Talk Elections

I am filing suit against the Vice President in his capacity as President of the Senate. The Vice President invalidated 5 votes in the PPT election thread on the grounds that I had not declared in the official thread, and subsequently argued that these votes were invalid because they were write-in votes. As someone who has been party to four PPT elections now, I would like to bring as to the invalidation of these votes, which have been accepted in every previous PPT election. The President of the Senate has acted in an undemocratic manner and should be required to accept those votes on the grounds of previously established precedent and respect for the democratic process.

I'm of course willing to defend my actions.

This has been seen.

The Court is considering whether to grant certiorari on this matter. At issue, of course, is whether the Supreme Court is the appropriate entity to rule on matters of Senate procedure - in other words, whether a procedural Senate election can be treated identically to a regular public election. There is, however, a case to be made that the Supreme Court is the only body that can reasonably issue any kind of ruling on lawsuits involving procedural Senate issues - I refer to this as the "who else?" argument.

The decision on certiorari will be posted in the coming days, barring any unforeseen circumstances.

In the mean time, I am issuing a temporary injunction on the certification of Senator NC Yankee as President pro tempore of the Senate pending a decision on either dismissal of this matter or, in the event that certiorari is granted, a resolution to the case.

I humbly request that the noble Court consider lifting the injunction. The practical matter is that it helps Senate efficiency greatly to have a PPT as opposed to no one at all, quite simply.

I don't think that the injunction should be lifted and I applaud the Court for enacting it. Windjammer is doing a fine job at executing the duties of the PPT and the President of the Senate at the moment and should be allowed to continue until a legitimate reading of the votes (and subsequent tie-breaking vote) can render us with a PPT.

Hey guys, as you can see, I had already decided to keep all slots until the court decides! I find it normal.

Just to say that instead of having 10 slots, I will have 15 slots (like right now), that's not a big change for me. The PPT was more important before because he had the biggest number of slots (9 slots for him, 6 for the VP), that won't be the case anymore. So no worry, there isn't any problem to issue an injonction.

-----------
By the way, I urge the court to take this case. While I obviously don't agree with TNF on this matter, I clearly understand he has filed a lawsuit against me, because the rules aren't completely clear on this matter.
Just to say that in case the court decides not to take the case, I will try to amend the constitution to allow that in the future. Rules aren't always easy to understand, like for the PPT election, and that would be a good thing if what I will do as VP can be controlled by the Supreme Court.

I will probably make mistakes during my term as VP, and I find that totally normal that a senator files a lawsuit against me if he believes I have (not deliberately though) violated the rules.

Best regards,
VP Windjammer

As I mentioned in my post above, there was some discussion about whether it was appropriate for the Supreme Court to hear a case on what ultimately boils down to a question of Senate procedure. My arguments laid out above stand - perhaps most peruasively, the Senate election for a president pro tempore is not comparable to, say, electing a head of a private club, a situation in which the Supreme Court would have no right to intervene. The Senate is a public body, a branch of government that is necessarily, as with the executive branch, kept in check by the Supreme Court.

The election of a president pro tempore is a particularly important national matter that affects the passage of legislation, and, as a result, all Atlasian citizens. Furthermore, the simple fact is that there is no other court of law that could conceivably resolve such a dispute, other than this Court - Nyman, and the Senate, are not part of any region and not subject to regional legal jurisdiction. The 'who else?' argument also swayed our decision in choosing to hear this matter. As such,





The Supreme Court of Atlasia grants certiorari to hear the question of whether Vice President Windjammer's decision to discard write-in votes for Senator TNF in the election for president pro tempore was in violation of established Senate procedural rules and precedent, and whether Senator TNF's rights were infringed upon by this decision.



Petitioner has one week to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 6:00PM EDT on Saturday, August 2, 2014.

Respondent has an additional seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 6:00PM EDT on Tuesday, August 5, 2014.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 6:00PM EDT on Tuesday, August 5, 2014, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need, and the right of either party to respond to the filed briefs may be granted upon request.

A period of argument (Q&A) will be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.

