SENATE BILL: Vote Sanctity Act (Law'd)

[Napoleon]

I'm not accusing you of anything.  I'm justifying campaigning after the vote is cast.

I am saying that vote editing is not meant for that- its meant to correct errors. That's the argument others have been using and if thats the premise we accept, then people should be able to accept moving the bill in that direction. I can't imagine why one would try to justify campaigning after a vote is cast. There is no logic to that.

Why do you think people should be able to campaign to a voter who has already cast a ballot? You haven't justified it, you only offered a reason why one might want to do it. OJ may have wanted to kill his wife, but that doesn't justify it. #excessivehyperbole


(sorry, I saw someone wearing an OJ Simpson jersey today...)

[Marokai Backbeat]

The problem lies in the fact that "campaigning after a vote has been cast" is completely subjective, and thus legislating against it is almost impossible, even if one were to accept the premise that it's a problem that we have to prevent.

[Napoleon]

The problem lies in the fact that "campaigning after a vote has been cast" is completely subjective, and thus legislating against it is almost impossible, even if one were to accept the premise that it's a problem that we have to prevent.

What's subjective about it that isn't subjective about campaigning in the voting booth or campaigning to invalidate votes?

I will go ahead and answer for you: absolutely nothing.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Are you threatening me Napoleon?

My justification is that because so much of this game depends on personal interaction, it's acceptable to make a personal plea once the voter has made their intentions known when the candidate desires it.

[Napoleon]

Unfriendly. The election administrator is not the problem. A compromise that accomplishes nothing is worse than a failed bill.

Are you threatening me Napoleon?

My justification is that because so much of this game depends on personal interaction, it's acceptable to make a personal plea once the voter has made their intentions known when the candidate desires it.

Candidates have four months or so to make their personal pleas. If a ballot is cast, respect that and try to get another one. If people in your race started voting for Gass, would you have asked them to change their votes?

[Marokai Backbeat]

The problem lies in the fact that "campaigning after a vote has been cast" is completely subjective, and thus legislating against it is almost impossible, even if one were to accept the premise that it's a problem that we have to prevent.

What's subjective about it that isn't subjective about campaigning in the voting booth or campaigning to invalidate votes?

I will go ahead and answer for you: absolutely nothing.

Because campaigning in the voting booth is a specific thing, and campaigning to invalidate votes is a specific thing. If someone said in the voting booth (which is specifically for votes) "hey, napoleon is awesome and I think he'll do an amazing job!" that is something you can agree is inappropriate for the voting booth, and if someone says "hey you should totally invalidate your vote so it negatively affects candidate x" that's straightforward and easy to determine.

You're just saying we make "campaigning" illegal in general, which basically means make discussing anything related to the election illegal, because it's such a broad thing that different people could come up with radically different definitions of. Thus, the only way to prevent it is coming up with incredibly far-reaching bans on an activity that is almost always used innocently and and with good reason, just to prevent something from maybe happening that might be harmful.

Unfriendly. The election administrator is not the problem.

Neither is the vote editing time frame at all related to what you're trying to prevent.

[Napoleon]

Unfriendly. The election administrator is not the problem.

From Section 1 of the law:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From Section 1 of the law:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

If people in your race started voting for Gass, would you have asked them to change their votes?

No, because people voted the way I expected.  If a voter I hadn't reached out to because I expected their vote voted for Gass, I'd have shot them a PM, and I don't think anything is wrong with that.

[Napoleon]

If people in your race started voting for Gass, would you have asked them to change their votes?

No, because people voted the way I expected.  If a voter I hadn't reached out to because I expected their vote voted for Gass, I'd have shot them a PM, and I don't think anything is wrong with that.

I do.

Because campaigning in the voting booth is a specific thing, and campaigning to invalidate votes is a specific thing. If someone said in the voting booth (which is specifically for votes) "hey, napoleon is awesome and I think he'll do an amazing job!" that is something you can agree is inappropriate for the voting booth, and if someone says "hey you should totally invalidate your vote so it negatively affects candidate x" that's straightforward and easy to determine.

You're just saying we make "campaigning" illegal in general, which basically means make discussing anything related to the election illegal, because it's such a broad thing that different people could come up with radically different definitions of. Thus, the only way to prevent it is coming up with incredibly far-reaching bans on an activity that is almost always used innocently and and with good reason, just to prevent something from maybe happening that might be harmful.

You really need to stop this "debate" style of completely ignoring others' arguments, talking in circles and making things up that Phil was talking about. I never said anything about making campaigning illegal. I never suggested making discussing the election illegal or anything else. The fact that you have this attitude yet once served on the Supreme Court is a joke. Your argument here, well, its not an argument at all.

Marokai, have you even read what we're all discussing? From your post, I don't get the impression you have.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I do.

Then I may as well stop arguing with you, since I'll be voting against whatever you propose

I'll support Nix's amendment

[Marokai Backbeat]

Because campaigning in the voting booth is a specific thing, and campaigning to invalidate votes is a specific thing. If someone said in the voting booth (which is specifically for votes) "hey, napoleon is awesome and I think he'll do an amazing job!" that is something you can agree is inappropriate for the voting booth, and if someone says "hey you should totally invalidate your vote so it negatively affects candidate x" that's straightforward and easy to determine.

