FRANZL ELECTION TRACKER (updated as of 7:09 pm, THURSDAY)

[Јas]

ok...so I assume....in the event that Barnes and ElectoralJew are declared invalid in the presidential race....that Lief then leads in the first count by one vote. I was always under the impression that DC United's vote would then cause a tie in the 2nd count....thereby leading to a run-off. Does the number of first preferences, in fact, determine who wins in a tie?

My reading of Section 2 of the Consolidated Eelctoral Reform Act would suggest that a run-off is not necessary.
Per the Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If my disputes are accurate, then the election went as follows:
Count 1
Lief 41
PiT 40
gporter 1

Nobody has a majority, therefore per clause 2 (above), gporter is eliminated.

Count 2
Lief 41
PiT 41 (+1)
gporter 0 (-1)

Again, nobody has a majority.
Per section 3, after the implemntation of section2 (in this case that's the gporter re-distribution), and no majority exists (it doesn't), then we look back to section 2.
Per section 2, as no candidate has attained a majority, we remove the candidate who received the fewest 1st preferences - in this instance PiT.

With the elimination of PiT/HW, then Lief/BK would be declared the winners. (A run-off would only be necessary is the tickets were also tied on 1st preferences.)

     Your argument's problem is that you change the definition of highest preference. You interpret in section 2 to mean the highest preference not yet eliminated (the definition used in all cases in all of Atlasian history) whereas you interpret it in section 3 to mean only 1st preferences. You are suggesting that we change the definition of "highest preference" between two sections in the same statute without any real cause for doing so.

No, he doesn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"If no such candidate shall exist, then Clause 2 shall be implemented again until such a candidate does exist, or until all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes." Not "If  no such candidate shall exist and unless all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes..."
In other words, according to a literal interpretation of the Act, a tie leading to a runoff can only occur from a third count on. There is no provision for a tie after the second or indeed the first count.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the framers of the Act intended at all and the issue only arises through the somewhat awkward wording. (I would also like to take another look at the whole Act to see if there's anything to contradict it.)

     On further thought I do agree that it is not logically inconsistent, though it does seem like a very strange choice of phrasing. It seems like something that will need to be amended at some point.

     Actually, read here. Particularly, notice that near the bottom it says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     It seems to me that this use of "first preference" would agree with the bizarre (though historically used) definition of "first preference" in CESRA.

     Furthermore, if you compare it with the first revision, you will notice True Democrat wrote the sentence that referred to "first preferences" above.

     If you look at the Unified Electoral Code Bill, on of the forerunners to CESRA, & the bill that included that text previously, it was principally sponsored by none other than True Democrat.

     Furthermore, if you look at the bill that True Democrat's bill initially replaced, the Omnibus Election System, Procedure, and Certification Act, it has the same section, but with the text "least preferences" in lieu of "fewest first preferences".

     With that, I submit that this is significant evidence suggesting that the use of first preferences in CESRA is incorrect & that highest preferences is the intended meaning there.

Earlier you accused me of changing definitions - now you're quite clearly aiming to do just that.

At any rate, the Presidential election certification you cite predates CESRA.
Further, the other electoral laws you refer to are redundant given CESRA.
CESRA is the law and, as far as I can see, my count is based on a strict interpretation of what it says.

If you want to change the Act's wording, you can introduce a Bill to do so.
If you want to challenge it, the Court will no doubt grant you a hearing.

The wording is reasonably clear and one doesn't need to rely on repealed statutes to interpret it.
The SoFA can only reasonably act on what the law says - and on this I believe the application of the law is clear.

I am positing that the phrase means something other than its commonly accepted definition here, drawing upon similar sections in previous bills & known uses of the phrase by the bill's author that are consistent with the alternate meaning of the phrase that I proposed. If you take issue with that, then so be it.

Indeed so - I object to the application of laws in a manner which goes wholly against their plain meaning.

The bills you present are, for good or bad, obsolete. And at any rate those bills were by different authors, so I don't understand how your line of intent follows (CESRA was put together largely by Dave Hawk and Peter, not TD).

Regardless of the original intent it should be amended to what it previously had been.

That is indeed your prerogative as a Senator to try to do.
I would wonder though that if you believe it's meaning is actually as you say it is, why does it need amending at all?
 

As a side note, this would mean that there have been past races that were certified improperly (February 2008 Midwest Senate race, for one).

I have no doubt that previous elections may have been certified improperly, but that is no reason to do so now.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Indeed so - I object to the application of laws in a manner which goes wholly against their plain meaning.

The bills you present are, for good or bad, obsolete. And at any rate those bills were by different authors, so I don't understand how your line of intent follows (CESRA was put together largely by Dave Hawk and Peter, not TD).

     The line in question came from the Unified Electoral Code Act, which was compiled by True Democrat. It was edited from a different wording in the Omnibus Election System, Procedure, and Certification Act.

