Tea Party Hater vs Fremont

[Blair]

As Windjammer says, if the court rules that deleting and reposting a ballot is invalid, then the court ruling will apply to all the ballots in this election- and will bind any future actions (unless there’s a law/amendment to change it)

[Coastal Elitist]

The Supreme Court heard that apparently you posted too an another post in the voting booth. If that is true, should your vote not be counted too?

That's irrelevant. This case is about Pericles's vote, not mine.

Oh it is relevant as the ruling of this court case could apply to your vote. So I will ask you to answer my question

That would be a whole separate case. It's not relevant. The sole ballot at issue in this case is Pericles'. Mr. Reactionary can back me up here.

[Blair]

You’re claiming that Pericles vote is invalid because he posted, and then deleted a ballot- something which you also allegedly did.

If this court rules Pericles vote invalid, then your vote would also be invalid. It’s not a seperate issue- it occurred in the exactly same election. It’s really quite simple.

[Coastal Elitist]

You’re claiming that Pericles vote is invalid because he posted, and then deleted a ballot- something which you also allegedly did.

If this court rules Pericles vote invalid, then your vote would also be invalid. It’s not a seperate issue- it occurred in the exactly same election. It’s really quite simple.

No, you don't seem to understand how this works. Each case is separate. I'm suing over Pericles ballot. The sole issue of this case is his ballot. No one's else ballot is being considered here. Someone would have to file a separate case over that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You’re claiming that Pericles vote is invalid because he posted, and then deleted a ballot- something which you also allegedly did.

If this court rules Pericles vote invalid, then your vote would also be invalid. It’s not a seperate issue- it occurred in the exactly same election. It’s really quite simple.

No, you don't seem to understand how this works. Each case is separate. I'm suing over Pericles ballot. The sole issue of this case is his ballot. No one's else ballot is being considered here. Someone would have to file a separate case over that.

     The court reserves the right to extend the case to cover other ballots if we determine the relevant facts to be sufficiently similar in nature. We are posing this question to you because we may determine that the facts of your case against Pericles's ballot are sufficiently similar to the facts concerning your ballot such that our final opinion should cover both ballots.

[Blair]

You’re claiming that Pericles vote is invalid because he posted, and then deleted a ballot- something which you also allegedly did.

If this court rules Pericles vote invalid, then your vote would also be invalid. It’s not a seperate issue- it occurred in the exactly same election. It’s really quite simple.

No, you don't seem to understand how this works. Each case is separate. I'm suing over Pericles ballot. The sole issue of this case is his ballot. No one's else ballot is being considered here. Someone would have to file a separate case over that.

It’s generally not wise to tell the ruling justices (e.g the ones making the ruling) that they don’t understand the very case on which they issued- as both Justice Pit and Windjammer have said your ballot is relevant for discussion.

The Supreme Court Justices has around 15 years of combined experience in Atlasia; including at every level of service. We make mistakes; but you’re in the wrong here.

When the court makes a ruling it often can have uniform effect; if we ruled one regions abortion law unconstitional this would have an effect on other regions that had similar laws even if they were not specifically dealt with. Obergfell v Hodges was originally about a case from Ohio (and two other states) but the ruling meant that same-sex marriage was legalised in every state.

The court isn’t a magic wand for you to overturn the results of your election; it’s a system to provide clarity, and to set standards where the legislature have not made specific (or have made unclear) provisions.

now can you please answer the Chief Justices Question, did you delete and the repost your ballot. The court deems it relevant, and requires the information to make a ruling

[YE]

From the standpoint of me, as election administration, Pericles and Tea Party Hater's votes are indeed valid. From my end only, he made only 1 post and from the prospective of a forum, if a post is deleted, it is no longer "made" as it is no longer visible to the general public. Thus I'd argue that whether those two posters deleted a post (that per law is required to be interpreted as a ballot) is moot point, as at the time polls closed and I then certified the results, both Pericles and Tea Party Hater had no more no nor less than one post in the voting booth thread.

If one is to more or less accept the petitioner argument because both the petitioner and Pericles that he made a post since we have confirmed eyewitnesses he made one, that would open a number of doors. Aside from people stalking voting booths, there's no way of knowing how someone deleted their vote. Furthermore, what if someone deleted that ballot? Wouldn't that in theory be a valid vote then by the petitioners argument?... yet due to the nature of the forum, such a vote would be impossible to count.

[Coastal Elitist]

You’re claiming that Pericles vote is invalid because he posted, and then deleted a ballot- something which you also allegedly did.

