Poll on Democratic Hawk's Vote

[King]

It's your choice

[bgwah]

Of course not.

[Gabu]

Given that it was edited at the time of counting the votes and that it doesn't even exist anymore, I would say no.

[Alcon]

No.

[Colin]

I would say no.

[True Democrat]

Although I would like to see Harry go back to the Senate, I must agree with my fellow citizens and say Democratic Hawk's vote should not be counted. 

[The Dowager Mod]

No.

[minionofmidas]

I don't really care, actually, but:
From a legal precedent point of view, clearly yes.

He dumbly tried to vote in all the races, but we've left such a vote stand once before - although we maybe shouldn't have. A voter should be able to figure out that this is clearly not what he's supposed to do.
He edited his text without editing his vote, but we've left such votes stand before - something I approve of.
He didn't have a Georgia avatar or signature at the time of voting, but he did at the time of polls closing. This, again, follows established precedent. (Not that that rule is good for anything anyways.)
He deleted his vote, well after ballots got counted - sfw? Where does it say you can't delete your vote from old poll threads? Show me where it says that. If I'd delete my vote now, would anybody claim Gabu lost and StevenNick won? Huh?
Now don't get me wrong...I can see why it should bug people, especially hyperpartisans and the anally retentive (Note: These are two separate groups of people! No cause for offense!) , if somebody falls into all the minor traps of our election law at the same time, and his vote still counts.
But that's not a legally valid argument.

[Nym90]

I don't really care, actually, but:
From a legal precedent point of view, clearly yes.

He dumbly tried to vote in all the races, but we've left such a vote stand once before - although we maybe shouldn't have. A voter should be able to figure out that this is clearly not what he's supposed to do.
He edited his text without editing his vote, but we've left such votes stand before - something I approve of.
He didn't have a Georgia avatar or signature at the time of voting, but he did at the time of polls closing. This, again, follows established precedent. (Not that that rule is good for anything anyways.)
He deleted his vote, well after ballots got counted - sfw? Where does it say you can't delete your vote from old poll threads? Show me where it says that. If I'd delete my vote now, would anybody claim Gabu lost and StevenNick won? Huh?
Now don't get me wrong...I can see why it should bug people, especially hyperpartisans and the anally retentive (Note: These are two separate groups of people! No cause for offense!) , if somebody falls into all the minor traps of our election law at the same time, and his vote still counts.
But that's not a legally valid argument.

Excellent post.

Bottom line is it doesn't matter what anyone thinks except the 3 justices. I will abide by any decision they ultimately make, but I would urge them to consider what Lewis has said here. Democratic Hawk wouldn't have made the mistakes that he did if he thought that they would cause his vote to not count; the fact that such things had been allowed in the past led him to believe that editing his post only and not his vote would not be a problem.

If past precedent had clearly been against allowing such votes, he would have made sure to get it right. But since we had never disallowed such votes, it was reasonable for him to assume that his vote would count.

So precedent DOES matter. You can say that the past precedent was wrong, and that the votes shouldn't have counted back in June, either. Ok, but the bottom line is that no one challenged the votes then, and because they didn't, voters had a reasonable right to assume that the same rules will apply. Since the law wasn't changed since June, is it not reasonable to assume that ballots that were counted in June would be counted now? There was widespread agreement across members of all ideologies and parties that the votes in June should count; several members gave the opinion at the time that these are just FANTASY elections after all and thus we shouldn't disenfranchise people just for making clearly well-intentioned mistakes.

I feel it is a sad day in Atlasia, and that our country is going downhill, when this spirit of camradarie has been lost, and there is no longer any trust for our fellow citizens. I, for one, will never give up on what the Fantasy Elections were originally meant to be, which was fun between and among friends. I am saddened that some long-time members who used to embrace this spirit of the Fantasy Elections have changed their minds and now reject it, but I will never, ever give up in my effort to preserve what the Fantasy Elections once were, and I feel can be once again.

But this is a democracy, and it is up to YOU, the voters, to decide. Do we want a nation in which we trust each other, and use common sense in allowing people's votes to count when their intentions are clear, because, after all, this is supposed to be FUN, and we are supposed to, ya know, all be friends (or at least friendly)?