That is indeed your prerogative as a Senator to try to do.
I would wonder though that if you believe it's meaning is actually as you say it is, why does it need amending at all?

     For the sake of clarity, since looking up the case law for a awkwardly-worded section is not something that seems like people should have to go through.

I have no doubt that previous elections may have been certified improperly, but that is no reason to do so now.

     Indeed, though it goes to show that this has been a troublesome section. I believe I may as well introduce an amendment to change it.

[MasterJedi]

Can we please get some actual election results Earl so we can start to move this process along?

[Hatman 🍁]

Can we please get some actual election results Earl so we can start to move this process along?

yeah, yeah, hold your horses. This one is going to take some time.

[Hatman 🍁]

oy. The results have been tabulated.

I encourage people to take me to court. I want to ensure that these results are the most legal they possible can. I hate knowing that I basically can single handily decide who won this election, especially considering it was the candidate I voted for.  I personally am a big advocate of democracy and accuracy in election results. That's why I love being the SoFA. I love being able to scrutinize ballots and making sure the will of the people is reflected accurately in the results of the election. That's why this was hard to do. I hope that whoever does lose this election shows no hard feelings toward the process (and myself), I am doing the best job I can.

One of the big things I pride myself on is transparency in the process, and I believe I have shown this. I am willing to take any questions either here or in my office.

[tmthforu94]

Well, that's too bad. More people wanted PiT to become President, but because of a few legal issues, some of his votes will be invalid. Atlasia, spoke and they wanted PiT as President.

[Franzl]

Well, that's too bad. More people wanted PiT to become President, but because of a few legal issues, some of his votes will be invalid. Atlasia, spoke and they wanted PiT as President.

Do you understand the concept of electoral law?

[tmthforu94]

Well, that's too bad. More people wanted PiT to become President, but because of a few legal issues, some of his votes will be invalid. Atlasia, spoke and they wanted PiT as President.

Do you understand the concept of electoral law?

Of course I understand. And I understand that some of the votes should be counted invalid. I just feel bad, especially for PiT, because more people wanted him to win. In a way, it's like the 2000 Presidential election. More people wanted Gore to win, but because of a few laws, he didn't.

[ilikeverin]

oy. The results have been tabulated.

I encourage people to take me to court. I want to ensure that these results are the most legal they possible can. I hate knowing that I basically can single handily decide who won this election, especially considering it was the candidate I voted for.  I personally am a big advocate of democracy and accuracy in election results. That's why I love being the SoFA. I love being able to scrutinize ballots and making sure the will of the people is reflected accurately in the results of the election. That's why this was hard to do. I hope that whoever does lose this election shows no hard feelings toward the process (and myself), I am doing the best job I can.

One of the big things I pride myself on is transparency in the process, and I believe I have shown this. I am willing to take any questions either here or in my office.

*hughughug*

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think someone will take this to the court, at least Gustaf's vote. PiT already seem to have a case for it, and Jas already a defense. The Barnes/electoraljew2 votes might also end up in the SC. PiT only needs one of his votes to be made valid and he'll win the election, so things are far from over.

 

[Јas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think someone will take this to the court, at least Gustaf's vote. PiT already seem to have a case for it, and Jas already a defense. The Barnes/electoraljew2 votes might also end up in the SC. PiT only needs one of his votes to be made valid and he'll win the election, so things are far from over.  

I'm not legal counsel for the Department of Forum Affairs and have not been requested to represent the Department in any capacity. One presumes the Attorney General would be the first port of call in seeking counsel to defend a Government Department against any particular proceedings arising.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think someone will take this to the court, at least Gustaf's vote. PiT already seem to have a case for it, and Jas already a defense. The Barnes/electoraljew2 votes might also end up in the SC. PiT only needs one of his votes to be made valid and he'll win the election, so things are far from over.  

I'm not legal counsel for the Department of Forum Affairs and have not been requested to represent the Department in any capacity. One presumes the Attorney General would be the first port of call in seeking counsel to defend a Government Department against any particular proceedings arising.

They might still use your arguments though, even though you're not the one posting them.

[Јas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think someone will take this to the court, at least Gustaf's vote. PiT already seem to have a case for it, and Jas already a defense. The Barnes/electoraljew2 votes might also end up in the SC. PiT only needs one of his votes to be made valid and he'll win the election, so things are far from over.  

I'm not legal counsel for the Department of Forum Affairs and have not been requested to represent the Department in any capacity. One presumes the Attorney General would be the first port of call in seeking counsel to defend a Government Department against any particular proceedings arising.

They might still use your arguments though, even though you're not the one posting them.

Certainly, and to that I have no objection. Though it's not as if the DoFA will have to search high and low to explain the law behind the invalidation of Gustaf's votes. The burden will be very much on the plaintiff (whomever that may be) to try and turn those laws on their head.