If this court rules Pericles vote invalid, then your vote would also be invalid. It’s not a seperate issue- it occurred in the exactly same election. It’s really quite simple.

No, you don't seem to understand how this works. Each case is separate. I'm suing over Pericles ballot. The sole issue of this case is his ballot. No one's else ballot is being considered here. Someone would have to file a separate case over that.

It’s generally not wise to tell the ruling justices (e.g the ones making the ruling) that they don’t understand the very case on which they issued- as both Justice Pit and Windjammer have said your ballot is relevant for discussion.

The Supreme Court Justices has around 15 years of combined experience in Atlasia; including at every level of service. We make mistakes; but you’re in the wrong here.

When the court makes a ruling it often can have uniform effect; if we ruled one regions abortion law unconstitional this would have an effect on other regions that had similar laws even if they were not specifically dealt with. Obergfell v Hodges was originally about a case from Ohio (and two other states) but the ruling meant that same-sex marriage was legalised in every state.

The court isn’t a magic wand for you to overturn the results of your election; it’s a system to provide clarity, and to set standards where the legislature have not made specific (or have made unclear) provisions.

now can you please answer the Chief Justices Question, did you delete and the repost your ballot. The court deems it relevant, and requires the information to make a ruling

I did not delete and repost my ballot.

[windjammer]

You’re claiming that Pericles vote is invalid because he posted, and then deleted a ballot- something which you also allegedly did.

If this court rules Pericles vote invalid, then your vote would also be invalid. It’s not a seperate issue- it occurred in the exactly same election. It’s really quite simple.

No, you don't seem to understand how this works. Each case is separate. I'm suing over Pericles ballot. The sole issue of this case is his ballot. No one's else ballot is being considered here. Someone would have to file a separate case over that.

It’s generally not wise to tell the ruling justices (e.g the ones making the ruling) that they don’t understand the very case on which they issued- as both Justice Pit and Windjammer have said your ballot is relevant for discussion.

The Supreme Court Justices has around 15 years of combined experience in Atlasia; including at every level of service. We make mistakes; but you’re in the wrong here.

When the court makes a ruling it often can have uniform effect; if we ruled one regions abortion law unconstitional this would have an effect on other regions that had similar laws even if they were not specifically dealt with. Obergfell v Hodges was originally about a case from Ohio (and two other states) but the ruling meant that same-sex marriage was legalised in every state.

The court isn’t a magic wand for you to overturn the results of your election; it’s a system to provide clarity, and to set standards where the legislature have not made specific (or have made unclear) provisions.

now can you please answer the Chief Justices Question, did you delete and the repost your ballot. The court deems it relevant, and requires the information to make a ruling

I did not delete and repost my ballot.

Thank you but that wasn't my actual  question but it seems my colleague misunderstood as well. So I will reformulate:
Did you make any other posts in the voting booth that you then chose to delete, something Senator Griffin has accused you of doing?

Thanks in advance,
Chief Justice Windjammer

[ilikeverin]

From the standpoint of me, as election administration, Pericles and Tea Party Hater's votes are indeed valid. From my end only, he made only 1 post and from the prospective of a forum, if a post is deleted, it is no longer "made" as it is no longer visible to the general public. Thus I'd argue that whether those two posters deleted a post (that per law is required to be interpreted as a ballot) is moot point, as at the time polls closed and I then certified the results, both Pericles and Tea Party Hater had no more no nor less than one post in the voting booth thread.

If one is to more or less accept the petitioner argument because both the petitioner and Pericles that he made a post since we have confirmed eyewitnesses he made one, that would open a number of doors. Aside from people stalking voting booths, there's no way of knowing how someone deleted their vote.

Do you see there being any standard of evidence for which a post later deleted could count against an attempted voter?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you see there being a distinction between conduct that might lead to the disqualification of a ballot and the actual process of tabulating votes?

[Coastal Elitist]

You’re claiming that Pericles vote is invalid because he posted, and then deleted a ballot- something which you also allegedly did.

If this court rules Pericles vote invalid, then your vote would also be invalid. It’s not a seperate issue- it occurred in the exactly same election. It’s really quite simple.

No, you don't seem to understand how this works. Each case is separate. I'm suing over Pericles ballot. The sole issue of this case is his ballot. No one's else ballot is being considered here. Someone would have to file a separate case over that.

It’s generally not wise to tell the ruling justices (e.g the ones making the ruling) that they don’t understand the very case on which they issued- as both Justice Pit and Windjammer have said your ballot is relevant for discussion.

