Inks.LWC v. Mideast Region (Superior Court)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:36:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Inks.LWC v. Mideast Region (Superior Court)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Inks.LWC v. Mideast Region (Superior Court)  (Read 1853 times)
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 25, 2014, 09:10:34 AM »

Complaint

May it please the Court, I wish to file suit against the acting Governor for his certification of the July election results. Votes for Al should have been counted pursuant to Badger et al v. Inks.LWC, and I, not Franzl should have been elected. Because I have a high likelihood of winning, I ask this Court to grant a temporary injunction barring Franzl from swearing in. If this Court accepts the case, I will file a full brief tonight.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2014, 10:08:11 AM »

On Plaintiff's motion the Court GRANTS the preliminary injunction requested. Assemblyman-elect Franzl is ORDERED to refrain swearing in for the duration of this ruling.

This ruling will expire in 72 hours subject to further order of the Court.

The Court will expect Plaintiff's brief on the matter 'tonight' (I.e. by 11:59 pm EST).

The Court will entertain defense motions/argument regarding the preliminary injunction and/or the underlying suit itself.defendant may await the filing of Plaintiff's brief later today to respond, or may respond at anytime in the interim. If the former, the Court will set a reply deadline for the Defense after I review Inks' brief.

The parties are both ORDERED to PM both the Court and opposing Counsel after posting anything in this thread, be it pleading, motion, argument, snarky swipe at the opposing party, etc.

For the record, the Court does not feel any conflict in hearing this matter despite having been a party in the case Plaintiff primarily relies on, and accordingly sees no reason to seek appointment of another judge to hear this case. Should either party disagree they need to give notice of their objection within 48 hours.

SO ORDERED
X Judge Badger
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2014, 10:42:36 AM »

The Court issues the following order regarding the format of briefs, motions, and other pleadings, effective for the duration of this matter:

Parties are required whenever citing for the first time in a given motion/pleading any case law, statutes, constitutional provisions, or any other authority found with in the annals of Atlasia to provide a link to said authority. The authority need not be linked repeatedly throughout any single pleading/motion; only the first time said authority is cited therein. Though the Court won't object should either party choose to repeatedly link cited authority throughout a given pleading, it is not required.

SO ORDERED
X Judge Badger
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2014, 09:14:35 PM »

Plaintiff's Brief

Statement of Facts
In certifying the July Mideast Assembly election results, acting Governor TJ in Cleve failed to count first preference votes in favor of Al, instead transfering them directly to those voters' second preferences.[1]  Al never declared his intention to accept write-in votes; however, Franzl implicitly did so by casting a write-in vote for himself.

In transfering votes for Al to first preferences for Franzl, this allowed Franzl to make it past the first round and go on to win the third seat.  Inks.LWC had three first preference votes, while Franzl had one; thus, Franzl would have been eliminated before Inks.LWC, and Inks.LWC would have won the third seat had Franzl been eliminated earlier in the counting.

Question Presented
Was counting first preference votes for Al as first preference votes for Franzl contrary to Mideast law?

Short Answer
Yes.  This Court held in Badger et al v. Inks.LWC, 2009 ME 1, that votes for candidates who have not accepted write-in votes "should be seen as a legal nullity, or as having no valid first preference".  While Badger was decided under a different set of election laws, the principles behind that decision remain applicable in the case at bar.

Argument
The relevant election statute in the case at bar is the Transition to PR-STV Act, A.R. 6 of the 27th Assembly.  Section 3, cl. 3 of the Act states, "A first count shall then be made quantifying the total number of first preferences each valid candidate did receive. Any candidates receiving more than the quota shall be deemed elected."  The statute then goes on to lay out what the voting booth administrator is to do in the event of ties and how to transfer votes cast for candidates who have reached the quota to be elected or who have been eliminated.  Nowhere in the statute did the Assembly grant the voting booth administrator the power to transfer votes of candidates other than those who have been eliminated or who have reached the quota.  The statute, however, directly states how the first count should be conducted: only the total number of first preferences for "each valid candidate" should be counted.  Because Al did not accept write-in votes, he was not a valid candidate.  Because he was not a valid candidate, his first preferences could not be passed on to any valid candidates, because only surplus votes (which would not apply to Al) or votes cast for "eliminated candidate"s can be distributed.  Al could not be eliminated, because he was never a valid candidate to begin with.

