I demand a Supreme Court ruling on the registration rule

[Gabu]

Oh, yes, we are aware of that rule, senator. I believe the plaintiff's suit does relate to this past weekend's election as well.

We are just carefully considering all pertinent election laws (a practice I recommend to all). My comment was meant to convey that we do not have an official ruling from the DoFA as to the reason for not counting the vote. We can only assume from the thread.

Well yes, you just said that that "further complicated matters"; I was just making sure that that comment was in reference to this election and not that one in the past.

[Jake]

I don't see what the case here is about. Jfraud can't challenge his own vote not counting last April because of the law Gabu quoted, and if he challenges Everett's vote, he will lose because the vote is clearly legal. Is he just doing this for attention?

[TomC]

I believe with "further complicate matters"I was reinforcing Emsworth's noting that

In other words, it is possible that Jfern was disenfranchised not because of any particular interpretation of the law, but because no-one bothered to read the law.

It has been claimed here that the April 2005 Special Election set a precedent for the discounting of a vote for moving from one district to another. Again, I was just noting that no official reason was given in the certification. A detail, not a conclusion.

We've been asked for an opinion on the matter, and we mean to treat the parties fairly and consider their cases.

[Gabu]

It seems to me that "precedent" would only matter if there were a legitimate ambiguity that facilitated two or more possible readings of a legal passage.  In this case, it's fairly clear that it was simply the case that the law was incorrectly applied with regards to jfern's vote.  This incorrect application is unfortunate, to be sure, but there really isn't anything that can be done about it except to ensure that it doesn't happen again.  It certainly would be bad to make the same incorrect application a second time, because if we take this approach, we might as well not even have laws at all.

[TomC]

I'm going to confer with Emsworth to see that we agree on a ruling, but if any parties wish to make any further arguments, please do so now.

[MasterJedi]

This might help in your discussions: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21058.0

[minionofmidas]

This has brought something to my mind. What if we had one region with an uncontested race, and another with a contested race.

Would it be right for voters in the uncontested region to move to the contested region right before the election, just to help someone of the same party or a similar ideology?

Everett's vote does not affect the outcome of this race. WMS would win 6-5 instead of 7-5, but it is probably an issue that should be resolved sooner rather than later. It would be foolish to wait for another "election disaster" to act.

I had noticed this giant hole in the election law right when I figured out that the 10-day rule doesn't apply.

Brandon H is right: this would be unethical, but legal. And it had better get patched before Boss Tweed uses it.

This should definitely be the Senate's first duty. Moves during the ten days before the election should take effect the second the election is over, no matter when the move was posted.

[minionofmidas]

This might help in your discussions: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21058.0

Especially this?

I would advocate reading the clause as though it states that you have to be resident in the relevant district/Region ten days before the election. Textually, this does make sense: These people were not registered to vote in this election ten days ago, thus they are not registered voters in the sense of this election (just as, for example, Supersoulty is not a registered voter in this election).

This is indeed the precedent. Counting Everett's vote is setting a new precedent, which
is more closely based on the constitutional text, but otherwise has nothing to recommend itself to practical men and women. If this precedent is allowed to stand - as is likely -, it will require an immediate law change.
     

[WMS]

This might help in your discussions: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21058.0

Especially this?

I would advocate reading the clause as though it states that you have to be resident in the relevant district/Region ten days before the election. Textually, this does make sense: These people were not registered to vote in this election ten days ago, thus they are not registered voters in the sense of this election (just as, for example, Supersoulty is not a registered voter in this election).

This is indeed the precedent. Counting Everett's vote is setting a new precedent, which
is more closely based on the constitutional text, but otherwise has nothing to recommend itself to practical men and women. If this precedent is allowed to stand - as is likely -, it will require an immediate law change.
     

Aren't unanticipated loopholes a bitch?

[Sam Spade]

This has brought something to my mind. What if we had one region with an uncontested race, and another with a contested race.

Would it be right for voters in the uncontested region to move to the contested region right before the election, just to help someone of the same party or a similar ideology?

Everett's vote does not affect the outcome of this race. WMS would win 6-5 instead of 7-5, but it is probably an issue that should be resolved sooner rather than later. It would be foolish to wait for another "election disaster" to act.

I had noticed this giant hole in the election law right when I figured out that the 10-day rule doesn't apply.

Brandon H is right: this would be unethical, but legal. And it had better get patched before Boss Tweed uses it.

This should definitely be the Senate's first duty. Moves during the ten days before the election should take effect the second the election is over, no matter when the move was posted.

Agreed.

