Department of Federal Elections: Homelycooking, SoFE

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I appreciate the work, but independent counts by myself and Adam Griffin show me getting 8 first preferences... Is it possible you miscounted? Or was one of those ballots invalidated?

Thanks.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I don't think resignation would actually solve the problem. If I may make a suggestion, homely, perhaps you should author legislation to be introduced in the Senate that allows the SoFE the leeway to close the voting booth and reopen a new, corrected one so that all voters have a chance to recast their ballots? Perhaps allow you a maximum of twelve hours after the start of the election to make any change?

There is already legislation pending in the Senate queue that would do just that, actually.

Well, you know what they say about great minds...

You're welcome.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Barnes, what happens if an individual declines to follow an executive order (purposefully or not)?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It appears that Homely normally does post the draft ballot before the polls open, just out of principle. Obviously, his failure to do so this time was not out of an intentional desire to create problems. Thus, as I see it, had this executive order been issued three months ago, Homely could still very well have made the same mistake and we'd be exactly where we are today: without a way of actually rectifying the error.

That is why I will continue to push for the passage of the Election Do-Over Act. By all means, this bill is a work in progress—it may drastically change. I hope we'll be able to reach a consensus in the senate.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Not every president will be the Great Napoleon.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's a matter of how much faith you place in the words "have to." While you may do a great job of enforcing your executive order, future presidents may not. In that case, whether the SoFE, Deputy SoFE, or whoever "has to" do something means very little.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Because most of those requirements are codified in Atlasian law, not executive orders. And the failure to meet these legal requirements would  carry more repurcussions than the failure to meet your executive orders. That's why I want a law.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Someone also just needs to settle down and travel with the currents for a little bit.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Wolfentoad, I do apologize if my comment seemed a little harsh. It was just that you've been very energetic lately. You'll know when the results of the election have been made official.

But, um... don't really have much to say re: your other little quip.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thanks for the apology.

No need to turn this into a hullabaloo. Nothing to see here, folks.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Ideologies aside, I'm very happy with this new wave of senators. It should be a way better senate session than the last one.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yep, that's what I thought. Darn.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thank you for posting this ahead of time. JCL lost the Federalist Party's primary. I will have to bar him from running as a Federalist. Don't like doing it, but it's just the way it works.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Just in case...

http://www.docdroid.net/9oxs/february-2014-federal-special-election-at-large-senate.pdf.html

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Just in case...

http://www.docdroid.net/9oxs/february-2014-federal-special-election-at-large-senate.pdf.html

You think I'm going to delete the booth?

Not at all. I was actually going to ask you to save it in its current form, but I realized I could just do it myself without bothering you. I'm curious how invalidations work... Hypothetically, if it took four weeks for the results to be certified and a ballot changed three weeks and six days after the election, is it invalid? Does it all hinge on the timing of certification? If there is a way to save the ballot booth almost immediately after it closes, could that be trusted instead?

I mean, obviously I have an interest in Lumine winning, but I'm curious. And with such a close margin, even the slightest change could alter the entire election.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's just an interesting scenario. If you can't vote once the booth is closed, arguably, in an ideal world, there should be no mechanism to spoil your ballot beyond that time either. If you ask me, it should be common practice for the SoFE to save the ballot booth immediately after it closes. I don't know where that fits into Atlasian law or if the saved booth is currently recognizable to be used in the count... but the stuff with Velasco made me uneasy enough to want to save it "just in case." Is that bad or dishonest?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Alfred loses a vote, Deus gains one.

The only thing to do now is for Labor to start invalidating votes, I guess.

It's so amazing to see you being pissed off you know .

Well, no, I was hoping it's spark off a wave of invalidations that would result in my being bumped up.

Someone should have saved the voting booth like last time. I don't remember if my questions were ever answer after the last special election, actually...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Alfred loses a vote, Deus gains one.

The only thing to do now is for Labor to start invalidating votes, I guess.

It's so amazing to see you being pissed off you know .

Well, no, I was hoping it's spark off a wave of invalidations that would result in my being bumped up.

Voting booth is locked, that can't happen.

Yes, but you can delete posts.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

There would need to be a system where the SoFE and Deputy SoEA give every voter a unique password to a secure voting site. I don't think it's good to just PM the votes to the SoEA.

It would be a lot of work, and I'm not even sure if such a system exists. We'd also have to run numerous trials to make sure the process is secure. I think it's a worthwhile pursuit.

The pettiness in this game isn't helped by the fact that you can see who everyone votes for and know how the election is going before the votes are counted. In a perfect world, our voting system would be a lot different. If there's a way to improve things, we should look into it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I don't think it's accurate to say that fairer elections would not be interesting; we've never had one. Imagine you've got the leaders of a party thinking they've got control of their members only to see the final results of an election and be blown away. There's less incentive to follow the party line which means parties actually need to work to make people feel included and well-represented. Plus, ensuing witch hunts could be hilarious.