Section 1, cl. 5 of The Mideast Elections Consolidation Statute, A.R. 2 of the 4th Assembly, reaffirms this by stating, "In order for write-in votes for a candidate to qualify as countable votes, the person written-in must formally accept the write-in candidacy before the end of voting in the given election."

In Badger this Court held that votes for candidates who do not (more specifically, in Badger, cannot) accept write-ins "should be seen as a legal nullity, or as having no valid first preference".

Opposing counsel will likely argue that Badger no longer applies because the region now uses a PR-STV system of voting instead of the former method of vote counting.  While this is true, the relevant section of The Mideast Elections Consolidation Statute, Section 1, cl. 5, remains in effect today; furthermore, as stated above, there is no provision in the Transition to PR-STV Act that permits a voting booth administrator to transfer first preferences from an invalid candidate to the next highest valid candidate on the voter's ballot.  Unlike in Badger, this means that where a voter first preferences an invalid candidate, his whole ballot is spoiled, because there is no statutory provision to eliminate invalid candidates, whereas in the election scheme in Badger, the voter's second, third, (and fourth and fifth votes, if applicable) would be validly counted in subsequent counting rounds.  While this is an unfortunate oversight by the Assembly in its adoption of the Transfer to PR-STV Act (and one which merits fixing), neither the Governor, nor this Court, has the constitutional or statutory authority to ignore clear provisions of the laws of the region, especially when doing so would be at the expense of valid candidates.

Opposing counsel may argue that this interpretation of the law will lead to the intent of the voters being violated.  This, also, is not true.  Three voters cast their first preferences for Inks.LWC, while only 1 did so for Franzl.  To say that it was the will of the voters to elect Franzl instead of Inks.LWC is simply not accurate.

Conclusion
The job of acting Governor TJ in Cleve, during the first round of counting, was clear: he was to tally the number of first preferences that each valid candidate received.  Al was not a valid candidate, and those votes should have been seen as "legal nullit[ies]".  There is no way that votes for Al could have transfered to any other candidate, because Al could not be eliminated or reach the quota.  Thus, Franzl should have been eliminated before Inks.LWC, and Inks.LWC should have won the third seat.

Request for Relief
Plaintiff requests that this Court direct the Governor (or acting Governor) to recertify the July 2014 election results by counting ballots that cast first preferences for write-in candidates who did not publicly accept write-in votes as legal nullities and to declare Inks.LWC a winner in the election.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2014, 10:32:06 AM »

Defense:

The ruling cited by the plaintiff in Badger et al v. Inks.LWC finds agreement with the defense, insofar as that there is no dispute that a first preference cast for someone who is not a candidate should be considered a "legal nullity", but this can and should only be interpreted to mean that the non-candidate in question cannot be regarded to have received this first preference, rather than to invalidate the entire ballot.

Plaintiff cites the Transition to PR-STV Act, arguing that the precise wording forbids transfering the uncounted first preference because they come not from an eliminated candidate or one that has been elected with a surplus.

The defense argues, however, that no transfer is necessary as the vote is to be counted as a highest preference vote for the most highly preferenced valid candidate. Plaintiff correctly predicted that the defense will stress that the Badger ruling cannot be applied due to the different electoral system under which elections to the Mideast Assembly now operate. This is correct, because the defense believes this makes a difference of great magnitude, one that cannot be ignored.