The invalidation of the votes cast for me is a fragrant violation of the right of Atlasian citizens to select their own representatives. As stated in Section16 of Article VI of the Third Constitution:


The fact of the matter is that Atlasia is a republic, a nation in which voters choose their own representatives to legislate and govern on their behalf. Five members of the Senate cast their ballot (their right under the law) to select a representative, who was then deemed inadequate on the grounds that he had not declared he was running for the position in time, on account of a power outage. If this egregious assault on the very foundational premise of our Republic (the right to select ones' own representatives) is not thrown out by the Court, then the Republic itself is in the gravest of dangers.

Beyond the argument I have made above, I would like to note that Vice President Windjammer's actions are unprecedented and in flagrant violation of normal Senate procedure. In the name of being a stickler for the rules, he has not only violated the right of the Senate to select its own leader, but he has also thrown out all precedent and all established Senate procedure in the process. I have chosen two sample posts to illustrate this:




The fact of the matter is that Windjammer is throwing out precedent in the name of applying a stricter interpretation of the rules, and in the process he is denying all of us the vital and sacred right to select our own representatives. The Court must strike down this fragrant attack upon the very cornerstone of republican liberty, or it must risk this nation going into the darkness of oligarchy and rule by personal clique.

First of all, I would like to thank  Chief Justice bgwah, and Associates Justices Torie and oakvale for having rejected the lawsuit made by Simfan against me, and for having accepted the lawsuit made by Senator TNF against me. Simfan’s lawsuit was indeed frivolous, and while I still believe write ins aren’t allowed for the President Pro Tempore election, I believe as well that the President of the Senate is responsible to the Supreme Court.
If I correctly understand Senator TNF’s analysis, I shouldn’t have strictly respected the senate rules because it would have violated the right of people to choose their representative, and that there would have been a precedent allowing the write in votes during the President Pro Tempore election.
My brief will be divided into 3 parts. The 1st and the 2nd parts will be used to refute the 2  Senator TNF’s arguments . The 3rd part will be used to explain why I believe the Senate rules don’t allow write in votes for the President Pro Tempore election.




If I understand correctly Senator TNF’s court case, Senator TNF seems to believe that no vote shall be invalidated, in order to respect the right of the people to choose their representative. I strongly disagree with the interpretation of this right, because I believe that this right doesn’t mean every vote shall be valid.
Indeed, in basically EVERY representative democracy in the world, there are restrictions both on candidacy and on the votes themselves. For instance, in the United States of America, every person who wishes to be elected to the United States Senate shall be at least aged of 30. In France, write ins are as well forbidden during the presidential elections.  Candidates have to depose 500 mayor’s signatures, if they want to be on the ballot (and if they want to be able to receive votes).
In Atlasia, some restrictions are made on the voting and on the candidacy. For instance, no one can become senator if they didn’t have posted 200 posts.
The right of electing his own representative doesn’t mean that EVERY person can be a candidate, or that EVERY vote shall be valid.
I would like to point out as well that Senator TNF had perfectly the right to run for this office. But by failing to declare his candidacy in time, he failed to be declared “candidate” for this office.
Furthermore, the right to select his own representative doesn’t even apply to the President Pro Tempore. While the Governor, the senator, the president represent the legislative and executive powers of a citizen, the PPT doesn’t represent their senators. Indeed, the PPT is a “procedural “ office. According to the constitution, “The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, who shall act as President of the Senate in the absence of the Vice President.” The PPT doesn’t represent the senators, he just serves as President of the Senate when he’s away. The PPT has no power (except the powers exerced by  a senator).

That’s why I believe Senator TNF’s first argument isn’t valid, because the  right of choosing his own representative doesn’t mean that EVERY citizen can run for an office and that EVERY can be valid. The President  Pro Tempore doesn’t represent as well the senators.





