District 4- questionable result

[12th Doctor]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

I don't recall the law regarding how to handle these types of votes having ever been changed. I agree that it needs to be clearer, however. The requirement to have an avatar or a statement in the profile signature should be in the voting booth thread. I'm just offering that as a suggestion for next time.

Good idea. An even better idea might be to remove the requirement entirely, as it doesn't really serve any purpose.

It was made law as to cut back on confusion.  It appears that the "Iron Rule of Unanticipated Consequences" has struck again.  It appreas that we have made a bigger mess for ourselves.  That does not, howver, change the current status of the law.

[Nym90]

Well, I agree that the results should stand if no fraud or malicious intent is proven, but in this case, one could say that thus Democratic Hawk's vote should count, as there was pretty clearly no fraud or malicious intent on his part. The vote is not being allowed to stand, despite the fact that his intentions were clear and he only technically made an error, then made a sloppy attempt to correct it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any laws should be changed to affect this race retroactively. I'm just trying to raise the fact that it's an issue, and perhaps in the future the definition of a vote should be more clearly defined. If the law is meant to mean the entire post, it should say so.

I agree, I'm tired of challenges too, but it's also important to make sure that good voters are not disenfranchised. Disenfranchisement leads to driving otherwise good people out of the Forum. I don't think that makes for a better Forum. Democratic Hawk is clearly a good, solid contributor to the Forum at large, and would be an excellent addition to the regular discourse in Atlasia.

What I meant was no malisious intend or fraud on the part of the declared winner.

I realize that's what you meant. Though I think that the intent and potential fraud of the voter himself is worth looking at, as well. Legally it doesn't matter, but it does affect the moral authority of any potential challenge.

[Nym90]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

I don't recall the law regarding how to handle these types of votes having ever been changed. I agree that it needs to be clearer, however. The requirement to have an avatar or a statement in the profile signature should be in the voting booth thread. I'm just offering that as a suggestion for next time.

Good idea. An even better idea might be to remove the requirement entirely, as it doesn't really serve any purpose.

It was made law as to cut back on confusion.  It appears that the "Iron Rule of Unanticipated Consequences" has struck again.  It appreas that we have made a bigger mess for ourselves.  That does not, howver, change the current status of the law.

I agree. In this case, the unintended consequence was that the confusion over what exactly was meant by the term "signature" is what caused the vote to be invalid. Democratic Hawk thought that "signature" meant "words written at the end of the post" and not "words written in your profile".

On the Forum, a signature is clearly defined as being the words that you append to the bottom of your profile that appear in every post. But using real life terminology as opposed to Forum lingo, the confusion is understandable, given that the dictionary definition of "signature" is

1. One's name as written by oneself.
2. The act of signing one's name.
3. A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity

[12th Doctor]

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

The intent of the law is quite clear, even if the letter is not. Human oversight cannot be just cause for this case.

Well, I don't agree that it's clear. I don't agree that it's clear that editing ANY portion of the post in which the vote is made is exactly the same as editing the text that constitutes the voter's actual expression of preference.

I would also point out that there were no formal challenges to the allowing of such votes in the June Presidential Elections. Perhaps this was because those votes did not change the results of any races, but there were still no official challanges made.

It seems clear to me that the law means what it says and, inspite of it's unfortunate placement and wording in the Constitution, is meant to extend to all races.

If this is not the case, then I judge this to be a regional issue and thus Governor Htmldon should decide the law for this election, with a national decision pending for the next election.

I agree that the law should be the same for Presidential and Congressional races, but someone who is a strict constructionist and favors a very literal interpretation of the Constitution could disagree. I am not one and do not favor that, however, and thus I disagree with that view.

What I was referring to as unclear is exactly what a vote is. Here's a clearer way to express what I mean, my language has been a bit confusing, I admit.

What constitutes Democratic Hawk's vote, is it this...

District 1: Full - The Bulldog (D-NY); Interim - True Democrat (D-PA)

District 2: Abstain

District 3: Al (I-WV)

District 4: Harry (D-MS)

District 5: Gabu (D-WA)

Dave



Or is it this:

District 4: Harry (D-MS)

It could be argueed that Democratic Hawk did not grant us clear intent with his vote.  He voted for all five seats, which he was not allowed to do.  Thus it is difficult to say what he thought/believed/intended for his vote to be.  He marked District 2 as "Abstain".  Lets suppose that he believed that he only had one vote or was registered in District 2, how would that have changed his voting pattern?  Know what I mean?