Unlike the previous system used by the Mideast, that in which the highly unusual counting specifically tallied "first, second, etc." preferences and assigned them varying values (e.g. the highest number of 1st AND 2nd preferences being necessary to be elected to the second Assembly seat), PR-STV makes no such distinction. Under the present system, it is understood that a vote is not exhausted until no valid candidate remains that can receive the vote or a fraction thereof.

Invalidating the entire ballots of those who gave their first preference this election to a non-candidate, Al, would have an dramatically different effect than in the case cited. Whereas under the previous system, ignoring the first preference did not affect any other preferences awarded, doing as plaintiff suggests in this case would disenfranchise several voters entirely. It is implicity understood in PR-STV that a vote will maintain its validity in some form until no valid candidates remain to whom preferences can be awarded.

Voter intent would indeed be totally ignored by declaring the ballots in question invalid and thereby denying the defendent his rightful seat in the Assembly. The claim made by the plaintiff that this is not the case because plaintiff was awarded 3 first preferences as opposed to 1 for the defendent, is not a sensible way of reviewing voter intent. Using an election system where the numerical preference awarded is irrelevant, one cannot conclude that Inks was the voters' prefered candidate on the basis of the first preferences awarded. The very nature of preferential voting means that one isn't forced to vote strategically to ensure that the candidate one considers the "lesser evil" is elected to office. Indeed, these voters preferenced Franzl more highly than Inks. If one's goal is to provide representation in a way that is most in accordance with the will of the people of this region, one can only conclude that the election administration has done so properly and totally in the spirit of the election system that is used in our region.

The defense therefore concludes that the plaintiff is mistaken and kindly requests that justice be served by allowing me to take the seat to which I was rightly elected.

Should they be necessary, the defense welcomes further questions by Your Honor.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2014, 05:41:39 PM »

As a preliminary matter, as the Defense hasn't raised any argument against the preliminary injunction itself, the Court extends the previously issued injunction until final ruling on this matter.

The Court will seek to issue questions to the parties later tonight.

I won't hold the parties to it at this time, but does either side currently foresee the desire for witness testimony beyond the ongoing oral argument?
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2014, 07:19:26 PM »

Here's a preliminary question for the parties: HYPOTHETICALLY, if Plaintiff's position is correct that the entire ballots cast by Earl, Ben & Malsipines are fully legal nullities, how would the election have changed? Preliminarily, it seems that the Total Valid Poll would thereby be reduced to only 18, and the quota to just 5. It appears Spiral and Cassius both would've been elected on the first round, and that's as far into the calculation I'm willing to do myself. Please advise. Acting Gov. TJ is welcome to offer his calculations.

The Court will note for the record that it isn't interested in making it's decision fit a particular outcome. Whatever the Court determines is the legally necessary ruling will stand. The Court is primarily interested in ensuring that the Plaintiff's unrebutted assertion Franzl would've been excluded should've the 3 votes mentioned above been voided, and thus avoid any potential issue of mootness. As a secondary matter the Court is somewhat interested in the impact such ruling would have, as it is germane to Defendant's argument, though not necessarily dispositive to a Court's ultimate ruling here.

Get calculating.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2014, 07:54:33 PM »

A question for both parties:

First, is there any way in your analysis that Badger and Transition... (hereafter AR 6) can be reconciled to nullify only the first preference votes for Al of the 3 contested votes, but somehow still permit application of the 2nd and subsequent preferences listed? I'm having trouble seeing at what point in the counting the votes would be applied to second preferences under the PR-STV statute, but the Court would like your (plural) assessment here.

Second, a question for the Plaintiff (which I'll allow the Defense to subsequently respond to if it wishes, as I will for later questions to the Defense): To what degree did the issue of voter intent (or lack thereof) apply in the Badger holding?

