Chancellery Opens then Closes Election Standing

---

---

Chancellery Opens then Closes Senate Election Standing
By Deepest House

---

---

​

---

---

---

---

(Europeia - May 2, 2017) - Vice Chancellor Drecq opened and then closed standing for the upcoming Senate election today. The vice chancellor closed standing after Notolecta confronted him regarding the opening of the standing period for the upcoming Senate election today. Notolecta alleged that Drecq opened the standing period one day earlier than allowed by Europeian law. The confrontation took place on Europeia’s Discord server.

“Standing shouldn’t have opened until tomorrow at the earliest,” he claimed. Notolecta cited the fact that Europeiean law requires standing to open ten days from the end of the term, which would be at the conclusion of the election, not ten days from the opening of voting.

Drecq countered, arguing that the law maintains that the standing period cannot be longer than ten days, and ends upon the opening of the polls on election day. “I’m pretty sure we’ve always done it like this,” he said. Not wanting to waste time arguing over something so pedestrian, Drecq conceded. “I don’t care enough to make a thing out of it.”

Notolecta remained undeterred in his pursuit of the vice chancellor, countering him even after he stood down. “We haven’t, and the law says we can’t, which is all that really matters” he said, in regards to opening the poll when Drecq did. “Do you guys not just go off the spreadsheet anymore?” Notolecta was referring to an election spreadsheet which contains dates for the end of terms, standing periods, and election dates for the presidency and the Senate.

“We’ve never gone off the spreadsheet,” Drecq replied, noting that in his entire time serving in the chancellery this is how it has been done. This garnered further response from Notolecta as being “dumb.”

This is the second time in recent weeks that Notolecta has taken public exception to what he perceived as violations of established rules or law. Previously, Notolecta slammed the current administration’s public statement against sexism in NationStates. He alleged that such a statement as-written was in violation of NationStates board rules, an interpretation that was widely panned within the region.

As a result of Notolecta’s observation, The Nation of the People, who had immediately stood for election will have to re-stand tomorrow. Notolecta’s astute observation of election law demonstrates that Europeia is a region bound by the principals of law and order on which it was founded. Despite standing down, it remains unclear if the Chancellery feels standing was opened too soon, or simply wanted to avoid further confrontation with Notolecta.

 

[Notolecta]

Once again you intentionally mischaracterize my behavior and act as if I am trying to bully people into doing what I want. Drecq was under no obligation to close standing and reopen it, and while I would have taken it to the courts to ensure legal validity of the elections(which is the only important thing in this case), I would have held no judgement about anyone for doing otherwise. DH, I realize you hold a grudge against me, but this repeated mischaracterization of my words and actions is absurd.

 

[JayDee]

I took Noto's side last time, this time I really don't care. You have your little Notty News Network or whatever it is, use that if you want. Go to the Grand Hall to complain about it if you want. I do not care and I doubt DH does either.

 

[Notolecta]

I took Noto's side last time, this time I really don't care. You have your little Notty News Network or whatever it is, use that if you want. Go to the Grand Hall to complain about it if you want. I do not care and I doubt DH does either.

I have every right to call out his mischaracterizations here. I'm not really asking you or him or anyone to care or agree with me; I'm just calling DH's bullshit out.

 

[JayDee]

And I have every right to say you can either get over it or do something more about it. Personally I thought nothing of it until you pointed it out.

 

[GraVandius]

Once again you intentionally mischaracterize my behavior and act as if I am trying to bully people into doing what I want. Drecq was under no obligation to close standing and reopen it, and while I would have taken it to the courts to ensure legal validity of the elections(which is the only important thing in this case), I would have held no judgement about anyone for doing otherwise. DH, I realize you hold a grudge against me, but this repeated mischaracterization of my words and actions is absurd.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

 

[Darcness]

Keeping the Chancellery on their toes is a good thing, in my opinion. Glad you brought the issue up, Notolecta.

As for the article, I didn't read into this as something that casts you in a negative light, so I'm not really sure what you're upset over.