The Supreme Court Justices has around 15 years of combined experience in Atlasia; including at every level of service. We make mistakes; but you’re in the wrong here.

When the court makes a ruling it often can have uniform effect; if we ruled one regions abortion law unconstitional this would have an effect on other regions that had similar laws even if they were not specifically dealt with. Obergfell v Hodges was originally about a case from Ohio (and two other states) but the ruling meant that same-sex marriage was legalised in every state.

The court isn’t a magic wand for you to overturn the results of your election; it’s a system to provide clarity, and to set standards where the legislature have not made specific (or have made unclear) provisions.

now can you please answer the Chief Justices Question, did you delete and the repost your ballot. The court deems it relevant, and requires the information to make a ruling

I did not delete and repost my ballot.

Thank you but that wasn't my actual  question but it seems my colleague misunderstood as well. So I will reformulate:
Did you make any other posts in the voting booth that you then chose to delete, something Senator Griffin has accused you of doing?

Thanks in advance,
Chief Justice Windjammer

Ok, so the'situations are different. I'd like to first say that nowhere on the ballot does it say that any post in the voting booth is a ballot. I posted telling pericles that he couldn't vote twice, because he already voted. Pericles illegally posted a second ballot. YE already knows that Pericles voted twice, because in the voting booth YE points up to where Pericles first vote should be. Pericles illegally edited his vote by voting twice. In an act of good faith I posted telling him that he couldn't do that. I did not realize at the time, because it did not say on that ballot, that any post in the voting booth was a vote. I did not change my vote. I feel these facts are important because they are different situations.

[YE]

From the standpoint of me, as election administration, Pericles and Tea Party Hater's votes are indeed valid. From my end only, he made only 1 post and from the prospective of a forum, if a post is deleted, it is no longer "made" as it is no longer visible to the general public. Thus I'd argue that whether those two posters deleted a post (that per law is required to be interpreted as a ballot) is moot point, as at the time polls closed and I then certified the results, both Pericles and Tea Party Hater had no more no nor less than one post in the voting booth thread.

If one is to more or less accept the petitioner argument because both the petitioner and Pericles that he made a post since we have confirmed eyewitnesses he made one, that would open a number of doors. Aside from people stalking voting booths, there's no way of knowing how someone deleted their vote.

Do you see there being any standard of evidence for which a post later deleted could count against an attempted voter?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you see there being a distinction between conduct that might lead to the disqualification of a ballot and the actual process of tabulating votes?

From my end, if a post is deleted, I can not count such ballot since I can not see it. It's not an attempted vote if I can not see it after polls closed. So unless I am not understanding your question, it's not an "attempted vote" because the ballot is not there. Therefore, it's not a disqualified ballot, but neither is the petitioners ballot since while certifying, I can only observe one ballot from both Pericles and TPH (although in this case we happen to have evidence that 2 voters that had more than one post during the 72 hour voting window at some point).

[ilikeverin]

You’re claiming that Pericles vote is invalid because he posted, and then deleted a ballot- something which you also allegedly did.

If this court rules Pericles vote invalid, then your vote would also be invalid. It’s not a seperate issue- it occurred in the exactly same election. It’s really quite simple.

No, you don't seem to understand how this works. Each case is separate. I'm suing over Pericles ballot. The sole issue of this case is his ballot. No one's else ballot is being considered here. Someone would have to file a separate case over that.

It’s generally not wise to tell the ruling justices (e.g the ones making the ruling) that they don’t understand the very case on which they issued- as both Justice Pit and Windjammer have said your ballot is relevant for discussion.

The Supreme Court Justices has around 15 years of combined experience in Atlasia; including at every level of service. We make mistakes; but you’re in the wrong here.

When the court makes a ruling it often can have uniform effect; if we ruled one regions abortion law unconstitional this would have an effect on other regions that had similar laws even if they were not specifically dealt with. Obergfell v Hodges was originally about a case from Ohio (and two other states) but the ruling meant that same-sex marriage was legalised in every state.

The court isn’t a magic wand for you to overturn the results of your election; it’s a system to provide clarity, and to set standards where the legislature have not made specific (or have made unclear) provisions.

now can you please answer the Chief Justices Question, did you delete and the repost your ballot. The court deems it relevant, and requires the information to make a ruling

I did not delete and repost my ballot.

Thank you but that wasn't my actual  question but it seems my colleague misunderstood as well. So I will reformulate:
Did you make any other posts in the voting booth that you then chose to delete, something Senator Griffin has accused you of doing?