For the Defense (with Plaintiff right of rebuttal): Are you conceding that the specific holding on ballot interpretation in Badger cannot be reconciled with the election results you ask this Court to uphold?
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2014, 11:28:00 PM »

Here's a preliminary question for the parties: HYPOTHETICALLY, if Plaintiff's position is correct that the entire ballots cast by Earl, Ben & Malsipines are fully legal nullities, how would the election have changed? Preliminarily, it seems that the Total Valid Poll would thereby be reduced to only 18, and the quota to just 5. It appears Spiral and Cassius both would've been elected on the first round, and that's as far into the calculation I'm willing to do myself. Please advise. Acting Gov. TJ is welcome to offer his calculations.

The Court will note for the record that it isn't interested in making it's decision fit a particular outcome. Whatever the Court determines is the legally necessary ruling will stand. The Court is primarily interested in ensuring that the Plaintiff's unrebutted assertion Franzl would've been excluded should've the 3 votes mentioned above been voided, and thus avoid any potential issue of mootness. As a secondary matter the Court is somewhat interested in the impact such ruling would have, as it is germane to Defendant's argument, though not necessarily dispositive to a Court's ultimate ruling here.

Get calculating.

If the ballots in question were fully legal nullities, Spiral, Cassius and Inks would have been elected. The defense does not dispute this.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2014, 12:23:23 AM »

A question for both parties:

First, is there any way in your analysis that Badger and Transition... (hereafter AR 6) can be reconciled to nullify only the first preference votes for Al of the 3 contested votes, but somehow still permit application of the 2nd and subsequent preferences listed? I'm having trouble seeing at what point in the counting the votes would be applied to second preferences under the PR-STV statute, but the Court would like your (plural) assessment here.

Second, a question for the Plaintiff (which I'll allow the Defense to subsequently respond to if it wishes, as I will for later questions to the Defense): To what degree did the issue of voter intent (or lack thereof) apply in the Badger holding?

For the Defense (with Plaintiff right of rebuttal): Are you conceding that the specific holding on ballot interpretation in Badger cannot be reconciled with the election results you ask this Court to uphold?

To your first question directed to both of us, the defense would argue that invalidating the voters' first preferences would have no effect but to deny the non-candidate the votes. The votes in question would automatically be included for Franzl in the first count.

To the second question, the one posed directly to me, I would say that the reasoning in Badger can be applied, just not to reach the conclusion suggested by the plaintiff that the entire ballots are to be invalidated.

It is important to note that preferences had a different meaning in the previous electoral system than under PR-STV. In reality, one was casting 3 (or 5) votes of differing value. Votes did not transfer and there was an important distinction between a first and a second preference. Invalidating the first preference for a non-candidate made sense, as invalidation would not effect any of the other votes cast.

Indeed, Badger states: "That George Orwell cannot accept votes means that he cannot win, not that the vote is invisible on the ballot paper or in counting terms."

Ignoring Al in the count should have no other effect than to deny him the votes as a non-candidate. This interpretation fits the spirit of the cited case more accurately than the plaintiff's interpretation.

Badger goes on to state that "highest preference" can be regarded as functionally equivalent to "first preference". If this is the case, then one can only conclude that, logically, this goes both ways. If a first preference is highest, then vice versa, the highest preference must be seen as equivalent to a first preference.

A.R. 5 states: "3. A first count shall then be made quantifying the total number of first preferences each valid candidate did receive."

Surely this means that the most highly preferenced VALID candidate is to be included in the first count. In other words, as previously argued, this is not a vote transfer as the plaintiff suggests, but rather a necessary part of the first count. It is the only logical application in PR-STV, where only the order of preferencing is relevant, not the numerical preferences themselves, as under the previous electoral system.

Should the Court, however, rule differently and feel that the defense has not made a convincing case, the defense would lastly like to draw attention to the fact that Badger specifically affirms that the election administrator is within his rights to go against precedent if he feels that doing so is more in line with the law. If nothing else, his certification, as it stands, is a reasonable application of this electoral system in a way that is most in mine with voter intent.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2014, 12:47:52 AM »

A question for both parties:

First, is there any way in your analysis that Badger and Transition... (hereafter AR 6) can be reconciled to nullify only the first preference votes for Al of the 3 contested votes, but somehow still permit application of the 2nd and subsequent preferences listed? I'm having trouble seeing at what point in the counting the votes would be applied to second preferences under the PR-STV statute, but the Court would like your (plural) assessment here.

