Talk Elections

Vote is open 72 hours until March 31st, 6:00 am Eastern Time.
All registered voters may vote (see list in register! thread)

Please vote
-yes or no on Demrepdan's First Amendment
-yes or no on Demrepdan's Second Amendment
-yes or no on Demrepdan's Third Amendment
-yes or no on Demrepdan's Fifth Amendment

On Demrepdan's Fourth Amendment, please indicate which Regions and Districts Plan you prefer:
a) the one currently in the draft
b) the one currently in the draft, but with Missouri and Nebraska reversed in the Regions plan
c) Regions plan E and Districts plan D from the Regions Vote thread (I'll dig it up in a second)
d) against all
This vote will be held by Australian-style preferential voting.

Finally, please vote whether there should be a sixth amendment providing for Australian-style preferential voting or no.

http://www.geocities.com/demrepdan/forum-constitution2

Oh, PS: I know I don't have any legal authority to set this up. But if nobody does it, I figure we'll never have a constitution. And time is running out fast.

yes on the first amendment
yes on the second amendment
yes on the third amendment
NO on the fifth amendment, which doesn't really seem to add anything -EDIT- This used to say "abstain" -
Fourth amendment vote:
c-b-d-a
yes on a preferential voting amendment (I have changed my mind on this)

yes on first amendment
yes on second amendment
yes on third amendment
c-b-a-d on fourth amendment
no on fifth amendment.

Yes
Yes
Yes
CBAD
No

Neither of whom voted on the preferential voting thing? Or did you overlook the fifth amendment?
Just to make sure all votes get counted right, please note abstentions.

No I don't want pref. Voting.

i voted no on fifth amendment. what is this about preferential voting? I don't want that for the actual elections.

Why only preferential voting lets vote on EC too

The EC was already rejected. Theoretically, the preferential vote was already approved, but DemRepDan has not included the rule in his constitution.

no
the Pv was aprooved
the EV Got many votes and then there was another idea of the preferential voting . there was not a vote on the all 3.

Yes on first
Yes on second
Yes on third
Yes on fifth
ACBD on fourth
No on preferential voting

Yes on the first, second, third and fifth amendments.
Acdb on the fourth
no on preferential voting.

 Yes
Yes
Yes
CBAD
No

Yes on Amendment 1
Yes on Amendment 2
Yes on Amendment 3
Yes on Amendment 5

(Okay something I don't understand is you can't swap Nebraska and Missouri in the district plan because their in the same one from what I can see)

CABD

And a big "NO" on preferential voting.

They should be switched in the Regions plan.

I vote yes on Amendments 1, 2, 3, and 5.
I'll hold off on Amendment 4, because I'm not clear about what Regions plans D and E are.

I vote yes for preferential voting.

Why are Democrats voting no on preferential voting?  It would pretty much guarantee that Dems don't lose any elections due to Progressive votes.

YES for amendments 1,2,3,and 5

Yes for amendment 4 IF it includes plans D and E, otherwise NO

YES for preferential voting

I vote yes on the first amendment
I vote yes on the second amendment
I vote yes on the third amendment
I abstain on the fifth amendment
I abstain on the preferential voting amendment  

yes on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th
ABCD for 4th
yes on pref. voting

Yes on 1,2,3,5
Not sure about 4

No vote yet, but Amdt IV has an unusually constructed sentence: "No district shall have more than two more register voters than another district." This could be reworded, "No district's registered voter population shall exceed another's by more than two voters."

Here are the present standings:

-1st, 2nd, 3rd Amendments: 12 Yes; 0 No; 0 Abstain
-5th Amendment: 7 Yes; 3 No; 2 Abstain
-Pref. Voting: 4 Yes; 5 No; 3 Abstain
-4th Amendment (1st preference votes only): 6 C, 3 A, 3 Abstain

By vote on the Regions amendment is:
C, D, B, A

(I have already voted in the other amendments)

I vote no on preferential voting.  One man one vote.

Yes on 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

On Amendment 4:

A, B, C, D

Yes on preferential voting.

I'll change this as soon as possible....thank you for pointing this out....I still have to go through some other posts and threads to see what must be changed....(I remember Lewis making some good suggestions...that I will comply with)

Yes on all Amendments...

NO on preferential voting...

I don't care how the regions and districts are distributed...as long as there are always 10 states per region.....and an equal amount of voters per district.

Oops. Regions, of course.

Yes on all amendments.

Preference ABCD.

YES on preferential voting. This is the ONLY way to prevent penalizing third parties, which make the Atlas elections more interesting IMO.

Yes to all!

No, this is a certain way to assure a Dem./Progressive majoritarian alliance.

No, because if any party including Republicans get over half the first choice votes they will win no matter what. Just like we had in the first election. Now you still have a guranteed win with over 50% of the vote. So it doesn't make any party worse off than it was in the first election, which everyone thought fair. The only difference is that now we have more than two parties, and we do NOT want a president to be elected with only 35% support.

