NixonNow v. Blerpiez, Round 3

[Peter]

The Department of Forum Affairs Declares the D2 Election...

...invalid.

• The vote began at on 12:05:49 on Friday and was certified at 12:02:22 on Monday.  The vote was certified 3:27 before the required 72 hour mark.

It is this reason, along with the looming court battles that could result in a win for either side, that invalidating this election will be the cleanest way to go.

Unless anybody challenges my ruling, the new election will be held this FRIDAY.
[/tt]

There is the Secretary's rather bizarre decision. What is your reaction to it?

[The Duke]

Since King decided when the booth opened, and decided when the booth closed, it seems that the candidates should not be forced to bear the burden of the Secretary's decision to close the booth early/open it late.

[King]

I got the idea from you, Peter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Peter]

My say-so isn't reason to invalidate an election. I was also informing you in that conversation that you violated your own precedent after having counted mine and Defarge's counted votes in the final tally of the Presidential election, despite the fact that you would have had no actual physical evidence of what those votes originally were, just what was generally accepted. In this election you didn't count nickshepDEMs vote despite the fact that many will testify to what it is.

Please be consistent in future.

[Sam Spade]

The decision is bizarre and pretty bad, imo.

[Alcon]

This would invalidate like a third of our elections. Terrible, terrible precedent.

[MHS2002]

It's "interesting," to say the least. I don't agree.

[King]

Well, what should I do then?  If I go with what some "witnesses" say and declare NickShepDem's vote for NixonNow, blerpiez could declare fraud.  If I go with a tie and blerpiez wins, NixonNow could declare fraud.

I didn't really want a revote because I leave to go visit family in Albuquerque this Friday so I wouldn't be able to administer, but I didn't want a fraudulent election based on "these people said this, so it must be true".  Which is an even worse precedent.

I am still open to suggestions and will reverse my decision if somebody has a better idea.

[Peter]

Well, what should I do then?  If I go with what some "witnesses" say and declare NickShepDem's vote for NixonNow, blerpiez could declare fraud.  If I go with a tie and blerpiez wins, NixonNow could declare fraud.

At the end of the day thats your call. I don't think NixonNow will sue if you declare a draw and then move to the tie break procedures, but thats just my gut feeling.

[King]

At the end of the day thats your call. I don't think NixonNow will sue if you declare a draw and then move to the tie break procedures, but thats just my gut feeling.

NixonNow has been trying to push me against the draw nearly all day and declare him the winner.

If I had my way, I would choose Clause 7 and just give a 2-month term to each.  Obviously this district is too divided to elect a full-time Senator right now...

[MAS117]

At the end of the day thats your call. I don't think NixonNow will sue if you declare a draw and then move to the tie break procedures, but thats just my gut feeling.

NixonNow has been trying to push me against the draw nearly all day, which is why I choose invalidation as he probably wouldn't agree to it.

If I had my way, I would choose Clause 7 and just give a 2-month term to each.  Obviously this district is too divided to elect a full-time Senator right now...

A 2 month term for each might not be that bad.

[Sam Spade]

At the end of the day thats your call. I don't think NixonNow will sue if you declare a draw and then move to the tie break procedures, but thats just my gut feeling.

NixonNow has been trying to push me against the draw nearly all day, which is why I choose invalidation as he probably wouldn't agree to it.

If I had my way, I would choose Clause 7 and just give a 2-month term to each.  Obviously this district is too divided to elect a full-time Senator right now...

A 2 month term for each might not be that bad.

The term is only about 1 1/2 months long now as it is.

[John Dibble]

This is in my Libertarian nature to ask, and I'm not taking sides, but where is the authority to invalidate an election given to the Secretary of Forum Affairs?

[Peter]

This is in my Libertarian nature to ask, and I'm not taking sides, but where is the authority to invalidate an election given to the Secretary of Forum Affairs?

I really wouldn't comment in this thread any more due to the possibility of a Court case.

[King]

This is in my Libertarian nature to ask, and I'm not taking sides, but where is the authority to invalidate an election given to the Secretary of Forum Affairs?

Precedent.  That is pretty much all this department is made of...

[Gabu]

Actually, there is legislation pertinent to what has happened, and it goes against King's unilateral invalidation of the results.  Here's an excerpt from the Statute of Election Procedures, Certification and Challenges:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The correct procedure is to bring it to the Supreme Court, who will then decide whether or not to invalidate the results.  If the results are not invalidated, then the correct procedure, again, is to bring the disputed vote(s) to the Supreme Court.  That's what the Supreme Court is there for.

[Nym90]

This is pretty ridiculous. If this was allowed to happen, then any SOFA who doesn't like the way an election is going could close the polls early, and then declare the election invalid.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Just out of curiosity....

Why is everyone so upset with King for interpreting an unclear code in a certain manner, but not upset with idiotic voters who apparently cannot tell the difference between normal forum members and an obvious troll.

[King]

Actually, there is legislation pertinent to what has happened, and it goes against King's unilateral invalidation of the results.  Here's an excerpt from the Statute of Election Procedures, Certification and Challenges:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The correct procedure is to bring it to the Supreme Court, who will then decide whether or not to invalidate the results.  If the results are not invalidated, then the correct procedure, again, is to bring the disputed vote(s) to the Supreme Court.  That's what the Supreme Court is there for.

Thank you, Gabu.  I shall reverse my decision now that I am aware of an actual alternative. 

[A18]

So, uh, what's going on...?

[Jake]

Just out of curiosity....

Why is everyone so upset with King for interpreting an unclear code in a certain manner, but not upset with idiotic voters who apparently cannot tell the difference between normal forum members and an obvious troll.

Why don't you drop the grudge and chill out?

[Blerpiez]

I think it's a bad descision to overturn elections based on such a small amount(3 minutes)

[Siege40]

Disappear for a few hours and the sh**t hits the fan, well done. God save the forum.

Siege