Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 23, 2014, 12:34:26 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Gustaf, MasterJedi)
| | |-+  This Whole Affair STINKS -- the new vote is REALLY invalid
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: This Whole Affair STINKS -- the new vote is REALLY invalid  (Read 2344 times)
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15887


View Profile
« on: April 03, 2004, 05:03:54 am »
Ignore

The new vote SHOULD NOT COUNT. It is true bullsh*t. Before you jump al over me I have good reasons for this. And I wanted to say them while the vote is still happening, lest I be accused later of being unhappy with the result.

It looks like we had a controversy on the preferential "amendment" voting which passed 11-10 on March 31. Honestly I thought this was already settled, as the public threads on the issue died without an effective objection to the result.

However, now it appears that the controvery has reached such a level that Dan has felt it necessary to post a new vote thread. In my humble, humble opinion this is a mistake. The reason for posting a new thread, I think, this was that after the end of the previous vote, there were many one-sided complaints, some done through private channels, which were unresponded. Also, this issue has been involved in controversies about other parts of the amendment process which have nothing to do with it. The constitution right now is obviously not set in stone as it has not yet taken effect. But I do not think that people should be able to go back on an agreement, even an implicit one, made before. Specifically, that vote in the preferential voting. Everyone voted on this thread and participated in it at the time the vote was going on. There were no complaints saying it was illegitimate, or the host of other complaints we now have.

Now people are saying its unclear, we shouldn't have had a vote together with others, etc. etc. There is one objection that does have merit. If somebody who voted in the thread thought that they were voting for something other than what they were voting, we should hear them out. I have heard that some people said they were misled as to what they were actually voting for... inded it is clear from the discussion in the thread entitled Article X that there is uncertainty about exactly how such a system is to be implemented. But even with such unclarity, it is clear that the idea of preferential voting passed. Even people unclear about the specifics must have been voting for something, thus the fact that they did indeed vote. What that something is, we should hear people out about. In fact we can have a new vote clarifying the ambiguities in what preferential voting means.

However we should not entirely throw out a vote that was completed without complaint as to its legitimacy. Everyone who voted in the thread might have influenced the result, and they implicit endorsed the vote. If you agree to something, endorse something by participating in it, you should not be able to go back on it if the result does not come out to your favor, unless an entirely new piece of information unknown before arises. This is the idea behind common law, and the social contract. Without being able to hold people to their word, how will we have order in this forum? We have no constitution yet, so all we have is people's word. Otherwise, how can we have an objective way to make decisions where there is no consensus?

During the first presidential election, as Demrepdan pointed out to me, some of us Democrats wanted to re-open the registration list after it was already closed by consensus. Supersoulty and Demrepdan argued against this correctly because we had already agreed to close the voter lists and we could not go back on it now, that we saw advantage in changing what we had agreed to before. The same situation exists now. If we cannot hold people to their word and allow them to go back on it if it suits their interests, we will have chaos in the Atlas forum.

We have three considerable PUBLIC threads on this issue. One was the voting thread, "FINAL VOTE...Part 2". One was entitled "Amendment VI did not pass!" one was entitled "Article X". All of these threads ended without a conclusion, without a rebuttal to the fact that the preferential voting did indeed pass, except for saying "this is bullsh*t". I am willing to hear any further arguments, but, note that (1) people vote in multiple issues on the same ballot all the time, and (2) we did not have a senate at the time. I believe that none of the complaints, except the one already listed here, has any merit, *especially* since the complaints were not lodged then, or even after everyone had the opportunity to see the result.

Then, all of a sudden, without public conclusion, comes a new voting thread on the preferential voting out of the blue. Even people who were not registered or even signed up to the forum at the start of the last vote are now voting. The decision to post this thread seems to be related to entirely separate matters about the district and regional maps and the 4th amendment, which inherently contradict one another; one requiring an equitable distributiong of registered voters, the maps not complying with such a demand. In addition it seems to have come about because the constitution "is not set in stone," and there were some people attempting to usurp the secretary's authority. Finally, it seems to have come out because the sheer volume of complaints, unresponded to, overwrote the merit they accrued in public discussion. It is clear the secretary has total authority before putting up a final constitution, and we have no constitution right now, and we can still add articles to it if we wish; there seems to be great consensus for chaning some parts of the constitution before final ratification. None of this is any justification to throw out an existing vote on preferential voting, an independent issue of itself.

