Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 13, 2019, 11:27:32 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Endorsements Close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, Lumine)
  TNF v. Windjammer
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: TNF v. Windjammer  (Read 3174 times)
TNF
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,472


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 14, 2014, 10:05:18 am »

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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,835
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2014, 10:37:48 am »

I'm of course willing to defend my actions.

Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,636
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2014, 11:43:04 am »

This has been seen.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,636
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2014, 10:57:50 pm »
« Edited: July 16, 2014, 10:59:41 pm by oakvale »

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.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2014, 01:17:08 am »

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.
Logged
TNF
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,472


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2014, 07:55:07 am »

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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,835
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2014, 11:05:01 am »

Already an another court case??

Well, I thought as VP I would have been less controversial than when I was governor, it seems I was wrong Tongue.
Since the election of PPT is contested, I will finally keep the control of all slots until the supreme court has decided or not if I was right for the recent election.
It doesn't change a lot of things, instead of having 10 slots, I will have 15 slots, not a big change for me.

At least, this court case will be interesting because we will know if write ins are allowed or not!

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
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,636
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2014, 09:37:07 pm »
« Edited: July 25, 2014, 09:40:45 pm by oakvale »

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,



Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Writ of Certiorari

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.


Schedule

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.
Logged
TNF
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,472


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2014, 09:35:16 am »

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:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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:

Senators, a vote for the PPT of the 60th Senate is now open.





PPT Official Ballot

[  ] NC Yankee

[  ] Tyrion

[  ] TNF

[  ] Write-In: __________

[  ] None of the above

Senators, a vote for President Pro Tempore is now open. 

PPT Official Ballot

[  ] NC Yankee

[  ] Write-In: __________

[  ] None of the above



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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,835
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2014, 03:11:15 pm »


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
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

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.

Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,835
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2014, 03:11:46 pm »

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:
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
Logged
Solidarity Forever
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,019
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2014, 07:52:17 pm »

Coup d'etat! Coup d'etat!
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,362
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2014, 10:52:51 pm »

AMICUS BRIEF

I.

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

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,835
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2014, 12:28:06 am »

May I answer to Former President Bacon King's argument?
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,636
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2014, 06:15:50 am »

I'll allow that Windjammer, no problem.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,835
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2014, 12:13:26 pm »

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:
Senators, you have 48 hours to declare or nominate for the position of President Pro-Tempore.

And here is Senator TNF's post:
I accept the nominations for PPT and declare that I will seek the position.


If the senate rules for the PPT were:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


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


 
Logged
Solidarity Forever
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,019
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2014, 12:56:21 pm »

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).

This is looking suspiciously similar to a totalitarian regime here.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,835
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2014, 01:00:22 pm »

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).

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.
Logged
Solidarity Forever
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,019
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2014, 01:06:35 pm »

Befehl ist Befehl, Mr. Vice President, sir?
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,835
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2014, 01:08:22 pm »


Hehe Tongue.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,352
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2014, 02:15:12 pm »
« Edited: August 05, 2014, 02:18:21 pm by Senator Cynic »

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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,835
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2014, 02:19:25 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


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




Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I will quote the constitution (Article 1, section clause 1):
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Senate rules are different from the federal rules.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,352
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2014, 02:32:24 pm »

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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,835
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2014, 02:35:28 pm »

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.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,352
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2014, 02:43:52 pm »

I just told you that I would have accepted write-ins Tongue 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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC