District 4- questionable result

[Fritz]

In the disitrict 4 election, a vote cast by Democratic Hawk was thrown out for being edited.  If that vote were counted, the final count would have been a 7-7 tie, with Harry being declared the winner for having more first preference votes.  The announced result was 7-6 WMS.

I was just perusing the constitution for the relevant clause.  Here it is:

Article II
Section 2. (Presidential Elections)

Clause 4.  All elections must be public vote. No person shall vote unless he or she has an avatar declaring the state from which they are from. All votes cast shall be deemed official and may not be amended or rescinded by the voters.

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

Harry, if you want to take me to court for declaring WMS the winner,  I don't mind, really!

[12th Doctor]

Oh, no.  If Harry challenges this, I swaer, the Freedom Party will use all of it's resources to combat the suit.  We will hire all the finest constitutional lawyers.  We will leave no stone unturned.  WMS won this thing fair and square.

[WMS]

And this race goes into extra innings, it appears...

[Nym90]

I guess the only question here is what is considered a vote. Is the entire post considered the vote, or only the text that actually states the voter's preference? Democratic Hawk didn't change who he voted for, he merely removed some text from the bottom of his ballot that didn't affect who he voted for at all. His edit merely removed the words "Registered in Georgia For Fantasy Elections" from his ballot.

So it's open to interpretation, does the vote constitute the entire post, or just the statement of the voter's will.

[12th Doctor]

Enough of these loose standards, the rules are the rules.  We cannot simply go willy-nilly changing them everytime we feel bad for the guy who lost.  WMS won.  Enough of this.

[12th Doctor]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

[Nym90]

I wouldn't say it's a "loose standard". It's open to interpretation as to what exactly a vote is. Is it the entire post, or is it only the text that constitutes the vote itself?

I'm not answering that question because I don't honestly know. It can be interpreted either way.

The dictionary defines the word vote as meaning "A formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue". So one could argue it either way, does the formal expression of preference constitute only the text, or the entire post?

[Nym90]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

I don't recall the law regarding how to handle these types of votes having ever been changed. I agree that it needs to be clearer, however. The requirement to have an avatar or a statement in the profile signature should be in the voting booth thread. I'm just offering that as a suggestion for next time. Perhaps I will propose legislation to change this, that would make things less confusing.

[WMS]

In the disitrict 4 election, a vote cast by Democratic Hawk was thrown out for being edited.  If that vote were counted, the final count would have been a 7-7 tie, with Harry being declared the winner for having more first preference votes.  The announced result was 7-6 WMS.

I was just perusing the constitution for the relevant clause.  Here it is:

Article II
Section 2. (Presidential Elections)

Clause 4.  All elections must be public vote. No person shall vote unless he or she has an avatar declaring the state from which they are from. All votes cast shall be deemed official and may not be amended or rescinded by the voters.

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

Harry, if you want to take me to court for declaring WMS the winner,  I don't mind, really!

Well, this may set a dangerous precedent. If voters in Senatorial races can alter their ballots at will, what does that do to election integrity?

And have there been other cases of this? Perhaps one of the Supreme Court Justices or the Attorney General can determine how the issue of altering votes in Senatorial races has been decided in the past?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And people have laughed at me for sometimes being pedantic when I propose legislation.  This is why I go into such detail, so as to avoid this sort of nonsense by being precise to begin with.

[12th Doctor]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

I don't recall the law regarding how to handle these types of votes having ever been changed. I agree that it needs to be clearer, however. The requirement to have an avatar or a statement in the profile signature should be in the voting booth thread. I'm just offering that as a suggestion for next time. Perhaps I will propose legislation to change this, that would make things less confusing.

Originally, it was no post that was edited would be counted.  Then it was changed to "only if the vote is changed", now... who the Hell knows?

[12th Doctor]

Now, it has been suggested to be either or, simply because we violated the original standard a couple of times.

[Nym90]

Posts that were edited have been counted in the past, as long as the vote itself wasn't altered. Removal or addition of extraneous text that does not in any way affect the vote itself has been permitted.

Obviously no one wants ballots to be able to be changed at will. I'm pretty sure we all agree to that; clearly I do. But I think the issue of what exacty is a vote is open to interpretation. If the law said that the post may not be edited, it would be clear. I think one could argue that while the post was edited, the vote wasn't, and thus it should stand.

[Nym90]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

I don't recall the law regarding how to handle these types of votes having ever been changed. I agree that it needs to be clearer, however. The requirement to have an avatar or a statement in the profile signature should be in the voting booth thread. I'm just offering that as a suggestion for next time. Perhaps I will propose legislation to change this, that would make things less confusing.

Originally, it was no post that was edited would be counted.  Then it was changed to "only if the vote is changed", now... who the Hell knows?

I don't remember that change, but I don't follow everything that happens in that much detail, so I'll take your word for it on that. As for your last question, the law says only if the vote is changed. So it's clear as to what the law is, but the definition of a vote is not clearly defined.

[Nym90]

Now, it has been suggested to be either or, simply because we violated the original standard a couple of times.

Well, I'm not suggesting it to be "either or". It has nothing to do with the fact that it's been changed. But if the law itself was explicitly changed from the word "post" to the word "vote", that would be something to look at, to see if that change in wording meant that the law was actually being changed to be something different.

I honestly don't know whether it should be valid or not, I'm merely saying that it's a question with no clear answer. It's open to different interpretations.

