Election Tracker - NE Special

[Napoleon]

Is Peeperkorn's ballot in the Northeast election invalid since he had posted before the booth opened, but then deleted the post from the voting booth thread and voted after it had opened over 20 minutes after casting the previous (clearly invalid) vote?

If he votes again in the correct time period, would that validate his vote?

That's what I'm asking.

Anything before the voting period starts is not a vote so it can be deleted at any point. The only invalid ballots are yours and butafly's.

[Napoleon]

Is Peeperkorn's ballot in the Northeast election invalid since he had posted before the booth opened, but then deleted the post from the voting booth thread and voted after it had opened over 20 minutes after casting the previous (clearly invalid) vote?

If he votes again in the correct time period, would that validate his vote?

That's what I'm asking.

Anything before the voting period starts is not a vote so it can be deleted at any point. The only invalid ballots are yours and butafly's.

Why are mine and butafly's invalid?

The posts have been edited.

[Napoleon]

Is Peeperkorn's ballot in the Northeast election invalid since he had posted before the booth opened, but then deleted the post from the voting booth thread and voted after it had opened over 20 minutes after casting the previous (clearly invalid) vote?

If he votes again in the correct time period, would that validate his vote?

That's what I'm asking.

Anything before the voting period starts is not a vote so it can be deleted at any point. The only invalid ballots are yours and butafly's.

Why are mine and butafly's invalid?

The posts have been edited.

But it was within the 20 minute time limit.

There is no 20 minute time limit (nor should there be). Voters have three full days to make sure their ballot is ready for submission, editing ballots is unnecessary.

[Napoleon]

Its easy to say it "makes no sense" when your ballot is unfortunately invalidated but not double checking what you post before you click submit also "makes no sense". Not reading the OP in the voting booth "makes no sense". Having a leftover quotation in your post is not even a good reason to edit, that's just being OCD. I forgot to vote on the amendment but I wasn't going to break the rules to try and do so.

[Napoleon]

Its easy to say it "makes no sense" when your ballot is unfortunately invalidated but not double checking what you post before you click submit also "makes no sense". Not reading the OP in the voting booth "makes no sense". Having a leftover quotation in your post is not even a good reason to edit, that's just being OCD. I forgot to vote on the amendment but I wasn't going to break the rules to try and do so.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that there is a window in which one can edit their vote given that in both Federal elections and every other region such a window exists.

Except when it says it right there in the first post of the thread, right? I'm sorry you were unaware of the rules but that doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to change the rules. I did make the text stand out more than Governor sirnick did when I was Governor but that's hardly an excuse to mm ot even read the instructions. Didnt they ever give you that fake test in grade school which if you read the instructions you didn't end up doing anything? Most kids failed that one lol.

[Napoleon]

Do you have a constitutional basis for such a suit? Having your vote disqualified for perfectly valid reasons is not grounds to sue.

[Napoleon]

Governor Sirnick made a mistake and meant to post that the region passed a law to give federal election law supremacy.

However, I would like to make clear that there is no federal law that gives voters the right to edit their ballots so my personal opinion is that this law is not applicable. The federal law given supremacy is "votes edited more than 20 minutes after being posted shall be counted as void" which the region's law is in full compliance with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As their is no explicit contradiction, in fact we have full compliance, the Vote Sanctity Act remains in full effect and the constitutionality is unquestionable. My sincerest apologies to the affected voters.

[Napoleon]

That said, if you have a legitimate constitutional basis for your case you should bring it forward. I just can't think of anything that trumps what I mentioned.

[Napoleon]

That's a cute interpretation, but, as I'm sure that you're aware, there are a couple of obvious objections. How Governor Sirnick chooses to count the vote will determine whether further elucidation on this point is necessary.

As I stated clearly, I'm unaware of any constitutionally sound alternatives but I would like to hear them as I particularly enjoy constitutional law debates

[Napoleon]

That's a cute interpretation, but, as I'm sure that you're aware, there are a couple of obvious objections. How Governor Sirnick chooses to count the vote will determine whether further elucidation on this point is necessary.

As I stated clearly, I'm unaware of any constitutionally sound alternatives but I would like to hear them as I particularly enjoy constitutional law debates

As the relevant regional statute directly states that it contradicts federal law, the regional law is no longer in effect per Section 2 of the Supremacy Act.

Vote Sanctity Act: A voter who edits his ballot any length of time after it has been posted in the voting booth thread for any Northeast Election nullifies it. Election authorities shall not count a ballot altered in the above manner.

Supremacy Act: To give primacy to federal  law over regional law.Section 1.The Northeast acknowledges that the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land and agrees to use all standards and regulations, including election law, set forth in the  federal constitution and statutes as the minimum standard for Northeast laws and statutes. Section 2.In cases where Northeast and federal law conflict, the federal law shall have supremacy.

As federal law clearly states "Persons who edit the post in which their vote(s) are contained at the place of voting after twenty minutes shall have their vote counted as void."

The Supremacy Act prevents the Northeast from using a thirty minute edit period, but as it says "minimum standard" the region is still allowed to enforce stricter regulations. The federal law does not guarantee a right to edit your vote within twenty minutes, only mandating that any votes edited past the 20 are void.

[Napoleon]

Could we get a hypothetical TNF v. Spiral count?

29-25 TNF

[Napoleon]

That's not the same text that I'm looking for the Northeast law. There's also the question of whether "minimum" standards are minimally inclusive or minimally exclusive.

What's your text and where can I find it? The texts I copied were the final bills passed by the assembly. And I don't consider that a legitimate question but I will play long. How does Judge Nix rule?