Remember that new votes in democracies never come about without totally new information coming into light, and in most cases even if new information does. In Florida in 2000, there were re-counts, but not re-votes. Were some people "confused" about voting for Pat Buchanan? Sure some were. But the vote was prior agreed to by all, and thus no basis for complaint. Granted, in 2000 there was law, here we have no law. But that is only all the more important why people's word should have authority for reasons already listed.

To sum, as I have said, if the powers at be want a new vote, or in reality to do whatever they want, there is nothing to stop them. In fact there is no way to punish anyone or enforce any law, principle, or agreement, unless Dave tries to ban their IP. However, this new vote really is invalid. Any complaint about the legitimacy of a vote should be made before the end of the vote, when a conflict of interest becomes inherent. Especially, anyone who participated in the vote must account for that participation and be held accountable. Otherwise, in an era before constitutional ratification and formal law, there is no objective measure by which to judge any decision and reach a consensus.

This vote is INVALID. In truth, even if the result is accepted. It should be declared invalid.

P.S. Note that the secretary of forum affairs has promised to give a new hearing if enough people complain.
Logged

Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21450
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2004, 05:56:27 am »
Ignore

I think that it has passed many many times, BUT, I want to give this a chance. We'll win-and then noone can complain any more, no matter what. Let democracy take its course.

1 problem I do have with the poll is that it is that Demrepdan's first post is extremely biased. i wpould STRONGLY appriciate he edited it, so as not to influence the outcome, although perhaps that has already happened Sad

If he could at least add my arguments for preferential voting in the first post, so that voters can see both arguments initially, rather then having to got o page two for the alternate argument.
Logged

dunn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3080


P
View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2004, 08:04:21 am »
Ignore

I second you beet. great post
Logged

Keep your eyes on the stars, and your feet on the ground - TR
ShapeShifter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2749


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2004, 10:05:10 am »
Ignore

I disagree. The original VOTE thread was very CONFUSING in my opinion.

The new Vote thread was very CLEAR.

This is why I proposed the E-Mail system. But, everyone shot it down. O, well. But then again, I just proposed a NEW RULE for thread voting.
Logged

ShapeShifter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2749


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2004, 10:13:39 am »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.
Logged

tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35438
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.52, S: -8.00

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2004, 10:14:55 am »
Ignore

ONE PERSON ONE VOTE
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15887


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2004, 02:38:03 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.

If I remember correctly, one of the first things Lewis acknowledged was that he was not an official office holder, but, that nobody else was going to get the ball rolling, he was going to do it. And no objection from you at the time. In fact without the actions of many non-official office holders we would be way behind where we are even now.

1) Did you vote in the original thread?

2) Did totally new information-- not new interpretation-- come to light about the vote?

If you answered yes to 1) and no to 2) you must be accountable for your vote & your endorsement of that process.
Logged

Emsworth
Lord Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2004, 02:46:46 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.
But several days had passed without anyone in the administration doing a thing towards the ratification of the constitution. The constitution was supposed to have been finally set. The vote was de facto valid.
Logged
ShapeShifter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2749


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2004, 02:49:00 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.

If I remember correctly, one of the first things Lewis acknowledged was that he was not an official office holder, but, that nobody else was going to get the ball rolling, he was going to do it. And no objection from you at the time. In fact without the actions of many non-official office holders we would be way behind where we are even now.

1) Did you vote in the original thread?

2) Did totally new information-- not new interpretation-- come to light about the vote?

If you answered yes to 1) and no to 2) you must be accountable for your vote & your endorsement of that process.

It was not even a REAL vote. It was some person who did not even hold office position - once again, no offense to you Lewis. Just because, I "voted" in the non-official voting thread, does not mean anything.

1) Is your SN name Beet?

If you answered yes to 1) then you are accountable to yourself.
Logged

Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15887


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2004, 02:52:37 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.

If I remember correctly, one of the first things Lewis acknowledged was that he was not an official office holder, but, that nobody else was going to get the ball rolling, he was going to do it. And no objection from you at the time. In fact without the actions of many non-official office holders we would be way behind where we are even now.

1) Did you vote in the original thread?

2) Did totally new information-- not new interpretation-- come to light about the vote?

If you answered yes to 1) and no to 2) you must be accountable for your vote & your endorsement of that process.

It was not even a REAL vote.

I will just ignore your snide little remark.

Who said it was not real? Only now are you trying to say it's not real. Did you say it was not real before March 31? And you have quite an incentive for saying so now, seeing as you would like to overturn the result.
Logged

Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3698


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2004, 02:55:55 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.

If I remember correctly, one of the first things Lewis acknowledged was that he was not an official office holder, but, that nobody else was going to get the ball rolling, he was going to do it. And no objection from you at the time. In fact without the actions of many non-official office holders we would be way behind where we are even now.

1) Did you vote in the original thread?

2) Did totally new information-- not new interpretation-- come to light about the vote?

If you answered yes to 1) and no to 2) you must be accountable for your vote & your endorsement of that process.

It was not even a REAL vote. It was some person who did not even hold office position - once again, no offense to you Lewis. Just because, I "voted" in the non-official voting thread, does not mean anything.

1) Is your SN name Beet?

If you answered yes to 1) then you are accountable to yourself.

What exactly is a REAL vote?  There is no single, official way to ratify  a constitution in the absence of any existing constitution.  Lewis got the ball rolling on ratification because no one else was going to.  Would you rather just have the president decree what the Constitution is?  He's the only current elected office holder (well, and the VP).
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2004, 02:59:07 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.

If I remember correctly, one of the first things Lewis acknowledged was that he was not an official office holder, but, that nobody else was going to get the ball rolling, he was going to do it. And no objection from you at the time. In fact without the actions of many non-official office holders we would be way behind where we are even now.

1) Did you vote in the original thread?

2) Did totally new information-- not new interpretation-- come to light about the vote?

If you answered yes to 1) and no to 2) you must be accountable for your vote & your endorsement of that process.

It was not even a REAL vote.

I will just ignore your snide little remark.

Who said it was not real? Only now are you trying to say it's not real. Did you say it was not real before March 31? And you have quite an incentive for saying so now, seeing as you would like to overturn the result.


It wasn't a real vote because the Progressives took it on themselves to unofficially take the process out of Dan's hands and put it up to a vote without any authority to do so and then put a voting up on ONLY proposals that they wanted to see in the constitution.  The reason I didn't complain earlier is that I hadn't foundout, until Dan said something, that Dan had not approved of this measure.
Logged

ShapeShifter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2749


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2004, 03:01:44 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.

If I remember correctly, one of the first things Lewis acknowledged was that he was not an official office holder, but, that nobody else was going to get the ball rolling, he was going to do it. And no objection from you at the time. In fact without the actions of many non-official office holders we would be way behind where we are even now.

1) Did you vote in the original thread?

2) Did totally new information-- not new interpretation-- come to light about the vote?

If you answered yes to 1) and no to 2) you must be accountable for your vote & your endorsement of that process.

It was not even a REAL vote.

I will just ignore your snide little remark.

Who said it was not real? Only now are you trying to say it's not real. Did you say it was not real before March 31? And you have quite an incentive for saying so now, seeing as you would like to overturn the result.

Well when all things are said and done, Lewis had no business to call for a VOTE. The call for a Vote should had been done ATLEAST by someone who has been elected OR someone in NYM90's cabinet.
Logged

ShapeShifter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2749


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2004, 03:03:38 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.

If I remember correctly, one of the first things Lewis acknowledged was that he was not an official office holder, but, that nobody else was going to get the ball rolling, he was going to do it. And no objection from you at the time. In fact without the actions of many non-official office holders we would be way behind where we are even now.

1) Did you vote in the original thread?

2) Did totally new information-- not new interpretation-- come to light about the vote?

If you answered yes to 1) and no to 2) you must be accountable for your vote & your endorsement of that process.

It was not even a REAL vote. It was some person who did not even hold office position - once again, no offense to you Lewis. Just because, I "voted" in the non-official voting thread, does not mean anything.

1) Is your SN name Beet?

If you answered yes to 1) then you are accountable to yourself.

What exactly is a REAL vote?  There is no single, official way to ratify  a constitution in the absence of any existing constitution.  Lewis got the ball rolling on ratification because no one else was going to.  Would you rather just have the president decree what the Constitution is?  He's the only current elected office holder (well, and the VP).