I don't want a party to form a government with only something like 35% of the votes, especially if the other 65% had that party as their last choice.

yes
yes
yes
yes
BCAD

yes on the 6th amendment-Preferential voting.

Yes on the first amendment.
No on the second amendment. (They should be more than 18 posts for right to vote)
Yes on the third amendment
CBAD on fourth amendment
Yes on the fifth amendment
No on preferential voting

Yes on 1st, 2nd, 5th.

No to 3rd.

Will have to think about 4th, not sure I get all the alternatives there.

Gustaf,

You didn't vote on the Preferential Voting amendment....which is interesting considering you started the original PV thread.

Ah, yes. :) I'll vote in favour of it then.

i dont want pv

Amdts. I, II, III: Yes
Amdt V: No
Amdt IV: CBAD
Preferential Voting: No

On the Preferential Voting amendment, I count:

9 Yeas
8 Nays
1 Abstention
3 Who voted on other amendments but didn't mention this...maybe the are deliberate abstentions, maybe just an oversight (ShapeShifter, Reaganfan, Emsworth)

Looks like it will go down to the wire!

Just an oversight from me.

In that case, what is your vote?

I modified my post above to indicate a vote of No.

im chanigng my vote, i dont want pv it was a mistake

now its
10 No
8 Yes
1 Absentation

on the P Voting

We had that issue before...You should not be able to change a vote cast. I'll admit we didn't really have a constructive debate on it...At the very least, I demand that to change your vote, you edit your original post and clearly mark it as edited and what the changes are, rather than putting a post somewhere in teh middle. Makes it easier to count ballots...

i did both lewis, i changed the first post

What are you againsts PV?

It is more democratic, and fairer to third parties. It just makes sense!

This is the ATLAS forum on the WORLD WIDE web-it doesnt have to be a replica of the US system-if there is a better system in other countries, use it-shouldn't we try to get the best possible system, rather then a useable but less democratic one?

You still have seven hours to vote, so I'm just moving this back to page one...

There are seven abstentions on what regions plan to use out of 22 ballots cast: by Dunn, Reaganfan, supersoulty, Demrepdan, StatesRights, Gustaf and MAS.
There are nine first preference votes for Plan C, 5 for Plan A and one for Plan B (none for "Plan" D, btw, though it got two second preferences).

The first, second and third amendments are sailing through, 20-0-2 abstentions for the first, 19-1-2 for the other two.
The fifth amendment appears also to be passing unless there's a big surge in turnout in the next few hours: 14-5-3.
The Preferential voting amendment is going down to the wire, with 10 no, 8 yes, 3 abstentions.

1. Aye
2. Aye
3. Aye (although I do not support Double Jeopardy)
4. a)
5. Aye
6. Aye

I change my vote on the The Preferential voting from abstain to yes

I proclaim the final results:
The First Amendment was passed by a vote of 21 to 0 with 2 abstentions.
The Second Amendment was passed by a vote of 20 to 1 with 2 abstentions.
The Third Amendment was passed by a vote of 20 to 1 with 2 abstentions.
On the Fourth Amendment, there were 9 first preference votes for Plan C, 6 first preference votes for Plan A, 1 first preference vote for Plan B, 6 abstentions and and one ballot that I have to reject because it does not state a first preference (Demrepdan's). I hereby declare Plan C and the Amendment to have passed.
The Fifth Amendment was passed by a vote of 15 to 5 with 3 abstentions.
The Preferential Voting (Sixth) Amendment was passed by a vote of 11 to 10 with 2 abstentions.

Here's a breakdown by political party of the Preferential vote:
Democrats
for 7
against 5
abstention 1

Republicans
for 1
against 4
abstention 1

Progressives
for 3
against 1

THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKOUTHANKYOU

There was only one thing I passionaterly cared about in this constitution...thanks so much everyone who vted for it :)

Thankyou!

I can provide you with a list, Hughento...
in reverse chronological order...reverse because it's not polite to start off with oneself...
Dunn
Al
Gustaf
yourself
StatesRights
Beet
the President, nym90
of_this_nation
the Vice President, Harry
NickG
Lewis Trondheim

Hugs and kisses to you all, in the non-gay way :)

Fresh bunch of flowers on your doorstep tomorrow morning :)

it was 10-10 and I changed from abstain to yes 23 minutes to go thank to Lewis.

Six minutes to go, actually.

should have been 2-3 but if tou say six I geuss it should have been 2X3....

:)

You can look it up...

i trust you completly

I guess I missed a yea vote at some point in my earlier count.  Anyway....hurray!

Where is the Sixth Amendment on Preferential voting posted?????  It's not in the Constitution.  If it passed and is now therefore part of the Constitution, shouldn't the Constitution be updated to reflect this?

No preferential voting!!!!!!!   That plan sucks.

It's not even IN the original draft.  You are inserting it in there for no reason at all.  In that case, we should have been able to try to insert anything we wanted to, but you limited the vote to a yea or nay vote to insert one piece of the agenda you've been pushing all along.