Second, a question for the Plaintiff (which I'll allow the Defense to subsequently respond to if it wishes, as I will for later questions to the Defense): To what degree did the issue of voter intent (or lack thereof) apply in the Badger holding?

For the Defense (with Plaintiff right of rebuttal): Are you conceding that the specific holding on ballot interpretation in Badger cannot be reconciled with the election results you ask this Court to uphold?

To your first question directed to both of us, the defense would argue that invalidating the voters' first preferences would have no effect but to deny the non-candidate the votes. The votes in question would automatically be included for Franzl in the first count.

To the second question, the one posed directly to me, I would say that the reasoning in Badger can be applied, just not to reach the conclusion suggested by the plaintiff that the entire ballots are to be invalidated.

It is important to note that preferences had a different meaning in the previous electoral system than under PR-STV. In reality, one was casting 3 (or 5) votes of differing value. Votes did not transfer and there was an important distinction between a first and a second preference. Invalidating the first preference for a non-candidate made sense, as invalidation would not effect any of the other votes cast.

Indeed, Badger states: "That George Orwell cannot accept votes means that he cannot win, not that the vote is invisible on the ballot paper or in counting terms."

Ignoring Al in the count should have no other effect than to deny him the votes as a non-candidate. This interpretation fits the spirit of the cited case more accurately than the plaintiff's interpretation.

Badger goes on to state that "highest preference" can be regarded as functionally equivalent to "first preference". If this is the case, then one can only conclude that, logically, this goes both ways. If a first preference is highest, then vice versa, the highest preference must be seen as equivalent to a first preference.

A.R. 5 states: "3. A first count shall then be made quantifying the total number of first preferences each valid candidate did receive."

Surely this means that the most highly preferenced VALID candidate is to be included in the first count. In other words, as previously argued, this is not a vote transfer as the plaintiff suggests, but rather a necessary part of the first count. It is the only logical application in PR-STV, where only the order of preferencing is relevant, not the numerical preferences themselves, as under the previous electoral system.

Should the Court, however, rule differently and feel that the defense has not made a convincing case, the defense would lastly like to draw attention to the fact that Badger specifically affirms that the election administrator is within his rights to go against precedent if he feels that doing so is more in line with the law. If nothing else, his certification, as it stands, is a reasonable application of this electoral system in a way that is most in mine with voter intent.

I would like the Plaintiff's reaponse to this last paragraph. Isn't thee a presumptuon (albeit not irrebuttable) in favor of the election administrator's discretion?
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2014, 08:16:09 AM »

A question for both parties:
First, is there any way in your analysis that Badger and Transition... (hereafter AR 6) can be reconciled to nullify only the first preference votes for Al of the 3 contested votes, but somehow still permit application of the 2nd and subsequent preferences listed? I'm having trouble seeing at what point in the counting the votes would be applied to second preferences under the PR-STV statute, but the Court would like your (plural) assessment here.
No, there is not, in my opinion, a way to nullify only the first preference votes for Al on those 3 ballots.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2014, 08:18:22 AM »

Here's a preliminary question for the parties: HYPOTHETICALLY, if Plaintiff's position is correct that the entire ballots cast by Earl, Ben & Malsipines are fully legal nullities, how would the election have changed? Preliminarily, it seems that the Total Valid Poll would thereby be reduced to only 18, and the quota to just 5. It appears Spiral and Cassius both would've been elected on the first round, and that's as far into the calculation I'm willing to do myself. Please advise. Acting Gov. TJ is welcome to offer his calculations.