[WMS]

This has brought something to my mind. What if we had one region with an uncontested race, and another with a contested race.

Would it be right for voters in the uncontested region to move to the contested region right before the election, just to help someone of the same party or a similar ideology?

Everett's vote does not affect the outcome of this race. WMS would win 6-5 instead of 7-5, but it is probably an issue that should be resolved sooner rather than later. It would be foolish to wait for another "election disaster" to act.

I had noticed this giant hole in the election law right when I figured out that the 10-day rule doesn't apply.

Brandon H is right: this would be unethical, but legal. And it had better get patched before Boss Tweed uses it.

This should definitely be the Senate's first duty. Moves during the ten days before the election should take effect the second the election is over, no matter when the move was posted.

Agreed.

I sent a preliminary suggestion to Peter Bell about this, so we'll see what I can do about it.

[Q]

So the mover would be allowed to vote in his original district/region?

[TomC]

That's what the law under the first constitution allowed.

[Q]

I would think, then, that such a law, if enacted, would need to contain a provision compelling official notification of a mover that he may only vote in his previous district/region, so that people are sufficiently aware of which elections they are eligible to vote in.

[minionofmidas]

Or alternatively, we could just get Dave to close the Register Thread for ten days.

[WMS]

I would think, then, that such a law, if enacted, would need to contain a provision compelling official notification of a mover that he may only vote in his previous district/region, so that people are sufficiently aware of which elections they are eligible to vote in.

Hmm...let me think on how best that could be done...

[Q]

I would think, then, that such a law, if enacted, would need to contain a provision compelling official notification of a mover that he may only vote in his previous district/region, so that people are sufficiently aware of which elections they are eligible to vote in.

Hmm...let me think on how best that could be done...

If someone changes districts/regions within 10 days of a senatorial election, require that DoFA to PM that person telling him in which district/region he is eligible to vote in that election.

What we don't want is people accidentally voting in a region/district they think they're registered in, but actually aren't eligible to vote in, thus essentially disenfranchising them in senatorial elections that cycle.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Or even better, allow anyone who votes in the wrong district/region to cast a second ballot just for the Senate race.  After all, if this was a real-life ballot, he shouldn't have had the ability to vote in the wrong race in the first place.

[TomC]

I would think, then, that such a law, if enacted, would need to contain a provision compelling official notification of a mover that he may only vote in his previous district/region, so that people are sufficiently aware of which elections they are eligible to vote in.

Hmm...let me think on how best that could be done...

If someone changes districts/regions within 10 days of a senatorial election, require that DoFA to PM that person telling him in which district/region he is eligible to vote in that election.

What we don't want is people accidentally voting in a region/district they think they're registered in, but actually aren't eligible to vote in, thus essentially disenfranchising them in senatorial elections that cycle.

It should be posted in the New Register Thread- like you did with the Candidate Qualifying Deadline. A PM would be good too. As if the DoFA didn't have enough to do, hunh?

[minionofmidas]

A post in the register thread that the voter rolls are now closed until after the election (with a link to the roll, maybe), and that any changes posted from now on will not take effect until after the election, will probably suffice. If anybody still tries, you can probably count on civilians to point his error out to him. (I would, if I noticed.)
Also, as Ernest says, a vote in the wrong Senate race should be considered non-extant, so the voter can still cast his correct Senate vote. This probably doesn't require a law, it can be best handled on the level of precedent.

[WMS]

A post in the register thread that the voter rolls are now closed until after the election (with a link to the roll, maybe), and that any changes posted from now on will not take effect until after the election, will probably suffice. If anybody still tries, you can probably count on civilians to point his error out to him. (I would, if I noticed.)
Also, as Ernest says, a vote in the wrong Senate race should be considered non-extant, so the voter can still cast his correct Senate vote. This probably doesn't require a law, it can be best handled on the level of precedent.

Your suggestion would keep the Constitutional Amendment I'm going to propose to close the loophole simple.

[WMS]

A post in the register thread that the voter rolls are now closed until after the election (with a link to the roll, maybe), and that any changes posted from now on will not take effect until after the election, will probably suffice. If anybody still tries, you can probably count on civilians to point his error out to him. (I would, if I noticed.)
Also, as Ernest says, a vote in the wrong Senate race should be considered non-extant, so the voter can still cast his correct Senate vote. This probably doesn't require a law, it can be best handled on the level of precedent.

Your suggestion would keep the Constitutional Amendment I'm going to propose to close the loophole simple.

I am going to wait for the new Senate session, though - there's too little time and too much clogging the pipes at the moment.