Constitutional Amendment to Allow a Secret Ballot

[Peter]

Please specify that the legislation is federal, if only for my sanity.

[MasterJedi]

So are we having a vote or what? And I don't really get what Peter means.

[The Dowager Mod]

Okay, here's the official version of the amendment, unless someone can find something else that should be added:

Definitions

Non-anonymous secret ballot: any form of ballot where each vote made can be directly linked to a specific voter, but where the link is not known to the general public.

§1. The text "All elections to the Senate shall be by public post." in Article I, Section 4, Clause 6 of the constitution is hereby stricken and replaced with "All elections to the Senate shall be by either public post or non-anonymous secret ballot."

§2. The text "All elections to the Presidency shall be by public post." in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the constitution is hereby stricken and replaced with "All elections to the Presidency shall be by either public post or non-anonymous secret ballot."

§3. Following ratification by the regions, this amendment shall be considered ineffectual until legislation is passed that explicitly declares that this amendment shall come into power.

change the words in bold and i can go for this.

[Gabu]

Please specify that the legislation is federal, if only for my sanity.

Picky, picky.

Done.

So are we having a vote or what? And I don't really get what Peter means.

Peter was referring to section 3 and my reference to "legislation".

Okay, here's the official version of the amendment, unless someone can find something else that should be added:

Definitions

Non-anonymous secret ballot: any form of ballot where each vote made can be directly linked to a specific voter, but where the link is not known to the general public.

§1. The text "All elections to the Senate shall be by public post." in Article I, Section 4, Clause 6 of the constitution is hereby stricken and replaced with "All elections to the Senate shall be by either public post or non-anonymous secret ballot."

§2. The text "All elections to the Presidency shall be by public post." in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the constitution is hereby stricken and replaced with "All elections to the Presidency shall be by either public post or non-anonymous secret ballot."

§3. Following ratification by the regions, this amendment shall be considered ineffectual until legislation is passed that explicitly declares that this amendment shall come into power.

change the words in bold and i can go for this.

Why would you prefer it to say "either/or"?  Ebowed expressed the concern that this could lead to mandatory secret ballots.

[The Dowager Mod]

The way you have it does just that.

[Alcon]

I'm not sure where we are in the debate, but I'd like to remind the Senate (perhaps belatedly) that obfuscation of IP addresses is not difficult.

[Gabu]

The way you have it does just that.

How does it do that?

The amendment that I posted above states that elections will be done through both public post and non-anonymous secret ballot.  It seems pretty clear to me that this means that both options will be available...

I'm not sure where we are in the debate, but I'd like to remind the Senate (perhaps belatedly) that obfuscation of IP addresses is not difficult.

True, but this is not the place to debate that point.  This is just the amendment that will clear the way for a secret ballot; the actual specifics of the methodology used will come later.

[The Dowager Mod]

The way you have it does just that.

How does it do that?

The amendment that I posted above states that elections will be done through both public post and non-anonymous secret ballot.  It seems pretty clear to me that this means that both options will be available...

I'm not sure where we are in the debate, but I'd like to remind the Senate (perhaps belatedly) that obfuscation of IP addresses is not difficult.

True, but this is not the place to debate that point.  This is just the amendment that will clear the way for a secret ballot; the actual specifics of the methodology used will come later.

The point i'm trying to make is that the way it is worded can be taken to mean you mustuse both methods

[Gabu]

The point i'm trying to make is that the way it is worded can be taken to mean you mustuse both methods

But it says elections will be held using those methods.  It says nothing about what voters must do.

If you change it to either/or, it seems to me that this implies that some elections can be done using only one or the other.

[Platypus]

how about adding, 'at the preference of the individual voter' to the end, just to make it completely obvious?

[Q]

As long as this is being discussed, could someone please point me to an explanation of the voter ID numbers former SoFA ilikeverin had been recording?

[Gabu]

how about adding, 'at the preference of the individual voter' to the end, just to make it completely obvious?

I added something along those lines.  I weep for our nation in light of the fact that this could potentially be necessary, but I did it.

As long as this is being discussed, could someone please point me to an explanation of the voter ID numbers former SoFA ilikeverin had been recording?

I can make one right now; that would probably be easier.

The idea is to have an ID number attached to each ballot, assigned by the SoFA, beginning with zero and incrementing with each ballot.  After the SoFA assigns a ballot an ID number, the SoFA will PM the ID number to the voter.  Following the election, all secret ballots will be posted, listed by ID number.  Each voter can then check the list of ballots to ensure that his was properly counted.

Basically, it's a way to make it so each voter can ensure that his vote was properly included in the final tally.

[Q]

As long as this is being discussed, could someone please point me to an explanation of the voter ID numbers former SoFA ilikeverin had been recording?

I can make one right now; that would probably be easier.

The idea is to have an ID number attached to each ballot, assigned by the SoFA, beginning with zero and incrementing with each ballot.  After the SoFA assigns a ballot an ID number, the SoFA will PM the ID number to the voter.  Following the election, all secret ballots will be posted, listed by ID number.  Each voter can then check the list of ballots to ensure that his was properly counted.

Basically, it's a way to make it so each voter can ensure that his vote was properly included in the final tally.

Thank you, Senator Gabu.  I believed that to be the case, but I wanted to be sure I understood the appropriate levels of privacy they should be afforded, and such.

Using a random number generator, I have assigned a new 4-digit ID number to each currently-registered voter.  I will keep these secret until such time as they are needed if a secret ballot is ever allowed.

I do not believe that any aspect of the legislation proposed here, with the various changes in language, would be impossible for me to implement as SoFA.

[Gabu]

Using a random number generator, I have assigned a new 4-digit ID number to each currently-registered voter.  I will keep these secret until such time as they are needed if a secret ballot is ever allowed.

Isn't that making things more complicated than they need to be?  My intention was to just start at zero and go up by one each time a ballot comes in.  Given that no one will have any clue who voted or in what order they voted, a given number would have no public connection to any specific voter.

The counter would reset with each election, given that there's no real reason not to do so.

EDIT: Oops, my bad, I forgot what I had written.  I have it so that the numbers begin at 100000, not zero, but the idea is the basically the same regardless.

[Brandon H]

I would suggest picking a random number to start with. If you have 1000001, you know you are first. If the first number was random, you would not know how many people voted before you.

[Gabu]

I would suggest picking a random number to start with. If you have 1000001, you know you are first. If the first number was random, you would not know how many people voted before you.

I'm not seeing what the problem is with having it possible for people to know how many people voted prior to that person's vote.  Could that somehow compromise the security of the secret ballot?

[Joe Republic]

Surely this is now a debate for the relevant bill that follows after this?

[MasterJedi]

Surely this is now a debate for the relevant bill that follows after this?

No, we haven't even voted on the amendment yet. -_-

[Joe Republic]

I know, but I'd like to see debates about random number generators and such to wait until the actual bill reaches the floor.  For all intents and purposes, it is irrelevant to this particular bill/amendment/whatever.

[Gabu]

So, uh, can we get a vote on the amendment, or something?

[MasterJedi]

So, uh, can we get a vote on the amendment, or something?

Yeah, a good idea, like I asked for a day ago!

[Platypus]

I believe this amendment is ready for the poeple.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I call a vote on this Amendment

[MasterJedi]

Aye

[Platypus]

Aye