This is Madness

[HEM]

​

E-News Network - "No, this is Euro!"
Written by HEM Tiberius

With election day halfway over, Europeia has experienced one of the most interesting votes in years. A race that pitted the Nationstates veteran Admiral Common-Sense Politics against the ambitious and brazenly competent Chief of Staff Elias Greyjoy erupted when former Senate Speaker McEntire threw his hat in the ring.

The resulting discussions in the Oval Room has resulted in an explosion of activity with March looking to be the third consecutive month with over 10,000 posts.

"One benefit of the Zetaboards conversion," an Admin Bureau aide says, "Is that the forum actually accurately counts posts in the right month now. Previously, the middle of a month would result in the initiation of a new month's count."

Aside from the activity in the Oval Room there were widely attended debates for both the Presidency and Vice Presidency. ENN liveblogged the Presidential debate.

Going into election day Common-Sense Politics was the wide favorite, but when votes started coming in it became possible that he would fail to capture a majority. Election Administrators began to prepare to brief themselves on the procedure from a run-off election, which apparently wasn't encoded as everyone assumed. As a matter of fact, it wasn't mentioned in any laws at all.

The system of run-off elections, which replaced the cumbersome and unpopular primary system was never adopted in Constitution V or the Elections Act. This was a surprise to most Europeians, and resulted in some tough choices by the Chancellery.

The Joint Chancellor Amendment explains how the action of any one Chancellor can be vetoed by the other. This was the legal backing of Chancellor Lethen's decision to suspend voting on Chancellor HEM's General Election poll (yet another weird twist to the election). Hence, the choice on how to handle a non-majority election would have to be an agreement between Chancellor Lethen and HEM.

The voting turnout has been encouraging, though it hasn't so far eclipsed recent less exciting elections.

More to come.

 

[PASD]

Oh noes. That madness. :violentgun:

 

[McEntire]

This really is a crazy election. I think the public sentiment is that there be no runoff, as there's no legal backing for it, but that runoffs should occur in the future. However, there may be legal backing for it in the wide latitude that we give the SCs in fixing elections issues.

(3) Those who are responsible for administering elections shall have discretionary authority to resolve matters arising in connection with administration of elections, so long as the resolution of such matters is reasonable and in accordance with applicable laws.

Per the Elections Act (2012). While there's no law that says that a majority is required, it has been a public expectation, and if the current trends continue then CSP will fall well below a majority. As in, 7 votes short of a majority. I think the decision of the Chancellors to hold a runoff would be, as the Act says "in accordance with applicable laws". The law does establish runoff elections as legitimate, and notably doesn't establish a threshold for election of the President.

I'd support either decision by the SCs, and I think either one makes sense, it's just fascinating to look in to. What do other people think? Like, those who aren't running?

 

[Malashaan]

I would like to see a runoff if we could make a legal justification for it, but I think this is a case where the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius really does bind us to not having one. The Elections Act (2012) tells us when Runnoff Elections occur, and this current election doesn't look like it's going to meet the criteria (namely, that there is a tie).

While I have previously argued against blind application of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, I don't see any legal justification for not applying the principle in this case. The Elections Act clearly applies to this situation, and previous run-offs were held under a law that explicitly required them, a law which has since been repealed, so the tradition argument doesn't hold much weight.

 

[McEntire]

(14) Runoff Elections shall only be conducted where the election of candidates is contested, and not to determine the order of elected candidates, unless otherwise required.

This kind of throws a wrench into things. It seems like it was intended to refer to ties, but it may allow for runoff elections in other scenarios.

(12) In the event of a tie in any Presidential Election, Senatorial Election, By-Election or Special Election, a Runoff Election shall be held to break said tie as per the provisions of this Act, as well as in any other circumstances as required by legislation.

This does, however, qualify that for a circumstance to be considered worthy of a runoff, it has to be required by legislation. Clearly in s14 the word "contested" is the wrong word for what it's attempting to describe. The question may be, does s14 require runoff elections if the results are contested? I think the only thing that's really clear here is that the Elections Act was scraped together from the vestigial limbs of many other Acts, and is need of some serious tightening.

 

[Swakistek]

The Supreme Chancellors have general limited discretion over electoral administration, however, I don't think that would extend to instituting runoff elections which could be seen to be contrary to legislation.

It'd be simpler and safer to just go with the plurality this time, and change the Law for next time.

