District 4- questionable result

[Akno21]

It wouldn't be possible for an administrator to check on what the vote really was before editing, would it?

[Keystone Phil]

I still stand by my assertion. Votes that are edited won't be counted. I agree with that. But if the post is edited but not the vote, I'm not sure that counts as editing your vote. Democratic Hawk didn't change who he voted for, hence he didn't change his vote.

We don't know if he edited the vote. Do we have proof that he didn't edit the vote? Screenshots, anything. if so email it to evryone so we can look at it. The info we have is the part of DemoHawk's post that says "edited by DemocraticHawk". Other than that there is no proof.

Also, I'm sure there have been edited posts in the past that have been thrown away when the poster might not have edited the vote. Why should we just start worrying about whether or not the actual vote was edited in this election? Why wasn't this brought up before when posts were edited?

[Akno21]

I still stand by my assertion. Votes that are edited won't be counted. I agree with that. But if the post is edited but not the vote, I'm not sure that counts as editing your vote. Democratic Hawk didn't change who he voted for, hence he didn't change his vote.

We don't know if he edited the vote. Do we have proof that he didn't edit the vote? Screenshots, anything. if so email it to evryone so we can look at it. The info we have is the part of DemoHawk's post that says "edited by DemocraticHawk". Other than that there is no proof.

Also, I'm sure there have been edited posts in the past that have been thrown away when the poster might not have edited the vote. Why should we just start worrying about whether or not the actual vote was edited in this election? Why wasn't this brought up before when posts were edited?

In what elections has the post been edited, yet not counted?

[Nym90]

I still stand by my assertion. Votes that are edited won't be counted. I agree with that. But if the post is edited but not the vote, I'm not sure that counts as editing your vote. Democratic Hawk didn't change who he voted for, hence he didn't change his vote.

We don't know if he edited the vote. Do we have proof that he didn't edit the vote? Screenshots, anything. if so email it to evryone so we can look at it. The info we have is the part of DemoHawk's post that says "edited by DemocraticHawk". Other than that there is no proof.

Also, I'm sure there have been edited posts in the past that have been thrown away when the poster might not have edited the vote. Why should we just start worrying about whether or not the actual vote was edited in this election? Why wasn't this brought up before when posts were edited?

In the past, votes like this were counted, with little or no disagreement from anyone. JFK was the only one in June who said he thought it might not be ok, but everyone else, Democrat, Republican, UAC, all parties, said they thought it was ok. JFK eventually agreed that it was acceptable.

Now, one big difference is that in June, none of the disputed votes would have affected the outcome of any races.

I don't recall any edited posts where the vote has been thrown away when the poster did not edit their vote. If you can find some examples, that would definitely be important evidence for any potential court case.

[Jake]

I don't know if anyone has screen shots, but we do have a lot of witnesses. If you can come up with witnesses who will testify that he did change his vote, that's fine.

Before you bring up a dissent to their reliability, eyewitness accounts are usually considered pretty reliable in real world cases, especially if provided by people of otherwise unassailable character, and even moreso if quite a few people will attest to it.

He edited his post Nym, how in the hell are we supposed to tell who he voted for. That's why we have this rule, not to try to restrict voting, but to be able to prove their vote. He has NO way of proving he voted for Harry because he edited his post.

[Peter]

Just to say to Fritz that should he need any help in a legal context, I am of course, always at his disposal.

[Jake]

Doesn't matter now. DemoHawk deleted his vote.

ColinW's quoted him at around 2:30 Saturday and his quote said 10:47 AM Saturday.

According to that it should be beetween Julien's and OWL's, but it isn't.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=13709.90 Scroll down to colin's post.

and two posts down King copies DemoHawk's quote line

« Last Edit: Today at 11:38:14 AM by Democratic 'Hawk' »

So this debate is over.

[Nym90]

Well, the votes are counted as they stood at the closing of polls.

If Democratic Hawk himself doesn't want this matter pursued, I would respect his decision. But simply because the post, which was there when the polls closed, is gone, doesn't mean anything.

Fritz, I'm sure, will agree, as he goes on the basis of what was in the thread at the time the polls closed.

[Jake]

Well, the votes are counted as they stood at the closing of polls.

If Democratic Hawk himself doesn't want this matter pursued, I would respect his decision. But simply because the post, which was there when the polls closed, is gone, doesn't mean anything.

Fritz, I'm sure, will agree, as he goes on the basis of what was in the thread at the time the polls closed.

How do we know it was there?

[Nym90]

Well, the votes are counted as they stood at the closing of polls.

