MA: Vote Sanctity Act (Vetoed)

[tmthforu94]

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.

[tmthforu94]

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.

[tmthforu94]

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.

[tmthforu94]

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.

[tmthforu94]

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.

[tmthforu94]

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.

[tmthforu94]

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.

[tmthforu94]

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.

In addition to my previous remarks on your above statement, I will point out that your statement is completely irrelevant and is nothing more than a smoke screen with which you are attempting to mask the real issue here, which is voter manipulation, to which Atlasia should put an end to, once and for all.   

Please stop with that, I'm not trying to mask anything, and I don't appreciate you accusing me of doing so. I was merely making a point, just as you've made points in this thread as well.

I'm not trying to keep voter manipulation, I'm showing potential problems if the bill is passed in it's current form, problems you've done little to address. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again - I'm a bad person for trying to get someone to change their vote and I'm trying to make up excuse after excuse for this not to pass. 5 minutes is a short amount of time to where not much could be done, but it's also enough time to allow someone to make an edit if they messed up, by way of preferencing, misspelling, forgot to add candidate, etc. I don't think what I'm supporting is ridiculous at all. It's fair.

[tmthforu94]

Anything is possible - someone could be contacted to change their vote through some form of instant messaging. Perhaps it's a zombie who accidentally voting for the wrong candidate, and their "master" telling them to fix it.

[tmthforu94]

Doesn't this need to be a Constitutional Amendment?

[tmthforu94]

Assuming the vote will have to be stopped, I'd like for the Assembly to consider the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

Doesn't this need to be a Constitutional Amendment?

You've got a point here. Actually, that's what Speaker Inks stated right after the bill was introduced to the Assembly. I'm not sure on how we'll have to proceed, though. Will the Act have to be ruled invalid or can we get it passed (if there's a majority) and then propose it as a Constitutional Amendment to the People of the Mideast?

I think Inks should just end the vote, make amendments, then pass it. Or I guess you could kill the bill and re-introduce, but that'd take longer.