FRANZL ELECTION TRACKER (updated as of 7:09 pm, THURSDAY)

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You made your vote invalid by voting twice for no good reason. That's a big diffrence from registring, suppousebly 10 hours too late, or voting twice when your original post seems to disappear within the 20 minute margin. I don't even think anyone was arguing the fact that your vote is invalid. Too bad you did vote twice, otherwise PiT would still have ended up winning no matter what the court say.   

But yes, it's like Florida. Of course stealing elections is only wrong when conservatives do it     

If Florida's vote count was inaccurate, why isn't there a big deal about it? I mean, liberals have most of the media on their side. If this was true, I'm sure CNN would be all over it.

[Purple State]

There will be no election-stealing and the claims of such are unwarranted. If your vote is deemed to be invalid it is for a good reason. It is something we all must accept, whether our candidate wins or not, because certain rules exist, as mind-numbingly complicated as the rules may seem. Needless to say that there undoubtedly will be a court case from one side or the other in an attempt to validate or invalidate some votes. This can only be decided properly by the courts, without our own partisan leanings in the mix.

Kyle, I know it's frustrating, but not knowing the rule isn't a defense for breaking them. You will know for the next time, but your vote is undeniably invalidated this time.

Let's see how Earl certifies the election and then cases can be brought properly.

[JerryBrown2010]

There will be no election-stealing and the claims of such are unwarranted. If your vote is deemed to be invalid it is for a good reason. It is something we all must accept, whether our candidate wins or not, because certain rules exist, as mind-numbingly complicated as the rules may seem. Needless to say that there undoubtedly will be a court case from one side or the other in an attempt to validate or invalidate some votes. This can only be decided properly by the courts, without our own partisan leanings in the mix.

Kyle, I know it's frustrating, but not knowing the rule isn't a defense for breaking them. You will know for the next time, but your vote is undeniably invalidated this time.

Let's see how Earl certifies the election and then cases can be brought properly.

I will know for next time, but that doesn't mean I wont try to fix this. I don't know what president passed these rules but who ever it was made voting even more confusing.

Anyways did PiT win the election?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is what we do not know yet. It depends on what votes are valid, and which ones are not.

 

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is what we do not know yet. It depends on what votes are valid, and which ones are not.

 

I think there will be a "political firestorm" no matter who wins. The JCP will complain that the voted should have been invalidated, while if Leif wins, RPP will complain that they should be valid, and so on...
*Sigh*

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is what we do not know yet. It depends on what votes are valid, and which ones are not.

 

I think there will be a "political firestorm" no matter who wins. The JCP will complain that the voted should have been invalidated, while if Leif wins, RPP will complain that they should be valid, and so on...
*Sigh*

It depends on the person. I voted for Pit, but believe that the controversial mentioned should be nulled.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     After reading CESRA, I am pretty sure that a tie should be rectified by a runoff (which lines up with my experience of how things have been done in the past). If all controversial votes are invalidated, a tie is probably what will happen.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ok...so I assume....in the event that Barnes and ElectoralJew are declared invalid in the presidential race....that Lief then leads in the first count by one vote. I was always under the impression that DC United's vote would then cause a tie in the 2nd count....thereby leading to a run-off. Does the number of first preferences, in fact, determine who wins in a tie?

My reading of Section 2 of the Consolidated Eelctoral Reform Act would suggest that a run-off is not necessary.
Per the Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If my disputes are accurate, then the election went as follows:
Count 1
Lief 41
PiT 40
gporter 1

Nobody has a majority, therefore per clause 2 (above), gporter is eliminated.

Count 2
Lief 41
PiT 41 (+1)
gporter 0 (-1)

Again, nobody has a majority.
Per section 3, after the implemntation of section2 (in this case that's the gporter re-distribution), and no majority exists (it doesn't), then we look back to section 2.
Per section 2, as no candidate has attained a majority, we remove the candidate who received the fewest 1st preferences - in this instance PiT.

With the elimination of PiT/HW, then Lief/BK would be declared the winners. (A run-off would only be necessary is the tickets were also tied on 1st preferences.)

     Your argument's problem is that you change the definition of highest preference. You interpret in section 2 to mean the highest preference not yet eliminated (the definition used in all cases in all of Atlasian history) whereas you interpret it in section 3 to mean only 1st preferences. You are suggesting that we change the definition of "highest preference" between two sections in the same statute without any real cause for doing so.

[minionofmidas]

ok...so I assume....in the event that Barnes and ElectoralJew are declared invalid in the presidential race....that Lief then leads in the first count by one vote. I was always under the impression that DC United's vote would then cause a tie in the 2nd count....thereby leading to a run-off. Does the number of first preferences, in fact, determine who wins in a tie?

My reading of Section 2 of the Consolidated Eelctoral Reform Act would suggest that a run-off is not necessary.
Per the Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If my disputes are accurate, then the election went as follows:
Count 1
Lief 41
PiT 40
gporter 1

Nobody has a majority, therefore per clause 2 (above), gporter is eliminated.

Count 2
Lief 41
PiT 41 (+1)
gporter 0 (-1)

Again, nobody has a majority.
Per section 3, after the implemntation of section2 (in this case that's the gporter re-distribution), and no majority exists (it doesn't), then we look back to section 2.
Per section 2, as no candidate has attained a majority, we remove the candidate who received the fewest 1st preferences - in this instance PiT.

With the elimination of PiT/HW, then Lief/BK would be declared the winners. (A run-off would only be necessary is the tickets were also tied on 1st preferences.)

     Your argument's problem is that you change the definition of highest preference. You interpret in section 2 to mean the highest preference not yet eliminated (the definition used in all cases in all of Atlasian history) whereas you interpret it in section 3 to mean only 1st preferences. You are suggesting that we change the definition of "highest preference" between two sections in the same statute without any real cause for doing so.

No, he doesn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"If no such candidate shall exist, then Clause 2 shall be implemented again until such a candidate does exist, or until all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes." Not "If  no such candidate shall exist and unless all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes..."
In other words, according to a literal interpretation of the Act, a tie leading to a runoff can only occur from a third count on. There is no provision for a tie after the second or indeed the first count.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the framers of the Act intended at all and the issue only arises through the somewhat awkward wording. (I would also like to take another look at the whole Act to see if there's anything to contradict it.)

[Keystone Phil]

Let me vote. I "was" disenfranchised.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ok...so I assume....in the event that Barnes and ElectoralJew are declared invalid in the presidential race....that Lief then leads in the first count by one vote. I was always under the impression that DC United's vote would then cause a tie in the 2nd count....thereby leading to a run-off. Does the number of first preferences, in fact, determine who wins in a tie?

My reading of Section 2 of the Consolidated Eelctoral Reform Act would suggest that a run-off is not necessary.
Per the Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If my disputes are accurate, then the election went as follows:
Count 1
Lief 41
PiT 40
gporter 1

Nobody has a majority, therefore per clause 2 (above), gporter is eliminated.

Count 2
Lief 41
PiT 41 (+1)
gporter 0 (-1)

Again, nobody has a majority.
Per section 3, after the implemntation of section2 (in this case that's the gporter re-distribution), and no majority exists (it doesn't), then we look back to section 2.
Per section 2, as no candidate has attained a majority, we remove the candidate who received the fewest 1st preferences - in this instance PiT.

With the elimination of PiT/HW, then Lief/BK would be declared the winners. (A run-off would only be necessary is the tickets were also tied on 1st preferences.)

     Your argument's problem is that you change the definition of highest preference. You interpret in section 2 to mean the highest preference not yet eliminated (the definition used in all cases in all of Atlasian history) whereas you interpret it in section 3 to mean only 1st preferences. You are suggesting that we change the definition of "highest preference" between two sections in the same statute without any real cause for doing so.

No, he doesn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"If no such candidate shall exist, then Clause 2 shall be implemented again until such a candidate does exist, or until all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes." Not "If  no such candidate shall exist and unless all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes..."
In other words, according to a literal interpretation of the Act, a tie leading to a runoff can only occur from a third count on. There is no provision for a tie after the second or indeed the first count.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the framers of the Act intended at all and the issue only arises through the somewhat awkward wording. (I would also like to take another look at the whole Act to see if there's anything to contradict it.)

     On further thought I do agree that it is not logically inconsistent, though it does seem like a very strange choice of phrasing. It seems like something that will need to be amended at some point.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Thank God I found some time to vote

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Thank God I found some time to vote

Yes thank god indeed

[ilikeverin]

Let me vote. I "was" disenfranchised.

We should file a lawsuit.  "Lazy Atlasians for a One-Week Voting Booth"

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Let me vote. I "was" disenfranchised.

We should file a lawsuit.  "Lazy Atlasians for a One-Week Voting Booth"

You had ten days as was.

[ilikeverin]

Let me vote. I "was" disenfranchised.

We should file a lawsuit.  "Lazy Atlasians for a One-Week Voting Booth"

You had ten days as was.

Humbug.  A plague on both your houses.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ok...so I assume....in the event that Barnes and ElectoralJew are declared invalid in the presidential race....that Lief then leads in the first count by one vote. I was always under the impression that DC United's vote would then cause a tie in the 2nd count....thereby leading to a run-off. Does the number of first preferences, in fact, determine who wins in a tie?

My reading of Section 2 of the Consolidated Eelctoral Reform Act would suggest that a run-off is not necessary.
Per the Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If my disputes are accurate, then the election went as follows:
Count 1
Lief 41
PiT 40
gporter 1

Nobody has a majority, therefore per clause 2 (above), gporter is eliminated.

Count 2
Lief 41
PiT 41 (+1)
gporter 0 (-1)

Again, nobody has a majority.
Per section 3, after the implemntation of section2 (in this case that's the gporter re-distribution), and no majority exists (it doesn't), then we look back to section 2.
Per section 2, as no candidate has attained a majority, we remove the candidate who received the fewest 1st preferences - in this instance PiT.

With the elimination of PiT/HW, then Lief/BK would be declared the winners. (A run-off would only be necessary is the tickets were also tied on 1st preferences.)

     Your argument's problem is that you change the definition of highest preference. You interpret in section 2 to mean the highest preference not yet eliminated (the definition used in all cases in all of Atlasian history) whereas you interpret it in section 3 to mean only 1st preferences. You are suggesting that we change the definition of "highest preference" between two sections in the same statute without any real cause for doing so.

No, he doesn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"If no such candidate shall exist, then Clause 2 shall be implemented again until such a candidate does exist, or until all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes." Not "If  no such candidate shall exist and unless all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes..."
In other words, according to a literal interpretation of the Act, a tie leading to a runoff can only occur from a third count on. There is no provision for a tie after the second or indeed the first count.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the framers of the Act intended at all and the issue only arises through the somewhat awkward wording. (I would also like to take another look at the whole Act to see if there's anything to contradict it.)

     On further thought I do agree that it is not logically inconsistent, though it does seem like a very strange choice of phrasing. It seems like something that will need to be amended at some point.

     Actually, read here. Particularly, notice that near the bottom it says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     It seems to me that this use of "first preference" would agree with the bizarre (though historically used) definition of "first preference" in CESRA.

     Furthermore, if you compare it with the first revision, you will notice True Democrat wrote the sentence that referred to "first preferences" above.

     If you look at the Unified Electoral Code Bill, on of the forerunners to CESRA, & the bill that included that text previously, it was principally sponsored by none other than True Democrat.

     Furthermore, if you look at the bill that True Democrat's bill initially replaced, the Omnibus Election System, Procedure, and Certification Act, it has the same section, but with the text "least preferences" in lieu of "fewest first preferences".

     With that, I submit that this is significant evidence suggesting that the use of first preferences in CESRA is incorrect & that highest preferences is the intended meaning there.

[Sam Spade]

Eh, missed the election.  Rats.

[Hatman 🍁]

I have a solution that will appease both sides: I declare myself winner of the election. Muhahaha.

[bgwah]

So, what happens if this is still tied up in court when the new President is supposed take office?

[Barnes]

So, what happens if this is still tied up in court when the new President is supposed take office?

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_II_of_the_Second_Constitution
Section 3: Vacancy and Incapacity of the Presidency or Vice Presidency
If the Presidency shall ever fall vacant, the Vice President shall become President. If the Vice Presidency is also vacant, then the Senate President pro tempore shall become President. The Senate may provide by Law for the vacancy of the Senate President pro tempore also.

I guess it applies in these circumstances too.

[Purple State]

So, what happens if this is still tied up in court when the new President is supposed take office?

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_II_of_the_Second_Constitution
Section 3: Vacancy and Incapacity of the Presidency or Vice Presidency
If the Presidency shall ever fall vacant, the Vice President shall become President. If the Vice Presidency is also vacant, then the Senate President pro tempore shall become President. The Senate may provide by Law for the vacancy of the Senate President pro tempore also.

I guess it applies in these circumstances too.

MJ for President!

[Јas]

ok...so I assume....in the event that Barnes and ElectoralJew are declared invalid in the presidential race....that Lief then leads in the first count by one vote. I was always under the impression that DC United's vote would then cause a tie in the 2nd count....thereby leading to a run-off. Does the number of first preferences, in fact, determine who wins in a tie?

My reading of Section 2 of the Consolidated Eelctoral Reform Act would suggest that a run-off is not necessary.
Per the Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If my disputes are accurate, then the election went as follows:
Count 1
Lief 41
PiT 40
gporter 1

Nobody has a majority, therefore per clause 2 (above), gporter is eliminated.

Count 2
Lief 41
PiT 41 (+1)
gporter 0 (-1)

Again, nobody has a majority.
Per section 3, after the implemntation of section2 (in this case that's the gporter re-distribution), and no majority exists (it doesn't), then we look back to section 2.
Per section 2, as no candidate has attained a majority, we remove the candidate who received the fewest 1st preferences - in this instance PiT.

With the elimination of PiT/HW, then Lief/BK would be declared the winners. (A run-off would only be necessary is the tickets were also tied on 1st preferences.)

     Your argument's problem is that you change the definition of highest preference. You interpret in section 2 to mean the highest preference not yet eliminated (the definition used in all cases in all of Atlasian history) whereas you interpret it in section 3 to mean only 1st preferences. You are suggesting that we change the definition of "highest preference" between two sections in the same statute without any real cause for doing so.

No, he doesn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"If no such candidate shall exist, then Clause 2 shall be implemented again until such a candidate does exist, or until all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes." Not "If  no such candidate shall exist and unless all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes..."
In other words, according to a literal interpretation of the Act, a tie leading to a runoff can only occur from a third count on. There is no provision for a tie after the second or indeed the first count.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the framers of the Act intended at all and the issue only arises through the somewhat awkward wording. (I would also like to take another look at the whole Act to see if there's anything to contradict it.)

     On further thought I do agree that it is not logically inconsistent, though it does seem like a very strange choice of phrasing. It seems like something that will need to be amended at some point.

     Actually, read here. Particularly, notice that near the bottom it says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     It seems to me that this use of "first preference" would agree with the bizarre (though historically used) definition of "first preference" in CESRA.

     Furthermore, if you compare it with the first revision, you will notice True Democrat wrote the sentence that referred to "first preferences" above.

     If you look at the Unified Electoral Code Bill, on of the forerunners to CESRA, & the bill that included that text previously, it was principally sponsored by none other than True Democrat.

     Furthermore, if you look at the bill that True Democrat's bill initially replaced, the Omnibus Election System, Procedure, and Certification Act, it has the same section, but with the text "least preferences" in lieu of "fewest first preferences".

     With that, I submit that this is significant evidence suggesting that the use of first preferences in CESRA is incorrect & that highest preferences is the intended meaning there.

Earlier you accused me of changing definitions - now you're quite clearly aiming to do just that.

At any rate, the Presidential election certification you cite predates CESRA.
Further, the other electoral laws you refer to are redundant given CESRA.
CESRA is the law and, as far as I can see, my count is based on a strict interpretation of what it says.

If you want to change the Act's wording, you can introduce a Bill to do so.
If you want to challenge it, the Court will no doubt grant you a hearing.

The wording is reasonably clear and one doesn't need to rely on repealed statutes to interpret it.
The SoFA can only reasonably act on what the law says - and on this I believe the application of the law is clear.

[Јas]

I think the SoFA was pretty clear about the fact that he intended to count Barnes vote, and if there is a tie between Lief and PiT, most likely Gustaf's vote will become disputed also.

The SoFA's statement on Barnes's vote though related only to the argument over his pre-25 post registration; not to the idea that the registration was ill-timed. He may change his mind when he reads my argument. If he doesn't, well then I presume he has his reasons - which will no doubt be teased out in Court.

I don't see why Gustaf's vote would be disputed. It seems fairly clear-cut. Has anyone presented a legal argument for its inclusion?

     Yes, I did as a matter of fact.

     EDIT:

     Her reasoning was that if Gustaf's story is correct, he could claim mistake of fact as a defense for having voted twice. Considering his reputation as an honest person, & that the observed facts are not inconsistent with his account of events, he should be given the benefit of the doubt that he made a legitimate error based on the information that he received suggesting that his first post did not go through.

I see. Mistake of fact may be a defence to certain criminal acts, but this doesn't concern cruiminal action. This is about the application of administrative law.

Gustaf voted twice. As long as I can remember in Atlasia, that invalidates the vote. Whether or not the mistake is innocent is quite irrelevant when certifying the results.

The SoFA must apply the law as best he can and under the plainest interpretation of the law neither of Gustaf's votes should count. It would be a matter for the Court to make such alterations to the certification as are necessary based on arguments presented.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ok...so I assume....in the event that Barnes and ElectoralJew are declared invalid in the presidential race....that Lief then leads in the first count by one vote. I was always under the impression that DC United's vote would then cause a tie in the 2nd count....thereby leading to a run-off. Does the number of first preferences, in fact, determine who wins in a tie?

My reading of Section 2 of the Consolidated Eelctoral Reform Act would suggest that a run-off is not necessary.
Per the Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If my disputes are accurate, then the election went as follows:
Count 1
Lief 41
PiT 40
gporter 1

Nobody has a majority, therefore per clause 2 (above), gporter is eliminated.

Count 2
Lief 41
PiT 41 (+1)
gporter 0 (-1)

Again, nobody has a majority.
Per section 3, after the implemntation of section2 (in this case that's the gporter re-distribution), and no majority exists (it doesn't), then we look back to section 2.
Per section 2, as no candidate has attained a majority, we remove the candidate who received the fewest 1st preferences - in this instance PiT.

With the elimination of PiT/HW, then Lief/BK would be declared the winners. (A run-off would only be necessary is the tickets were also tied on 1st preferences.)

     Your argument's problem is that you change the definition of highest preference. You interpret in section 2 to mean the highest preference not yet eliminated (the definition used in all cases in all of Atlasian history) whereas you interpret it in section 3 to mean only 1st preferences. You are suggesting that we change the definition of "highest preference" between two sections in the same statute without any real cause for doing so.

No, he doesn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"If no such candidate shall exist, then Clause 2 shall be implemented again until such a candidate does exist, or until all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes." Not "If  no such candidate shall exist and unless all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes..."
In other words, according to a literal interpretation of the Act, a tie leading to a runoff can only occur from a third count on. There is no provision for a tie after the second or indeed the first count.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the framers of the Act intended at all and the issue only arises through the somewhat awkward wording. (I would also like to take another look at the whole Act to see if there's anything to contradict it.)

     On further thought I do agree that it is not logically inconsistent, though it does seem like a very strange choice of phrasing. It seems like something that will need to be amended at some point.

     Actually, read here. Particularly, notice that near the bottom it says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     It seems to me that this use of "first preference" would agree with the bizarre (though historically used) definition of "first preference" in CESRA.

     Furthermore, if you compare it with the first revision, you will notice True Democrat wrote the sentence that referred to "first preferences" above.

     If you look at the Unified Electoral Code Bill, on of the forerunners to CESRA, & the bill that included that text previously, it was principally sponsored by none other than True Democrat.

     Furthermore, if you look at the bill that True Democrat's bill initially replaced, the Omnibus Election System, Procedure, and Certification Act, it has the same section, but with the text "least preferences" in lieu of "fewest first preferences".

     With that, I submit that this is significant evidence suggesting that the use of first preferences in CESRA is incorrect & that highest preferences is the intended meaning there.

Earlier you accused me of changing definitions - now you're quite clearly aiming to do just that.

At any rate, the Presidential election certification you cite predates CESRA.
Further, the other electoral laws you refer to are redundant given CESRA.
CESRA is the law and, as far as I can see, my count is based on a strict interpretation of what it says.

If you want to change the Act's wording, you can introduce a Bill to do so.
If you want to challenge it, the Court will no doubt grant you a hearing.

The wording is reasonably clear and one doesn't need to rely on repealed statutes to interpret it.
The SoFA can only reasonably act on what the law says - and on this I believe the application of the law is clear.

     I am positing that the phrase means something other than its commonly accepted definition here, drawing upon similar sections in previous bills & known uses of the phrase by the bill's author that are consistent with the alternate meaning of the phrase that I proposed. If you take issue with that, then so be it. Regardless of the original intent it should be amended to what it previously had been.

     As a side note, this would mean that there have been past races that were certified improperly (February 2008 Midwest Senate race, for one).