The second argument Senator TNF made is that, acting as President  of the Senate, I would have violated every precedent  by refusing to allow the write in votes. I believe this argument shouldn’t be taken into account, because every previous president of the senate could have misinterpreted the rules.
But, considering I don’t know if “precedent” is a valid argument, I will just show that Senator  TNF’s second argument isn’t valid at all.
The two PPT elections Senator TNF is quoting violate the Senate rules. Indeed, according to the senate rules, quote 3. After forty-eight (48) hours, the PPT Candidacy Declaration Thread shall be closed and a vote on the election of the new PPT shall be opened in a new thread by the President of the Senate. This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained. /quote
And former VPs Cincinnatus and Matt from Vermont didn’t open a new thread for the vote. I believe that two PPT elections which are clearly not respecting the rules and are invalid cannot be considered as “making a precedent”.
Furthermore, I made a research on this forum for all PPT elections since the beginning of Atlasia and here what I have found:

1)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=12311.0
2)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=14719.0
3)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=15954.0
4)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21675.0
5)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=24968.0
6)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=31309.0
7)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=34566.0
8)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=37375.0
9)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=42052.0
10)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=42052.0
11)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=44564.0
12)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=49781.0
13)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=51522.0
14)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=72146.0
15)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=78640.25
16)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=87931.0
17)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=93789.0
18)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=95705.0
19)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=98467.0
20)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101978.0
21)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103349.0
22)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=104802.0
write in allowed?
23)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=106404.0
24)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=107142.0
25)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=108036.0
26)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=112392.0
27)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=116470.0
28)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=120060.0
29)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=123703.0
30)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=127729.0
write in allowed
31)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130400.0
write in allowed
32)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=132932.0
33)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=135378.0
34)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=140518.0
35)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=143440.0
36)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=146919.0
37)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150382.0
38)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=153275.0
39)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=155803.0
WRITE in allowed
40)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=163508.100
41)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166939.25
42)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=169743.25
43)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=173028.0
44)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=175633.25
write in allowed
45)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=178857.0
46)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=181578.0
write in allowed
47)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=185129.0
write in allowed
48)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=191862.0
write In allowed

On the 48 PPT elections I have found (I may have not found EVERY PPT election though), only 7 PPT elections allowed write ins. (I indeed believe that if the VP doesn’t put write in in the ballot, he doesn’t allow write in). And on the 7 PPT elections I have found, allowing write ins,  4 are invalid because the VP didn’t open a new thread for the vote. Considering there are only 3 valid PPT elections where write ins votes were allowed, and that 41 other PPT elections don’t allow write, if there is a precedent in the PPT  elections, this is the fact that write ins aren’t allowed.

Finally, even if Senator TNF  avoided speaking about the rules, I believe I have to simply explain my actions as President of the Senate.
I was forced to refuse Senator TNF’s candidacy because he declared at times. Indeed, according to the senate rules:
 Then, Senator TNF tried to mount a write in campaign. The problem is that the senate procedures don’t allow write in votes.
Here are the senate rules on the  PPT election:
Article 9: Rules on PPT Elections


You can all see that there isn’t any provision for “write ins votes”. If write in votes were allowed, it should have been clearly written in the rules. And secondly, “the candidate who receives the greatest number of preferential votes shall be elected PPT.” This is the second proof, I believe, that write ins aren’t allowed in the PPT election, because only “candidates” can be elected PPT. Considering  TNF couldn’t be considered as a candidate because he failed to declare his candidacy at time, only Senator North Carolina Yankee was the candidate for this election, he was sure to be the winner for this election. The votes could have been “10 votes for TNF and 0 vote for  Yankee”, Senator Yankee would have still been elected because he was the only candidate,  the candidate with the highest number of votes (and this time 0).
That’s why I couldn’t take into account the write in votes for Senator TNF.






For all these reasons, I believe that Senator North Carolina Yankee shall be confirmed as President Pro Tempore.

I'm available if you have any questions,
Best regards,
VP Windjammer

Coup d'etat! Coup d'etat!

AMICUS BRIEF

I.

TNF lawfully declared his candidacy in the appropriate thread before it was closed and the voting both open. OSPR says:


Simply put, the law does not say the Candidacy Declaration Thread must only be open for a maximum of 48 hours. It says it has to be open for that long. It specifically states that at some point after 48 hours is elapsed the VP must end the declaration period by closing the thread and opening the Election Thread.

Because TNF declared before the thread was closed he was a valid candidate and should have been on the ballot.

May I answer to Former President Bacon King's argument?

I'll allow that Windjammer, no problem.

An answer to Former President Bacon King's Amicus brief.

I would like to thank Associate Justice oakvale for letting me answer this lawsuit. I would have not requested that if Senator TNF did use this argument against the PPT election.