The Court will note for the record that it isn't interested in making it's decision fit a particular outcome. Whatever the Court determines is the legally necessary ruling will stand. The Court is primarily interested in ensuring that the Plaintiff's unrebutted assertion Franzl would've been excluded should've the 3 votes mentioned above been voided, and thus avoid any potential issue of mootness. As a secondary matter the Court is somewhat interested in the impact such ruling would have, as it is germane to Defendant's argument, though not necessarily dispositive to a Court's ultimate ruling here.

Get calculating.

Considering Franzl doesn't contest that he wouldn't be elected, I'm not going to calculate this at this time, as I'm not in a place where I can.  If you still want, I will tonight.

As for affecting the quota, I disagree that counting the individual votes as legal nullities would result in a change to the quota.  The ballots of the 3 people in question were still validly cast, even though the individual votes should be counted as legal nullities.  In effect, it would be similar to a blank ballot cast: it would still be factored into the quota, but there are no actual votes for candidates.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2014, 08:05:42 PM »

Here's a preliminary question for the parties: HYPOTHETICALLY, if Plaintiff's position is correct that the entire ballots cast by Earl, Ben & Malsipines are fully legal nullities, how would the election have changed? Preliminarily, it seems that the Total Valid Poll would thereby be reduced to only 18, and the quota to just 5. It appears Spiral and Cassius both would've been elected on the first round, and that's as far into the calculation I'm willing to do myself. Please advise. Acting Gov. TJ is welcome to offer his calculations.

The Court will note for the record that it isn't interested in making it's decision fit a particular outcome. Whatever the Court determines is the legally necessary ruling will stand. The Court is primarily interested in ensuring that the Plaintiff's unrebutted assertion Franzl would've been excluded should've the 3 votes mentioned above been voided, and thus avoid any potential issue of mootness. As a secondary matter the Court is somewhat interested in the impact such ruling would have, as it is germane to Defendant's argument, though not necessarily dispositive to a Court's ultimate ruling here.

Get calculating.

Considering Franzl doesn't contest that he wouldn't be elected, I'm not going to calculate this at this time, as I'm not in a place where I can.  If you still want, I will tonight.

As for affecting the quota, I disagree that counting the individual votes as legal nullities would result in a change to the quota.  The ballots of the 3 people in question were still validly cast, even though the individual votes should be counted as legal nullities.  In effect, it would be similar to a blank ballot cast: it would still be factored into the quota, but there are no actual votes for candidates.

The Court respectfully disagrees. Based on the case law cited the Court believes that IF ballots are invalidated as Plaintiff suggests they do no meet the statutory definition of a valid vote, and would be out and out nullities. For that reason, stupulations aside, the Court wishes the calculation done by one/both parties (or a 3rd party such as TJ. Stipulations would not undo a mathematical error.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2014, 09:03:59 PM »
« Edited: July 30, 2014, 09:15:16 PM by Lt. Governor TJ »

If the vote is recounted with Ben, Earl, and Malaspinas's votes declared invalid, also omitting them from quota calculation, Spiral and Cassius are elected on the first count and Inks would win the final seat. The count proceeds as follows:

 Hypothetical Mideast Elections July 2014 Assembly Results

1st Count: 18 Valid Votes, Quota = 5
Spiral (8 votes): Spiral, Mechaman, AntonKreitzer, CelticEmpire, Bmotley, Vosem, JCL, ZuWo
Cassius (5 votes): Cassius, Cathcon, Hifly, DC al Fine, TJ

Inks (3 votes): Inks, Tmthforu, Oldiesfreak
Franzl (1 vote): Franzl
Jack Enderman (1 vote): Jack Enderman
Invalid (4 vote): Elections Guy , Ben, Earl, Malaspinas

Spiral is elected with a surplus of 3 votes
Cassius is elected with quota


Transfer of Spiral’s surplus:
Jack Enderman (1.5 votes): Spiral, Bmotley, Vosem, JCL
Inks (0.75 votes): Anton K., ZuWo
Exhausted (0.75 votes): Mechman, CelticEmpire