You're just saying we make "campaigning" illegal in general, which basically means make discussing anything related to the election illegal, because it's such a broad thing that different people could come up with radically different definitions of. Thus, the only way to prevent it is coming up with incredibly far-reaching bans on an activity that is almost always used innocently and and with good reason, just to prevent something from maybe happening that might be harmful.

You really need to stop this "debate" style of completely ignoring others' arguments, talking in circles and making things up that Phil was talking about. I never said anything about making campaigning illegal. I never said suggested making discussing the election illegal or anything else. The fact that you have this attitude yet once served on the Supreme Court is a joke.

I'm responding directly to how you're trying to defend this bill and thinking about them in the terms they would be thought about if they were debated in front of the court. This is what you're supposed to do when making law. If we're not discussing campaigning to a voter after a vote has been cast, then either I've completely lost the plot on how you're trying to justify this bill, or you have.

[Napoleon]

Because campaigning in the voting booth is a specific thing, and campaigning to invalidate votes is a specific thing. If someone said in the voting booth (which is specifically for votes) "hey, napoleon is awesome and I think he'll do an amazing job!" that is something you can agree is inappropriate for the voting booth, and if someone says "hey you should totally invalidate your vote so it negatively affects candidate x" that's straightforward and easy to determine.

You're just saying we make "campaigning" illegal in general, which basically means make discussing anything related to the election illegal, because it's such a broad thing that different people could come up with radically different definitions of. Thus, the only way to prevent it is coming up with incredibly far-reaching bans on an activity that is almost always used innocently and and with good reason, just to prevent something from maybe happening that might be harmful.

You really need to stop this "debate" style of completely ignoring others' arguments, talking in circles and making things up that Phil was talking about. I never said anything about making campaigning illegal. I never said suggested making discussing the election illegal or anything else. The fact that you have this attitude yet once served on the Supreme Court is a joke.

I'm responding directly to how you're trying to defend this bill and thinking about them in the terms they would be thought about if they were debated in front of the court. This is what you're supposed to do when making law. If we're not discussing campaigning to a voter after a vote has been cast, then either I've completely lost the plot on how you're trying to justify this bill, or you have.

How is making campaigning for a voter who has cast a ballot to change their ballot not specific? How in the world would that make campaigning illegal? The campaigning is supposed to take place before the vote is cast, not after.

[Napoleon]

I do.

Then I may as well stop arguing with you, since I'll be voting against whatever you propose

That's fine. I don't expect to change the minds of those who have fundamental disagreements with the premise of a bill.

[Napoleon]

I withdraw my previous amendment and introduce the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I prefer to let the regions create their own election laws.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It's obviously not specific, because even you can't seem to agree on what it is. You seem to be accusing what Oakvale did of being in poor standing and something that should be prevented from happening, but what Oakvale did with Gonzalez wasn't campaigning to get them to change their vote, he was merely discussing why he voted against him, and after discussing the issue, Gonzalez decided to change his mind, but was too late.

Put more simply: You seem to be targetting Oakvale's behavior with Gonzalez as what you view as "campaigning after a vote has been cast." If that's the case, then what you're calling "campaigning after a vote has been cast" is "asking why someone voted a certain way and discussing those reasons." Which is super broad and can mean anything you want it to mean, depending on which political side of the aisle you're on and which political side of the aisle was affected by it.

[Napoleon]

It's obviously not specific, because even you can't seem to agree on what it is. You seem to be accusing what Oakvale did of being in poor standing and something that should be prevented from happening, but what Oakvale did with Gonzalez wasn't campaigning to get them to change their vote, he was merely discussing why he voted against him, and after discussing the issue, Gonzalez decided to change his mind, but was too late.

I don't know, I would have to see exactly how the conversation went but I also don't care because this isn't just a one-time "lookatwhatOakvaledidOMFGGG" type of thing. This has been a problem for a while and there is no better time to address it than now. I offered that as an example because it was something I heard about. There's way more instances out there than this one that may or may not be an example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm absolutely not targeting Oakvale's behavior with anyone, which is precisely why I didn't want to give any examples of this. If I go to the first page of my PM box, when I was in Atlasia for about two weeks, I have messages from someone contacting me asking me to edit my ballot. I have no doubt that this goes on all the time and in all sorts of circumstances, but I find it rather inappropriate. I don't really like the idea of voting editing anyway- looking through my old messages, I was incredulous that such a concept was even allowed here- but I am trying to compromise. I don't know what you're trying to do other than make this about Oakvale and rah rah rah.

[Napoleon]

I would not be opposed to extending the act to cover regional elections as well, if others support taking that measure.

I prefer to let the regions create their own election laws.

Why is that? Wouldn't setting universal rules be fairer and less confusing to voters? I would prefer to regionalize plenty of government activities, but the rationale for leaving voting laws in the hands of the regions seems very weak to me.

