MA: Vote Sanctity Act (Vetoed)

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Vote Sanctity Act

A voter who edits his ballot any length of time after it has been posted in the voting booth thread for any Mideast Election nullifies it. Election authorities shall not count a ballot altered in the above manner.

Sponsor: ZuWo

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

For the record, this will have to be passed as a Constitutional Amendment.

[TJ in Wisco]

Does "any length of time" mean edit your vote at all? Or is there supposed to be an actual length of time inserted into this?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

If we do decide this is a good idea, I propose going back to the original wording from the second Consitution; however, I am opposed to eliminating the 20 minute grace period.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

I  would like to thank Governor A-Bob for inviting me to address this assembly on the subject of the Vote Sanctity Act.  I consider it an honor to be asked to address this legislative body in this beautiful region.

In answer to the question from the honorable member TJ in Cleve "any length of time" means just that, that any editing of the original vote, at any time after the original vote is cast, invalidates that vote.

I would urge support for this bill, as we have seen in the last federal election, this 20 minute time frame to change a vote leaves open the possibility of a voter being manipulated into changing, or even invalidating their vote due to being pressured by someone else.

One person, one vote, per election, is a fair way to vote.  This bill eliminates any possibility of a voter being manipulated or pressured in any way by someone else.

This bill personifies democracy in action.

This bill is fair and just and puts all voters on an equal footing in every election.

The will of the people must prevail, not the will of potential manipulators looking out for their own interests.

It is the responsibility of each of us before casting our vote to know that that is the choice we have decided upon.

I urge your assembly to get behind democracy and support this bill.

Thank you, and thank you once again for inviting me to your lovely region.

[Jayhawker]

Looking back at my voting record, there have been several votes I've made over the years that would have been nullified if this were law. There have been plenty of times that I, as well as many other Mideasterner's, have gone back to edit a vote a couple minutes after, sometimes just minor things (one time I decided to add "LWC" to the end of Ink's name just to be more clear ) I could perhaps get behind reducing the time to 10 minutes, but I will do everything I can to get this defeated in it's current form. Not too long ago I had to edit a vote (can't remember the reason), and since my Atlas has been running slow for a while now, even though I made the edit just seconds after I posted, it took a couple minutes to update.

I would like to add, that the current wording of this is tricky, as you can edit it for the first few seconds after you post it and it doesn't show that you did. 30 seconds or a minute, I believe.

[ZuWo]

It was suggested to me that I intrdouce this bill and I did so because I think this is an issue which must be addressed by our Assembly. The "Invaligate" affair has shown us how problematic it can be if people make use of the possibility to edit their vote after they have already cast it. In fact, "Invaligate" has demonstrated that the vote editing practice can lead to wrong allegations and ensuing bickering and this can be prevented with the current bill.
Let me be clear about that - the "Invaligate" affair was blown out of proportion and the conduct of some of the President's political adversaries was not helpful. Our former President was accused of campaigning for the invalidation of votes but it eventually turned out that the allegations of crime which some people made against him were incorrect and, in my view, based on irrational antipathy towards him. As a result, it was logical that he was not found guilty and I welcome that.
But as I said, in order to prevent such events to ever happen again I support the idea to get rid of the option to edit a vote altogether. Every voter's got two eyes, a brain and, additionally, a preview function on the forum which they can use in order to check what their vote's going to look like. In my opinion, this must suffice. Double check your vote before casting it, and you won't encounter any problems. As in real life, once you put your ballot in the ballot-box, there's no second chance or editing.

Edit: You see, I frequently edit my posts but that's because of linguistic reasons. I don't want to do the same when it comes to my votes.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Looking back at my voting record, there have been several votes I've made over the years that would have been nullified if this were law. There have been plenty of times that I, as well as many other Mideasterner's, have gone back to edit a vote a couple minutes after, sometimes just minor things (one time I decided to add "LWC" to the end of Ink's name just to be more clear ) I could perhaps get behind reducing the time to 10 minutes, but I will do everything I can to get this defeated in it's current form. Not too long ago I had to edit a vote (can't remember the reason), and since my Atlas has been running slow for a while now, even though I made the edit just seconds after I posted, it took a couple minutes to update.