[Nym90]

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

[12th Doctor]

I'm not attacking you, Eric, I', simply stating that I am tired of all of the challenges.  If we are going to interpriet this a certain way, then fine.  Once a result is released, then let it count towards the next election, but don't apply it ex post facto to this race.  The winner has been declared.  Leave it at that.  Everytime some thing happens on this board, we have a damn court challenge.  Why can't we just let the results stand, it there is no fraud or malicious intent proven?

[12th Doctor]

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

The intent of the law is quite clear, even if the letter is not.  Human oversight cannot be just cause for this case.

[Nym90]

Well, I agree that the results should stand if no fraud or malicious intent is proven, but in this case, one could say that thus Democratic Hawk's vote should count, as there was pretty clearly no fraud or malicious intent on his part. The vote is not being allowed to stand, despite the fact that his intentions were clear and he only technically made an error, then made a sloppy attempt to correct it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any laws should be changed to affect this race retroactively. I'm just trying to raise the fact that it's an issue, and perhaps in the future the definition of a vote should be more clearly defined. If the law is meant to mean the entire post, it should say so.

I agree, I'm tired of challenges too, but it's also important to make sure that good voters are not disenfranchised. Disenfranchisement leads to driving otherwise good people out of the Forum. I don't think that makes for a better Forum. Democratic Hawk is clearly a good, solid contributor to the Forum at large, and would be an excellent addition to the regular discourse in Atlasia.

[Nym90]

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

The intent of the law is quite clear, even if the letter is not. Human oversight cannot be just cause for this case.

Well, I don't agree that it's clear. I don't agree that it's clear that editing ANY portion of the post in which the vote is made is exactly the same as editing the text that constitutes the voter's actual expression of preference.

I would also point out that there were no formal challenges to the allowing of such votes in the June Presidential Elections. Perhaps this was because those votes did not change the results of any races, but there were still no official challanges made.

[WMS]

Posts that were edited have been counted in the past, as long as the vote itself wasn't altered. Removal or addition of extraneous text that does not in any way affect the vote itself has been permitted.

Obviously no one wants ballots to be able to be changed at will. I'm pretty sure we all agree to that; clearly I do. But I think the issue of what exacty is a vote is open to interpretation. If the law said that the post may not be edited, it would be clear. I think one could argue that while the post was edited, the vote wasn't, and thus it should stand.

A flaw in the law...just like real life.

[12th Doctor]

Well, I agree that the results should stand if no fraud or malicious intent is proven, but in this case, one could say that thus Democratic Hawk's vote should count, as there was pretty clearly no fraud or malicious intent on his part. The vote is not being allowed to stand, despite the fact that his intentions were clear and he only technically made an error, then made a sloppy attempt to correct it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any laws should be changed to affect this race retroactively. I'm just trying to raise the fact that it's an issue, and perhaps in the future the definition of a vote should be more clearly defined. If the law is meant to mean the entire post, it should say so.

I agree, I'm tired of challenges too, but it's also important to make sure that good voters are not disenfranchised. Disenfranchisement leads to driving otherwise good people out of the Forum. I don't think that makes for a better Forum. Democratic Hawk is clearly a good, solid contributor to the Forum at large, and would be an excellent addition to the regular discourse in Atlasia.

What I meant was no malisious intend or fraud on the part of the declared winner.

[12th Doctor]

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

The intent of the law is quite clear, even if the letter is not. Human oversight cannot be just cause for this case.

Well, I don't agree that it's clear. I don't agree that it's clear that editing ANY portion of the post in which the vote is made is exactly the same as editing the text that constitutes the voter's actual expression of preference.

I would also point out that there were no formal challenges to the allowing of such votes in the June Presidential Elections. Perhaps this was because those votes did not change the results of any races, but there were still no official challanges made.

It seems clear to me that the law means what it says and, inspite of it's unfortunate placement and wording in the Constitution, is meant to extend to all races.

If this is not the case, then I judge this to be a regional issue and thus Governor Htmldon should decide the law for this election, with a national decision pending for the next election.

[minionofmidas]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

I don't recall the law regarding how to handle these types of votes having ever been changed. I agree that it needs to be clearer, however. The requirement to have an avatar or a statement in the profile signature should be in the voting booth thread. I'm just offering that as a suggestion for next time.

Good idea. An even better idea might be to remove the requirement entirely, as it doesn't really serve any purpose.

[Nym90]

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

The intent of the law is quite clear, even if the letter is not. Human oversight cannot be just cause for this case.

Well, I don't agree that it's clear. I don't agree that it's clear that editing ANY portion of the post in which the vote is made is exactly the same as editing the text that constitutes the voter's actual expression of preference.

I would also point out that there were no formal challenges to the allowing of such votes in the June Presidential Elections. Perhaps this was because those votes did not change the results of any races, but there were still no official challanges made.

It seems clear to me that the law means what it says and, inspite of it's unfortunate placement and wording in the Constitution, is meant to extend to all races.

If this is not the case, then I judge this to be a regional issue and thus Governor Htmldon should decide the law for this election, with a national decision pending for the next election.

I agree that the law should be the same for Presidential and Congressional races, but someone who is a strict constructionist and favors a very literal interpretation of the Constitution could disagree. I am not one and do not favor that, however, and thus I disagree with that view.

What I was referring to as unclear is exactly what a vote is. Here's a clearer way to express what I mean, my language has been a bit confusing, I admit.

What constitutes Democratic Hawk's vote, is it this...

District 1: Full - The Bulldog (D-NY); Interim - True Democrat (D-PA)

District 2: Abstain

District 3: Al (I-WV)

District 4: Harry (D-MS)

District 5: Gabu (D-WA)

Dave



Or is it this:

District 4: Harry (D-MS)