 

[Deepest House]

Usually after I post an article, I let the conversation play out without further input. However, as my journalistic integrity is being called into question, a one-time, singular response is warranted.

There is nothing in this article that is a misrepresentation or mischaracterization of Notolecta’s words or deeds. He is quoted accurately and faithfully, and the conversation between Drecq and Notolecta proceeded as depicted. The approximate time stamp of the conversation is 2:29 pm. (U.S. Central Time). Everyone can go and find it for themselves.

A couple of facts to keep the record straight. EBC reported the events today for two reasons:

1. The Chancellery opening and then closing standing is newsworthy.
2. The fact that a legal question was brought forward and challenged the opening only compounded the newsworthiness.

In no way does the article imply that Notolecta somehow compelled, bullied, or otherwise threatened Drecq into closing the standing period. The article does observe that Drecq closed the standing period after being challenged by Notolecta. It goes without saying that had Notolecta not challenged Drecq on the timing of the standing period, it would have remained open. To suggest otherwise would be non-sense.

As Darcness mentioned, this does not cast Notolecta in a negative light. If anything, it gives a nod to Notolecta for his “astute observation.”

The EBC will continue to report newsworthy events in Europeia as they happen. It is an important part of the Ministry of Communication’s mission.

In closing, Drecq opened the standing consistent with the schedule used by the Chancellery. Notolecta publicly questioned the opening of the standing period on legal grounds, and Drecq thereafter closed the standing. The article accurately portrays the events and dialogue of the day. People in Europeia are responsible for their words and actions, and an accurate portrayal of the events in Europeia is not grounds for allegations of “mischaracterization.”

That is all I will have to say on the matter.

 

[Lethen]

I didn't see any negativity on the part of DH.

 

[McEntire]

I didn't see any negativity on the part of DH.

Have to agree here.

 

[Ervald]

I didn't see any negativity on the part of DH.

Have to agree here.

I also agree. I see absolutely nothing negative about the way Notolecta was reported in this article.

 

[Leo]

I didn't see any negativity on the part of DH.

Have to agree here.

I also agree. I see absolutely nothing negative about the way Notolecta was reported in this article.

I also agree. This article is rather neutral in terms of characterization of the parties in mention.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

I didn't see any negativity on the part of DH.

Have to agree here.

I also agree. I see absolutely nothing negative about the way Notolecta was reported in this article.

I also agree. This article is rather neutral in terms of characterization of the parties in mention.

Yeah...I think you're looking for something that isn't there, Noto. I was expecting it and it didn't come.

 

[Seven Deaths]

*jumps on the agree train*

 

[Shin]

EBC is fake news

 

[Malashaan]

One thing to add that I haven't seen discussed. This is partly an artifact of the infamous ambiguities around timing in the current elections act. The clause in question states "Standing periods for General Elections shall be opened between six and ten days prior to the scheduled end of the current Senate term, and shall be no longer than ten days in length." Thus, there are two clear requirements: (1) standing opens between 6 and 10 days prior to the scheduled end of the current term; and (2) standing periods cannot be longer than 10 days.

The second requirement is pretty clear and consistent. It refers only to the standing period itself, so merely means that once standing begins, it cannot last more than 10 days. Paired with the clause that says voting begins immediately after standing, this simply means that once standing opens, the voting period must begin within 10 days.

The first part is where the issue lies. It relies on the "scheduled end" of the current term as the anchor point for the timing, but this is not a defined term. The Constitution says that terms are "no longer than 70 days," which sets the last day that can be the scheduled term end, but not the first. Theoretically, based on the text of the Constitution alone, the scheduled end could be the day after the previous election (i.e., a 1 day term). This is somewhat constrained by the statement in the elections act that the general election should occur "approximately 35 days after the conclusion of the preceding Presidential Election," but the use of "approximately" renders that problematic. In short, it is not clear exactly when the scheduled end of the current term is, and it may be a highly factual analysis based on what statements have been made by the Chancellery with regard to that specific term. Such ambiguity in something as fundamental as the basic requirements of our elections is not a healthy thing.