[12th Doctor]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

I don't recall the law regarding how to handle these types of votes having ever been changed. I agree that it needs to be clearer, however. The requirement to have an avatar or a statement in the profile signature should be in the voting booth thread. I'm just offering that as a suggestion for next time.

Good idea. An even better idea might be to remove the requirement entirely, as it doesn't really serve any purpose.

It was made law as to cut back on confusion.  It appears that the "Iron Rule of Unanticipated Consequences" has struck again.  It appreas that we have made a bigger mess for ourselves.  That does not, howver, change the current status of the law.

I agree. In this case, the unintended consequence was that the confusion over what exactly was meant by the term "signature" is what caused the vote to be invalid. Democratic Hawk thought that "signature" meant "words written at the end of the post" and not "words written in your profile".

On the Forum, a signature is clearly defined as being the words that you append to the bottom of your profile that appear in every post. But using real life terminology as opposed to Forum lingo, the confusion is understandable, given that the dictionary definition of "signature" is

1. One's name as written by oneself.
2. The act of signing one's name.
3. A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity

If this is clearly definded on the forum, then does that not trump the argueement that he should be given a bye for ignorance?

[minionofmidas]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

I don't recall the law regarding how to handle these types of votes having ever been changed. I agree that it needs to be clearer, however. The requirement to have an avatar or a statement in the profile signature should be in the voting booth thread. I'm just offering that as a suggestion for next time.

Good idea. An even better idea might be to remove the requirement entirely, as it doesn't really serve any purpose.

It was made law as to cut back on confusion.  It appears that the "Iron Rule of Unanticipated Consequences" has struck again.  It appreas that we have made a bigger mess for ourselves.  That does not, howver, change the current status of the law.

I was talking about for the next election.
I don't care who wins this really. Harry and WMS will both make fine Senators.

[Nym90]

I didn't say he should get a bye for ignorance, only that it's something that needs to be addressed in the future. It needs to be more clear that the Forum definition of "signature" doesn't square with the real life definition exactly, so that those who use the idea of a real life signature, and include the statement at the bottom of their vote (as if they were signing the ballot itself) won't make these mistakes again.

[Nym90]

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

The intent of the law is quite clear, even if the letter is not. Human oversight cannot be just cause for this case.

Well, I don't agree that it's clear. I don't agree that it's clear that editing ANY portion of the post in which the vote is made is exactly the same as editing the text that constitutes the voter's actual expression of preference.

I would also point out that there were no formal challenges to the allowing of such votes in the June Presidential Elections. Perhaps this was because those votes did not change the results of any races, but there were still no official challanges made.

It seems clear to me that the law means what it says and, inspite of it's unfortunate placement and wording in the Constitution, is meant to extend to all races.

If this is not the case, then I judge this to be a regional issue and thus Governor Htmldon should decide the law for this election, with a national decision pending for the next election.

I agree that the law should be the same for Presidential and Congressional races, but someone who is a strict constructionist and favors a very literal interpretation of the Constitution could disagree. I am not one and do not favor that, however, and thus I disagree with that view.

What I was referring to as unclear is exactly what a vote is. Here's a clearer way to express what I mean, my language has been a bit confusing, I admit.

What constitutes Democratic Hawk's vote, is it this...

District 1: Full - The Bulldog (D-NY); Interim - True Democrat (D-PA)

District 2: Abstain

District 3: Al (I-WV)

District 4: Harry (D-MS)

District 5: Gabu (D-WA)

Dave



Or is it this:

District 4: Harry (D-MS)

It could be argueed that Democratic Hawk did not grant us clear intent with his vote.  He voted for all five seats, which he was not allowed to do.  Thus it is difficult to say what he thought/believed/intended for his vote to be.  He marked District 2 as "Abstain".  Lets suppose that he believed that he only had one vote or was registered in District 2, how would that have changed his voting pattern?  Know what I mean?

Yes, I agree, that's an issue that needs to be looked at, as well. Again, there is precedent here, and when voters have accidentally voted in more than one district simultaneously, we have only counted their votes in the district in which they are registered. In this election, NickG's vote, for instance, includes the same problem; he accidentally voted in D1 when he is actually registered in D2. His vote in the interim D1 race still counted, however, because he was eligible to vote in that election.

