District 4- questionable result

[Nym90]

I guess the only question here is what is considered a vote. Is the entire post considered the vote, or only the text that actually states the voter's preference? Democratic Hawk didn't change who he voted for, he merely removed some text from the bottom of his ballot that didn't affect who he voted for at all. His edit merely removed the words "Registered in Georgia For Fantasy Elections" from his ballot.

So it's open to interpretation, does the vote constitute the entire post, or just the statement of the voter's will.

[Nym90]

I wouldn't say it's a "loose standard". It's open to interpretation as to what exactly a vote is. Is it the entire post, or is it only the text that constitutes the vote itself?

I'm not answering that question because I don't honestly know. It can be interpreted either way.

The dictionary defines the word vote as meaning "A formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue". So one could argue it either way, does the formal expression of preference constitute only the text, or the entire post?

[Nym90]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

I don't recall the law regarding how to handle these types of votes having ever been changed. I agree that it needs to be clearer, however. The requirement to have an avatar or a statement in the profile signature should be in the voting booth thread. I'm just offering that as a suggestion for next time. Perhaps I will propose legislation to change this, that would make things less confusing.

[Nym90]

Posts that were edited have been counted in the past, as long as the vote itself wasn't altered. Removal or addition of extraneous text that does not in any way affect the vote itself has been permitted.

Obviously no one wants ballots to be able to be changed at will. I'm pretty sure we all agree to that; clearly I do. But I think the issue of what exacty is a vote is open to interpretation. If the law said that the post may not be edited, it would be clear. I think one could argue that while the post was edited, the vote wasn't, and thus it should stand.

[Nym90]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

I don't recall the law regarding how to handle these types of votes having ever been changed. I agree that it needs to be clearer, however. The requirement to have an avatar or a statement in the profile signature should be in the voting booth thread. I'm just offering that as a suggestion for next time. Perhaps I will propose legislation to change this, that would make things less confusing.

Originally, it was no post that was edited would be counted.  Then it was changed to "only if the vote is changed", now... who the Hell knows?

I don't remember that change, but I don't follow everything that happens in that much detail, so I'll take your word for it on that. As for your last question, the law says only if the vote is changed. So it's clear as to what the law is, but the definition of a vote is not clearly defined.

[Nym90]

Now, it has been suggested to be either or, simply because we violated the original standard a couple of times.

Well, I'm not suggesting it to be "either or". It has nothing to do with the fact that it's been changed. But if the law itself was explicitly changed from the word "post" to the word "vote", that would be something to look at, to see if that change in wording meant that the law was actually being changed to be something different.

I honestly don't know whether it should be valid or not, I'm merely saying that it's a question with no clear answer. It's open to different interpretations.

[Nym90]

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

[Nym90]

Well, I agree that the results should stand if no fraud or malicious intent is proven, but in this case, one could say that thus Democratic Hawk's vote should count, as there was pretty clearly no fraud or malicious intent on his part. The vote is not being allowed to stand, despite the fact that his intentions were clear and he only technically made an error, then made a sloppy attempt to correct it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any laws should be changed to affect this race retroactively. I'm just trying to raise the fact that it's an issue, and perhaps in the future the definition of a vote should be more clearly defined. If the law is meant to mean the entire post, it should say so.

I agree, I'm tired of challenges too, but it's also important to make sure that good voters are not disenfranchised. Disenfranchisement leads to driving otherwise good people out of the Forum. I don't think that makes for a better Forum. Democratic Hawk is clearly a good, solid contributor to the Forum at large, and would be an excellent addition to the regular discourse in Atlasia.

[Nym90]

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

The intent of the law is quite clear, even if the letter is not. Human oversight cannot be just cause for this case.

Well, I don't agree that it's clear. I don't agree that it's clear that editing ANY portion of the post in which the vote is made is exactly the same as editing the text that constitutes the voter's actual expression of preference.

I would also point out that there were no formal challenges to the allowing of such votes in the June Presidential Elections. Perhaps this was because those votes did not change the results of any races, but there were still no official challanges made.

