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

[Јas]

I think the greater surprise is the utter lack of party discipline on all sides.

[Јas]

Duke seems to be gaining a little, maybe he still has a shot.

Nope.

[Јas]

I'm happy to see the Mideast does not wish to impose its own actions on other regions.

Will you therefore be abstaining on all Senate votes that would impose actions on other regions?
Do you support regional independence?

[Јas]

The absentee voting thing is a little bit silly, it's just another voting booth that opens earlier than the "non-absentee" booth.  Why not just have one thread that is open for the entire time period?

That would probably require a constitutional amendment.
I agree though that a simple week long system rather than the current fragmented system would be better.

[Јas]

Damn! 

Okay, I don't have time to look this up today.  Can someone other than Dan verify DC_united's state of registration?  I gotta get to work.

She is not (and to my knowledge never has been) a Midwesterner.

[Јas]

I hope someone in officaldom is looking into this case.
She has a total of 26 posts, almost all of which were on 3 June, the last of that day (and her 25th in total) was her first post in Atlasia, registering herself as a voter. She then doesn't re-appear until today and makes 1 post - her vote.

[Јas]

I hope someone in officaldom is looking into this case.
She has a total of 26 posts, almost all of which were on 3 June, the last of that day (and her 25th in total) was her first post in Atlasia, registering herself as a voter. She then doesn't re-appear until today and makes 1 post - her vote.

You're surprised? We have a serious infestation on our hands.

I'm aware of the large number of newbies we've had and I've no idea how legitimate or otherwise many of them are. This case, however, is the most remarkable I've seen.

 I know that you've put forward an amendment to lift the posting requirements (which I favour), but I'm interested to know whether or not anyone is actually looking into these voters to ensure their legitimacy.

[Јas]

Italian boy's vote should be rendered invalid, there is commentary on it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Commentary, as I've understood, is never used as justification for getting upset. Loitering is, perhaps, but italian-boy's vote doesn't fit the definition of "strong attempts to compel others to vote or not vote for one or multiple candidates" which would render it invalid. "Explanations of one's vote or simple expressions" are not prohibited, so his vote is valid, as I see it.

Indeed. I would suggest that the standing authority on campaigning in the voting booth, True Democrat v DoFA would also support a finding of validity. Per Mr Justice Emsworth: "an act does not constitute campaigning, unless it is clearly and obviously designed to persuade other voters". italian boy's vote seems to me quite clearly to be an explanation of his vote, not an effort at persuasion to others.

President
1) Lief/Bacon King

Northeast Senator
1) War-Raok, Strollad Breizh! [Hashemite]

Sorry Phil but I could never vote for Popolo della Libertà

[Јas]

There is some possibility that the Midwest Senate could end in a tie.  I don't know what the law is concerning tied elections, but it occurs to me that Gustaf's vote could be used as a sort of tiebreaker.  That is, if his vote breaks a tie, count it; if it creates a tie, discount it.

A tie would lead to a run-off election next week.

[Јas]

I hope someone in officaldom is looking into this case.
She has a total of 26 posts, almost all of which were on 3 June, the last of that day (and her 25th in total) was her first post in Atlasia, registering herself as a voter. She then doesn't re-appear until today and makes 1 post - her vote.

The constitution doesn't mention whether or not you have to re-register once you hit 25 posts, or whether you are allowed to register and then hit 25 posts later, and become a registered voter.

Mmm. Yeah, I can see how it can be read both ways; though I'd imagine there may be precedents where pre-25 post registration has been allowed, so long as a sufficient number of posts have been accumulated when voting. Not sure though.

At any rate, we now have another very similar case to that cited above. Again, almost all posts on a single day a couple of weeks ago. Again, fewer than 30 posts total.

[Јas]

I hope I'm not just being too nervous about the vote but elecotraljew2's vote still counts toward me since he's in the Midwest even though he said Mideast, correct?

That won't be a problem. What may be a problem is whether he was a registered voter for long enough before the election. That I'm not sure of.

[Јas]

I hope I'm not just being too nervous about the vote but elecotraljew2's vote still counts toward me since he's in the Midwest even though he said Mideast, correct?

