| Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Register now! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Restrictions on invalidating votes | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Yesterday, 4:47 AM (62 Views) | |
| NPS | Yesterday, 4:47 AM Post #1 |
|
Contributor
|
As recently discovered, there are no apparent restrictions (or permission granted to) for the speaker to invalidate votes. My thoughts are unless the ballot is illegible (the Speaker cannot understand the vote after taking reasonable lengths to ascertain the voters intention), or the caster unable to vote, it should be valid, in line with the constitution. Firstly, should this be an amendment to the electoral act? It does not seem to warrant more than a few lines, so doesn't really seem to be fitting for its own bill. Or should it be an an amendment to the Speaker and Procedures of the Assembly Act? Currently, there appears to be no codified powers for the Speaker to remove votes, and the status quo has been assuming that the Speaker can remove all votes they deem fit, be it an illegible ballot, a voter the Speaker dislikes, or a candidate that the Speaker does not support. Also, this is something I don't feel strongly on, as generally we have decent Speakers, but is it really suitable that they oversee their own election? |
![]() |
|
| Guy | Yesterday, 5:30 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Old Admin Slave
|
I don't think this is accurate. The Constitution calls for the Assembly to conduct an election, and regulates its conduct with some particularity. The Assembly, through the Speaker Act, delegated some of these matters to the Speaker. For the Speaker to invalidate votes on the basis of who it was cast for or arbitrarily would mean we are no longer having an 'election' nor a 'vote' along the line that the Constitution envisages, and would be entirely outside the Speaker's power. So no, the Speaker's discretion in opening and counting votes is not absolute, given that it is a power derived from the Constitution. Similarly, the Speaker could not arbitrarily close debating threads, given that the Constitution envisages the Assembly as a deliberative body. As to whether this should be regulated, I'm happy to insert a provision into the Speaker Act saying that all (otherwise valid) votes are to be counted in line with objectively ascertainable intent, or something like that. Your vote may still not count, because "Nerada Agrabat Khan III" especially is not something that one may be able to be objectively sure is Catalyse. On the other hand, "Cat" or "Vult" are unlikely to pose such issues. |
![]() |
|
| Drop Your Pants | Yesterday, 5:06 PM Post #3 |
|
Blame Fratt
|
Or you could cast the ballot like everyone else instead of trying to be a smartass
Edited by Drop Your Pants, Yesterday, 5:06 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Vulturret | Today, 4:28 PM Post #4 |
|
An old man with forward thinking
|
Lemme just say the following: If you cast the ballot as requested by the opening post, we have no problems. |
![]() Speaker Emperor of The Ragerian Imperium Root Forum Admin of New Western Atlantic | |
![]() |
|
| Fauxia | Today, 10:38 PM Post #5 |
|
Dark Lord
|
Maybe, I think if the ballot is understandable than it should be counted. The only thing is, saying that its only invalid when the Speaker can't understand it could cause accusations of bias "how come he understood ballot by x but not ballot by y?" |
| If my posts seem normal, I’ve probably had too much to drink | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Assembly · Next Topic » |






1:05 AM Jul 11