I would like to add, that the current wording of this is tricky, as you can edit it for the first few seconds after you post it and it doesn't show that you did. 30 seconds or a minute, I believe.

This coming from the individual who attempted to get me to change my Senate vote because I voted for Napoleon in the last Atlasian election, moments after I had voted.  I do not know how many other voters you attempted to get to change their votes.

This bill would eliminate that blatant interference with voters and their votes. 

[Senator Napoleon]

Protip: Don't spoil your ballot by needlessly adding LWC to your ballot. Fake problem solved!

P.S. ZuWo, if you want to claim that I am lying about Tmthforu's actions, perhaps you would like to ask whethear or not he'd like me to release some PMs (presumably some of the ones he asked Jake Matthews to delete before getting him banned and evading a fair trial). So see what the boss thinks and ill provide the necessary evidence of why he polls worse than even Rowan Brandon against Polnut. Or, apologize for making false allegations. Thanks!

[Jayhawker]

Protip: Don't spoil your ballot by needlessly adding LWC to your ballot. Fake problem solved!

Napoleon, any time I ever tried to engage in Northeast affairs, you'd always criticize me for it and call me a nitwit. Now, I don't have much of a problem with you engaging in Mideast affairs, but at least bring something constructive to the table. That may not have been a pressing time  to edit your ballot, but there have been times in the past where it has been needed, not just by me, but many other Atlasians.

Winfield, what I did, while may be considered unethical, was perfectly legal. This bill may be "ethics reform", but it has some serious flaws. You failed to address the concern on slow computers, a problem I know I have had in the past, and I remember a voter from the IDS having the same problem in the June elections. You also failed to address that a voter can edit their vote within the first minute and it not show up. How would we be able to enforce that?

I'm confident a majority of Mideasterners will agree with me that while a reduction would be fine, completely wiping out the ability to edit votes goes too far.

[ZuWo]

Governor and Senator from the Northeast,

thank you (Governor) for your input on the bill in question, but it is now up to the Mideast to debate the Vote Sanctity Act.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

I would like to add, that the current wording of this is tricky, as you can edit it for the first few seconds after you post it and it doesn't show that you did. 30 seconds or a minute, I believe.

If there is no notation at the bottom of the entry that the vote was edited, then for purposes of counting the vote, it was not edited.

Besides that, no entry is deemed to be edited if there is not a notation at the bottom of the entry stating the edit date and time.  

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Governor and Senator from the Northeast,

thank you (Governor) for your input on the bill in question, but it is now up to the Mideast to debate the Vote Sanctity Act.

Understood.  My apologies.

[Jayhawker]

I would like to add, that the current wording of this is tricky, as you can edit it for the first few seconds after you post it and it doesn't show that you did. 30 seconds or a minute, I believe.

If there is no notation at the bottom of the entry that the vote was edited, then for purposes of counting the vote, it was not edited.

Besides that, no entry is deemed to be edited if there is not a notation at the bottom of the entry stating the edit date and time.  

It's just a technicality - the law itself say's you can't edit your vote from the moment you post it. I'm just pointing out that you can't technically enforce this law on the first minute after you post it. I can't see any real legal issues rising from this, it's just a point I was making.

I'd still like a supporter of this bill to ease my concern regarding slow computers.

[Senator Napoleon]

Tmth, I have the right to defend myself if I am under attack by the Assemblyman. You consistently try to compare two totally different situations.

[Jayhawker]

Tmth, I have the right to defend myself if I am under attack by the Assemblyman. You consistently try to compare two totally different situations.

Protip: Don't spoil your ballot by needlessly adding LWC to your ballot. Fake problem solved!

^^That, is not defending yourself. That's called trying to be a smartass.

"Invaligate" is over and done with. If you want to discuss it more with ZuWu, find another thread, Dave knows you've already cluttered enough with it as is. We are here trying to find ways to improve our region. Unless you share that same goal, you really don't have much business here.

[Senator Napoleon]

Way to quote only part of my post! Also, my suggestion is a pretty good counter argument to your point. The guy with the slow computer was too slow to even make the twenty minute mark.