[Nym90]

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

The intent of the law is quite clear, even if the letter is not. Human oversight cannot be just cause for this case.

Well, I don't agree that it's clear. I don't agree that it's clear that editing ANY portion of the post in which the vote is made is exactly the same as editing the text that constitutes the voter's actual expression of preference.

I would also point out that there were no formal challenges to the allowing of such votes in the June Presidential Elections. Perhaps this was because those votes did not change the results of any races, but there were still no official challanges made.

It seems clear to me that the law means what it says and, inspite of it's unfortunate placement and wording in the Constitution, is meant to extend to all races.

If this is not the case, then I judge this to be a regional issue and thus Governor Htmldon should decide the law for this election, with a national decision pending for the next election.

I agree that the law should be the same for Presidential and Congressional races, but someone who is a strict constructionist and favors a very literal interpretation of the Constitution could disagree. I am not one and do not favor that, however, and thus I disagree with that view.

What I was referring to as unclear is exactly what a vote is. Here's a clearer way to express what I mean, my language has been a bit confusing, I admit.

What constitutes Democratic Hawk's vote, is it this...

District 1: Full - The Bulldog (D-NY); Interim - True Democrat (D-PA)

District 2: Abstain

District 3: Al (I-WV)

District 4: Harry (D-MS)

District 5: Gabu (D-WA)

Dave



Or is it this:

District 4: Harry (D-MS)

[Nym90]

Well, I agree that the results should stand if no fraud or malicious intent is proven, but in this case, one could say that thus Democratic Hawk's vote should count, as there was pretty clearly no fraud or malicious intent on his part. The vote is not being allowed to stand, despite the fact that his intentions were clear and he only technically made an error, then made a sloppy attempt to correct it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any laws should be changed to affect this race retroactively. I'm just trying to raise the fact that it's an issue, and perhaps in the future the definition of a vote should be more clearly defined. If the law is meant to mean the entire post, it should say so.

I agree, I'm tired of challenges too, but it's also important to make sure that good voters are not disenfranchised. Disenfranchisement leads to driving otherwise good people out of the Forum. I don't think that makes for a better Forum. Democratic Hawk is clearly a good, solid contributor to the Forum at large, and would be an excellent addition to the regular discourse in Atlasia.

What I meant was no malisious intend or fraud on the part of the declared winner.

I realize that's what you meant. Though I think that the intent and potential fraud of the voter himself is worth looking at, as well. Legally it doesn't matter, but it does affect the moral authority of any potential challenge.

[Nym90]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

I don't recall the law regarding how to handle these types of votes having ever been changed. I agree that it needs to be clearer, however. The requirement to have an avatar or a statement in the profile signature should be in the voting booth thread. I'm just offering that as a suggestion for next time.

Good idea. An even better idea might be to remove the requirement entirely, as it doesn't really serve any purpose.

It was made law as to cut back on confusion.  It appears that the "Iron Rule of Unanticipated Consequences" has struck again.  It appreas that we have made a bigger mess for ourselves.  That does not, howver, change the current status of the law.

I agree. In this case, the unintended consequence was that the confusion over what exactly was meant by the term "signature" is what caused the vote to be invalid. Democratic Hawk thought that "signature" meant "words written at the end of the post" and not "words written in your profile".

On the Forum, a signature is clearly defined as being the words that you append to the bottom of your profile that appear in every post. But using real life terminology as opposed to Forum lingo, the confusion is understandable, given that the dictionary definition of "signature" is

1. One's name as written by oneself.
2. The act of signing one's name.
3. A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity

[Nym90]

I didn't say he should get a bye for ignorance, only that it's something that needs to be addressed in the future. It needs to be more clear that the Forum definition of "signature" doesn't square with the real life definition exactly, so that those who use the idea of a real life signature, and include the statement at the bottom of their vote (as if they were signing the ballot itself) won't make these mistakes again.

[Nym90]

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

The intent of the law is quite clear, even if the letter is not. Human oversight cannot be just cause for this case.

Well, I don't agree that it's clear. I don't agree that it's clear that editing ANY portion of the post in which the vote is made is exactly the same as editing the text that constitutes the voter's actual expression of preference.

