Election Frenzy or Fatigue


Election Frenzy or Fatigue
Bonanza or Burnout?
Written by McEntire
​


(EUROPEIA - April 25, 2017) Europeians across the region are reporting severe cramps in their forearms after having to repeatedly pull the lever in the ballot box over the last several weeks. In the wake of a competitive presidential election that saw record turnout and resulted in a run-off, the resignation of a senator and the World Assembly delegate caused by-elections to fill vacancies. In combination with the regularly scheduled election for Citizens' Assembly chair, the region has seen 6 individual elections and runoffs in a matter of two weeks.

From the perspective of the Chancellery, it can be difficult to administer so many elections in quick succession, because of timing, updating the citizenship spreadsheet, and writing speeches before standing. Supreme Chancellor Lethen noted that "people talk about election fatigue and voter fatigue sometimes in Euro, and I laugh it off, but I feel like it's real for the Chancellors." He also described the heightened lengths that the Chancellors have gone through in order to notify people about so many overlapping elections.

The sudden resignations of Senator HEM, for personal reasons, and Delegate Trinnien three days later due to a dispute over the alleged release of classified material, created a flurry of interest from members both experienced and inexperienced. The Senate by-election saw Constie, Punchwood, Comrade Snowball, and the Nation of the People, all of whom joined in 2015-2017, bested by now-Senator Seven Deaths, of the 2012 generation. The Delegate election, which started with a wide field of 7, came down to a run-off between Kaboom and the seasoned veteran Malashaan, who prevailed with 58.6 percent of the vote.

Citizen interest remained high throughout the elections. The Senate by-election recorded 77 votes, which is a major increase from the 53 the region saw in July 2016, the last time there was a Senate by-election to fill only one seat. The Delegate election run-off had 70 votes, up from 65 in the election to elect Trinnien last September. And the CA Chair election saw 51 votes, up from 47 in the by-election that elected Sopo as Chair. While there may have been general concerns about "election burnout," there was certainly no burnout in the vote totals, even with several elections overlapping each other.

Constie, who both ran in the Senate by-election and was for a time a candidate in the Citizens' Assembly Chair election, said that the series of elections we've had is fun, but worried that more experienced members continuing to run for positions may be disheartening to some new members, adding "I mean, who really expects to win against someone like Malashaan?" The CA Chair race featured only members from the 2016 and 2017 generation: United Vietussia, TheGemini, and Comrade Snowball, with United Vietussia winning an overwhelming victory.

The flurry of elections has come to an end, however. The region's chancellors have opted not to conduct a by-election to fill the seat vacated by Senator Grizzli's removal. Citizens were split on the necessity of another election. Kaboom voiced concern that, as a region "we're kind of burned out" on the continual elections, to which Hyanygo responded that "You'd be the quintessential anti-Europeian to argue against an election."

The next general election for Senate will be in just over three weeks. Given the high level of interest that we've seen in the last several elections, Europeia can likely expect a bumper crop of candidates.

Editor's Note: A previous version of this story noted that the Chancellor's decision not to hold a by-election violated the Elections Act without properly noting that the Constitution sets a different standard that allows them more latitude. We apologize for the mistake.
 
Click to expand...
McEntire said:
The flurry of elections has come to an end, however. Despite the statutory requirement outlined in the Elections Act, the region's chancellors have opted not to conduct a by-election to fill the seat vacated by Senator Grizzli's removal.
Click to expand...
Good article, McEntire.

Thanks for point this out. While I'm not privy to everything behind the scenes, not sure I agree with this decision.
 
There actually was not a statutory requirement to fill Senator Grizzlis Senate seat. We were entirely justified in deciding to leave the Seat empty until the next general election. LA3. (2) of Constitution V does state that in the event of a vacancy prior to a scheduled general election a by-election must be held to fill the Seat. But LA3. (3) immediately provides an exception. That exception is that if the new Senator would be elected for a term of less than 21 days the Office of the Supreme Chancellor may elect to wait until the next scheduled general election to fill the Seat. Grizzli was removed for inactivity on the 20th of April. The next general election is scheduled to happen on the 12th of May. A by-election has an absolute minimum standing period of 72 hours and a voting period of 24 hours. Meaning that if we had opened standing the very minute the vacancy occurred and reduced each segment of the election to the minimum, the number of days the new Senator would have served would have been 18. 18, as most people will realize, is fewer days than 21. So the statutory requirement was actually that a by-election must be held unless the Office of the Supreme Chancellor decides not to, which we did. We made that decision in part because of the small amount of time remaining in the term, as the time between the end of the by-election and the opening of standing for the general election would have been only about a week, and because the Senate retained its constitutional minimum of five members.
 