I would like to point out that I  never said that Senator TNF didn't post his candidacy in the good thread. I said he announced his candidacy too late, after the deadline.

For more information:
Here is my post:

And here is Senator TNF's post:


If the senate rules for the PPT were:
I would have agreed with Former President Bacon King's analysis. Because in this case, 48 hours would have been a minimum, and when I would have closed the thread would have been a maximum.

But the senate rules are:


The words in bold, I believe, confirm the fact that I couldn't accept the candidacy. Indeed, this is not "shall be open approximately 48 hours", this is "shall be open 48 hours".
Accepting the candidacy of Senator TNF for the President Pro Tempore Election would have violated this part of these rules. Indeed, Senator TNF posted exactly 48 hours 25 minutes and 29 seconds after my post opening this thread.

Considering that according to the senate rules, the PPT declaration thread shall be opened for 48 hours, accepting the candidacy of Senator TNF would have violated this rule, because the PPT declaration thread would have been opened at least for 48 hours 25 minutes and 29 seconds, and not 48 hours.

Using the term "shall", is, I believe, enough for considering that the Candidacy Declaration Thread must be open for a maximum of 48 hours.



I'm of course available if anyone wants more clarification.
Best regards,
VP Windjammer


 

This is looking suspiciously similar to a totalitarian regime here.

I would like to point out that this is the former senators/current senators who have written the rules. You have perfectly the right to modify the senate rules. And you didn't do that.
I'm not responsible of the lack of clarity of the senate rules, the former senators (and considering every senator was already a senator at the beginning of the 62nd senate), the senators are.

Befehl ist Befehl, Mr. Vice President, sir?

Hehe :P.

Here's my take on it. In previous Senates, the ballot of the PPT election has included the option for write-ins as we've previously seen.

The Vice President's decision implies to the Senate that if they so choose to write a name in and that name garners enough support to win, that their wishes will still be ignored because that individual may not have been a declared candidate.

Also, since write-ins are also accepted on ballots for general and special elections, why would they not be acceptable in a Senate-only election? Again, it doesn't make much sense to me.

The Vice President has also made much of the idea that procedure doesn't allow for write-ins. However, in the law, there is nothing forbidding them either. Because there is nothing in the law that strictly forbids write-in voting when electing the PPT and because there is precedence of it being allowed by previous Senates, we should be afforded the right to write-in a name that we so choose for the PPT election.

Atlasian elections have always allowed for write-ins, there is a clear precedence that elections in the Senate should allow them as well. To not do so completely undermines the Senate's democratic traditions. Should not Senators have the same voting rights as ordinary Atlasian's by choosing to vote how they please as a body? It should not be in the Vice President's power to simply pick and choose what rights and privileges belong to the body. Since all Atlasian voters have the option of write-ins, I don't see why Senators should not be afforded such a right, especially when it is not expressly forbidden anywhere in the law.

That's not true
1)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=12311.0
2)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=14719.0
3)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=15954.0
4)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21675.0
5)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=24968.0
6)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=31309.0
7)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=34566.0
Cool   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=37375.0
9)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=42052.0
10)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=42052.0
11)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=44564.0
12)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=49781.0
13)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=51522.0
14)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=72146.0
15)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=78640.25
16)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=87931.0
17)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=93789.0
18)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=95705.0
19)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=98467.0
20)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101978.0
21)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103349.0
22)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=104802.0
write in allowed?
23)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=106404.0
24)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=107142.0
25)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=108036.0
26)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=112392.0
27)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=116470.0
28)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=120060.0
29)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=123703.0
30)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=127729.0
write in allowed
31)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130400.0
write in allowed
32)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=132932.0
33)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=135378.0
34)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=140518.0
35)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=143440.0
36)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=146919.0
37)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150382.0
38)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=153275.0
39)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=155803.0
WRITE in allowed
40)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=163508.100
41)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166939.25
42)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=169743.25
43)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=173028.0
44)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=175633.25
write in allowed
45)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=178857.0
46)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=181578.0
write in allowed
47)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=185129.0
write in allowed
48)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=191862.0
write In allowed




I will quote the constitution (Article 1, section clause 1):
Senate rules are different from the federal rules.