Thanks in advance,
Chief Justice Windjammer

Ok, so the'situations are different. I'd like to first say that nowhere on the ballot does it say that any post in the voting booth is a ballot. I posted telling pericles that he couldn't vote twice, because he already voted. Pericles illegally posted a second ballot. YE already knows that Pericles voted twice, because in the voting booth YE points up to where Pericles first vote should be. Pericles illegally edited his vote by voting twice. In an act of good faith I posted telling him that he couldn't do that. I did not realize at the time, because it did not say on that ballot, that any post in the voting booth was a vote. I did not change my vote. I feel these facts are important because they are different situations.

What, then, is your reading of the Fifth Amendment, which states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is the fact that the Fifth Amendment was not quoted in the voting booth relevant to the constitutional interpretation of these actions?

From the standpoint of me, as election administration, Pericles and Tea Party Hater's votes are indeed valid. From my end only, he made only 1 post and from the prospective of a forum, if a post is deleted, it is no longer "made" as it is no longer visible to the general public. Thus I'd argue that whether those two posters deleted a post (that per law is required to be interpreted as a ballot) is moot point, as at the time polls closed and I then certified the results, both Pericles and Tea Party Hater had no more no nor less than one post in the voting booth thread.

If one is to more or less accept the petitioner argument because both the petitioner and Pericles that he made a post since we have confirmed eyewitnesses he made one, that would open a number of doors. Aside from people stalking voting booths, there's no way of knowing how someone deleted their vote.

Do you see there being any standard of evidence for which a post later deleted could count against an attempted voter?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you see there being a distinction between conduct that might lead to the disqualification of a ballot and the actual process of tabulating votes?

From my end, if a post is deleted, I can not count such ballot since I can not see it. It's not an attempted vote if I can not see it after polls closed. So unless I am not understanding your question, it's not an "attempted vote" because the ballot is not there. Therefore, it's not a disqualified ballot, but neither is the petitioners ballot since while certifying, I can only observe one ballot from both Pericles and TPH (although in this case we happen to have evidence that 2 voters that had more than one post during the 72 hour voting window at some point).

And what then is your interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, which states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is the fact that the post does not appear at the end of the voting period relevant to the question of whether multiple ballots were cast when the voting both was open?  I'm not sure I got a clear answer to my (admittedly probably unclear!) question.  Presumably, you're suggesting that the idea that two posts existed in the voting booth at the end of voting period is good evidence that the voter cast multiple ballots in the voting booth, which is indeed the case.  Is there any other evidence that you would consider sufficient proof to indicate that a voter cast multiple ballots during the period the voting booth is open other than having two posts in the voting both when the voting period closes?

[windjammer]

Thank you Tea Party Hater for your answer. I don't have any other questions regarding your testimony.


I plan to contact Pericles so he could give his testimony shortly.

Best regards,
Chief Justice Windjammer

[windjammer]

Pericles?

[Pericles]

I cast a ballot with Tea Party Hater in 3rd preference after 2 preferences that were essentially protest votes(including one expressing disappointment with the repeated unopposed elections). Upon HenryWallaceVP's entry into the race, I realized my 3rd preference for Tea Party Hater would be a vote for him against Wallace, and as that was not an accurate reflection of my preferences I deleted my first ballot. I was informed a few hours before the vote, on the advice of Harry S Truman, that I could legally cast a vote for Wallace. I first became aware of this after seeing a PM from Adam Griffin informing me of this. I asked about this on Discord and spoke to Truman myself, and then cast a ballot for HenryWallaceVP.

As far as I am aware, there is no specific law against such actions, and I do not believe ballot editing covers this as the terms 'editing' and 'deleting' are separate terms-ones that I have been informed are used distinctly to different effect in existing legislation. That's why Congress is working to resolve this issue with a bill clarifying this issue, but in the meantime since there is no provision in the Criminal Justice Act forbidding ballot deletion and revoting, it would be inappropriate for the Court to legislate from the bench and make such a provision.

I hope my testimony has been helpful. I am aware that there are gaps in my knowledge of Atlasian law, but I have endeavored to give the Court the best understanding I can of this case and my perspective. If the honorable justices have any questions I will do my best to answer them.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/justify]

According to their own testimony, Pericles and Tea Party Hater posted twice in the voting booth. We take their testimony as adequate proof of the double post. As all posts made in the voting booth are considered as ballots, they casted multiple ballots and thus their vote must not be counted.

The Supreme Court would like to thank Tea Party Hater, YE, Griffin and Poirot for their full cooperation.

[/quote]