2nd Count: 18 Valid Votes, Quota = 5
Spiral (5 votes): Spiral, Mechaman, AntonKreitzer, CelticEmpire, Bmotley, Vosem, JCL, ZuWo
Cassius (5 votes): Cassius, Cathcon, Hifly, DC al Fine, TJ, [/b]
Inks (3.75 votes): Inks, Tmthforu, Oldiesfreak, .38 Anton K., .38 ZuWo
Jack Enderman (1.75 votes): Jack Enderman, .38 Spiral,.38  Bmotley, .38 Vosem, .38 JCL
Franzl (1 votes): Franzl,
Exhausted (0.75 votes): 0.38 Mechaman, 0.38 CelticEmpire

Franzl is eliminated

Transfer of Franzl’s vote:
Exhausted (1 vote): Franzl

3rd Count: 18 Valid Votes, Quota = 5
Spiral (5 votes): Spiral, Mechaman, AntonKreitzer, CelticEmpire, Bmotley, Vosem, JCL, ZuWo
Cassius (5 votes): Cassius, Cathcon, Hifly, DC al Fine, TJ, [/b]
Inks (3.75 votes): Inks, Tmthforu, Oldiesfreak, .38 Anton K., .38 ZuWo
Jack Enderman (1.75 votes): Jack Enderman, .38 Spiral,.38  Bmotley, .38 Vosem, .38 JCL
Exhausted (1.75 votes): 0.38 Mechaman, 0.38 CelticEmpire, Franzl

Inks is elected without quota
Spiral, Cassius, and Inks are elected.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2014, 12:43:04 AM »

Thank you LG TJ. The Court is satisfied with (and appriciative of) this tally.

I would ask the Plaintiff again to address tthe Court's question about Badger creating a precedence of general deference to the election administrator's decision.

I would ask the Defendant to elaborate on/spell out the application of the portion of Badger he quotes ("That George Orwell can't accept votes..." etc.) To the case at hand.

Finally, I would ask each party to advise whether any witnesses will be called. IF the answer from both parties is no, I'd ask them each to present any concluding arguments they feel are necessary (if any) or otherwsie declare they are resting their case.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2014, 10:35:47 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe that Badger stands for the principle that voter intent can only be followed if doing so is legally permissible. Voter intent here would be to give first preference to Al. That is not legally permissible because Al did not accept write-ins. Thus, as a corollary, it is legally impermissible for voter intent to trump the state and redistribute those votes to Franzl.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2014, 10:42:35 AM »

Thank you LG TJ. The Court is satisfied with (and appriciative of) this tally.

I would ask the Plaintiff again to address tthe Court's question about Badger creating a precedence of general deference to the election administrator's decision.

I would ask the Defendant to elaborate on/spell out the application of the portion of Badger he quotes ("That George Orwell can't accept votes..." etc.) To the case at hand.

Finally, I would ask each party to advise whether any witnesses will be called. IF the answer from both parties is no, I'd ask them each to present any concluding arguments they feel are necessary (if any) or otherwsie declare they are resting their case.

The standard set in Badger is that the Governor's application of the law must be "in line with a reasonable reading of the text". What TJ in Cleve did is not based on a reasonable reading, because there is not statutory text that supports what he did. His decision goes against an unambiguous interpretation of the statute, which bars this Court from giving deference to his decision.

Also, I will have no witnesses.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2014, 10:59:04 AM »

Thank you LG TJ. The Court is satisfied with (and appriciative of) this tally.

I would ask the Plaintiff again to address tthe Court's question about Badger creating a precedence of general deference to the election administrator's decision.

I would ask the Defendant to elaborate on/spell out the application of the portion of Badger he quotes ("That George Orwell can't accept votes..." etc.) To the case at hand.

