MA: Vote Sanctity Act (Vetoed)

[California8429]

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.

[California8429]

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

[California8429]

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.

We could surely make room for that. Giving the Governor power to publicly approve their ballot change if they preferenced the same person twice (or whoever is in charge of the voting booth). Tmth changing the time from 20 to 5 to 30 to 1 minute, no time change addresses the reason this bill was brought up.

[California8429]

Test 5

[California8429]

Test 5

You can go 40 seconds without it being detected. Still I believe it is impossible for some to be pressured into changing their vote and actually carrying it out in 40 seconds.

[California8429]

Test 5

You can go 40 seconds without it being detected. Still I believe it is impossible for some to be pressured into changing their vote and actually carrying it out in 40 seconds.

I thought it was a minute.  Now, I'm not sure if that means minute as in 60 seconds or minute as in within the minute of the timestamp it was posted (so if it was 12:12:01, it'd be 59 seconds; 12:12:57, then 3 seconds).

Yes sorry I mean a minute 40. Someone else can try to confirm this.

[California8429]

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.

In the 1000-1 chance it's happens fast enough sure. However right now Winfield is right, there's a huge amount of this pressuring to change your vote after voting crap going on and cutting an edit down to as little time (none) as possible is the way to solve it. Then adding an amendment allowing a voter to publicly change their vote with the approval of the election administer for preferencing two or more candidates for the same preference would solve that. We don't have redoes in RL when going to the polls, and we already have a preview option and you can change your vote around while preparing your post. That should be plenty. If a voter doesn't take the responsibility to ensure their vote is how they want it before voting, that is their fault.

[California8429]

Seeing as I am the only NAY vote, and I have no interest in this passing, there is nobody who can make a motion to reconsider.  This will have to get vetoed and reintroduced.

And if it were signed it would effectively do nothing?