TNF v. Windjammer

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The way I see it is, there is nothing in the rules expressly prohibiting write ins. They are accepted on all ballots in this game, and never before have we forbidden write in votes so long as the write in candidate wanted to accept them. "Candidate" is not defined as one that is declared either either. It merely said "candidate" and that can be a declared or a write in candidate. If it said the winner is the "declared candidate receives the most votes" then this would make sense, but it does not say that.

In cases where a vote is at stake, the Court typically will err on the side of a vote counting. There is a high standard in place to strip a person of their right to vote.  My preference would be for the VP to merely break the tie for his preferred candidate and save us the time of going through this court proceeding. I am uncomfortable with invaliding a whole host of votes for some technicality that can only be gleaned from reading the law as rigidly as possible. And I say this as a strong supporter of Yankee. However, I believe he would agree that this is not the way to go about things.

But what do I really know? I don't know if I passed the bar yet.

[windjammer]

I just told you that I would have accepted write-ins I accepted a candidate that wasn't even a Senator on the ballot! You consider incorrectly, but I'm not going to argue over that. It was nearly a decade ago.

You've failed to provide any reasonable argument in my opinion as to why the Senate can't elect a PPT in it's own way.

The candidate who receives the highest number of votes does not say "the declared candidate". It just says "the candidate". This comes down to a matter of Senate independence. Do we not have the right to elect candidates in our own way, especially when, and I can't stress this enough, there is nothing in the law that forbids write-in voting. You keep saying the "candidate", but as I understand the law, the "candidate" could be either a declared candidate or a write-in candidate.

And I can't see anything that allows write in either.
Nope, a write in vote is a vote for someone who isn't a candidate for this election.

Glad to see you have at least given up the "precedent" argument.

The way I see it is, there is nothing in the rules expressly prohibiting write ins. They are accepted on all ballots in this game, and never before have we forbidden write in votes so long as the write in candidate wanted to accept them. "Candidate" is not defined as one that is declared either either. It merely said "candidate" and that can be a declared or a write in candidate. If it said the winner is the "declared candidate receives the most votes" then this would make sense, but it does not say that.

In cases where a vote is at stake, the Court typically will err on the side of a vote counting. There is a high standard in place to strip a person of their right to vote.  My preference would be for the VP to merely break the tie for his preferred candidate and save us the time of going through this court proceeding. I am uncomfortable with invaliding a whole host of votes for some technicality that can only be gleaned from reading the law as rigidly as possible. And I say this as a strong supporter of Yankee. However, I believe he would agree that this is not the way to go about things.

But what do I really know? I don't know if I passed the bar yet.

I disagree with this analysis.
I was elected to respect the senate rules.
I cannot valid votes that I believe are invalid.

That doesn't mean I'm right. But I try to do what I believe is fair.
If the Supreme Court believes I'm wrong, fine I would break the tie.

So the argument "saving time", I can't take it.

[Dr. Cynic]

Since TNF accepted write-ins, that does in fact make him a candidate under federal law.

[windjammer]

Since TNF accepted write-ins, that does in fact make him a candidate under federal law.

Senate rules aren't federal laws.

That's why the Supreme Court hesitated a lot before taking this case.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I reiterate my earlier statement of coup d'etat! Coup d'etat!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Oh no, my main argument isn't saving time. My assertion is, from my interpretation, once a candidate accepts write ins, they are considered a "candidate" even if they have not declared. The rules state the "candidate with the highest number of votes wins," not "the declared candidate with the highest number of votes."

As for saving time, I meant you could merely have voted for Yankee to break the tie and then all of this wouldn't be necessary. We will see who's right though!

[windjammer]

Oh no, my main argument isn't saving time. My assertion is, from my interpretation, once a candidate accepts write ins, they are considered a "candidate" even if they have not declared. The rules state the "candidate with the highest number of votes wins," not "the declared candidate with the highest number of votes."

As for saving time, I meant you could merely have voted for Yankee to break the tie and then all of this wouldn't be necessary. We will see who's right though!