If Democratic Hawk himself doesn't want this matter pursued, I would respect his decision. But simply because the post, which was there when the polls closed, is gone, doesn't mean anything.

Fritz, I'm sure, will agree, as he goes on the basis of what was in the thread at the time the polls closed.

How do we know it was there?

Witnesses. That's sufficient evidence in a lot of criminal cases, especially since there will be several, as opposed to, I must assume, no witnesses of an altered vote.

[Fritz]

The vote was there when the polls closed, and it was not counted.  If the post was deleted, that indicates to me that the voter intended to have his vote invalidated, and that therefore my original ruling should stand.  (Too bad, I was looking forward to the court having to rule on this.) 

[Nym90]

Democratic Hawk's last statement was that he wanted the vote to count. Hopefully someone can contact him and find out if he still wants to pursue it. If he wants to drop it, then no one else should challenge on his behalf. Hopefully, if he has changed his mind, he will at least post why.

[Jake]

The vote was there when the polls closed, and it was not counted.  If the post was deleted, that indicates to me that the voter intended to have his vote invalidated, and that therefore my original ruling should stand.  (Too bad, I was looking forward to the court having to rule on this.) 

Makes sense. Instead of the courts deciding it, why doesn't the senate pass voting laws.

[WMS]

And this STILL isn't settled. Well, I doubt anyone was predicting that the D4 race would be this controversial...

[King]

Since the vote was deleted, there is no hard copy of the vote and therefore it no longer exists.

[WMS]

Since the vote was deleted, there is no hard copy of the vote and therefore it no longer exists.

OK, that's yet another thing I wasn't expecting...

[King]

What I meant by that was, the vote was deleted so there is no hard evidence. Which means the vote in question NEVER existed.

[WMS]

What I meant by that was, the vote was deleted so there is no hard evidence. Which means the vote in question NEVER existed.

So...does that mean I won? O_O

[King]

What I meant by that was, the vote was deleted so there is no hard evidence. Which means the vote in question NEVER existed.

So...does that mean I won? O_O

7-6, the AFDNC is just trying to get the tally to 7-7 by counting an illegally EDITED and now DELETED (a.k.a. non-existant) vote as a vote for Harry.

[Nym90]

Since the vote was deleted, there is no hard copy of the vote and therefore it no longer exists.

There are still quoted portions of it, plus Fritz saw it when he counted the ballots at the time the polls closed.

The legality of the vote is still in question. It's open to interpretation as to what constitutes a vote (the entire post, or merely the expression of a preference). Votes of this type have been counted before, and folks of all political persuasions had no problem with it at that time.

I would hope that the change of heart on the part of some doesn't have anything to do with the fact that those votes wouldn't change the result of an election, while this one will.

[Nym90]

What I meant by that was, the vote was deleted so there is no hard evidence. Which means the vote in question NEVER existed.

So...does that mean I won? O_O

7-6, the AFDNC is just trying to get the tally to 7-7 by counting an illegally EDITED and now DELETED (a.k.a. non-existant) vote as a vote for Harry.

There is also not any official support of a challenge from the AFDNC that I am aware of.

[WMS]

So it's still not - quite - determined yet, Nym?

[12th Doctor]

Eric, honestly, a "quoted portion".  This needs to end right now.  The vote is first invalid and now, gone.  WMS is the declared winner of this race.  So it is written, so let it be done.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Votes of this type have been counted before, and folks of all political persuasions had no problem with it at that time.

I would hope that the change of heart on the part of some doesn't have anything to do with the fact that those votes wouldn't change the result of an election, while this one will.

Or could be that since in previous cases it wouldn't have affected who won the election, no matter what the decision was, people felt that had better things to do than sue at that time.   Why sue if it would be as pointless as Republicans suing over voting irregularities in Washington, DC?

[Nym90]

Eric, honestly, a "quoted portion".  This needs to end right now.  The vote is first invalid and now, gone.  WMS is the declared winner of this race.  So it is written, so let it be done.

The vote was there when the polls closed. Fritz is aware of this fact.

If Democratic Hawk doesn't wish to pursue this, I would agree that it should be dropped.

I am also curious as to why so many former UACers and Republicans have changed their view on this from June. Nation was SOFA at the time and allowed votes just like this, and JFK, Gustaf, and Mr. Fresh all made written expressions of support for these votes counting. Gustaf has explained that he feels the spirit of the Fantasy Elections has been ruined, and thus he no longer supports allowing such votes. I don't really understand that logic, but I respect his view. I would appreciate hearing from the others I have listed (Nation, JFK, Mr. Fresh if he's still around...) as well as why others, while not voicing explicit support for counting these votes, did not object to their inclusion at that time.