Or do we want a nation that resembles so many others in this world, unfortunately, in which we are endlessly bogged down by rules and regulations that attempt to achieve legalistically that which we refuse to achieve on our own, and that is, to create a fair and equal system of government. Have we really fallen so far as a nation that we now no longer trust anyone any father than we can throw them? That's not the Atlasia that I want.

But as I say, it's up to you, the voters. You will decide if we trust each other and break the chains of these pedantic bureaucratic restraints, or if we choose to live in a nation where we don't trust each other and must create rule after regulation after rule to "protect" ourselves from the malice of our fellow man.

And you bring up a good point about deleting votes, once the polls have closed, it doesn't matter; Fritz would attest to the fact that the vote was there, so unless y'all don't trust him now, I don't see why that's in dispute. In the future, hopefully the moderator can be online at the time the polls close to lock the thread so that this doesn't happen again (I realize Gustaf can't easily be on at that time, but perhaps the SOFA should be given moderator powers at least for the Election).

[Peter]

I would like to ask if the two Associate Justices have been contacted regarding the possiblity of a court case, or even if they are aware of this entire fiasco?

[Democratic Hawk]

Whether it is decided to re-run the election for District 4 or to abide by the results of this poll, I'll be happy with that decision

Dave

[KEmperor]

I don't know what precident you people seem to be citing.  There has not been a case like this before.

[Nym90]

There was not a Supreme Court case, but the SOFA allowed such votes to stand in June, and no one even challenged it to the Court as there was a pretty wide spread consensus that this was the right decision (at least in public statements, perhaps some people opposed these votes being counted but didn't want to publically state their views).

[KEmperor]

There was not a Supreme Court case, but the SOFA allowed such votes to stand in June, and no one even challenged it to the Court as there was a pretty wide spread consensus that this was the right decision (at least in public statements, perhaps some people opposed these votes being counted but didn't want to publically state their views).

Public opinion is irrelevant, the reason it wasnt challenged was because it wouldnt have affected the outcome of the election.

[minionofmidas]

There was not a Supreme Court case, but the SOFA allowed such votes to stand in June, and no one even challenged it to the Court as there was a pretty wide spread consensus that this was the right decision (at least in public statements, perhaps some people opposed these votes being counted but didn't want to publically state their views).

Public opinion is irrelevant, the reason it wasnt challenged was because it wouldnt have affected the outcome of the election.

This may be very well true, and I would have understood very well if the supreme court had ruled Hawk's vote invalid.
But the SOFA should have stuck to his own precedent.

Not that it matters now, this thing is over, and I'd like to congratulate WMS on his victory.

[minionofmidas]

Democratic Hawk wouldn't have made the mistakes that he did if he thought that they would cause his vote to not count; the fact that such things had been allowed in the past led him to believe that editing his post only and not his vote would not be a problem.

Do you know this for sure? Or are you just making claims for the sake of argument here? I had figured he was just a very uninformed voter...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very wise words.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And after all, these are just FANTASY elections so words like "disenfranchise" really don't apply here.  We either follow the rules, or we shouldn't play at all.

[Nym90]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And after all, these are just FANTASY elections so words like "disenfranchise" really don't apply here. We either follow the rules, or we shouldn't play at all.

I guess I don't see why those two would have to go hand in hand. Not to mention that the rule itself was quite ambiguous to begin with, especially in light of past precedent. That's besides the point now, but I still don't accept that the rules were clear and precise as to the fact that the term "vote" and the term "post" meant the exact same thing, especially since in the past, they didn't mean the same thing.

Part of the point of the Fantasy Elections, at least as I and others saw it originally, was to not get bogged down in ridiculous rules and restrictions that serve no real purpose other than to frustrate. I agree that he's not really being disenfranchised in the real world, but it still is fantasy disenfranchisement, and while in the real world it would be more justified as in a nation of 280 million people we can't trust everyone to have the best of intent, I don't think anyone is doubting Democratic Hawk's true intent.

For evidence of this spirit, one can check the quotes at the time of the disputed votes in June. Folks of all political persuasions agreed that we should let them stand, due to the fact that we shouldn't take this too seriously, and we shouldn't disallow people from voting. Gustaf and others have indicated that they feel the the original spirit has been lost, and thus they have changed their view. It disappoints me quite a bit when good people turn away from what originally made this good, but I'm not going to give up trying to revive it.

