Office of the Judiciary - Term 5

[Bill_in_PDX]

Judge Advocate
Judicial Review

Elections Review

In accordance with Phoenatican CoL, Section E, Point 2, subsection e. The Judge Advocate Office submits this review. Please note the issue posed is a review, not a Public Investigation.

The question posed is: Were non-citizen votes place in the Presidential Election, and if so, would those votes be invalid.

Determination: The Judiciary has no power to conduct any investigation into this issue, as we do not have access to the poll results by voter. That matter is best suited for a moderator.

As to the validity of such votes in any case, I am afraid I must disagree with the honorable Chief Justice on this point.

Phoenatica's Consitution, Article A says:

All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of Phoenatica. Citizens have the right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to representation, the right to demand satisfaction and the right to vote.

Therefore, it is a necessary connection that a Citizen must be registered.

The Code of Laws, Section A, Point 7, further defines the right to vote for citizens:

Right to Vote
a All citizens have the right to vote in all public polls.
b No citizen will be forced to cast their vote against their conscience.
c No citizen will vote more than once in the same poll.


Again, all rights are granted to citizens. Citizens are defined in the Constitution as those in the Registry.

Further, Code of Standards, Section K, also reinforces that those who wish to participate in the game should be registered in the census.

I reiterate that the Judiciary has no capability to ensure that these requirements are being met. But I do dispute the idea that anyone can "come in off the streets" and vote.

Further, with well over 100 registered users we could easily have had nothing go wrong in the last Presidential Election.

Bill
Judge Advocate of Phoenatica

 

[Shaitan]

Good points and excellent logic. However, I maintain my position based on the lack of exclusionary wording plus the implausibility of enforcement.

Lack of exclusion: Although the items that Bill cited do indeed confer a guarantee of voting rights upon the citizenry, there is no wording that excludes non-citizens from voting.

Implausibility of enforcement: Ruling that only citizens can vote would be akin to "Purple Sky" legislation. Purple Sky legislation is when a law is created that cannot, under any reasonable circumstances, be enforced. "We decree that the sky shall be purple!"

 

[donsig]

I tend to agree with the Chief Justice's lack of exclusion interpretation. I disagree that the implausibility of enforcement applies. We could easily do away with the secret ballot in elections and have our citizens post their votes in an election thread or threads. This would allow us to verify that voters are actually registered citizens.

 

[Shaitan]

True, we could go to an open ballot system but we're reviewing our current system. Verifying citizenry in our current voting/polling scheme definitely comes under implausibility of enforcement.

 

[Cyc]

I wouldn't be opposed to open ballots. Voting would be a little more tedious but easily verifiable.

And you're right. Just because it shouldn't happen doesn't mean it won't and just because it should happen doesn't mean it will. I was thinking the same thing as I read Bill's post.

 

[disorganizer]

Maybe we could bring something in here from apolytonia: The mods there try to bring together the registry and the right to vote in polls.
This means: They plan to implement a routine only allowing registered citizens to vote...
But they also got voters-lists from the mods... but maybe someone of us with good connection to the TF could talk with him about this issues?

 

[disorganizer]

@bill: assuming 51 voters being ok just from the fact we have >100 registred citizens is propably a fault. None of our previous polls revealed much more than 20 votes, only in the election phase some get 25-27 votes. even the other elections stayed far beneath 51. This IMHO shows clearly that something was wrong (i cant imagine ppl not caring about the game but being registered just for the elections)

 

[Shaitan]

There were several elections with high turnout. The numbers this term were: 51, 44, 41, 38, 31 and 21. Turnout is heavily dependent upon the popularity of the candidates.

 

[disorganizer]

But then, why dont normal polls have this high output? Even if its an interesting and important thing, the polls are much lower.

 

[Shaitan]

Voter apathy is probably the biggest reason. The same reason why there are generally only a dozen or so active posters.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Agreed, and the same thing holds true in real life. Look at the voter participation in the USA during non-presidential elections, it is much less.

Re-Rebuttal to Shaitan. I agree that non-citizen voting is not specifically forbidden, but that is a messy path to go down for review purposes.

For example, in our review of the turn chat thread, I remind everyone that there is no words specifically excluding non-office holders from posting there. But we all agreed that it was implied by the laws in place.

I am just trying to remain consistent in my interpretations.

Finally, to all, as noted in my post, I do recognize there is the proverbial snowballs chance in hades that we could police this stuff, and I am not advocating it, but I do think we should understand what we approved constitutionally, and correct it if needed.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by disorganizer
@bill: assuming 51 voters being ok just from the fact we have >100 registred citizens is propably a fault. None of our previous polls revealed much more than 20 votes, only in the election phase some get 25-27 votes. even the other elections stayed far beneath 51. This IMHO shows clearly that something was wrong (i cant imagine ppl not caring about the game but being registered just for the elections)

dis, you may well be right, but unfortunately (or actually fortunately now that I think about it) the Judiciary has no way to check this.

Further, in the only other instance where a Mod investigated, DoM found no violations. So I think the weight of assumption has to be on the side that the vote is valid unless someone can prove otherwise.

Bill

 

[disorganizer]

Nope. I think he said it was not possible to do it as TF doesnt track votes on CFC... he found no violations of duplicate registration etc. but could not see the voter list for finding non-citizens.

but another point:
who puts the national park thing in the COL? it finally passed the quorum (even got 4 over it!)

 

[Shaitan]

I've got the combined doc. I'll update it and post it tomorrow and request the change to the Forum copy.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by disorganizer
@bill: assuming 51 voters being ok just from the fact we have >100 registred citizens is propably a fault. None of our previous polls revealed much more than 20 votes, only in the election phase some get 25-27 votes. even the other elections stayed far beneath 51.

Didn't the term three presidential election garner close to 50 votes?

 

[disorganizer]

i dont know. who can say this?
well, maybe thats why ppl were so dissatisfied with the term3 election result they talked DOM into investigation ;-)

 

[Shaitan]

Yes, Term 3 had a huge turnout as well. Similar circumstances - very popular candidates in a tight race.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by disorganizer
i dont know. who can say this?
well, maybe thats why ppl were so dissatisfied with the term3 election result they talked DOM into investigation ;-)

Using that logic we should then call for an investigation into the term 5 elections. No one has seriously called for such an investigation. Is that because they're satisfied with the out come this time.

 

[disorganizer]

Maybe not. Maybe they just think we had enough PIs? Or maybe some ppl decline every request brought up to them to start a PI for someone else? Who knows.

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by donsig


Using that logic we should then call for an investigation into the term 5 elections. No one has seriously called for such an investigation. Is that because they're satisfied with the out come this time.

Maybe that was the reason for all of the PIs in Term 3.

But, then again, the game is almost over, the the PI would probably be over AFTER the game is finished. Besides, last time Duke checked, he couldn't tell.