Also, side note, Admin Bureau does not have aides. That is why we are all grumpy, mean and demand gifts from those who want admin work done.

 

[Remsol Greyjoy]

This really is a crazy election. I think the public sentiment is that there be no runoff, as there's no legal backing for it, but that runoffs should occur in the future. However, there may be legal backing for it in the wide latitude that we give the SCs in fixing elections issues.

(3) Those who are responsible for administering elections shall have discretionary authority to resolve matters arising in connection with administration of elections, so long as the resolution of such matters is reasonable and in accordance with applicable laws.

Per the Elections Act (2012). While there's no law that says that a majority is required, it has been a public expectation, and if the current trends continue then CSP will fall well below a majority. As in, 7 votes short of a majority. I think the decision of the Chancellors to hold a runoff would be, as the Act says "in accordance with applicable laws". The law does establish runoff elections as legitimate, and notably doesn't establish a threshold for election of the President.

I'd support either decision by the SCs, and I think either one makes sense, it's just fascinating to look in to. What do other people think? Like, those who aren't running?

I think there absolutely should be a run-off. This race especially is close enough to warrant one. I think we should create a "top two" system, where the top two candidates of a Presidential election face off in a run-off. Only if there is more than two candidates, of course.

 

[TEXARRAKIS]

The real question is, who is at fault? h43r:

 

[HEM]

This really is a crazy election. I think the public sentiment is that there be no runoff, as there's no legal backing for it, but that runoffs should occur in the future. However, there may be legal backing for it in the wide latitude that we give the SCs in fixing elections issues.

(3) Those who are responsible for administering elections shall have discretionary authority to resolve matters arising in connection with administration of elections, so long as the resolution of such matters is reasonable and in accordance with applicable laws.

Per the Elections Act (2012). While there's no law that says that a majority is required, it has been a public expectation, and if the current trends continue then CSP will fall well below a majority. As in, 7 votes short of a majority. I think the decision of the Chancellors to hold a runoff would be, as the Act says "in accordance with applicable laws". The law does establish runoff elections as legitimate, and notably doesn't establish a threshold for election of the President.

I'd support either decision by the SCs, and I think either one makes sense, it's just fascinating to look in to. What do other people think? Like, those who aren't running?

I think there absolutely should be a run-off. This race especially is close enough to warrant one. I think we should create a "top two" system, where the top two candidates of a Presidential election face off in a run-off. Only if there is more than two candidates, of course.

That's how it was in the past. But because it was not encoded in our new laws, it shall not be done.

 

[McEntire]

It'd be simpler and safer to just go with the plurality this time, and change the Law for next time.

I definitely agree with this. For the sake of just not screwing things up, I believe this is the way to go. However, we legally give the SCs more power over elections than they've previously used, if you look at the statute. On the one hand, it would be easier to declare a plurality, on the other hand, it's far from ideal to have a President elected 5 votes short of a majority in a region that's traditionally required its Presidents to recieve a majority of votes.

As a note, for me this goes beyond whatever candidacy I have. I'm under the impression that even a runoff election would be unlikely to change the results of this vote, at this point it's just making sure that we're doing the thing that is both legally right and fair to ensure that CSP's likely presidency is viewed as legitimate and that he has the proper mandate.

EDIT: Edited to reflect that CSP picked up a vote.

 

[Remsol Greyjoy]

This really is a crazy election. I think the public sentiment is that there be no runoff, as there's no legal backing for it, but that runoffs should occur in the future. However, there may be legal backing for it in the wide latitude that we give the SCs in fixing elections issues.

(3) Those who are responsible for administering elections shall have discretionary authority to resolve matters arising in connection with administration of elections, so long as the resolution of such matters is reasonable and in accordance with applicable laws.

Per the Elections Act (2012). While there's no law that says that a majority is required, it has been a public expectation, and if the current trends continue then CSP will fall well below a majority. As in, 7 votes short of a majority. I think the decision of the Chancellors to hold a runoff would be, as the Act says "in accordance with applicable laws". The law does establish runoff elections as legitimate, and notably doesn't establish a threshold for election of the President.

I'd support either decision by the SCs, and I think either one makes sense, it's just fascinating to look in to. What do other people think? Like, those who aren't running?

I think there absolutely should be a run-off. This race especially is close enough to warrant one. I think we should create a "top two" system, where the top two candidates of a Presidential election face off in a run-off. Only if there is more than two candidates, of course.