But this is an argument you have made Duke.
And sorry, I disagree. If I believe some votes shouldn't be invalid, I don't count them. That's just a question of honesty.
I can be wrong, but I want to be honest.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Right, I know. I'm not looking to change your mind. I know you think you're right, and I think I am right.

And you're correct; senate rules are not federal law. I am arguing about the definition of "candidate." You believe "candidate" means "declared candidate" and I believe "candidate" is either a declared candidate or a write in candidate, assuming they state they will accept the votes. I don't see enough express language in the law to justify not counting the 5 write in votes that were invalidated.

I can be wrong too. All I can say is, may the best argument win!

[windjammer]

Right, I know. I'm not looking to change your mind. I know you think your right, and I think I am right.

And you're correct; senate rules are not federal law. I am arguing about the definition of "candidate." You believe "candidate" means "declared candidate" and I believe "candidate" is either a declared candidate or a write in candidate, assuming they state they will accept the votes. I don't see enough express language in the law to justify not counting the 5 write in votes that were invalidated.

I can be wrong too. All I can say is, may the best argument win!

Yep, and I can be wrong too on this argument.

However, I'm sorry, but the fact that you have thought I should have broken the tie for Yankee, just for saving time, this is really weird, and really.
This is doing something against the job of VP. The VP tries to interpret the rules as best as he can, he doesn't take into account the "saving time" argument.
If he believes some votes should be invalid, he doesn't count them (that's why I didn't break the tie, because there was no tie for me).
The VP, even if he's wrong, should NEVER take into account this argument of saving time. Trying to Respect the rules is something that is much more important.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Whenever a question of whether a vote should count or not, I would always err on the side of counting it unless there was express language in the law that said it should not count.

And my statement about breaking the vote obviously means that you'd just count the votes, but you are a man of strict interpretation of the rules, and you genuinely believe invalidating those 5 votes is okay, and that's fine, perhaps you are right and I am just sounding like an idiot arguing my point.

I'm interested to see how the court rules though, I know that!

[Oakvale]

*bangs gavel*

Thank you, gentlemen. The period for public discussion of the case in this court is now over. Any further attempts to present argument or otherwise influence the Court will ignored, unless they are a direct response to questions posed by the Chief Justice, myself, or Associate Justice Torie

[Oakvale]

Since we're acutely aware that the injunction on the certification of the PPT election is still in place, the Court hopes to reach a resolution on this case as soon as possible given the nuances of the matter in order that the Senate can resume normal operations. With that in mind, I do have a couple of quick questions for the Vice-President -

This touched upon with former President Duke has already mentioned - Senator TNF wrote his name in, something that's considered legally equivalent to a declaration of acceptance for write-in votes throughout the nation - in Atlasia at large, a write-in candidate is distinct from a formal candidate only in their lack of ballot status and their time of declaration - upon accepting such, they legally receive write-in votes and can be elected to office. The question's this - what distinguishes Senator TNF's write-in of his own name from a formal declaration of candidacy?


Secondly, it's true from your commendably extensive research that a large majority of PPT elections had no write-in option explicitly declared. But could the fact that many of those were effectively uncontested mean the comparisons between those historic elections and this competitive election are inherently limited?  The pool of truly competitive Senate elections is far smaller, no?

And (while we unfortunately lack a means of time travel within this Court in order to test this theory), though a small minority of the total, do the elections in which a Write-in Option was explicitly specified not arguably imply a general understanding that write-in votes were allowed?

[windjammer]

This has been seen and I will answer tomorrow.

[windjammer]

Sorry for the delay:

1) Well, the senate rules aren't the federal laws regarding the federal elections. If in the federal rules, writing his name is considered as a declaration of candidacy, that's fine, I respect that. The problem is that this isn't considered as a declaration of a candidacy in the senate rules. In the senate rules, there is only one way: declaring his candidacy (in time) in the PPT candidate declaration thread. But by writing his name, he may have declared his candidacy, but unfortunately, far after the deadline. Indeed, having accepted his candidacy would have violated clause 2:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no provision for write ins in the senate rules as well. (While there is a provision for write ins in the federal rules)
So I couldn't accept Senator TNF's candidate because I believe it would have violated this clause 2. Candidates are according to me recognized only if they announce, in time, their candidacy in this thread.