This is yet another problem that would not occur in real life. In a real election, you can't accidentally vote in a race for which you aren't eligible to vote, because not all of the races nationwide are on the same ballot. It is clearly stated that if you are resident of Georgia, you should only vote in D4.

Fritz has indicated that he will accept votes in the district in which the voter was registered, even if they include attempts to vote in races in which the voter is ineligible for. But I can see your point as to how this is open to interpretation, as well.

[Fritz]

I honestly hope this does get challenged, I would really like the Court to rule on it.  When there is ambiguity, I can't just simply say, this is ambiguous, let the Court decide.  I have to make some ruling, then wait for the affected party to challenge it.  I made an official ruling in WMS's favor, but I also publicly pointed out the ambiguity, and Nym's arguments add even more ambiguity to the decision or interpretation that must be made here.

[7,052,770]

This is how I feel:
Democratic Hawk didn't change his vote, he simply edited his post.  I'm definitely going to talk to some advisors and consider challenging it.

[Platypus]

Too bad we don't have a SCJ to sort this out

[Colin]

Too bad we don't have a SCJ to sort this out

Well get Liberty or Demrepdan.

[12th Doctor]

This is how I feel:
Democratic Hawk didn't change his vote, he simply edited his post.  I'm definitely going to talk to some advisors and consider challenging it.

Of course that is how you see it.  I would have expected nothing different.

[Keystone Phil]

Harry, if you want to take me to court for declaring WMS the winner,  I don't mind, really!

I would hope that there is no biased displayed in this post.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I personally think that Dave's vote should count, but that's possibily because of parochial bias on my part ;-)

Seriously, I don't mind who winds up the winner in D4: I'd be happy to work with either candidate.

[Gabu]

Harry, if you want to take me to court for declaring WMS the winner,  I don't mind, really!

I would hope that there is no biased displayed in this post.

Well, it probably would be a good idea to get a ruling on this one either way, given that it is kind of ambiguous.  Does editing the post containing your vote, while leaving the vote itself intact, still constitute amending your vote, or do you have to actually change the vote itself?  Does this rule apply to Senatorial elections, or only to Presidential elections?  It's currently unclear.

[Jake]

And once again we have a partisan SOFA who urges a member of his party to challenge his ruling and we have the members of his party backing up a clearly fradulent vote. The rules say you can't edit you post. Once again, editing any part of you vote is against the rules. Follow the rules, or don't have them. Don't just decide one day to drop the bar in the middle of the election. This is just like Fritz interpreting the rule he made to help his party. Fritz has always been non-partisan in the past, but he's been slipping down the slope of partisan bias.

[Alcon]

I don't think he's being partisan.

Personally, I think the point is that editing automatically invalidates a post. There is no way to know what it said beforehand. Thus, I suspect I know what the ruling would be. And so does he.

[Nym90]

This is how I feel:
Democratic Hawk didn't change his vote, he simply edited his post.  I'm definitely going to talk to some advisors and consider challenging it.

Of course that is how you see it. I would have expected nothing different.

What about JFK, Nation, Gustaf, Lunar, Mr. Fresh, etc. (you can check the thread I bumped up if you'd like...) who all expressed the same opinion about exatly the same issue back in June?

[Josh]

It would appear that Fritz is welcoming a court case because the rules are just loose enough to be interpreted.  As Gabu said, an official ruling on the matter would be nice, and would hopefully prevent a similar problem in the future.

[Jake]

As Fritz appears to be under the weather, occupied, or otherwise unable to be here to post this topic, I'll do it in his stead.  Given that I'm just copying and pasting what he probably would say anyway, I'm assuming he won't mind.

In Dave We Trust[/b]

OFFICIAL MIDTERM SENATE ELECTIONS VOTING BOOTH
 

VOTES ONLY IN THIS THREAD.  NO CAMPAIGNING OR OTHER COMMENTS.

Voting is now open for the next 72 hours, until midnight Eastern Standard Time on Sunday evening/Monday morning.

To be eligible to vote, you must have registered to vote at least 10 days prior to this election (before November 30, 2004).

Preferential voting is in effect for these elections.  If your first preference does not receive enough votes, your vote will be counted for your second preference.  Candidates are eliminated until one candidate has a majority of votes.  You are not required to rank all of the candidates.

Write-in votes are permitted.
 
Check your vote carefully before posting!  Votes that have been edited after posting are invalid.
 
