Commission is actually in favor of a secret ballot.

Only two commission members have come out against it to my knowledge.

[KEmperor]

Campaigning may not occur in the place where voting occurs. (Article V, Section i, Clause 3)

This clause clearly implies that the Constitution foresees a single "place where voting occurs." I find it difficult to fathom that this clause refers to private message boxes: clearly, the most reasonable interpretation is that it refers to a public voting booth.

LOL, if we moved to a PM system, this could result in any PM's sent out for campaigning purposes being illegal.  Actually, that would an amusing case....

[Sam Spade]

I wonder if anybody on this Commission is actually in favor of a secret ballot.

I am willing to vote to let the citizens decide whether they want to change the ballot in order to make a secret ballot.  I am still presently undecided with regards to whether I would vote for a secret ballot bill if presented to the Senate.

[TheWildCard]

I am very much for a secret ballot. Perhaps run by a bipartisan commitee.

[Colin]

bipartisan

Theirs that word again.

[KEmperor]

bipartisan

Theirs that word again.

Well, considering there are only two parties in the Senate, I suppose he can use that word.