[MasterJedi]

As I asked in the DoFA thread shouldn't then I also win too because I had more first preferences even though it was a tie?

[Јas]

I believe so.

[JerryBrown2010]

Oh No! 4 months of this party again!

[tmthforu94]

Oh No! 4 months of this party again!

One man doesn't define a party. Though Democrats would have been saying the same thing you just did if McCain had beaten Obama...

[bgwah]

Oh No! 4 months of this party again!

Why are you so conservative?

[MasterJedi]

Oh No! 4 months of this party again!

He'll at least be active. What'll be horrible is if he tries to abolish regions and ban guns.

[Brandon H]

Oh No! 4 months of this party again!

One man doesn't define a party. Though Democrats would have been saying the same thing you just did if McCain had beaten Obama...

Actually, they would have been saying "Oh No! 4 years of this party again!"

[minionofmidas]

oy. The results have been tabulated.

I encourage people to take me to court. I want to ensure that these results are the most legal they possible can. I hate knowing that I basically can single handily decide who won this election, especially considering it was the candidate I voted for.  I personally am a big advocate of democracy and accuracy in election results. That's why I love being the SoFA. I love being able to scrutinize ballots and making sure the will of the people is reflected accurately in the results of the election. That's why this was hard to do. I hope that whoever does lose this election shows no hard feelings toward the process (and myself), I am doing the best job I can.

One of the big things I pride myself on is transparency in the process, and I believe I have shown this. I am willing to take any questions either here or in my office.

I understand from this post that there's an official certificate somewhere, but maybe I was too stupid or something. I can't seem to find it.

[minionofmidas]

ok...so I assume....in the event that Barnes and ElectoralJew are declared invalid in the presidential race....that Lief then leads in the first count by one vote. I was always under the impression that DC United's vote would then cause a tie in the 2nd count....thereby leading to a run-off. Does the number of first preferences, in fact, determine who wins in a tie?

My reading of Section 2 of the Consolidated Eelctoral Reform Act would suggest that a run-off is not necessary.
Per the Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If my disputes are accurate, then the election went as follows:
Count 1
Lief 41
PiT 40
gporter 1

Nobody has a majority, therefore per clause 2 (above), gporter is eliminated.

Count 2
Lief 41
PiT 41 (+1)
gporter 0 (-1)

Again, nobody has a majority.
Per section 3, after the implemntation of section2 (in this case that's the gporter re-distribution), and no majority exists (it doesn't), then we look back to section 2.
Per section 2, as no candidate has attained a majority, we remove the candidate who received the fewest 1st preferences - in this instance PiT.

With the elimination of PiT/HW, then Lief/BK would be declared the winners. (A run-off would only be necessary is the tickets were also tied on 1st preferences.)

     Your argument's problem is that you change the definition of highest preference. You interpret in section 2 to mean the highest preference not yet eliminated (the definition used in all cases in all of Atlasian history) whereas you interpret it in section 3 to mean only 1st preferences. You are suggesting that we change the definition of "highest preference" between two sections in the same statute without any real cause for doing so.

No, he doesn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"If no such candidate shall exist, then Clause 2 shall be implemented again until such a candidate does exist, or until all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes." Not "If  no such candidate shall exist and unless all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes..."
In other words, according to a literal interpretation of the Act, a tie leading to a runoff can only occur from a third count on. There is no provision for a tie after the second or indeed the first count.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the framers of the Act intended at all and the issue only arises through the somewhat awkward wording. (I would also like to take another look at the whole Act to see if there's anything to contradict it.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(meaning a runoff).

This is also the established precedent in this situation, though the precedent arose only with Senate rather than Presidential elections (I would have to do a study of historical Senate election results to check whether this claim is actually correct - but I'm feeling fairly safe here).

While the Jas / Earl line of argument is logical as long as applied to Senatorial and Presidential elections alike (which Earl did not) and may well be upheld in court, I feel it would have been the correct decision of the DoFA to schedule a runoff for both elections (and call for court challenges with language much as actually used - very well done that part of it.)

Oh yeah, disregard my question in the above post. I've found it.

[JerryBrown2010]

Oh No! 4 months of this party again!

Why are you so conservative?

why were you such a bad president?

[AndrewTX]

Hay now hay now hay now! No need for this bad publicity! As Governor of something, and former Secretary of Awesome, I think people should just settle down till everything gets reslolved. We all know it'll probably end up in court, so why waste time building fire hydrants for nothing.

btw, when any rioting does start, I'd like to request you dont do it near my house. kthnxbye.

[tmthforu94]

Oh No! 4 months of this party again!

Why are you so conservative?

why were you such a bad president?

Technically, it would be "Why are you...." as he is still currently President.

And I'm not sure if you should be too critical of President Bgwah, as you've just been active in the past few weeks. I would assume you just went along with what's popular.
Personally, I haven't been on here long enough to develop an opinion of him, so I can't really say.