1) Nothing allows the write ins neither
2) And this is the candidate who receives the highest number of preferences who shall be elected PPT. This is the second proof write ins aren't allowed.

When I was VP, I didn't create an "official ballot" for the election of the PPT, but I was perfectly willing to allow write-ins (which no one did). There was in fact a question when it happened as to whether or not a member of the body could be elected PPT (I put him on the ballot anyway as I recall). However, that was many years ago and things have changed since then. As we've seen at least twice before recently (I'm not going through every one of those threads. I haven't got the time), Write-in votes have been accepted, which creates precedence.

Yes, the Senate may establish rules and proceedings and since write-ins have been accepted before, that creates precedence.

Nothing expressly forbids write ins. The Senate is a democratic body that should have the right to vote how it chooses in its own elections. I don't understand how receiving the highest number of preferences disallows write-in voting. A write-in vote, is in fact, expressing preference for that candidate.

You didn't put write ins in the ballot, so I consider you didn't accept that.

And no, using 2 invalid elections as a precedent isn't a good argument.

That's simple, the "candidates" declared their candidacy in the PPT declaration thread in time, and the candidate who receives the highest number of votes is elected PPT.
There is just a candidate: Yankee. So he was sure the winner.
That's an another proof that shows write ins aren't allowed.

I just told you that I would have accepted write-ins :P I accepted a candidate that wasn't even a Senator on the ballot! You consider incorrectly, but I'm not going to argue over that. It was nearly a decade ago.

You've failed to provide any reasonable argument in my opinion as to why the Senate can't elect a PPT in it's own way.

The candidate who receives the highest number of votes does not say "the declared candidate". It just says "the candidate". This comes down to a matter of Senate independence. Do we not have the right to elect candidates in our own way, especially when, and I can't stress this enough, there is nothing in the law that forbids write-in voting. You keep saying the "candidate", but as I understand the law, the "candidate" could be either a declared candidate or a write-in candidate.

The way I see it is, there is nothing in the rules expressly prohibiting write ins. They are accepted on all ballots in this game, and never before have we forbidden write in votes so long as the write in candidate wanted to accept them. "Candidate" is not defined as one that is declared either either. It merely said "candidate" and that can be a declared or a write in candidate. If it said the winner is the "declared candidate receives the most votes" then this would make sense, but it does not say that.

In cases where a vote is at stake, the Court typically will err on the side of a vote counting. There is a high standard in place to strip a person of their right to vote.  My preference would be for the VP to merely break the tie for his preferred candidate and save us the time of going through this court proceeding. I am uncomfortable with invaliding a whole host of votes for some technicality that can only be gleaned from reading the law as rigidly as possible. And I say this as a strong supporter of Yankee. However, I believe he would agree that this is not the way to go about things.

But what do I really know? I don't know if I passed the bar yet.

And I can't see anything that allows write in either.
Nope, a write in vote is a vote for someone who isn't a candidate for this election.

Glad to see you have at least given up the "precedent" argument.



I disagree with this analysis.
I was elected to respect the senate rules.
I cannot valid votes that I believe are invalid.

That doesn't mean I'm right. But I try to do what I believe is fair.
If the Supreme Court believes I'm wrong, fine I would break the tie.

So the argument "saving time", I can't take it.

Since TNF accepted write-ins, that does in fact make him a candidate under federal law.

Senate rules aren't federal laws.

That's why the Supreme Court hesitated a lot before taking this case.

I reiterate my earlier statement of coup d'etat! Coup d'etat!

Oh no, my main argument isn't saving time. My assertion is, from my interpretation, once a candidate accepts write ins, they are considered a "candidate" even if they have not declared. The rules state the "candidate with the highest number of votes wins," not "the declared candidate with the highest number of votes."

As for saving time, I meant you could merely have voted for Yankee to break the tie and then all of this wouldn't be necessary. We will see who's right though!

But this is an argument you have made Duke.
And sorry, I disagree. If I believe some votes shouldn't be invalid, I don't count them. That's just a question of honesty.
I can be wrong, but I want to be honest. :P

Right, I know. I'm not looking to change your mind. I know you think you're right, and I think I am right.