Anyways, if you insist I will have some PMs posted.

[Jayhawker]

Way to quote only part of my post! Also, my suggestion is a pretty good counter argument to your point. The guy with the slow computer was too slow to even make the twenty minute mark.

Anyways, if you insist I will have some PMs posted.

Incorrect. When I made my post asking you to post something constructive, the above post was all you made. You edited on the last paragraph 20 minutes later. Then you use my words, words I made BEFORE you made the edit, and said you deserved to respond to ZuWo's claims, claims you hadn't responded to when I made the post. Quit trying to be so sneaky.

I never "insisted" on having PM's published, and I never will, especially if they come from you.


Now, regarding the one thing relevant you've actually said in the thread, he was ready to edit his vote (IIRC) just minutes before the 20 minutes had elapsed, but was unable to successfully do it because of a slow site. At least for me, the problem is just on Atlas, my computer itself is fine. There have been times I've done formatting edits within the first minute, but it still showed that it had been edited because it took so long to edit. It usually takes my computer, on average, around 20 seconds to amend a post.

[Senator Napoleon]

Don't accuse me of being sneaky. I don't know whether to laugh or facepalm at that. I edited my post twice, by the way.

I thought you had expressed regret, guess not.

[Jayhawker]

Don't accuse me of being sneaky. I don't know whether to laugh or facepalm at that. I edited my post twice, by the way.

I thought you had expressed regret, guess not.

When I quoted your post, just minutes after you posted, only the first paragraph was up.

I've stated before that I regret what I did, but I'm not sure how my frustration that you're hijacking a Mideast Government thread with stuff not relating to the bill at hand shows I have no regrets. Please take your snide comments somewhere else, because they are not wanted here.

[Senator Napoleon]

Don't accuse me of being sneaky. I don't know whether to laugh or facepalm at that. I edited my post twice, by the way.

I thought you had expressed regret, guess not.

When I quoted your post, just minutes after you posted, only the first paragraph was up.

I've stated before that I regret what I did, but I'm not sure how my frustration that you're hijacking a Mideast Government thread with stuff not relating to the bill at hand shows I have no regrets. Please take your snide comments somewhere else, because they are not wanted here.

Ambassador, in this very thread you and Assemblyman ZuWo have launched attacks on myself and others such as Snowguy. If you feel this thread is unfit for me to defend my character, stop attacking me and ask ZuWo to kindly leave me out of this discussion. I reserve the right to defend myself with untruths are spoken.

[shua]

Sometimes a voter mistakenly puts two candidate with the same rank in an IRV election. In those cases, allowing a time for the mistake to be spotted and corrected can be helpful.

[A-Bob]

Governor and Senator from the Northeast,

thank you (Governor) for your input on the bill in question, but it is now up to the Mideast to debate the Vote Sanctity Act.

Actually any citizen in Atlasia is free to debate the matter. Badger practically held a seat here when I was Speaker.

[Jayhawker]

Sometimes a voter mistakenly puts two candidate with the same rank in an IRV election. In those cases, allowing a time for the mistake to be spotted and corrected can be helpful.

Yet another instance in which a voter may need to edit their ballot for a very valid reason.

Please remember, I'm supportive of bringing down the time, I just don't think the bill in it's current form would be wise. I'd be accepting of 10 or even 5 minutes.

[A-Bob]

I would like to add, that the current wording of this is tricky, as you can edit it for the first few seconds after you post it and it doesn't show that you did. 30 seconds or a minute, I believe.

If there is no notation at the bottom of the entry that the vote was edited, then for purposes of counting the vote, it was not edited.

Besides that, no entry is deemed to be edited if there is not a notation at the bottom of the entry stating the edit date and time.  

It's just a technicality - the law itself say's you can't edit your vote from the moment you post it. I'm just pointing out that you can't technically enforce this law on the first minute after you post it. I can't see any real legal issues rising from this, it's just a point I was making.

I'd still like a supporter of this bill to ease my concern regarding slow computers.

No one is going to see a vote, PM the citizen who voted, and get them to read the message, decide to change their vote, and actually do it in 60 seconds