Finally, I would ask each party to advise whether any witnesses will be called. IF the answer from both parties is no, I'd ask them each to present any concluding arguments they feel are necessary (if any) or otherwsie declare they are resting their case.

The passage I quoted from Badger served no other purpose but to demonstrate that Al, as a non-candidate and unable to win a seat, did not actually receive votes and would be unable to do so. Therefore, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post, the highest preference for a valid candidate is to be included in the first count.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2014, 11:16:00 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe that Badger stands for the principle that voter intent can only be followed if doing so is legally permissible. Voter intent here would be to give first preference to Al. That is not legally permissible because Al did not accept write-ins. Thus, as a corollary, it is legally impermissible for voter intent to trump the state and redistribute those votes to Franzl.
If I may present a short rebuttal to this:

Speaking of voters' intent to give a "first preference" is illogical, as the numerical preferences are irrelevant in STV. A vote is understood to go to the highest available candidate in any particular count. Whether that's a 1st, 2nd or 17th preference is inconsequential.

As previously demonstrated, it's perfectly legal (and necessary!) to count the highest preferences for the highest valid candidate, and only this is also in accordance with voter intent.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2014, 12:14:33 PM »

I'm assuming from the lack of response to the Court's query that the Defense doesn't wish to call witnesses either, and further rests its case.

The Court will deliberate and seek to post a ruling no later than tomorrow evening.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2014, 01:49:07 PM »

I'm assuming from the lack of response to the Court's query that the Defense doesn't wish to call witnesses either, and further rests its case.

The Court will deliberate and seek to post a ruling no later than tomorrow evening.

Yes, Your Honor, the defense rests its case.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 31, 2014, 03:35:36 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe that Badger stands for the principle that voter intent can only be followed if doing so is legally permissible. Voter intent here would be to give first preference to Al. That is not legally permissible because Al did not accept write-ins. Thus, as a corollary, it is legally impermissible for voter intent to trump the state and redistribute those votes to Franzl.
If I may present a short rebuttal to this:

Speaking of voters' intent to give a "first preference" is illogical, as the numerical preferences are irrelevant in STV. A vote is understood to go to the highest available candidate in any particular count. Whether that's a 1st, 2nd or 17th preference is inconsequential.

As previously demonstrated, it's perfectly legal (and necessary!) to count the highest preferences for the highest valid candidate, and only this is also in accordance with voter intent.

A final, brief last rebuttal.  If the Assembly had intended for the first count to be of the highest preferences, it would have said so in clause 3 of the Transition to PR-STV Act.  Instead, as noted above, the Assembly drafted the Act to say, "A first count shall then be made quantifying the total number of first preferences each valid candidate did receive."  There is a distinction between highest and first preferences, and even though you were the highest preferenced valid candidate of the 3 voters in question, you were not the first preference.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2014, 05:41:52 PM »

The Court will enter it's ruling in parts due to being on the road and not wanting to lose a drafted post due to spotty reception. Likewise the Court will be limited in the ability to cut and paste from arguments, statutes, case law, etc.

For that reason I'll forego the suspense and announce the Court's conclusion up front:

The Court finds for the Defense. The complaint and injunction are ordered dismissed.

Full opinion to follow.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2014, 07:05:52 PM »

The facts of the case and arguments are clearly laid out by the parties. The question revolves around the application of the Badger holding in light of the transition to PR-STV. Plaintiff makes a reasonable case that such precedent would exclude write-in votes for undeclared candidate Al. There are two fundamental aspects to the Badger ruling, both of which carry at LEAST as much precidental authority as the counting of votes., which when applied to the present case warrants the Court's ruling for the Defense.

First, Badger holds that the election administrator's decision is to be granted general deference. The Court follows this precedent and holds that the burden is on Plaintiff to prove by at least a perponderance of the evidence the the administrator verred as a matter of law in the decision to treat the first preference votes for Al as nullities and transfer said preferences to Franzl. The presumption is that TJ's decision was valid.
<more to follow>
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 13 queries.