And you're correct; senate rules are not federal law. I am arguing about the definition of "candidate." You believe "candidate" means "declared candidate" and I believe "candidate" is either a declared candidate or a write in candidate, assuming they state they will accept the votes. I don't see enough express language in the law to justify not counting the 5 write in votes that were invalidated.

I can be wrong too. All I can say is, may the best argument win! ;)

Yep, and I can be wrong too on this argument.

However, I'm sorry, but the fact that you have thought I should have broken the tie for Yankee, just for saving time, this is really weird, and really.
This is doing something against the job of VP. The VP tries to interpret the rules as best as he can, he doesn't take into account the "saving time" argument.
If he believes some votes should be invalid, he doesn't count them (that's why I didn't break the tie, because there was no tie for me).
The VP, even if he's wrong, should NEVER take into account this argument of saving time. Trying to Respect the rules is something that is much more important.

Whenever a question of whether a vote should count or not, I would always err on the side of counting it unless there was express language in the law that said it should not count.

And my statement about breaking the vote obviously means that you'd just count the votes, but you are a man of strict interpretation of the rules, and you genuinely believe invalidating those 5 votes is okay, and that's fine, perhaps you are right and I am just sounding like an idiot arguing my point.

I'm interested to see how the court rules though, I know that!

*bangs gavel*

Thank you, gentlemen. The period for public discussion of the case in this court is now over. Any further attempts to present argument or otherwise influence the Court will ignored, unless they are a direct response to questions posed by the Chief Justice, myself, or Associate Justice Torie

Since we're acutely aware that the injunction on the certification of the PPT election is still in place, the Court hopes to reach a resolution on this case as soon as possible given the nuances of the matter in order that the Senate can resume normal operations. With that in mind, I do have a couple of quick questions for the Vice-President -

This touched upon with former President Duke has already mentioned - Senator TNF wrote his name in, something that's considered legally equivalent to a declaration of acceptance for write-in votes throughout the nation - in Atlasia at large, a write-in candidate is distinct from a formal candidate only in their lack of ballot status and their time of declaration - upon accepting such, they legally receive write-in votes and can be elected to office. The question's this - what distinguishes Senator TNF's write-in of his own name from a formal declaration of candidacy?


Secondly, it's true from your commendably extensive research that a large majority of PPT elections had no write-in option explicitly declared. But could the fact that many of those were effectively uncontested mean the comparisons between those historic elections and this competitive election are inherently limited?  The pool of truly competitive Senate elections is far smaller, no?

And (while we unfortunately lack a means of time travel within this Court in order to test this theory), though a small minority of the total, do the elections in which a Write-in Option was explicitly specified not arguably imply a general understanding that write-in votes were allowed?

This has been seen and I will answer tomorrow.

Sorry for the delay:

1) Well, the senate rules aren't the federal laws regarding the federal elections. If in the federal rules, writing his name is considered as a declaration of candidacy, that's fine, I respect that. The problem is that this isn't considered as a declaration of a candidacy in the senate rules. In the senate rules, there is only one way: declaring his candidacy (in time) in the PPT candidate declaration thread. But by writing his name, he may have declared his candidacy, but unfortunately, far after the deadline. Indeed, having accepted his candidacy would have violated clause 2:There is no provision for write ins in the senate rules as well. (While there is a provision for write ins in the federal rules)
So I couldn't accept Senator TNF's candidate because I believe it would have violated this clause 2. Candidates are according to me recognized only if they announce, in time, their candidacy in this thread.


2) Just to be clear, I made this research just to prove that considering that 2 invalid elections could be a precedent for allowing the write ins. By this search, I just showed that most of the time, write ins weren't on the ballot, a proof, for me, that there is no precedent for allowing the write ins, and a proof that write ins shouldn't be allowed.