The entire PURPOSE of the rules is to ensure that no one tries to cheat and commit fraud. Was Democratic Hawk trying to cheat? Was fraud being committed? Would counting his vote have resulted in less accurate representation of the opinions of the electorate?

Rules don't exist just to be followed. They are merely a means to an end, an attempt to give us a fairer and more accurate picture of the views of the electorate, one that won't be distorted by attempts by people to vote multiple times. When the rules get in the way of common sense and begin to pervert their original purpose, actually working AGAINST a fair and accurate picture of the electorate's preference rather than towards one, then it's time for a change.

This is the kind of thing I was worried about when these Fantasy Elections got started. The spirit of camradarie and trust would be lost. I guess I was right.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The entire PURPOSE of the rules is to ensure that no one tries to cheat and commit fraud. Was Democratic Hawk trying to cheat? Was fraud being committed? Would counting his vote have resulted in less accurate representation of the opinions of the electorate?

Rules don't exist just to be followed. They are merely a means to an end, an attempt to give us a fairer and more accurate picture of the views of the electorate, one that won't be distorted by attempts by people to vote multiple times. When the rules get in the way of common sense and begin to pervert their original purpose, actually working AGAINST a fair and accurate picture of the electorate's preference rather than towards one, then it's time for a change.

Agreed.  If the rules are not fullfilling their intended purpose then they need to be changed.  However, that doesn't mean that they should be ignored until they are actually changed.

[Nym90]

Correct, and if this is what the Court had ruled, that the vote shouldn't count, I would have been willing to accept it, for that very reason. As it was, Democratic Hawk was convinced by public opinion not to pursue it; understandable, but still a less than optimal outcome as far as clarity is concerned.

However, the law is VERY ambiguous (does vote=post?), and past precedent was for such votes to count; ambiguous enough, in fact, that the SOFA himself, while ruling that the vote shouldn't count, wanted the case to go to the Supreme Court to get a definitive ruling, probably due in part to the fact that he didn't want to singlehandedly overturn previous rulings by Nation.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Nym, you simply cannot have it both ways.  You are trying to claim a moral point by saying that Hawk's "intent" should be considered.  And I would not question Hawk's "intent".

However, I would question the "intent" of another Harry vote, cast by "Katie G".  It is not right for a forum member to bring in somebody with a clear intention of only participating to cast a vote for an offline friend of theirs.  Unfortunately, there is not yet any rule that would prohibit this vote from being counted so of course I support it being counted.  Maybe we'll see her the next time Harry needs a vote.

I would personally be much more willing to consider the "intent" of a voter if the candidate for which that vote would count were not in such clear violation of the spirit of these elections and if the party to which said candidate belongs did not stake all of their electoral hopes on trolls and fraud.

You seem to be saying that we should follow the rules and allow Katie G's vote to be counted, but at the same time worry about "disenfranchising" Hawk even though there was a clear violation of the rules and procedures.

[Nym90]

That's a good point. I didn't know who Katie G was; if she is just someone who came in to help Harry, then that definitely does violate the spirit of the elections, and the rules definitely should be changed to prevent that sort of thing.

Thanks for pointing it out. No one had yet brought that up, and I didn't know that was who she was.

I think we can all agree that some modifications need to be made. We need to make things easier for people who are foreigners and otherwise unfamiliar with the process (those from foreign countries are much more likely to have to put an extra statement in their signature, so that rule, while certainly of the best intentions, does have that unfortunate side effect), and more difficult for people who have no involvement at all on the Forum other than to vote for their friends. I would support legislation that would combine these two factors; hopefully we can all agree that Democratic Hawk's vote is a lot more legitimate, from a moral standpoint, than Katie G's, given the total amount of posts of the two of them as a starting point.

Maybe raising the number of posts required to register to vote, but at the same time loosening or even dropping altogether the avatar/signature rule? That would have solved both of these cases, though who knows of course what will come up down the road.

At the same time, a less hostile attitude toward newbies, most of whom do genuinely go on to become legitimate users, should be encouraged, though not legislated of course. The predictions that voters in D1 were just showing up to elect the Bulldog and True Democrat and that neither of them were active members seem to be proving to be wrong, and hopefully those who castigated Democrats for this will admit to their mistake, assuming these folks do continue to stay active long term.