That won't be a problem. What may be a problem is whether he was a registered voter for long enough before the election. That I'm not sure of.

Yay! And I remember he got in on June 11 so he's safe.

Actually, having looked into it, I'd suggest his vote is invalid.
I'm now of the opinion that his registration was very probably 11 hours late to make this election.

[Јas]

Also, the voting booth says that you need to register before or on June 11th. electoraljew2 registered on June 11th, according to Earl's official registry, so I believe that he is elgiible to vote.

All well and good, but if that vote turns out to be crucial, don't be surprised if I lodge a case with the court seeking its invalidation.

But hey, given my record with court cases, you shouldn't be all that worried about that!

[Јas]

I don't see a controversial ending here.  The only votes being disputed are Gustaf and Barnes, both votes for PiT- who wins the election by one vote without either of the disputed votes.  Where's the controversy?

I believe without Jfern or Gustaf it ends in a tie after DC is counted for PiT. We need the final certification from Earl though.

The tracker is through Peter. After that Afleitch and Jfern voted meaning plus one to both. If Barnes is invalid it's a tie meaning DC_united gives it to PiT. Unless someone else is invalid too (God I hope not).

     Jas suggested earlier that he believed electoraljew2's vote to be invalid, saying that he believed that electoraljew had registered too late.

If so (which I believe is wrong since he registered on the 11 and the booth said you had to be registered on or before the 11 and nothing else about a time) then it's a tie. Unfortunate.

     Also, the general election booth was scheduled to open on 11:59 PM, June 18th. Counting back seven days, you can figure that a voter would have had to register by 11:59 PM, June 11th. That would mean that electoraljew's vote is good.

I'm awaiting certification before lodging court papers.

FTR, my reasoning is based on the 11th and 24th Amendments.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "earliest possible commencement of the election" was 00.00 (EST), Thursday, 18 June.
7 days prior to that was obviously 00.00 (EST), Thursday, 11 June.

electoraljew2 did not register until 10.57 (EST), Thursday, 11 June - almost 11 hours late.

electoraljew2
RPP
Kansas

Similarly, the registration of barnes:

Barnes
Democratic Alliance
Northeast-Rhode Island

was also clearly beyond the deadline, IMO.


Given this, I'd call on the SoFA not to include these votes in his certification. If he does, persons should be on notice of my intent to bring this matter before the Court.

[Јas]

By the by, having looked at it, by virtue of the same 24th Amendment, I believe that jewishconservative's vote in the Midwestern Senate election is invalid.

He changed his registration to the Midwestern region from the Mideast after 00.00 (EST) Thursday, 11th. Therefore, his regional vote can only be taken to apply to the Mideastern election. Not sure if this has any real effect though.

[Јas]

By the by, having looked at it, by virtue of the same 24th Amendment, I believe that jewishconservative's vote in the Midwestern Senate election is invalid.

He changed his registration to the Midwestern region from the Mideast after 00.00 (EST) Thursday, 11th. Therefore, his regional vote can only be taken to apply to the Mideastern election. Not sure if this has any real effect though.

Just looked up the law.

I think, if I'm right, that the Midwestern Senate race tied.

The result would now be:
Count 1

MasterJedi	6	(Gustaf, Sensei, jewishconservative, SoS, Mechaman, Vepres, MasterJedi, dead0man, electoraljew2,)
Fritz	4	(GMantis, Fritz, BRTD, Aizen)
Jas	2	(Jas, Lewis)

Count 2

MasterJedi	6
Fritz	6	(+2: Jas, Lewis)

[Јas]

So we'll most likely see three courtcases on this... oh my *headdesk*

One wether Barnes and Electoraljew registered on time for their vote to count.

One wether it's okey to register before you get 25 post, as long as you have 25 post seven days before election

and one wether Gustaf's vote should count or not considering the strange things happening in that voting booth.

(and if the court rules in favour of Barnes vote not counting due to him not attaining 25 posts before registring as well as Gustaf's not counting there might be a fourth one, about all those who reposted their vote when their initial ones disappeared.)

My God...   

Doubtful that we'll see 3.
At any rate, the number of cases will depend upon the SoFA's certification.