I don't even know if that would be entirely constitutional, but I would not want that to sink the bill and I definitely don't want to make it difficult for regions to pass more progressive legislation if they would like to.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not trying to make this about Oakvale, he is just the most obvious and recent example. Maybe it's the Justice in me, because you seem hell-bent on preventing this activity, but you can't seem to settle on any sort of definition of it and are just trying to get at it in some sort of roundabout way.

I don't even know if that would be entirely constitutional, but I would not want that to sink the bill and I definitely don't want to make it difficult for regions to pass more progressive legislation if they would like to.

Election standards set by the Senate and the Constitution are universal, regardless of your region. It would absolutely be constitutional to set universal standards.

[Napoleon]

I'm not trying to make this about Oakvale, he is just the most obvious and recent example. Maybe it's the Justice in me, because you seem hell-bent on preventing this activity, but you can't seem to settle on any sort of definition of it and are just trying to get at it in some sort of roundabout way.

The definition I'm using is the same standard that applies to any other law prohibiting a form of campaigning.

In your opinion, Marokai, is the Northeast's prohibition on vote editing unconstitutional?

I don't really see how the constitutionality of the act is debatable.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not trying to make this about Oakvale, he is just the most obvious and recent example. Maybe it's the Justice in me, because you seem hell-bent on preventing this activity, but you can't seem to settle on any sort of definition of it and are just trying to get at it in some sort of roundabout way.

I don't even know if that would be entirely constitutional, but I would not want that to sink the bill and I definitely don't want to make it difficult for regions to pass more progressive legislation if they would like to.

Election standards set by the Senate and the Constitution are universal, regardless of your region. It would absolutely be constitutional to set universal standards.

In your opinion, Marokai, is the Northeast's prohibition on vote editing unconstitutional?

I would argue that, yes, based on all past decisions from the Supreme Court on the matter of regional vs. federal election standards.

[Napoleon]

I'm not trying to make this about Oakvale, he is just the most obvious and recent example. Maybe it's the Justice in me, because you seem hell-bent on preventing this activity, but you can't seem to settle on any sort of definition of it and are just trying to get at it in some sort of roundabout way.

I don't even know if that would be entirely constitutional, but I would not want that to sink the bill and I definitely don't want to make it difficult for regions to pass more progressive legislation if they would like to.

Election standards set by the Senate and the Constitution are universal, regardless of your region. It would absolutely be constitutional to set universal standards.

In your opinion, Marokai, is the Northeast's prohibition on vote editing unconstitutional?

I would argue that, yes, based on all past decisions from the Supreme Court on the matter of regional vs. federal election standards.

Quite a lazy opinion. What 'federal standard' is violated?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not trying to make this about Oakvale, he is just the most obvious and recent example. Maybe it's the Justice in me, because you seem hell-bent on preventing this activity, but you can't seem to settle on any sort of definition of it and are just trying to get at it in some sort of roundabout way.

The definition I'm using is the same standard that applies to any other law prohibiting a form of campaigning.

But is what Oakvale did in this case something you would include under that definition? That is the question I am specifically asking.

Quite a lazy opinion. What 'federal standard' is violated?

The standard set by the federal government? No case has ever found that regions have the ability to conflict with election standards set by the federal government (the Senate) even if it's a regional election for a regional position. In this case, the federal standard is that votes shall be allowed to be edited within 20 minutes, and the supremacy clause binds that to all regional and federal elections, no exceptions.

[Napoleon]

I'm not trying to make this about Oakvale, he is just the most obvious and recent example. Maybe it's the Justice in me, because you seem hell-bent on preventing this activity, but you can't seem to settle on any sort of definition of it and are just trying to get at it in some sort of roundabout way.

The definition I'm using is the same standard that applies to any other law prohibiting a form of campaigning.

But is what Oakvale did in this case something you would include under that definition? That is the question I am specifically asking.

I've already stated that I cannot make a judgment on that. I do not have 100% of the information regarding that. I really didn't want to use that as an example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The standard set by the federal government? No case has ever found that regions have the ability to conflict with election standards set by the federal government (the Senate) even if it's a regional election for a regional position. In this case, the federal standard is that votes shall be allowed to be edited within 20 minutes, and the supremacy clause binds that to all regional and federal elections, no exceptions.
[/quote]
A mere cursory glance at our glorious constitution would give recognition to any reasonable legal mind the fact that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and that the policy outlined in the constitution is still true in the Northeast. Nowhere do I see anything about "within". If a region tried to extend the voting period to thirty minutes, that would be unconstitutional.

Regardless, that debate isn't very relevant to this bill.

[Napoleon]

Regardless, that debate isn't very relevant to this bill.

It's a tangent, but it's a relevant one. If we pass any piece of legislation related to elections, whether it should apply to federal elections only or regional elections as well is an appropriate subject to debate, and our disagreement over the legal status of the current framework of election law is something that we need to sort out before we can craft further legislation coherently.

Yeah but it would help if Marokai read the constitution when responding, right?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I think that's a rather flimsy argument that ignores how language works (why would you mention 20 minutes specifically unless you meant no less than 20 minutes?), but this topic has caught my interest so I'm going to look into some statute and how it would be affected by past court decisions and the exact text of these provisions.