Department of Federal Elections

[Sestak]

Oh what the hell!

[Sestak]

WAIT WAIT WAIT BUT RCXX IS AN ALLIANCITE NOW. WHERE DOES THAT PUT US?

[Sestak]

The constitution states that the leadership of the "effected party" gets to fill the vacancy, so there are two ways this can go:

1. If RC takes his seat, he does so as an Alliance member, so Alliance would be the effected party in the case of his subsequent resignation and Transit gets to pick the replacement.

2. RC doesn't take his seat, meaning that there is a vacant spot to which the people elected a listed Federalist. Yankee gets to pick the replacement.

[Sestak]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Objection. The census list states that I am registered as "Mario Party", and has for some time. Given that April Fools' Day was over two weeks ago, I was under the impression that the census was accurate and up to date regarding my registration. If, as you seem to be claiming, it is not, then I hold that I should be allowed additional time to change my registration for the ballot. I am willing to litigate if necessary.

[Sestak]

Just to clarify, is the surplus threshold the ceiling of votes over 9 or exactly votes over 9?

[Sestak]

wait, who unpinned this?

The Atlasian Congress passed a resolution saying it shouldn't be some time ago.

I was considering repinning it until the certification, but the level of posting in it last night made view it as unnecessary.

Personally I’d prefer it repinned - I don’t like having to go trawling through the board to find it whenever I want to check it; the thread is also a pretty valuable historical record.

[Sestak]

If it isn't too late, I'd like to formally make a request under §5.3 (a) of the FEA to be listed as "Sestak" instead of "jk2020".

[Sestak]

If someone were to accidentally refer to "National Senate" as "House" on their ballot, would it still be counted?

Just think we should get this clarified now since I can guarantee it is going to happen.

Imo it clearly should be counted.

I issued this executive order to ensure this for candidate declarations; I think the same should probably be held for ballots.

[Sestak]

2. re:nerd73, is there precedent on a ballot standing because of post-vote post deletions? I may be misinformed but couldn't one argue that this is in effect a voter consciously invalidating their own ballot, as if they were to edit it after the time limit?

In addition to the above points - that the FEA refers to ‘having made eight posts’, a set of past actions, rather than to a statistic in the present (post count) - there has also, to my understanding, been a legal consensus that invalidations after the election are not permitted and also should not affect the final result if possible.

Keep in mind that if a ballot itself were to be deleted during the time that these post deletions took place, it would fall very directly under the federal crime of ‘ballot tampering’; the name alone here suggests that the status of the election as of the vote closing should be considered final.

And consider the necessary alternative of any other proposal: namely, that every election be allowed to remain in flux all the way through the end of the litigation period - which falls at “one week after certification”. This means that no certification can be truly complete, as it would have to account for possible changes like this in the week after it ism made officia. This despite the FEA also clearly stating “ An official certification is completely final and may only be altered by order of the Supreme Court of Atlasia.”

The textual contradictions here just add up far too quickly - not to mention rather disastrous implications on the game itself.

[Sestak]

2. re:nerd73, is there precedent on a ballot standing because of post-vote post deletions? I may be misinformed but couldn't one argue that this is in effect a voter consciously invalidating their own ballot, as if they were to edit it after the time limit?

In addition to the above points - that the FEA refers to ‘having made eight posts’, a set of past actions, rather than to a statistic in the present (post count) - there has also, to my understanding, been a legal consensus that invalidations after the election are not permitted and also should not affect the final result if possible.

Keep in mind that if a ballot itself were to be deleted during the time that these post deletions took place, it would fall very directly under the federal crime of ‘ballot tampering’; the name alone here suggests that the status of the election as of the vote closing should be considered final.

And consider the necessary alternative of any other proposal: namely, that every election be allowed to remain in flux all the way through the end of the litigation period - which falls at “one week after certification”. This means that no certification can be truly complete, as it would have to account for possible changes like this in the week after it ism made officia. This despite the FEA also clearly stating “ An official certification is completely final and may only be altered by order of the Supreme Court of Atlasia.”

The textual contradictions here just add up far too quickly - not to mention rather disastrous implications on the game itself.

Thanks.

I'm actually more interested in the evidence presented via YE - can a moderator actually see if someone deleted a post or not (themselves as vs. being moderated)? Genuine question, I don't know whether they can or not.

Moderators have access to a board containing all deleted posts.

Is that the case? My very vague recollection back from the 'death points' days was moderators only had a list of posts that had been deleted by moderators, rather than by the user, but I was never a mod so my memory may be failing me.

The recycle board is a feature that was only added to the forum in the last couple years.

[Sestak]

Is that the case? My very vague recollection back from the 'death points' days was moderators only had a list of posts that had been deleted by moderators, rather than by the user, but I was never a mod so my memory may be failing me.

This is a very recent change I believe. I think the "recycling board" as it is called was only properly implemented in 2020. As late as 2019 an election I was running in which involved a similar scenario (double posting + deleted ballot) we were forced to depend on well timed screenshots and testimony from people who saw those ballots.

Although perhaps one of our resident mods or admins could say more.

I don't know the exact date of implementation and I want to say it has existed since I was mod in late 2019 though whether it was fully effective yet or not someone else would have to say. I have seen the deleted post in the recycle board as well and can confirm its existence.

The key thing to me, it would seem, is whether those two posts were less than twenty minutes apart.

Whether or not they were doesn't seem to matter? Both the FEA and the constitution do not permit the counting of votes from a poster who posts a ballot, deletes it, and posts another one:

All posts made in the voting booth shall be considered as ballots, and no citizen shall cast multiple ballots in any one election during the period the voting booth is open, upon penalty of the invalidation of their vote.

6. No voter may edit their ballot once twenty minutes have passed since its casting, nor may they delete their own ballot - either of these actions render the voter invalid for the election, and neither that ballot nor any other ballot cast by that voter in the same election shall be counted.

[Sestak]

Is that the case? My very vague recollection back from the 'death points' days was moderators only had a list of posts that had been deleted by moderators, rather than by the user, but I was never a mod so my memory may be failing me.

This is a very recent change I believe. I think the "recycling board" as it is called was only properly implemented in 2020. As late as 2019 an election I was running in which involved a similar scenario (double posting + deleted ballot) we were forced to depend on well timed screenshots and testimony from people who saw those ballots.

Although perhaps one of our resident mods or admins could say more.

I don't know the exact date of implementation and I want to say it has existed since I was mod in late 2019 though whether it was fully effective yet or not someone else would have to say. I have seen the deleted post in the recycle board as well and can confirm its existence.

The key thing to me, it would seem, is whether those two posts were less than twenty minutes apart.

The deleted post and the new post by Dabbing Santa are a minute and a half apart. The only difference is a change in formatting and how the Presidential selection was marked.

This would seem to be a very clear cut case of 'editing' one's ballot in a slightly roundabout way!

"editing" has a rather strict definition here. There is literally a button on the forum labeled "edit". There is a separate button labeled "delete", which the law treats as a case distinct from editing. I don't think any court of law would seriously entertain the notion that you can press the delete button and delete the posted ballot without "deleting your own ballot" in terms of the FEA.

Even if you want to argue it was an "edit", the fact remains that it was also a "deletion". And thus none of that poster's ballots can be valid.

[Sestak]

I am very skeptical that this is the first occasion that such a thing has happened and gone unnoticed in an Atlasian election, although it may be the first occasion on which it may be decisive in the result. It seems like very obscure grounds on which to disenfranchise a voter.

It has happened several times before, and has been universal consensus each time that a deletion and repost - no matter how quick - is not permitted. No one has even bothered to contest it because of how incredibly obvious this is.

And again, "all posts made in the voting booth shall be considered as ballots". Two separate posts - with separate timestamps, separate message identifiers, etc. - were made. Thus two ballots were posted.

If Process A is functionally identical to Process B, but also utilizes a subprocess, which we can call C, which B does not, then you can perhaps argue that a voter carrying out Process A should be legally considered to be carrying out Process B. But what you can't argue is that the voter should not be considered to have carried out subprocess C.

If process A is what DabbingSanta did, and process B is 'editing', then process C is 'deletion'.

And again, 'all posts in the voting booth shall be considered as ballots'. A post in the voting booth was deleted, this is an undeniable fact that has been corroborated by forum moderation. Therefore a ballot was deleted. What you are claiming is essentially equivalent to throwing out the law entirely.

[Sestak]

I don't know if I have the right to certify an election I didn't start, but if I do:

Link here.

Just to be clear; the image here is gone. Is there still a valid certification - and if yes, is the table in the linked document the certification?

[Sestak]

In other news, it's been a long time since we've had an election decided by 0.01 votes.

I swear something this close has happened before during my time in the game but I couldn't find it. If I'm missing it, someone let me know. Closest I could find is my recanvass of my first election (April 2018) having a final gap of 0.065; though the official numbers are less close.