That's how it was in the past. But because it was not encoded in our new laws, it shall not be done.

I think that is the best system to have in place. Some states in the US use it, and it works well.

 

[Malashaan]

(14) Runoff Elections shall only be conducted where the election of candidates is contested, and not to determine the order of elected candidates, unless otherwise required.

This kind of throws a wrench into things. It seems like it was intended to refer to ties, but it may allow for runoff elections in other scenarios.

(12) In the event of a tie in any Presidential Election, Senatorial Election, By-Election or Special Election, a Runoff Election shall be held to break said tie as per the provisions of this Act, as well as in any other circumstances as required by legislation.

This does, however, qualify that for a circumstance to be considered worthy of a runoff, it has to be required by legislation. Clearly in s14 the word "contested" is the wrong word for what it's attempting to describe. The question may be, does s14 require runoff elections if the results are contested? I think the only thing that's really clear here is that the Elections Act was scraped together from the vestigial limbs of many other Acts, and is need of some serious tightening.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the word "contested" in that context. Elections are contests to determine which candidates are elected to office.

If two candidates are tied for first place (in an election where only one person is elected), then the tie results in continuing contention regarding who is elected. However, if two candidates are tied for second place then the "election of candidates" is no loner contested, only the order of runners up.

Similarly, if two people are tied for first and two or more candidates are to be elected, then "election of candidates" is also not contested, merely the order. The "unless otherwise required" clause was included to account for the fact that there may be elections where the order matters (e.g., if we moved to a system where the first placed candidate became Senate Speaker) and there was a feeling that future potential conflicts between statutes and procedures should be avoided by allowing for run-offs to decide order if needed, but not require them where the order doesn't matter.

My point is that there is nothing wrong with the language of the current laws. They achieve exactly what they were written to do at the time. There are provisions that seem odd on first glance, but they are there to account for a situation that could arise. That's not to say we shouldn't change the law, just that the problem isn't that the law isn't clear or is poorly written, but rather that it does not achieve the effect we now want it to.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

17-11 isn't all that close anymore.

I've never had a problem with plurality election - makes things more interesting once in power, as it forces candidates to consider that they don't have the same level of clear mandate that an outright majority might give them.

 

[McEntire]

17-11 isn't all that close anymore.

I've never had a problem with plurality election - makes things more interesting once in power, as it forces candidates to consider that they don't have the same level of clear mandate that an outright majority might give them.

Three candidates with over 25% of the vote? Comparitively, this thing is very close. But I agree, we know what the outcome will be, CSP will recieve a plurality and should be elected on it.

 

[Swakistek]

I don't think a plurality gives any less of a mandate than a majority.

If you're elected President, you're the President, and you're empowered and called to do whatever you said you would in your platform.

 

[McEntire]

I don't think a plurality gives any less of a mandate than a majority.

If you're elected President, you're the President, and you're empowered and called to do whatever you said you would in your platform.

At the end of the day, yes, you're President, but does it help that most of the region wanted someone else to be President? Since the last time CSP was elected President, every President except Sopo has recieved at least 70% of the vote. I hope this is the first in a line of many competitive Presidential elections. But a majority does give you more of a mandate than a simple plurality, and that's why we're going to pass runoffs as the law of the land.

 

[Skizzy Grey]

I think we should change the law to provide run-offs between the top two candidates in future presidential elections where no candidate wins a majority of votes cast on the first ballot.

I respect HEM and Lethen's decision not to hold one in this case, and agree with Mac that a runoff in this instance almost certainly wouldn't change the outcome.

I definitely don't think Swak should've changed the rules by EO once voting had started.

 

[HEM]

I think we should change the law to provide run-offs between the top two candidates in future presidential elections where no candidate wins a majority of votes cast on the first ballot.

I respect HEM and Lethen's decision not to hold one in this case, and agree with Mac that a runoff in this instance almost certainly wouldn't change the outcome.

I definitely don't think Swak should've changed the rules by EO once voting had started.

Agree with this 100%

 

[PASD]

I think we should change the law to provide run-offs between the top two candidates in future presidential elections where no candidate wins a majority of votes cast on the first ballot.

I respect HEM and Lethen's decision not to hold one in this case, and agree with Mac that a runoff in this instance almost certainly wouldn't change the outcome.

I definitely don't think Swak should've changed the rules by EO once voting had started.

Agree with this 100%

Yep