Over the years, I've had the opportunity to run in many competitive elections and, of course, I've been an observer and an Election Commissioner in even more elections. I've come to believe that the way we run our elections unintentionally encourages some really unhealthy behavior. The worst of which is the paranoia and resentment that comes with the prospect of the election being manipulated mid-vote by a campaign to get people to change their ballots. This kind of abuse of our preferential system, which is open to strategic voting, can cause electoral outcomes to be suspect or seen as illegitimate. And because actions taken in DMs and smoke-filled back rooms are hard to prove happened (or didn't happen), the mere ability to do that kind of shady mid-vote strategic lobbying is enough to cast a cloud over competitive elections.

My first preference to address this issue is to move to an all secret-ballot system. But the Assembly is voting down Jay's bill to do so as I write this. So, I propose an alternative. It's not as good in my mind, but it does take a scalpel-approach to the handsaw-approach of getting rid of public ballots altogether. In essence, I propose that we no longer allow voters to alter their ballots once cast. This is how elections work in the real world, for good reason.

This isn't a condemnation of voters, though. I anticipate that some will oppose this with arguments that voters should be able to have a choice. And in an ideal world, I would agree. But in the region as it exists, the past actions of candidates or electioneers has opened a Pandora's box that we can't close back up. This isn't about taking away voter choice, but about protecting our elections against shady manipulation by electioneers.

Without further adieu, here is the bill I am proposing:

Elections Act
...

2. Electoral System

...

(3) Voters will have the option to cast their vote using either a public or a secret ballot. The method of private voting will be selected by the Election Commission. The method must utilize an unaffiliated account or server, with the method and all votes remaining available for audit. Named ballots are not to be released under any circumstances. Once cast, ballots in forum-based elections may not be altered.

Note: I don't believe it's possible to restrict polls in-game so that you can't change your selection. Thus, I've limited this to ballots cast in forum elections.

(This post was last modified: 11-26-2020, 05:20 PM by Purple Hyacinth. Edit Reason: Added [PASSED] )

Reply

I realize I should know this, but can we technically set it so posts in a thread cannot be edited by the poster? Or would we need to be that anyone who edited a ballot would have their vote tossed?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I realize I should know this, but can we technically set it so posts in a thread cannot be edited by the poster? Or would we need to be that anyone who edited a ballot would have their vote tossed?

Yes, we can. There’s an option in the admin settings of any category or subforum to disable post editing for specific user groups.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 10-25-2020, 10:50 AM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

I realize I should know this, but can we technically set it so posts in a thread cannot be edited by the poster? Or would we need to be that anyone who edited a ballot would have their vote tossed?

Yes, we can. There’s an option in the admin settings of any category or subforum to disable post editing for specific user groups.

While this one is more traceable, you would also need to disable post deleting too, I think?

Reply

I realize I should know this, but can we technically set it so posts in a thread cannot be edited by the poster? Or would we need to be that anyone who edited a ballot would have their vote tossed?

Yes, we can. There’s an option in the admin settings of any category or subforum to disable post editing for specific user groups.

While this one is more traceable, you would also need to disable post deleting too, I think?

No, those are separate options. We can turn off post editing without affecting other posting privileges.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

I realize I should know this, but can we technically set it so posts in a thread cannot be edited by the poster? Or would we need to be that anyone who edited a ballot would have their vote tossed?

Yes, we can. There’s an option in the admin settings of any category or subforum to disable post editing for specific user groups.

While this one is more traceable, you would also need to disable post deleting too, I think?

No, those are separate options. We can turn off post editing without affecting other posting privileges.

Oh, I meant as a separate thing. Disabling editing, but also making it so users don't just delete their ballot and post a new one. (If I'm not mistaken the mods/admins can still see the deleted posts, so this would be detectable for them either way.)

Reply

What would happen if something were to come out during the election that would cause many people to change their vote?

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

Reply

This seems unnecessary. If people's minds are changed mid-vote then so be it. That is democracy.

(This post was last modified: 10-26-2020, 11:32 PM by Domais.)

Reply

Tough bologna! Say I submit my ballot. I can't just ask for it back so I can use whiteout and bubble in something else. I fully support this proposal and agree with the argument made in its favor.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 10-27-2020, 02:00 AM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

Tough bologna! Say I submit my ballot. I can't just ask for it back so I can use whiteout and bubble in something else. I fully support this proposal and agree with the argument made in its favor.

Well, luckily this is the internet and not a "real" election. We give people a few days to vote and they should be able to change and modify their vote as they see fit. Let's be honest strategic voting is a DEMOCRATIC. If people want to mid-vote, campaign to get people to change their vote that is again inherently democratic. Voting is open for however many days it is because we should give people time to vote. Under this proposal, voting will actually only be one day as people will shift their voting times to the last second possible so they can make the most informed decision. That is more unhealthy than strategic voting or mid-vote campaigns.

Reply