The PV plan is bullsh**t.  It's specifically engineered to creat some sort of Progressive/ Democrat majority allignment without the two groups acctually needing to cooperate.  It was designed with an agenda in mind and anything like that should not be in the Consititution.

We wanted an EV system, you wanted the PV, man don't change the history

I wanted Electoral Votes to.  By PV I mean preferential voting.

sorry

:)

Looking back through this thread, it appears that the Preferential Voting amendment was declared as passed at 6:12 am yesterday morning (11-10 with 2 abstentions).  It would seem that arguing its merits now a moot point.

I will ask my question again- where is the text of this amendment posted?

Thanks for helping out a newbie.  :)

My point was that it wasn't in the original Constitution.  It's just an idea that these guys wanted, so they threw it in there, but denied anyone else the chance to post an amendemnet.

So...it isn't posted.....ANYWHERE?

No!   They made it up.  They don't even have a template for the supposed amendment we would be voting on.

Well, that seems rather silly. If that is indeed the case, any voting done on the amendment ought to be declared null and void on that basis, and perhaps voted on again AFTER a written document is produced.

Exactly my point.

He voted for it before he voted against it..
and it's none of your business ....


LOL

The reason for the PV amendment was that a poll was made and a lot of discussion as well and there seemed to be a wide-spread popular call for it.

But, even though I voted in favour of it, I am willing to concede that since the vote was so close it should perhaps be redone.

My argument has nothing to do with the closeness of the vote, although that is a good point.  How can you vote on an amendment that hasn't even been written down?  

Okay, so I'm a newbie, and this forum is quickly becoming a major addiction for me.  As a newbie, I am trying to understand all the rules of the game.  I asked where this supposedly-passed amendment could be found.  No one seems to be able to answer that question.  

It seems to me that an idea or concept was voted upon.  That is not how Constitutions get amended.  There must be a written document for a vote to take place.  Can you imagine the real Congress passing an amendment without writing it down?

At best, if my understanding of the situation is correct, I would say that an affirmative vote has been passed that an amendment ought to be drafted and voted upon.  Based on the specific language included or not included in the amendment, it is certainly possible that some would vote differently.

If I would be permitted to do so, I would officially submit this complaint to: who?  The President?  Would he do anything about it?  

Supersoulty,

Why didn't you ask someone to produce the formal wording of the amendment before the voting ended and the amendment had already passed?  

I would guess it is because you, and everyone else who voted either way, understood what they were voting on.  There was a long thread a few days ago, accompanied by a poll, that explained what preferential voting was, and it was favored in that poll too.

Maybe this is an effort to assure a Democratic/
Progressive majority in the fantasy government, but we ARE the majority of registered voters,  so this system is more fair than a system which would ensure that a Republicans are elected against the will of the majority.

I have searched high and low for this thread, and I cannot find it.  Can someone please bring it forward?  Or at least tell me what it is called, I have tried to search for threads with "preferential voting" in the subject but had no success.

The president is rarely here, the AFDNC chairman is the only one who seems to take any drastic actions on this forum. :)

I raised objection ot it on several occations.  My point is, how can we pass an Amendement if there is nothing writen down.  I admit, that I am firmly against PV but I think that this raises an interesting point.

Polls don't mean anything.  If we believed all the polls on this site, then the number of people voting for me and GWBFan combined is going to be double that of what Nym will get in June.  Highly unlikly.  The point is that nothing has been writen.  This concern ONLY became apparent to me when our new friend JLD posted that he could not find the amendment acctually writen down.

It doesn't matter if you are the majority of registered voters.  You complain about one man one vote.  I say we should enforce this priciple in this instance.  ANYTHING that pushes ANY agenda should NEVER becmoe a part of this Constitution.

I'll admit that the bulletin board format is not the best format for this...it is hard to distinguish between was is "official" and what is not.  So at some point, Lewis took the initiative and declared an official vote on the constitution and the amendments.  It's would be a waste of time to have a argument about the "binding" wording of the PV amendment because everyone knows what it says, or at least they would know if they read the earlier thread.   The case is the same with the electoral districts...you had to go back to earlier threads to figure out what we were actually voting on.  It would be nice if everything was in writing in a single, permanent place, but we had to move forward with what we had.

I agree the poll was mostly meaningless, but does show their was some support for general idea, and some discussion of it, before the real vote was taken.

I think you are co-opting the principle of "one man, one vote" to suit a purpose it was never meant to apply to.  "One man, one vote" means that every person should have a vote, and that everyone's vote should count equally.  For instance, some enlightenment-era thinkers believed that educated people, or people with a certain amount of property should have their votes counted double or triple.  "One man, one vote" stands in opposition to the proposals: it says that everyone should have an equal opportunity to influence the election.  It says nothing on the mechanics of how the votes are counted.   As long as everyone has the same number of votes and they are counted under the same procedure, "one man, one vote" is fulfilled.

When we vote on Amendments why not just put a poll thread up? And vote yes or no so we dont have a million posts?

I assume it is to make sure we only have registered voters voting.

exectly

Thank You Lewis for moving the ball on the pre-Ratification of our pre-Constituation.