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

[minionofmidas]

What incident?

[minionofmidas]

Peter's vote was utterly predictable.

[minionofmidas]

Peter's vote was utterly predictable.

He didn't vote for PD this time. If anything, I was shocked.

Granted... but I really couldn't see him ordering the declared candidates in any other order.

[minionofmidas]

What about Gustaf voting twice?  Course he could fix that by deleting one of them...

Yeah I'm not quite sure how to call that one....

Twice within the twenty minutes during which he'd've been allowed to edit, too.

Essentially the same vote too. I'd just count it once.

Is JewishConservative eligible to vote in this election?  You know, the ten-day thing.

Got changed to seven days, didn't it? Anyways, cutoff is calculated from the real voting booth, not the absentee thing.

[minionofmidas]

Is JewishConservative eligible to vote in this election?  You know, the ten-day thing.

      JewishConservative has been registered since June 4th.

Oh, I see...he registered on the 4th in Indiana, then changed that to Montana on the 11th.  Probably just to vote against me.

There should be a law.... 

Ah, there is... if he'd moved a day later, he'd have had to vote in Indiana.

[minionofmidas]

So the election will go on until october.

I WILL SUE IF IT CLOSES BEFORE THEN! Or not.

[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.)

[minionofmidas]

oy. The results have been tabulated.

I encourage people to take me to court. I want to ensure that these results are the most legal they possible can. I hate knowing that I basically can single handily decide who won this election, especially considering it was the candidate I voted for.  I personally am a big advocate of democracy and accuracy in election results. That's why I love being the SoFA. I love being able to scrutinize ballots and making sure the will of the people is reflected accurately in the results of the election. That's why this was hard to do. I hope that whoever does lose this election shows no hard feelings toward the process (and myself), I am doing the best job I can.

One of the big things I pride myself on is transparency in the process, and I believe I have shown this. I am willing to take any questions either here or in my office.

I understand from this post that there's an official certificate somewhere, but maybe I was too stupid or something. I can't seem to find it.

[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.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(meaning a runoff).

This is also the established precedent in this situation, though the precedent arose only with Senate rather than Presidential elections (I would have to do a study of historical Senate election results to check whether this claim is actually correct - but I'm feeling fairly safe here).

While the Jas / Earl line of argument is logical as long as applied to Senatorial and Presidential elections alike (which Earl did not) and may well be upheld in court, I feel it would have been the correct decision of the DoFA to schedule a runoff for both elections (and call for court challenges with language much as actually used - very well done that part of it.)

Oh yeah, disregard my question in the above post. I've found it.

[minionofmidas]

What are the colors for? Why am I Black?

[minionofmidas]

What are the colors for?

Why to add another level of excellent-ness to my count, o/c!

Key: JCP, RPP, DA, Dem, NLC, Ind/Other

Why am I Black?

Happy to oblige a request...

I Wanna Be Black

[minionofmidas]

I Wanna Be Navy.

I Wanna Be Black is a song.

...so?

I Wanna Be Navy is not.

[minionofmidas]

Atlasia's been having a lot of close elections lately. JCP, leftist DA, and affiliated independents

I strongly resent the notion that I am "affiliated" with either of these two parties.

[minionofmidas]

And here I was expecting it to read

⁴ Initially suggested by SPC to be an invalid vote; later retracted. Necessity of footnote consequently questioned by SPC.

[minionofmidas]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=3689;sa=showPosts

lol

Doesn't meet activity requirements. Invalid vote.

[minionofmidas]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=3689;sa=showPosts

lol

Doesn't meet activity requirements. Invalid vote.

They have 15 posts over the past two months, no?

My bad. Eight weeks, not four. Silly me.

I DEMAND A FOOTNOTE OF "Initially suggested by Lewis Trondheim to be an invalid vote; later retracted."

[minionofmidas]

Zombie Voters:

Fritz: 17
DWTL: 6


DWTL would really win easy without the JCP super zombies.

I would be interested in the methodology used here. I see only one of your "seventeen". Actually, I only see three or so of your six, either.

[minionofmidas]

Never posting in fantasy politics except during votes.

Ah. Atlasia is a plaything for the entire forum, ye know.

[minionofmidas]

Never been my usage.

Needing to be told when the vote is or who to vote for means you're a machine poster. Existing only for purposes of Atlasia and perhaps the odd one-liner here or there means you and the person who recruited you are Anti-Atlasian pieces of dreck.
Ideally.
In practice, Atlasia could not have survived without machine voters, and they have rights and legitimate interests. It actually took me a while to understand that.

[minionofmidas]

The Leipian Nationalist Frontage is now an organized party. We demand a color of our own.

[minionofmidas]

Special Election to replace Bacon King
Votes: 79
Last Voter: CultureKing

Fritz	42	(Lief, Marokai Blue, Barnes, bullmoose88, spacecommunistmutant, bgwah, MaxQue, Fritz, Dc_united, badger, EarlAW, Calvin & Hobbes, HappyWarrior, Tender Branson, Lunar, Eraserhead, RosettaStoned, Flyers, BRTD, px75, Ebowed, sbane, Daniel Z, Jas, Lewis Trondheim, Antonio V, opebo, Ringorules, Cosmo Kramer, Bacon King, Andy Jackson, Holmes, Smash, Iosif, Alcon, Ogre Mage, GMantis, Rob, Verily, jfern, Boris, CultureKing)
DWTL	35	(filliatre, PiT, Franzl, NCYankee, MasterJedi, RowanBrandon, Devilman1, Vepres, yoman82, J. J.2, Purple State, KyleGordon, AHDuke, Smid, Swedish Cheese, SPC, cinyc4, Ronnie, officepark, Mechaman, tmthforu94, Brandon H, Torie, dead0man, mrk, Inks, DWTL, GM3, Daniel Adams, JewishConservative, benconstine, cindywho20126, intermoderate, realisticidealist, Winfield, AndrewCT)
gporter	1	(gporter3)
Calvin & Hobbes	1	(Xahar5)

Notes
¹ Currently being prosecuted for alleged voter fraud.
² Vote excluded from the count; presumed invalid as J. J. only registered on 8 July.
³ 2nd preferences Fritz.
⁴ Initially suggested by SPC to be an invalid vote; later retracted.
⁵ 2nd preferences gporter; 3rd preferences Fritz.
⁶ Initially suggested by Lewis to be an invalid vote; later retracted.

Colour Key: LNF, JCP, RPP, DA, NLC, Dem, Ind/Other

[minionofmidas]

I know you can't legally put NOTA in the middle of a ticket, but what's the precedent with dealing with people who do again? (A vote with first pref. NOTA doesn't travel, obviously.)

I know any pref.s before the NOTA are valid, but what with pref.s below? Could theoretically matter with Gustaf's vote. I know there's a precedent, I just forget what it is.

[minionofmidas]

I would like to know why Hashemite placed DWTL before Fritz on his preferences...

Fritz supports the status-quo even more than DWTL. He isn't anywhere close to a reformist.

Ok, thanks for explanations. I saw you weren't very motivated for the election since you chose Marchais as first preference !

Gael has a necrophiliac mancrush on Marchais.

[minionofmidas]

So... I'd post an update if I could be bothered to check everybody's party registration.