Well, then why didn't you and the rest of the democratic party and also everyone else, put the pressure on the President. Next time when you vote for someone, vote for someone who is actually ACTIVE and WILL DO something about things.
Logged

JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7509


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2004, 03:05:08 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.

If I remember correctly, one of the first things Lewis acknowledged was that he was not an official office holder, but, that nobody else was going to get the ball rolling, he was going to do it. And no objection from you at the time. In fact without the actions of many non-official office holders we would be way behind where we are even now.

1) Did you vote in the original thread?

2) Did totally new information-- not new interpretation-- come to light about the vote?

If you answered yes to 1) and no to 2) you must be accountable for your vote & your endorsement of that process.

It was not even a REAL vote. It was some person who did not even hold office position - once again, no offense to you Lewis. Just because, I "voted" in the non-official voting thread, does not mean anything.

1) Is your SN name Beet?

If you answered yes to 1) then you are accountable to yourself.

What exactly is a REAL vote?  There is no single, official way to ratify  a constitution in the absence of any existing constitution.  Lewis got the ball rolling on ratification because no one else was going to.  Would you rather just have the president decree what the Constitution is?  He's the only current elected office holder (well, and the VP).

Well, then why didn't you and the rest of the democratic party and also everyone else, put the pressure on the President. Next time when you vote for someone, vote for someone who is actually ACTIVE and WILL DO something about things.

nick is a progressive.
Logged
ShapeShifter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2749


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2004, 03:07:03 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.

If I remember correctly, one of the first things Lewis acknowledged was that he was not an official office holder, but, that nobody else was going to get the ball rolling, he was going to do it. And no objection from you at the time. In fact without the actions of many non-official office holders we would be way behind where we are even now.

1) Did you vote in the original thread?

2) Did totally new information-- not new interpretation-- come to light about the vote?

If you answered yes to 1) and no to 2) you must be accountable for your vote & your endorsement of that process.

It was not even a REAL vote. It was some person who did not even hold office position - once again, no offense to you Lewis. Just because, I "voted" in the non-official voting thread, does not mean anything.

1) Is your SN name Beet?

If you answered yes to 1) then you are accountable to yourself.

What exactly is a REAL vote?  There is no single, official way to ratify  a constitution in the absence of any existing constitution.  Lewis got the ball rolling on ratification because no one else was going to.  Would you rather just have the president decree what the Constitution is?  He's the only current elected office holder (well, and the VP).

Well, then why didn't you and the rest of the democratic party and also everyone else, put the pressure on the President. Next time when you vote for someone, vote for someone who is actually ACTIVE and WILL DO something about things.

nick is a progressive.

Thanks for the correction. Makes more sense now.
Logged

ShapeShifter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2749


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 03, 2004, 03:08:52 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.

If I remember correctly, one of the first things Lewis acknowledged was that he was not an official office holder, but, that nobody else was going to get the ball rolling, he was going to do it. And no objection from you at the time. In fact without the actions of many non-official office holders we would be way behind where we are even now.

1) Did you vote in the original thread?

2) Did totally new information-- not new interpretation-- come to light about the vote?

If you answered yes to 1) and no to 2) you must be accountable for your vote & your endorsement of that process.

It was not even a REAL vote.

I will just ignore your snide little remark.

Who said it was not real? Only now are you trying to say it's not real. Did you say it was not real before March 31? And you have quite an incentive for saying so now, seeing as you would like to overturn the result.


It wasn't a real vote because the Progressives took it on themselves to unofficially take the process out of Dan's hands and put it up to a vote without any authority to do so and then put a voting up on ONLY proposals that they wanted to see in the constitution.  The reason I didn't complain earlier is that I hadn't foundout, until Dan said something, that Dan had not approved of this measure.

I agree. We can't have NON-OFFICE holder take things in their own hands.
Logged

Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3698


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2004, 03:30:19 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.

If I remember correctly, one of the first things Lewis acknowledged was that he was not an official office holder, but, that nobody else was going to get the ball rolling, he was going to do it. And no objection from you at the time. In fact without the actions of many non-official office holders we would be way behind where we are even now.

1) Did you vote in the original thread?

2) Did totally new information-- not new interpretation-- come to light about the vote?

If you answered yes to 1) and no to 2) you must be accountable for your vote & your endorsement of that process.