3) Associate Justice oakvale,on the 8 elections where write ins were allowed, 4 of them are clearly invalid because of an irrespect of senate rules (not creating a new thread for a vote): (44,46,,47,48 from my previous post). 3 of them were administered by former Vice President Kalwejt, who managed to make an enormous mistake by breaking the tie too early during this election (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=127729.0). There is finally just one election, this one, where former Vice President Bacon King seemed to be quite hesitant (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=104802.0) with the election. In fact, there is really just one election (Bacon King), where we can say that the Vice President hasn't made an important mistake worthy of invalidating this election (forgetting to open a new thread, whereas the rules asked to do that) or breaking the tie too early and finally correcting his mistake after the intervention of the senators (not invalidating the election, but just showing that the Vice President doesn't understand clearly the rules). An only election can only make a precedent.
I would like to point out that for some elections, when there was an only candidate, there wasn't even a vote that was held: a proof that write ins weren't allowed: this election for instance: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=87931.0 only one candidate, no vote.

Thank you Mr. Vice President, no further questions from me.

Associate Justive oakvale, Associate Justice Torie, Chief Justive bgwah,

Please, tell me exactly what I have to do if you decide to rule for TNF (I hope you will rule for me of course). Shall I start a new PPT election, or shall I simply break the tie.

Thank you,
Windjammer

So because nobody attempted to do a write-in in certain elections, that is proof that write-ins were not allowed? ???

And your own Bacon King example shows him explaining why he did not include Rowan as a candidate in his initial post, but his results still included a write-in vote for RowanBrandon. If that same logic applied, then why wouldn't the write-in votes for TNF count?

If this were a formal federal election then this would be an open-and-shut case in favor of the Senator. However, the Senate makes no specific rule on write-in candidacies--though this does not ban write-ins. As write-in candidacies for PPT are not explicitly prohibited by the Senate rules, I would consider the plaintiff to have the better case here.

Nobody here cares what you think.

It's not like I'm the sitting Attorney General or anything.

To be fair, he is the AG. ;)

Well,
Considering Yankee has formally withdrawn. If the senate rules in favor of me, it will be an another rule disaster.
So I prefer to accept Senator TNF's lawsuit. If I have to do an another PPT election, that would be really weird for the sake of Atlasia.
That doesn't mean I don't believe write ins shouldn't be allowed, but, I want to move on, I want the PPT to administer the senate, so, that's the best thing to do.

This would have never happened under Vice President Dallasfan

I don't reproach me anything for that. I genuinely believe write ins shouldn't be allowed.

So are you going to certify the votes, Windjammer, or are we going to wait for the Supreme Court to hand down a ruling on this suit? If you'd like to do the former and certify a winner in the PPT election, I will gladly drop the case.

Can someone explain what solution is being debated here? Is a PPT to be elected? If not, this case will continue to be discussed and we will issue our ruling in the coming week.

I'd go ahead and let the court rule anyway so we can clarify for future cases. That doesn't mean Windjammer cannot certify the results anyway in the meantime.

Isn't the Supreme Court forbidden from issuing advisory opinioms, though?

I wrote up an emergency resolution so that way we can elect a PPT without forcing the Court to act out of line with the case.

The PPT resolution is wise and may be necessary anyway as well as restore some legitimacy to the process. I don't know if I could have described a bigger cluster. :(

I also recommend the framework of the rules as proposed by Averroës to at least deal with the short term situation but also to standardize the process for posterity. 

My thought process was that we could continue to make a really tight set of rules based on what Nix posted, and still make sure we covered our PPT bases in the meantime. That way, we don't get bogged down on (probably very important) discussions not pertaining to the PPT issue while we still have the empty position.

I have read this thread, and commend the parties and the amicus brief writers for their fine presentations.  I have two questions that I need to resolve in my mind by research, but perhaps someone can expedite this for me. First, is the PPT office a statutory or Constitutional one, or an office that is solely a creation effected pursuant to Senate rules?  Second, with respect to Senate elections, is the concept of write in votes, and a write in slot on the ballot, something that has a statutory basis, or is it merely one of past administrative practice? Thank you.

We could just pass the Bicameral Birthing Amendment and get this whole situation over with...

That would be too easy, though ;)

It seems like there is no case here any longer since the then-Vice-President counted the write-in votes before his resignation.

Since the issue at hand is no longer pertinent with the resignation of the Vice-President, his counting of the contested votes, and the election of the petitioner as President pro tempore, and the Court has historically avoided issuing any form of advisory ruling, TNF v. Windjammer can clearly no longer continue.

The case is dismissed.