Senatorial Elections

 
District 1

Full
 
Declared candidates:
Supersoulty (AF-PA)
TheBulldog (D-NY)

States in this District: New York, Pennsylvania


Interim
 
Declared candidates:
True Democrat (D-PA)
AndrewBerger (UP-NY)

States in this District: DC, Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania

 
District 2

Declared candidates:
Siege40 (UL-ME)
Badnarikin04 (L-NH)

States in this District: Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont


District 3

Declared candidates:
TexasGurl (RF-WI)*
Al (I-WV)
 
States in this District: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin


District 4

Declared candidates:
Harry (D-MS)
Hermit (UP-TX)

States in this District: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas

 
District 5

Declared candidates:
StevenNick (R-WA)
Gabu (D-WA)

States in this District: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming

*Note: Texasgurl's words were "i will finish my term but i will not activly run for re-election."  I have no clue if this means that she's not running for re-election or if she's just not actively running for re-election.  Because of this ambiguity, I've left her on the ballot.

This is the ballot. Now look very closely at the part in bold, 24 pt letters. Now read. Did you comprehend that. All voters but two, Defarge and Democratic Hawk followed that rule, and Defarge clearly understood it. Read the ballot, follow the rules,  if you don't your vote doesn't count. There is no gray area.

[Keystone Phil]

As Fritz appears to be under the weather, occupied, or otherwise unable to be here to post this topic, I'll do it in his stead.  Given that I'm just copying and pasting what he probably would say anyway, I'm assuming he won't mind.

In Dave We Trust[/b]

OFFICIAL MIDTERM SENATE ELECTIONS VOTING BOOTH
 

VOTES ONLY IN THIS THREAD.  NO CAMPAIGNING OR OTHER COMMENTS.

Voting is now open for the next 72 hours, until midnight Eastern Standard Time on Sunday evening/Monday morning.

To be eligible to vote, you must have registered to vote at least 10 days prior to this election (before November 30, 2004).

Preferential voting is in effect for these elections.  If your first preference does not receive enough votes, your vote will be counted for your second preference.  Candidates are eliminated until one candidate has a majority of votes.  You are not required to rank all of the candidates.

Write-in votes are permitted.
 
Check your vote carefully before posting!  Votes that have been edited after posting are invalid.
 
Senatorial Elections

 
District 1

Full
 
Declared candidates:
Supersoulty (AF-PA)
TheBulldog (D-NY)

States in this District: New York, Pennsylvania


Interim
 
Declared candidates:
True Democrat (D-PA)
AndrewBerger (UP-NY)

States in this District: DC, Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania

 
District 2

Declared candidates:
Siege40 (UL-ME)
Badnarikin04 (L-NH)

States in this District: Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont


District 3

Declared candidates:
TexasGurl (RF-WI)*
Al (I-WV)
 
States in this District: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin


District 4

Declared candidates:
Harry (D-MS)
Hermit (UP-TX)

States in this District: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas

 
District 5

Declared candidates:
StevenNick (R-WA)
Gabu (D-WA)

States in this District: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming

*Note: Texasgurl's words were "i will finish my term but i will not activly run for re-election."  I have no clue if this means that she's not running for re-election or if she's just not actively running for re-election.  Because of this ambiguity, I've left her on the ballot.

This the ballot look very closely at the part in bold, 24 pt letters. Now read.

Yeah and don't say that it doesn't matter because Fritz wasn't there. If you want to make that your case, I guess we can have the whole election over again.

[Nym90]

I still stand by my assertion. Votes that are edited won't be counted. I agree with that. But if the post is edited but not the vote, I'm not sure that counts as editing your vote. Democratic Hawk didn't change who he voted for, hence he didn't change his vote.

[Jake]

I still stand by my assertion. Votes that are edited won't be counted. I agree with that. But if the post is edited but not the vote, I'm not sure that counts as editing your vote. Democratic Hawk didn't change who he voted for, hence he didn't change his vote.

We don't know if he edited the vote. Do we have proof that he didn't edit the vote? Screenshots, anything. if so email it to evryone so we can look at it. The info we have is the part of DemoHawk's post that says "edited by DemocraticHawk". Other than that there is no proof.

[Nym90]

I don't know if anyone has screen shots, but we do have a lot of witnesses. If you can come up with witnesses who will testify that he did change his vote, that's fine.

Before you bring up a dissent to their reliability, eyewitness accounts are usually considered pretty reliable in real world cases, especially if provided by people of otherwise unassailable character, and even moreso if quite a few people will attest to it.