I would also point out that there were no formal challenges to the allowing of such votes in the June Presidential Elections. Perhaps this was because those votes did not change the results of any races, but there were still no official challanges made.

It seems clear to me that the law means what it says and, inspite of it's unfortunate placement and wording in the Constitution, is meant to extend to all races.

If this is not the case, then I judge this to be a regional issue and thus Governor Htmldon should decide the law for this election, with a national decision pending for the next election.

I agree that the law should be the same for Presidential and Congressional races, but someone who is a strict constructionist and favors a very literal interpretation of the Constitution could disagree. I am not one and do not favor that, however, and thus I disagree with that view.

What I was referring to as unclear is exactly what a vote is. Here's a clearer way to express what I mean, my language has been a bit confusing, I admit.

What constitutes Democratic Hawk's vote, is it this...

District 1: Full - The Bulldog (D-NY); Interim - True Democrat (D-PA)

District 2: Abstain

District 3: Al (I-WV)

District 4: Harry (D-MS)

District 5: Gabu (D-WA)

Dave



Or is it this:

District 4: Harry (D-MS)

It could be argueed that Democratic Hawk did not grant us clear intent with his vote.  He voted for all five seats, which he was not allowed to do.  Thus it is difficult to say what he thought/believed/intended for his vote to be.  He marked District 2 as "Abstain".  Lets suppose that he believed that he only had one vote or was registered in District 2, how would that have changed his voting pattern?  Know what I mean?

Yes, I agree, that's an issue that needs to be looked at, as well. Again, there is precedent here, and when voters have accidentally voted in more than one district simultaneously, we have only counted their votes in the district in which they are registered. In this election, NickG's vote, for instance, includes the same problem; he accidentally voted in D1 when he is actually registered in D2. His vote in the interim D1 race still counted, however, because he was eligible to vote in that election.

This is yet another problem that would not occur in real life. In a real election, you can't accidentally vote in a race for which you aren't eligible to vote, because not all of the races nationwide are on the same ballot. It is clearly stated that if you are resident of Georgia, you should only vote in D4.

Fritz has indicated that he will accept votes in the district in which the voter was registered, even if they include attempts to vote in races in which the voter is ineligible for. But I can see your point as to how this is open to interpretation, as well.

[Nym90]

This is how I feel:
Democratic Hawk didn't change his vote, he simply edited his post.  I'm definitely going to talk to some advisors and consider challenging it.

Of course that is how you see it. I would have expected nothing different.

What about JFK, Nation, Gustaf, Lunar, Mr. Fresh, etc. (you can check the thread I bumped up if you'd like...) who all expressed the same opinion about exatly the same issue back in June?

[Nym90]

I still stand by my assertion. Votes that are edited won't be counted. I agree with that. But if the post is edited but not the vote, I'm not sure that counts as editing your vote. Democratic Hawk didn't change who he voted for, hence he didn't change his vote.

[Nym90]

I don't know if anyone has screen shots, but we do have a lot of witnesses. If you can come up with witnesses who will testify that he did change his vote, that's fine.

Before you bring up a dissent to their reliability, eyewitness accounts are usually considered pretty reliable in real world cases, especially if provided by people of otherwise unassailable character, and even moreso if quite a few people will attest to it.

[Nym90]

I still stand by my assertion. Votes that are edited won't be counted. I agree with that. But if the post is edited but not the vote, I'm not sure that counts as editing your vote. Democratic Hawk didn't change who he voted for, hence he didn't change his vote.

We don't know if he edited the vote. Do we have proof that he didn't edit the vote? Screenshots, anything. if so email it to evryone so we can look at it. The info we have is the part of DemoHawk's post that says "edited by DemocraticHawk". Other than that there is no proof.

Also, I'm sure there have been edited posts in the past that have been thrown away when the poster might not have edited the vote. Why should we just start worrying about whether or not the actual vote was edited in this election? Why wasn't this brought up before when posts were edited?

In the past, votes like this were counted, with little or no disagreement from anyone. JFK was the only one in June who said he thought it might not be ok, but everyone else, Democrat, Republican, UAC, all parties, said they thought it was ok. JFK eventually agreed that it was acceptable.

Now, one big difference is that in June, none of the disputed votes would have affected the outcome of any races.

I don't recall any edited posts where the vote has been thrown away when the poster did not edit their vote. If you can find some examples, that would definitely be important evidence for any potential court case.

[Nym90]

Well, the votes are counted as they stood at the closing of polls.

If Democratic Hawk himself doesn't want this matter pursued, I would respect his decision. But simply because the post, which was there when the polls closed, is gone, doesn't mean anything.

Fritz, I'm sure, will agree, as he goes on the basis of what was in the thread at the time the polls closed.

[Nym90]

Well, the votes are counted as they stood at the closing of polls.

If Democratic Hawk himself doesn't want this matter pursued, I would respect his decision. But simply because the post, which was there when the polls closed, is gone, doesn't mean anything.

Fritz, I'm sure, will agree, as he goes on the basis of what was in the thread at the time the polls closed.

How do we know it was there?

Witnesses. That's sufficient evidence in a lot of criminal cases, especially since there will be several, as opposed to, I must assume, no witnesses of an altered vote.

[Nym90]

Democratic Hawk's last statement was that he wanted the vote to count. Hopefully someone can contact him and find out if he still wants to pursue it. If he wants to drop it, then no one else should challenge on his behalf. Hopefully, if he has changed his mind, he will at least post why.

[Nym90]

Since the vote was deleted, there is no hard copy of the vote and therefore it no longer exists.

There are still quoted portions of it, plus Fritz saw it when he counted the ballots at the time the polls closed.

The legality of the vote is still in question. It's open to interpretation as to what constitutes a vote (the entire post, or merely the expression of a preference). Votes of this type have been counted before, and folks of all political persuasions had no problem with it at that time.

I would hope that the change of heart on the part of some doesn't have anything to do with the fact that those votes wouldn't change the result of an election, while this one will.

[Nym90]

What I meant by that was, the vote was deleted so there is no hard evidence. Which means the vote in question NEVER existed.

So...does that mean I won? O_O

7-6, the AFDNC is just trying to get the tally to 7-7 by counting an illegally EDITED and now DELETED (a.k.a. non-existant) vote as a vote for Harry.

There is also not any official support of a challenge from the AFDNC that I am aware of.

[Nym90]

Eric, honestly, a "quoted portion".  This needs to end right now.  The vote is first invalid and now, gone.  WMS is the declared winner of this race.  So it is written, so let it be done.

The vote was there when the polls closed. Fritz is aware of this fact.

If Democratic Hawk doesn't wish to pursue this, I would agree that it should be dropped.

I am also curious as to why so many former UACers and Republicans have changed their view on this from June. Nation was SOFA at the time and allowed votes just like this, and JFK, Gustaf, and Mr. Fresh all made written expressions of support for these votes counting. Gustaf has explained that he feels the spirit of the Fantasy Elections has been ruined, and thus he no longer supports allowing such votes. I don't really understand that logic, but I respect his view. I would appreciate hearing from the others I have listed (Nation, JFK, Mr. Fresh if he's still around...) as well as why others, while not voicing explicit support for counting these votes, did not object to their inclusion at that time.

[Nym90]

Votes of this type have been counted before, and folks of all political persuasions had no problem with it at that time.

I would hope that the change of heart on the part of some doesn't have anything to do with the fact that those votes wouldn't change the result of an election, while this one will.

Or could be that since in previous cases it wouldn't have affected who won the election, no matter what the decision was, people felt that had better things to do than sue at that time. Why sue if it would be as pointless as Republicans suing over voting irregularities in Washington, DC?

That is true.

I would personally support still standing up for what one believes is right, regardless of whether it affects the outcome. I can understand having better things to do with one's time, but a statement expressing disapproval but also acknolwedging that it isn't worth challenging would at least be appropriate, I would think.

Not to mention that several people, such as Nation, JFK, Gustaf, and Mr. Fresh, explictly stated that the votes should count. There was a time, at least, when more than just Democrats stood up for that principle.