It was not even a REAL vote.

I will just ignore your snide little remark.

Who said it was not real? Only now are you trying to say it's not real. Did you say it was not real before March 31? And you have quite an incentive for saying so now, seeing as you would like to overturn the result.


It wasn't a real vote because the Progressives took it on themselves to unofficially take the process out of Dan's hands and put it up to a vote without any authority to do so and then put a voting up on ONLY proposals that they wanted to see in the constitution.  The reason I didn't complain earlier is that I hadn't foundout, until Dan said something, that Dan had not approved of this measure.

I agree. We can't have NON-OFFICE holder take things in their own hands.

The existing administration (Nym, Harry, DemRepDan) all endorsed Lewis's threads by voting on both the constitution and the amendments.  Nym and Harry have expressed the view that the matter was resolved.  

DemRepDan, who ran against Nym and Harry in the presidential election, and voted against the administration on the preferential voting amendment, is now trying to overturn that vote because it didn't turn out the way he wanted.  If the administration in anyway did not endorse the vote Lewis started, they should have objected before the vote was finished.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15887


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2004, 03:31:12 pm »
Ignore

The reason I didn't complain earlier is that I hadn't foundout, until Dan said something, that Dan had not approved of this measure.

Dan voted on the measure too. If he didn't approve of it why did he vote in it? I think it's more likely he changed his mind later & posted a new thread AFTER the complaining had started. In fact that's what the thread histories will show, and its also what he said himself.
Logged

ShapeShifter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2749


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2004, 03:39:28 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.

If I remember correctly, one of the first things Lewis acknowledged was that he was not an official office holder, but, that nobody else was going to get the ball rolling, he was going to do it. And no objection from you at the time. In fact without the actions of many non-official office holders we would be way behind where we are even now.

1) Did you vote in the original thread?

2) Did totally new information-- not new interpretation-- come to light about the vote?

If you answered yes to 1) and no to 2) you must be accountable for your vote & your endorsement of that process.

It was not even a REAL vote.

I will just ignore your snide little remark.

Who said it was not real? Only now are you trying to say it's not real. Did you say it was not real before March 31? And you have quite an incentive for saying so now, seeing as you would like to overturn the result.


It wasn't a real vote because the Progressives took it on themselves to unofficially take the process out of Dan's hands and put it up to a vote without any authority to do so and then put a voting up on ONLY proposals that they wanted to see in the constitution.  The reason I didn't complain earlier is that I hadn't foundout, until Dan said something, that Dan had not approved of this measure.

I agree. We can't have NON-OFFICE holder take things in their own hands.

The existing administration (Nym, Harry, DemRepDan) all endorsed Lewis's threads by voting on both the constitution and the amendments.  Nym and Harry have expressed the view that the matter was resolved.  

DemRepDan, who ran against Nym and Harry in the presidential election, and voted against the administration on the preferential voting amendment, is now trying to overturn that vote because it didn't turn out the way he wanted.  If the administration in anyway did not endorse the vote Lewis started, they should have objected before the vote was finished.

We can't have people doing the president and others job for them and then later on the president and others say, o yea, i support this. Official business should be done BY and ONLY office holders. Like I said, you can discredit all you want the person, and make them look like an idiot, but Lewis had no business to call for a vote.
Logged

Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3698


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 03, 2004, 03:42:11 pm »
Ignore

Someone had to do.  The Senate filing deadline was just a few days away, and we had not yet approved maps or a voting procedure.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2004, 03:42:24 pm by NickG »Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15887


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2004, 03:48:08 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.

If I remember correctly, one of the first things Lewis acknowledged was that he was not an official office holder, but, that nobody else was going to get the ball rolling, he was going to do it. And no objection from you at the time. In fact without the actions of many non-official office holders we would be way behind where we are even now.

1) Did you vote in the original thread?

2) Did totally new information-- not new interpretation-- come to light about the vote?

If you answered yes to 1) and no to 2) you must be accountable for your vote & your endorsement of that process.

It was not even a REAL vote.

I will just ignore your snide little remark.

Who said it was not real? Only now are you trying to say it's not real. Did you say it was not real before March 31? And you have quite an incentive for saying so now, seeing as you would like to overturn the result.


