Voting Regulations Amendment

[7,052,770]

I propose this amendment to the constitution:

Voting Regulations Amendment

1.  During an election, a voter may edit his post in the voting, provided that he does not edit the vote itself.  However, if eyewitnesses can confirm that the vote itself was edited, then the vote will not count.  A person may delete his vote as a way to void it, but if he does, he may not cast another vote.
2.  When the polls close, the vote count is final, and the thread will be locked.  Any alterations to votes made after the polls close will not affect the final count.
3.  This amendment will apply only to federal elections.
4.  This amendment will go into effect in the next set of elections following its passage.




I think it is imperative that we pass this amendment to clear up some unresolved issues and ensure a controversy like that that happened this time in District 4 won't happen again.

[King]

Looks good, but with the Senate backlog it will never see official debate/voting time.

[Akno21]

How about whatever the vote is on Monday morning at 12:01, it stays that way, and people can do whatever they wish until then? I could say I saw something that I really didn't, this lets partisans make up stories about vote-changing.

On a side note, would anyone propose something that would punish people for posting in the voting thread aside from voting? It really clogs things up.

[King]

To get the ball moving, I suggest Senator StatesRights pull out all his bills and resubmit them in the next legislative session.

[True Democrat]

This sounds good.  The only problem is forum members can lie and say someone's vote was edited, even though it wasn't.  Is there a way we can change the forum so if a post has been edited it will say which parts are edited.

[Jake]

This amendment is to open to interpretation. Make the requirements airtight. No editing of a vote or post. if the post says <edited, etc> at the bottom it is void. Also, let votes be deleted up until the booth closes, and allow voters to recast their vote until the booth closes. Lock the voting booth the second it closes and tally the votes then.

[StevenNick]

This amendment is to open to interpretation. Make the requirements airtight. No editing of a vote or post. if the post says <edited, etc> at the bottom it is void. Also, let votes be deleted up until the booth closes, and allow voters to recast their vote until the booth closes. Lock the voting booth the second it closes and tally the votes then.

I agree.  If we allow posts to be edited then we'll be opening up a can of worms.  Unless somebody is paying close attention, we may not always be able to tell when the vote has been edited.  That part of the amendment may just be a prescription for more voting chaos as anytime a post has been edited it will have to proven whether or not the vote has been changed.  Better to say that if any post has been edited, the vote contained therein will not be counted.  That saves us all a lot of trouble.

[minionofmidas]

This amendment is to open to interpretation. Make the requirements airtight. No editing of a vote or post. if the post says <edited, etc> at the bottom it is void. Also, let votes be deleted up until the booth closes, and allow voters to recast their vote until the booth closes. Lock the voting booth the second it closes and tally the votes then.

I agree.  If we allow posts to be edited then we'll be opening up a can of worms.  Unless somebody is paying close attention, we may not always be able to tell when the vote has been edited.  That part of the amendment may just be a prescription for more voting chaos as anytime a post has been edited it will have to proven whether or not the vote has been changed.  Better to say that if any post has been edited, the vote contained therein will not be counted.  That saves us all a lot of trouble.

But then allowing people to delete and recast?
That's absurd. By allowing that practice to stand, we've given up what the no-editing rule was supposed to be about anyhow. Same thing with the four-month rule and allowing people to reregister elsewhere under a new name.
Have an airtight rule, or don't have the rule.

[Gabu]

How about whatever the vote is on Monday morning at 12:01, it stays that way, and people can do whatever they wish until then? I could say I saw something that I really didn't, this lets partisans make up stories about vote-changing.

I personally like this idea.  I don't really see the problem in people deleting their vote and re-voting or editing their vote before voting has finished.  It's all the same to the SoFA when voting is closed, given that the SoFA doesn't count or even look at the votes until that time.  Sure, it doesn't reflect reality, but this is fantasy politics.  I think that the rules of "no editing votes" and such really serve no purpose other than to create tiresome legal challenges.  If there are some dire consequences that would come about as a result of allowing this, feel free to alert me to them, but at the moment I can't see anything.