I presume the disqualification of Gustaf's vote will go by without question, there doesn't seem to be any substantial legal argument to include it.

As to the other two, I think their disqualification is fairly straight-forward, we'll see what the SoFA makes of it. If he proposes to count it, then I'm perfectly willing to work with afleitch on putting forward both our arguments against Barnes's vote, presuming that it is to the convenience of the court to deal with the matters together.

[Јas]

I think the SoFA was pretty clear about the fact that he intended to count Barnes vote, and if there is a tie between Lief and PiT, most likely Gustaf's vote will become disputed also.

The SoFA's statement on Barnes's vote though related only to the argument over his pre-25 post registration; not to the idea that the registration was ill-timed. He may change his mind when he reads my argument. If he doesn't, well then I presume he has his reasons - which will no doubt be teased out in Court.

I don't see why Gustaf's vote would be disputed. It seems fairly clear-cut. Has anyone presented a legal argument for its inclusion?

[Јas]

By the by, having looked at it, by virtue of the same 24th Amendment, I believe that jewishconservative's vote in the Midwestern Senate election is invalid.

He changed his registration to the Midwestern region from the Mideast after 00.00 (EST) Thursday, 11th. Therefore, his regional vote can only be taken to apply to the Mideastern election. Not sure if this has any real effect though.

Just looked up the law.

I think, if I'm right, that the Midwestern Senate race tied.

The result would now be:
Count 1

MasterJedi	6	(Gustaf, Sensei, jewishconservative, SoS, Mechaman, Vepres, MasterJedi, dead0man, electoraljew2,)
Fritz	4	(GMantis, Fritz, BRTD, Aizen)
Jas	2	(Jas, Lewis)

Count 2

MasterJedi	6
Fritz	6	(+2: Jas, Lewis)

Even if that is all true, MasterJedi still wins by virtue of having more first preferences.

You may be right - under a strict interpretation of the the Consolidated Electoral Syatem Reform Act (Section 2, Clauses 2 & 3), MasterJedi would win by virtue of your elimination after Count 2, because he had more first preferences. No run-off would be necessary.

Similarly (if I'm correct about the votes of electoraljew2 and JewishConservative) Lief/Bacon King would win by the same reasoning.

[Јas]

So how many disputed votes are there?

ElectoralJew, JewishConservative, Barnes....

is that it?

They're the votes I'm disputing (and I haven't studied all the votes that closely, so I can't preclude the idea that there may be others of questionable veracity).

Though I'd note I'm not disputing the validity of the vote of JewishConservative - just where it counts. I submit that it must be counted as a Mideastern ballot, not a Midwestern one.

[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.)

[Јas]

However I think both are valid considering they did register ON June 11th, the last day they could.

Out of interest, which element of my analysis do you believe is at fault?

[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.

[Јas]

I think the SoFA was pretty clear about the fact that he intended to count Barnes vote, and if there is a tie between Lief and PiT, most likely Gustaf's vote will become disputed also.

The SoFA's statement on Barnes's vote though related only to the argument over his pre-25 post registration; not to the idea that the registration was ill-timed. He may change his mind when he reads my argument. If he doesn't, well then I presume he has his reasons - which will no doubt be teased out in Court.

I don't see why Gustaf's vote would be disputed. It seems fairly clear-cut. Has anyone presented a legal argument for its inclusion?

     Yes, I did as a matter of fact.

     EDIT:

     Her reasoning was that if Gustaf's story is correct, he could claim mistake of fact as a defense for having voted twice. Considering his reputation as an honest person, & that the observed facts are not inconsistent with his account of events, he should be given the benefit of the doubt that he made a legitimate error based on the information that he received suggesting that his first post did not go through.

I see. Mistake of fact may be a defence to certain criminal acts, but this doesn't concern cruiminal action. This is about the application of administrative law.

Gustaf voted twice. As long as I can remember in Atlasia, that invalidates the vote. Whether or not the mistake is innocent is quite irrelevant when certifying the results.

The SoFA must apply the law as best he can and under the plainest interpretation of the law neither of Gustaf's votes should count. It would be a matter for the Court to make such alterations to the certification as are necessary based on arguments presented.

[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.