2) Just to be clear, I made this research just to prove that considering that 2 invalid elections could be a precedent for allowing the write ins. By this search, I just showed that most of the time, write ins weren't on the ballot, a proof, for me, that there is no precedent for allowing the write ins, and a proof that write ins shouldn't be allowed.

3) Associate Justice oakvale,on the 8 elections where write ins were allowed, 4 of them are clearly invalid because of an irrespect of senate rules (not creating a new thread for a vote): (44,46,,47,48 from my previous post). 3 of them were administered by former Vice President Kalwejt, who managed to make an enormous mistake by breaking the tie too early during this election (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=127729.0). There is finally just one election, this one, where former Vice President Bacon King seemed to be quite hesitant (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=104802.0) with the election. In fact, there is really just one election (Bacon King), where we can say that the Vice President hasn't made an important mistake worthy of invalidating this election (forgetting to open a new thread, whereas the rules asked to do that) or breaking the tie too early and finally correcting his mistake after the intervention of the senators (not invalidating the election, but just showing that the Vice President doesn't understand clearly the rules). An only election can only make a precedent.
I would like to point out that for some elections, when there was an only candidate, there wasn't even a vote that was held: a proof that write ins weren't allowed: this election for instance: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=87931.0 only one candidate, no vote.

[Oakvale]

Thank you Mr. Vice President, no further questions from me.

[windjammer]

Associate Justive oakvale, Associate Justice Torie, Chief Justive bgwah,

Please, tell me exactly what I have to do if you decide to rule for TNF (I hope you will rule for me of course). Shall I start a new PPT election, or shall I simply break the tie.

Thank you,
Windjammer

[bgwah]

So because nobody attempted to do a write-in in certain elections, that is proof that write-ins were not allowed?

And your own Bacon King example shows him explaining why he did not include Rowan as a candidate in his initial post, but his results still included a write-in vote for RowanBrandon. If that same logic applied, then why wouldn't the write-in votes for TNF count?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

If this were a formal federal election then this would be an open-and-shut case in favor of the Senator. However, the Senate makes no specific rule on write-in candidacies--though this does not ban write-ins. As write-in candidacies for PPT are not explicitly prohibited by the Senate rules, I would consider the plaintiff to have the better case here.

[bgwah]

If this were a formal federal election then this would be an open-and-shut case in favor of the Senator. However, the Senate makes no specific rule on write-in candidacies--though this does not ban write-ins. As write-in candidacies for PPT are not explicitly prohibited by the Senate rules, I would consider the plaintiff to have the better case here.

Nobody here cares what you think.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

If this were a formal federal election then this would be an open-and-shut case in favor of the Senator. However, the Senate makes no specific rule on write-in candidacies--though this does not ban write-ins. As write-in candidacies for PPT are not explicitly prohibited by the Senate rules, I would consider the plaintiff to have the better case here.

Nobody here cares what you think.

It's not like I'm the sitting Attorney General or anything.

[Adam Griffin]

If this were a formal federal election then this would be an open-and-shut case in favor of the Senator. However, the Senate makes no specific rule on write-in candidacies--though this does not ban write-ins. As write-in candidacies for PPT are not explicitly prohibited by the Senate rules, I would consider the plaintiff to have the better case here.

Nobody here cares what you think.

To be fair, he is the AG.

[windjammer]

Well,
Considering Yankee has formally withdrawn. If the senate rules in favor of me, it will be an another rule disaster.
So I prefer to accept Senator TNF's lawsuit. If I have to do an another PPT election, that would be really weird for the sake of Atlasia.
That doesn't mean I don't believe write ins shouldn't be allowed, but, I want to move on, I want the PPT to administer the senate, so, that's the best thing to do.

[sentinel]

This would have never happened under Vice President Dallasfan

[windjammer]

This would have never happened under Vice President Dallasfan

I don't reproach me anything for that. I genuinely believe write ins shouldn't be allowed.

[TNF]

So are you going to certify the votes, Windjammer, or are we going to wait for the Supreme Court to hand down a ruling on this suit? If you'd like to do the former and certify a winner in the PPT election, I will gladly drop the case.