[True Democrat]

Is there a way you can lock a post?  If you can, then after someone votes, lock that post, and if the person wants to make a change that doesn't change the vote, make another post saying what you want to change.

[King]

Is there a way you can lock a post?  If you can, then after someone votes, lock that post, and if the person wants to make a change that doesn't change the vote, make another post saying what you want to change.

You can't lock a post.

[KEmperor]

No editing of votes, period.

[King]

Here's an idea: instead of a thread, we have people PM their votes to the Secretary of Forum Affairs or to a seperate account setup for vote submitting? It keeps uneducated "avatar" voters out of the system, editing/re-voting problems, people don't feel pressure to vote for somebody as every vote is private, and the results are accurate (last election every media outlet had different numbers) as the Department of Forum Affairs does the official vote count.

[Akno21]

Here's an idea: instead of a thread, we have people PM their votes to the Secretary of Forum Affairs or to a seperate account setup for vote submitting? It keeps uneducated "avatar" voters out of the system, editing/re-voting problems, people don't feel pressure to vote for somebody as every vote is private, and the results are accurate (last election every media outlet had different numbers) as the Department of Forum Affairs does the official vote count.

That makes the SoFA the most powerful position in Atlasia.

[King]

Here's an idea: instead of a thread, we have people PM their votes to the Secretary of Forum Affairs or to a seperate account setup for vote submitting? It keeps uneducated "avatar" voters out of the system, editing/re-voting problems, people don't feel pressure to vote for somebody as every vote is private, and the results are accurate (last election every media outlet had different numbers) as the Department of Forum Affairs does the official vote count.

That makes the SoFA the most powerful position in Atlasia.

The votes have to be viewed and certified by the Attorney General, Chief Justice, and the UN aswell

[Jake]

How about whatever the vote is on Monday morning at 12:01, it stays that way, and people can do whatever they wish until then? I could say I saw something that I really didn't, this lets partisans make up stories about vote-changing.

I personally like this idea.  I don't really see the problem in people deleting their vote and re-voting or editing their vote before voting has finished.  It's all the same to the SoFA when voting is closed, given that the SoFA doesn't count or even look at the votes until that time.  Sure, it doesn't reflect reality, but this is fantasy politics.  I think that the rules of "no editing votes" and such really serve no purpose other than to create tiresome legal challenges.  If there are some dire consequences that would come about as a result of allowing this, feel free to alert me to them, but at the moment I can't see anything.

The problem with this is in the last election PBhad a big lead going into Sunday. The only one who could've beaten him was Hugh, but he only had 2 votes.  All the leftists would've changed their votes throwing the election to Hugh because he is at least somewhat better than PB.  In the D5 senate race, StevenNick voters could've changed to King just because he is better than Gabu. This isn't how it should be. Vote once and see what happens and if you want to vote strategicly, wait to vote until the very end.

[Sam Spade]

No editing of votes, period.

Exactly.  If you want to vote strategically, wait till the very end, like I like to do since I'm often around in the last few minutes of voting. 

But being allowed to change your vote after knowing where things stand sounds like those old Jewish retirees in Palm Beach County in 2000. 

I also think there should be a clear layout of each region's ballot and instructions at the top of the voting page and perhaps even separate booths for each region to vote in (though I realize that might be a little complicated for the SoFA to handle).

I also think that there should be a help thread during elections for voting questions or troubles certain voters might have.

Just some thoughts.

[WMS]

Here's an idea: instead of a thread, we have people PM their votes to the Secretary of Forum Affairs or to a seperate account setup for vote submitting? It keeps uneducated "avatar" voters out of the system, editing/re-voting problems, people don't feel pressure to vote for somebody as every vote is private, and the results are accurate (last election every media outlet had different numbers) as the Department of Forum Affairs does the official vote count.

That makes the SoFA the most powerful position in Atlasia.

The SoFA will have some additional duties if some ideas I'm shaping get passed. We'll see...