It wasn't a real vote because the Progressives took it on themselves to unofficially take the process out of Dan's hands and put it up to a vote without any authority to do so and then put a voting up on ONLY proposals that they wanted to see in the constitution.  The reason I didn't complain earlier is that I hadn't foundout, until Dan said something, that Dan had not approved of this measure.

I agree. We can't have NON-OFFICE holder take things in their own hands.

The existing administration (Nym, Harry, DemRepDan) all endorsed Lewis's threads by voting on both the constitution and the amendments.  Nym and Harry have expressed the view that the matter was resolved.  

DemRepDan, who ran against Nym and Harry in the presidential election, and voted against the administration on the preferential voting amendment, is now trying to overturn that vote because it didn't turn out the way he wanted.  If the administration in anyway did not endorse the vote Lewis started, they should have objected before the vote was finished.

We can't have people doing the president and others job for them and then later on the president and others say, o yea, i support this. Official business should be done BY and ONLY office holders. Like I said, you can discredit all you want the person, and make them look like an idiot, but Lewis had no business to call for a vote.

If you want to make a new rule saying this now then fine, but there was no such controversy about this before, so there should be no ex post facto law here. Any law should be forward looking so as not to introduce a conflict of interest. This is the way it is in the real world, the Founding Fathers were very clear to make sure of this-- no ex post facto. We all voted in at least two threads that were not set up by administration members. Does that mean we were all breaking the law?
Logged

Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3698


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2004, 03:52:45 pm »
Ignore


Also, before we had any sort of Constitution, there is arguable NO ONE with official power to do anything.  Anyone can call for a vote, and the only thing that makes it binding or not is the support of the public.  Only once we have a constitution do any of the offices have actual power.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7509


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2004, 03:54:10 pm »
Ignore

What position does Lewis Trondheim have in the Atlas Forume??? Does he even have an official position? Because if he does not, no offense to you Lewis, he had no business in calling for a vote on a ratification of the constition.

If I remember correctly, one of the first things Lewis acknowledged was that he was not an official office holder, but, that nobody else was going to get the ball rolling, he was going to do it. And no objection from you at the time. In fact without the actions of many non-official office holders we would be way behind where we are even now.

1) Did you vote in the original thread?

2) Did totally new information-- not new interpretation-- come to light about the vote?

If you answered yes to 1) and no to 2) you must be accountable for your vote & your endorsement of that process.

It was not even a REAL vote.

I will just ignore your snide little remark.

Who said it was not real? Only now are you trying to say it's not real. Did you say it was not real before March 31? And you have quite an incentive for saying so now, seeing as you would like to overturn the result.


It wasn't a real vote because the Progressives took it on themselves to unofficially take the process out of Dan's hands and put it up to a vote without any authority to do so and then put a voting up on ONLY proposals that they wanted to see in the constitution.  The reason I didn't complain earlier is that I hadn't foundout, until Dan said something, that Dan had not approved of this measure.

I agree. We can't have NON-OFFICE holder take things in their own hands.

The existing administration (Nym, Harry, DemRepDan) all endorsed Lewis's threads by voting on both the constitution and the amendments.  Nym and Harry have expressed the view that the matter was resolved.  

DemRepDan, who ran against Nym and Harry in the presidential election, and voted against the administration on the preferential voting amendment, is now trying to overturn that vote because it didn't turn out the way he wanted.  If the administration in anyway did not endorse the vote Lewis started, they should have objected before the vote was finished.

We can't have people doing the president and others job for them and then later on the president and others say, o yea, i support this. Official business should be done BY and ONLY office holders. Like I said, you can discredit all you want the person, and make them look like an idiot, but Lewis had no business to call for a vote.

If you want to make a new rule saying this now then fine, but there was no such controversy about this before, so there should be no ex post facto law here. Any law should be forward looking so as not to introduce a conflict of interest. This is the way it is in the real world, the Founding Fathers were very clear to make sure of this-- no ex post facto. We all voted in at least two threads that were not set up by administration members. Does that mean we were all breaking the law?

why do you keep going on about de facto, that isn't binding law, de iuro is binding law, de facto is just in reality.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15887


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2004, 03:54:25 pm »
Ignore

Precisely. At this point the only standard of order and justice is what people have agreed to beforehand-- and they certainly agreed to participate in Lewis's votes. Thus they are just as valid as any.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines