A Lawsuit to be filed concerning District 4.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I will be filing a lawsuit about the recent election.
Common law typically assumes that votes for candidates that fail to meet the qualifications for that office are still counted, and that the sanction is applied to the canddate, should he win the office and not to the vote.  As such, Harry did not receive my first preference vote, and therefore the 4th  District election ended in a tie.

[Fritz]

I underrstand your reasoning here, but why are you trying to overturn the election of Harry in favor of Josh?  You did preference Harry above Josh.  Are you just trying to make a legal point?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My preference over this point of law is greater than the preference I have for Harry over Josh22.  Keep in mind that altho I gave Harry a greater preference in my vote, The Region explicitly endorsed no candidate in this election.  I'll admit that were I an ardent supporter of Harry, I would probably allow this to pass without comment.  Besides, Kodratos' vote is also subject to challenge, so it might well become the case that Harry wins 8-7.  At worse, we would have an 8-8 tie that leads to a new election.

[Fritz]

Ernest,

Here are the District 4B results I declared:

DISTRICT 4B

First preference votes:
Harry- 8
Josh22- 7, or 6 (one vote is disputed)
WalterMitty- 1
WalterMitty is eliminated.

Final run-off:
Harry- 8
Josh- 8 (assuming we count the disputed vote as valid)

Tie-breaker, counting first preference votes only:
Harry- 8
Josh- 7
Harry wins.



As you correctly point out, you did not list Harry as your first preference.  The actual results should have been as follows:

DISTRICT 4B

First preference votes:
Harry- 7
Josh22- 7, or 6 (one vote is disputed)
WalterMitty- 1
Anyone- 1
WalterMitty and anyone are eliminated.

Final run-off:
Harry- 8
Josh- 8 (assuming we count the disputed vote as valid)

Outcome: TIE


There is still the matter of the disputed vote cast by Kodratos.  The vote was posted, edited, deleted, and posted again.

If no one legally challenges the legitimacy of that vote, I will concede that this election was an unbreakable tie, and a new election must be held.

If Kodratos’s vote is challenged, and declared invalid, Harry will be the winner.

[Keystone Phil]

What did I tell you, Fritz: This is going to be a surprisingly close race in 4B and I think we can all agree...we did not expect this.

[Fritz]

Does Ernest, or Harry, or anyone else, want to contest Kodratos's vote in court?  Or should we just go ahead with a runoff election?

[StevenNick]

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but technically speaking the entire results of the election should be thrown out if the Supreme Court wishes to uphold the Constitution.  As of right now, the Constitutional Amendment that would allow the polls to be open from 12:00 am Friday to 11:59:59 pm on Sunday has not been passed.  Voting should not have been opened before noon on Friday and should have ended on noon Sunday.

[Keystone Phil]

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but technically speaking the entire results of the election should be thrown out if the Supreme Court wishes to uphold the Constitution.  As of right now, the Constitutional Amendment that would allow the polls to be open from 12:00 am Friday to 11:59:59 pm on Sunday has not been passed.  Voting should not have been opened before noon on Friday and should have ended on noon Sunday.

So, Senator, do you plan on bringing this up? Will you move that the all election results in all races be thrown out and done over?

[JohnFKennedy]

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but technically speaking the entire results of the election should be thrown out if the Supreme Court wishes to uphold the Constitution.  As of right now, the Constitutional Amendment that would allow the polls to be open from 12:00 am Friday to 11:59:59 pm on Sunday has not been passed.  Voting should not have been opened before noon on Friday and should have ended on noon Sunday.

So, Senator, do you plan on bringing this up? Will you move that the all election results in all races be thrown out and done over?

In which case we must go back and redo all the previous set of elections as they were also carried out like that.

[StevenNick]

So, Senator, do you plan on bringing this up? Will you move that the all election results in all races be thrown out and done over?

Well, if it would save us from having court-appointed Senators, perhaps.

[Keystone Phil]

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but technically speaking the entire results of the election should be thrown out if the Supreme Court wishes to uphold the Constitution.  As of right now, the Constitutional Amendment that would allow the polls to be open from 12:00 am Friday to 11:59:59 pm on Sunday has not been passed.  Voting should not have been opened before noon on Friday and should have ended on noon Sunday.

So, Senator, do you plan on bringing this up? Will you move that the all election results in all races be thrown out and done over?

In which case we must go back and redo all the previous set of elections as they were also carried out like that.

Do you mean all elections in the past (before these midterms) or just the elections that were held this weekend? For some reason, I am thinking that you are saying all the elections before these midterms had polls open at midnight which, I know, is untrue. (I was surprised when Fritz opened the polls at midnight, knowing this was different from the past special senate elections held in July.)

[StevenNick]

I am also very concerned about the precedent set by the open disregard for the Constitutional requirements regarding elections.  If a lawsuit to overturn the results of every campaign would make the point that the Constitution isn't to be trifled with, it might be worth it.

[StevenNick]

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but technically speaking the entire results of the election should be thrown out if the Supreme Court wishes to uphold the Constitution.  As of right now, the Constitutional Amendment that would allow the polls to be open from 12:00 am Friday to 11:59:59 pm on Sunday has not been passed.  Voting should not have been opened before noon on Friday and should have ended on noon Sunday.

So, Senator, do you plan on bringing this up? Will you move that the all election results in all races be thrown out and done over?

In which case we must go back and redo all the previous set of elections as they were also carried out like that.

Do you mean all elections in the past (before these midterms) or just the elections that were held this weekend? For some reason, I am thinking that you are saying all the elections before these midterms had polls open at midnight which, I know, is untrue. (I was surprised when Fritz opened the polls at midnight, knowing this was different from the past special senate elections held in July.)

I'm only referring to the most recent elections.

[Keystone Phil]

So, Senator, do you plan on bringing this up? Will you move that the all election results in all races be thrown out and done over?

Well, if it would save us from having court-appointed Senators, perhaps.

Would non disputed elections be held again?

[StevenNick]

So, Senator, do you plan on bringing this up? Will you move that the all election results in all races be thrown out and done over?

Well, if it would save us from having court-appointed Senators, perhaps.

Would non disputed elections be held again?

Well, if the Constitution is to be upheld they probably should be.  I mean, I don't think there was a single election in which a vote wasn't cast outside of the Constitutionally prescribed time frame.  I even voted for myself before noon Friday.

[JohnFKennedy]

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but technically speaking the entire results of the election should be thrown out if the Supreme Court wishes to uphold the Constitution.  As of right now, the Constitutional Amendment that would allow the polls to be open from 12:00 am Friday to 11:59:59 pm on Sunday has not been passed.  Voting should not have been opened before noon on Friday and should have ended on noon Sunday.

So, Senator, do you plan on bringing this up? Will you move that the all election results in all races be thrown out and done over?

In which case we must go back and redo all the previous set of elections as they were also carried out like that.

Do you mean all elections in the past (before these midterms) or just the elections that were held this weekend? For some reason, I am thinking that you are saying all the elections before these midterms had polls open at midnight which, I know, is untrue. (I was surprised when Fritz opened the polls at midnight, knowing this was different from the past special senate elections held in July.)

The previous set of elections (notice set) meant the elections for the Senate and Presidency two months ago as they were held over 72 hours from midnight to midnight rather than midday to midday if I recall correctly. Does the objection extend back to those and mean we must hold those elections again as well as those we have just had?

[StevenNick]

I don't know.  I'm really just thinking outloud right now.  But considering the fact that these elections are so hotly contested, even after the voting is closed, the Supreme Court might want to think about invalidating all of the current election results.  I can't imagine how the Supreme Court would go about throwing out past election results, though.  I mean, we can't hold new elections for terms already served.

[Fritz]

We have had elections previously carried out with the 72-hour time frame used in these elections- in the June elections, both Senate (all A seats) and President/Vice-President.  This was before I was appointed to my current post.

Nobody complained about it then.

With that precedent, and with the Home State Voting Reform Amendment well on its way to passage, I saw no problem with conducting the elections with this time frame.  And there are a few voters that it was helpful for.

[JohnFKennedy]

We have had elections previously carried out with the 72-hour time frame used in these elections- in the June elections, both Senate (all A seats) and President/Vice-President.  This was before I was appointed to my current post.

Nobody complained about it then.

With that precedent, and with the Home State Voting Reform Amendment well on its way to passage, I saw no problem with conducting the elections with this time frame.  And there are a few voters that it was helpful for.

Actually Peter Bell complained but he was the only one I believe, everyone else supported it if I recall correctly.

[Niles Caulder]

So, Senator, do you plan on bringing this up? Will you move that the all election results in all races be thrown out and done over?

Well, if it would save us from having court-appointed Senators, perhaps.

Would non disputed elections be held again?

Perhaps if it were the case that the candidates all felt that this matter would not have affected the outcome of their race, then there would be no need to bring the matter up in court.  I doubt the voters are motivated to pursue the matter...I doubt the executive branch is either.

(But if there's justt some joker who just wants to do it for the sake of stirring it up, the Court is not obligated to hear any case submitted to them....)

For poor Fritz's sake, I hope he's not tortured yet again so soon.  Let's leave him be.  So long as we're more careful in the future, this one serves no purpose to pursue.

[StevenNick]

So, Senator, do you plan on bringing this up? Will you move that the all election results in all races be thrown out and done over?

Well, if it would save us from having court-appointed Senators, perhaps.

Would non disputed elections be held again?

Perhaps if it were the case that the candidates all felt that this matter would not have affected the outcome of their race, then there would be no need to bring the matter up in court.  I doubt the voters are motivated to pursue the matter...I doubt the executive branch is either.

(But if there's justt some joker who just wants to do it for the sake of stirring it up, the Court is not obligated to hear any case submitted to them....)

For poor Fritz's sake, I hope he's not tortured yet again so soon.  Let's leave him be.  So long as we're more careful in the future, this one serves no purpose to pursue.

You're probably right.  I personally don't plan to pursue this in any official manner.

[Keystone Phil]

So, Senator, do you plan on bringing this up? Will you move that the all election results in all races be thrown out and done over?

Well, if it would save us from having court-appointed Senators, perhaps.

Would non disputed elections be held again?

Perhaps if it were the case that the candidates all felt that this matter would not have affected the outcome of their race, then there would be no need to bring the matter up in court.  I doubt the voters are motivated to pursue the matter...I doubt the executive branch is either.

(But if there's justt some joker who just wants to do it for the sake of stirring it up, the Court is not obligated to hear any case submitted to them....)

For poor Fritz's sake, I hope he's not tortured yet again so soon.  Let's leave him be.  So long as we're more careful in the future, this one serves no purpose to pursue.

You're probably right.  I personally don't plan to pursue this in any official manner.

It's in the forum's best interest to just move on, swear in our new officials, get on with buisness...and yes we can even discuss the October elections.

[7,052,770]

Hmmm, Ernest voted in the election, casting a ballot and everything.  I think his vote should be counted as valid.

[JohnFKennedy]

Hmmm, Ernest voted in the election, casting a ballot and everything.  I think his vote should be counted as valid.

It isn't not being counted, it is just it was counted as a first preference for you which it wasn't and as the vote totals were equal but you received one more first preference you won, he is saying he didn't first preference you so that result was incorrect.

[Fritz]

Hmmm, Ernest voted in the election, casting a ballot and everything.  I think his vote should be counted as valid.

It isn't not being counted, it is just it was counted as a first preference for you which it wasn't and as the vote totals were equal but you received one more first preference you won, he is saying he didn't first preference you so that result was incorrect.

Exactly.  Ernests vote is counted as valid.  And I have changed his vote in the declared results, indicating that he did not first preference Harry (see the fourth post in this thread for details).

The issue that remains is with Kodratos's vote, not Ernest's.  If Kodratos's vote is counted as valid (I think it should be), then we have a tie, and we will have to hold a new election.  I am just waiting to see if Harry wants to challenge Kodratos's vote.  If he doesn't, I'll announce a new election to be held.