MA: Vote Sanctity Act (Vetoed)

[California8429]

Sometimes a voter mistakenly puts two candidate with the same rank in an IRV election. In those cases, allowing a time for the mistake to be spotted and corrected can be helpful.

We could surely make room for that. Giving the Governor power to publicly approve their ballot change if they preferenced the same person twice (or whoever is in charge of the voting booth). Tmth changing the time from 20 to 5 to 30 to 1 minute, no time change addresses the reason this bill was brought up.

[ZuWo]

Governor and Senator from the Northeast,

thank you (Governor) for your input on the bill in question, but it is now up to the Mideast to debate the Vote Sanctity Act.

Actually any citizen in Atlasia is free to debate the matter. Badger practically held a seat here when I was Speaker.

Alright, a misinterpretation on my part then. Sorry Governor Winfield.

But please, everyone, discuss the bill and nothing else. If someone wants to feud with other people he/she should do so somewhere else. The reason why I mentioned "Invaligate" was to highlight why we need a bill that puts an end to the practice of editing votes. As this case showed, editing votes can lead to massive arguments, which hurts Atlasia in the long term.
The bill offers an easy solution to the problem.

[Lincoln Republican]

I would like to add, that the current wording of this is tricky, as you can edit it for the first few seconds after you post it and it doesn't show that you did. 30 seconds or a minute, I believe.

In addition to my previous remarks on your above statement, I will point out that your statement is completely irrelevant and is nothing more than a smoke screen with which you are attempting to mask the real issue here, which is voter manipulation, to which Atlasia should put an end to, once and for all.   

[California8429]

Test 5

[California8429]

Test 5

You can go 40 seconds without it being detected. Still I believe it is impossible for some to be pressured into changing their vote and actually carrying it out in 40 seconds.

[tmthforu94]

I would like to add, that the current wording of this is tricky, as you can edit it for the first few seconds after you post it and it doesn't show that you did. 30 seconds or a minute, I believe.

In addition to my previous remarks on your above statement, I will point out that your statement is completely irrelevant and is nothing more than a smoke screen with which you are attempting to mask the real issue here, which is voter manipulation, to which Atlasia should put an end to, once and for all.   

Please stop with that, I'm not trying to mask anything, and I don't appreciate you accusing me of doing so. I was merely making a point, just as you've made points in this thread as well.

I'm not trying to keep voter manipulation, I'm showing potential problems if the bill is passed in it's current form, problems you've done little to address. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again - I'm a bad person for trying to get someone to change their vote and I'm trying to make up excuse after excuse for this not to pass. 5 minutes is a short amount of time to where not much could be done, but it's also enough time to allow someone to make an edit if they messed up, by way of preferencing, misspelling, forgot to add candidate, etc. I don't think what I'm supporting is ridiculous at all. It's fair.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Test 5

You can go 40 seconds without it being detected. Still I believe it is impossible for some to be pressured into changing their vote and actually carrying it out in 40 seconds.

I thought it was a minute.  Now, I'm not sure if that means minute as in 60 seconds or minute as in within the minute of the timestamp it was posted (so if it was 12:12:01, it'd be 59 seconds; 12:12:57, then 3 seconds).

[California8429]

Test 5

You can go 40 seconds without it being detected. Still I believe it is impossible for some to be pressured into changing their vote and actually carrying it out in 40 seconds.

I thought it was a minute.  Now, I'm not sure if that means minute as in 60 seconds or minute as in within the minute of the timestamp it was posted (so if it was 12:12:01, it'd be 59 seconds; 12:12:57, then 3 seconds).

Yes sorry I mean a minute 40. Someone else can try to confirm this.

[tmthforu94]

Anything is possible - someone could be contacted to change their vote through some form of instant messaging. Perhaps it's a zombie who accidentally voting for the wrong candidate, and their "master" telling them to fix it.

[California8429]

Anything is possible - someone could be contacted to change their vote through some form of instant messaging. Perhaps it's a zombie who accidentally voting for the wrong candidate, and their "master" telling them to fix it.

In the 1000-1 chance it's happens fast enough sure. However right now Winfield is right, there's a huge amount of this pressuring to change your vote after voting crap going on and cutting an edit down to as little time (none) as possible is the way to solve it. Then adding an amendment allowing a voter to publicly change their vote with the approval of the election administer for preferencing two or more candidates for the same preference would solve that. We don't have redoes in RL when going to the polls, and we already have a preview option and you can change your vote around while preparing your post. That should be plenty. If a voter doesn't take the responsibility to ensure their vote is how they want it before voting, that is their fault.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Debate having ended for more than 24 hours, this is now brought to a vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 48 hour vote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

NAY

[ZuWo]

Aye

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye; I am a little flaky on this but I see failing to have such strict rules has caused quite a bit of controversy before and I'd rather not see "it" (I will offer no interpretation on what "it" is and please, no one try and convince me of anything before another fight breaks out) happen again.

[tmthforu94]

Doesn't this need to be a Constitutional Amendment?

[tmthforu94]

Assuming the vote will have to be stopped, I'd like for the Assembly to consider the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ZuWo]

Doesn't this need to be a Constitutional Amendment?

You've got a point here. Actually, that's what Speaker Inks stated right after the bill was introduced to the Assembly. I'm not sure on how we'll have to proceed, though. Will the Act have to be ruled invalid or can we get it passed (if there's a majority) and then propose it as a Constitutional Amendment to the People of the Mideast?

[tmthforu94]

Doesn't this need to be a Constitutional Amendment?

You've got a point here. Actually, that's what Speaker Inks stated right after the bill was introduced to the Assembly. I'm not sure on how we'll have to proceed, though. Will the Act have to be ruled invalid or can we get it passed (if there's a majority) and then propose it as a Constitutional Amendment to the People of the Mideast?

I think Inks should just end the vote, make amendments, then pass it. Or I guess you could kill the bill and re-introduce, but that'd take longer.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting has now ended.  The AYEs are 2, and the NAYs are 1, with 2 not voting.  The AYEs have it, and the bill is passed onto the Governor for his signature or veto.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Seeing as I am the only NAY vote, and I have no interest in this passing, there is nobody who can make a motion to reconsider.  This will have to get vetoed and reintroduced.

[California8429]

Seeing as I am the only NAY vote, and I have no interest in this passing, there is nobody who can make a motion to reconsider.  This will have to get vetoed and reintroduced.

And if it were signed it would effectively do nothing?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It would make it illegal to change one's vote.  Obviously this would be challenged in the courts, yadda yadda, gets overturned.  So, yes, essentially does nothing.