Drecq said:
There actually was not a statutory requirement to fill Senator Grizzlis Senate seat. We were entirely justified in deciding to leave the Seat empty until the next general election. LA3. (2) of Constitution V does state that in the event of a vacancy prior to a scheduled general election a by-election must be held to fill the Seat. But LA3. (3) immediately provides an exception. That exception is that if the new Senator would be elected for a term of less than 21 days the Office of the Supreme Chancellor may elect to wait until the next scheduled general election to fill the Seat. Grizzli was removed for inactivity on the 20th of April. The next general election is scheduled to happen on the 12th of May. A by-election has an absolute minimum standing period of 72 hours and a voting period of 24 hours. Meaning that if we had opened standing the very minute the vacancy occurred and reduced each segment of the election to the minimum, the number of days the new Senator would have served would have been 18. 18, as most people will realize, is fewer days than 21. So the statutory requirement was actually that a by-election must be held unless the Office of the Supreme Chancellor decides not to, which we did. We made that decision in part because of the small amount of time remaining in the term, as the time between the end of the by-election and the opening of standing for the general election would have been only about a week, and because the Senate retained its constitutional minimum of five members.
Click to expand...
There is a conflict in the law. The Elections Act states:
(9) If a Senate seat becomes vacant twenty-one (21) days or less prior to the approximate date of the next General Election it shall remain vacant unless a Supreme Chancellor decides in their discretion to hold a By-Election, or if the remaining number of seats is less than five. Should the seat remain vacant, the total number of seats in the Senate shall be considered as reduced accordingly for all purposes.
Click to expand...
So, in the Act, it sets the 21-day threshold at the seat becoming vacant. The Constitution sets the 21-day threshold at the length of the prospective senator. The law should be cleared up on this matter, although the Constitution would have supremacy.
 
Youve already made the point of constitutional supremacy that I would have made, so Ill just bugger off. :p
 
Technically, they don't contradict. The Constitution allows the SCs to decide to not fill a seat if the resulting term would be less than 21 days. The Elections Act sets a presumption that there will be no by-election if the vacancy opens within 21 days of the approximate date of the next general election, which is a subset of the Constitutional requirement (even assuming approximate date is construed as the 70 day mark). That leaves a short period between 21 and 24 days (as we had here) where the Constitution authorizes the SCs to decide to not hold an election, but the presumption from the Elections Act doesn't apply.

In the context of Europeia, that isn't too important, but from a strictly legal perspective there's a difference that could be important if an unusual set of facts arose. That difference being that within 21 days, there is no election unless the SCs say there is one, but in the 21 to 24 day window, they must expressly elect not to have an election or they will be in violation of the law.

The potentially more significant impact is that the Election's Act statement that the size of the Senate is reduced does not apply in the case where the vacancy occurred in the 21 to 24 day window. There's an open question there as to whether that reduction is already implicitly present in the constitution, but it could change the threshold requirement for any vote that requires an absolute majority (e.g., there's a pretty good argument that confirming a new VP would require two-thirds of the Senate, counting the vacant seat essentially as a nay vote, in circumstances such as the one we are currently in).

Of course, the fact that they are technically consistent doesn't mean it's good law drafting. Yet another reason why the elections act sucks. I will really try and write up a new version before the end of the term, but I've been saying that all term and things keep cropping up to pull me away from it.
 
What if we had a system were people are elected for 70 days in the Senate? The drift would probably be insane after a while... but the idea would be that whomever filled Grizzli's seat would have a 70 day term, meaning that it would go past the election and have its own cycle.
 
Rach said:
What if we had a system were people are elected for 70 days in the Senate? The drift would probably be insane after a while... but the idea would be that whomever filled Grizzli's seat would have a 70 day term, meaning that it would go past the election and have its own cycle.
Click to expand...
With resignations and removals, that could get complicated, fast. I mean, HEM resigned 2 weeks (ish) before Grizzli did, so we'd be electing an additional Senator every few weeks.

I know there have been some talks, historically, about splitting the election of the Senate into "General Election seats" and "Presidential Election seats" - and extending the length of the term for a Senator that is elected after the most recent Presidential election until the next Presidential election is one option that could be considered. (Probably better than the "full term/half term" Senator suggestions that had been floated in the past.
 
Actually, that is an interesting thought. . . Complicated but fun to think about. :p
 
McEntire said:
The CA Chair race featured only members from the 2016 and 2017 generation: United Vietussia, TheGemini, and Comrade Snowball, with United Vietussia winning an overwhelming victory.
Click to expand...
Thanks for mentioning the newer generation. I'm glad UV won.
 
Rach said:
What if we had a system were people are elected for 70 days in the Senate? The drift would probably be insane after a while... but the idea would be that whomever filled Grizzli's seat would have a 70 day term, meaning that it would go past the election and have its own cycle.
Click to expand...
I don't think we should have a bunch of random, different 70-day terms, but I could get behind staggered terms, so that the entire Senate doesn't stand at once. I believe I proposed something like this at one point.

That said, there is also a benefit to having a major political season (either presidential or senatorial elections) every five weeks. The status quo is hardly the worst of all worlds.
 
Skizzy Grey said:
That said, there is also a benefit to having a major political season (either presidential or senatorial elections) every five weeks. The status quo is hardly the worst of all worlds.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with Skizzy here. Part of the reason we separated the Presidential and Senate Elections was to avoid the Presidential ones overshadowing the Senate ones. Now we'd have half the senate elections back in that spot.

Plus, since the exact number of seats in the senate can varry widely term to term, half of what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top