[Napoleon]

The Wiki must be wrong then...

The constitution does not guarantee that "at a minimum, votes edited less than twenty minutes after they were posted must be counted". I guess its a reading comprehension thing after all. I already posted the text of the constitution and you can spend some time learning what a minimum standard is if you aren't aware.

[Napoleon]

The Wiki must be wrong then...

The constitution does not guarantee that "at a minimum, votes edited less than twenty minutes after they were posted must be counted". I guess its a reading comprehension thing after all. I already posted the text of the constitution and you can spend some time learning what a minimum standard is if you aren't aware.

As someone concerned with reading comprehension, I'm sure that you agree that it's important to mind the adverbs.

No, its important to follow election law. Thats it. I don't want anyone's vote to be invalid but if that's the law, it must be followed EFFECTIVELY.

[Napoleon]

According to Governor Sirnick, the Supremacy Act doesn't change anything. It only codifies and acknowledges that federal voting regulations trump regional laws, as the Supreme Court ruled in Atlasia v. IDS (2013).

As that ruling struck down a fifty-post requirement for voting eligibility in the Southeast, which was stricter than the federal requirement at the time, it makes sense to interpret "minimum" as meaning a minimum standard of inclusiveness, i.e. if a vote is valid under federal law it is also valid under regional law.

Okay, now I will give you credit for a debate in good faith but I will once again demonstrate why that case does not apply. Atlasia v. IDS was brought about due to my "role" as an election watchdog type. However, that case was specific to voter registration. The Supreme Court was able to make that ruling in favor of Atlasia because the IDS constitution had voter requirements that "explicitly contradicted" the federal constitution, which is what must happen for the Supreme Court to strike down a regional law. The Court was also careful to make their ruling specific to voter registration and not all election laws, and did so because of the clear federal interest in having a uniform system of voter registration. There is no clear federal interest in regional matters such as this one nor is there an "explicit contradiction". The Vote Sanctity Act was unaffected by the ruling in Atlasia v. IDS 2013 and the Governor needs to be aware of that. I encourage anyone interested to go to page 8 of the government board and read that case if they find themselves confused about it still.

[Napoleon]

The lawsuit was specific to voter registration, but the Supremacy Act is not.

(I would also go further and argue that if federal election regulations and regional election regulations do not produce the same result, they are in conflict regardless of whether their wording implies a direct contradiction.)

And what relevant language in the Supremacy Act would repeal the Vote Sanctity Act?

[Napoleon]

The lawsuit was specific to voter registration, but the Supremacy Act is not.

(I would also go further and argue that if federal election regulations and regional election regulations do not produce the same result, they are in conflict regardless of whether their wording implies a direct contradiction.)

And what relevant language in the Supremacy Act would repeal the Vote Sanctity Act?

Section 2 gives federal law supremacy over regional law when they are "in conflict."

The law could only be in conflict if we were to do something like allow vote editing up to thirty minutes. Do you know how minimum standards work? You really should do some research yourself IMO but I will give you an example. If there are federal school standards that say students are required to understand the concept of minimum standards by fourth grade, and a state decides to make minimum standards part of the third grade curriculum, there is no conflict. But if the state decides "we will wait until fifth grade to teach this concept" they will probably lose a ton of money.

[Napoleon]

So I take it you read very few of my posts here and certainly did not read the actual court ruling, am I right?

[Napoleon]

So I take it you read very few of my posts here and certainly did not read the actual court ruling, am I right?

Nope. I read all of them!

I'm astonished that you can read so much and understand so little, if that's the case. Which of these key words did you miss?

The Chief Justice delivers the unanimous opinion of the Court.

Statement of Facts

Article V, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution states in part that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VIII, Clause 11 of the Southeast Constitution, however, states in part that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ruling

Independently of the outcome this discrepancy may incur on the results of any regional elections conducted within the Southeast, or indeed the intended scope of relevant disputed statute, this inconsistency is plainly unconstitutional and reflects an attempt on the part of the Southeast to usurp the authority of the federal government to determine voter registration standards. As these minimum requirements have been ratified by national referendum through the constitutional amendment process, they apply to all regions due to the simple fact that voter registration is handled federally.  The Southeast does not have its own Secretary to handle regional voter registration, nor should it; under the logic that the region may bar federally registered voters from participating in its elections, it would also be able to register voters who are not yet eligible to register federally.  Rather than allow for the potential complications that may result in a dual system of voter registration, the constitution makes it clear in no uncertain terms that this is a duty to be undertaken exclusively by the federal government.

We rule the 50 post voting requirement in the Southeast constitution to be in direct violation of the constitution and accordingly strike it down, and order any voters disenfranchised by this unconstitutional provision to have their ballots counted.

Here is the relevant statement of facts:

Vote Sanctity Act: A voter who edits his ballot any length of time after it has been posted in the voting booth thread for any Northeast Election nullifies it. Election authorities shall not count a ballot altered in the above manner.

Supremacy Act: To give primacy to federal  law over regional law.Section 1.The Northeast acknowledges that the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land and agrees to use all standards and regulations, including election law, set forth in the  federal constitution and statutes as the minimum standard for Northeast laws and statutes. Section 2.In cases where Northeast and federal law conflict, the federal law shall have supremacy.

As federal law clearly states "Persons who edit the post in which their vote(s) are contained at the place of voting after twenty minutes shall have their vote counted as void."

The Supremacy Act prevents the Northeast from using a thirty minute edit period, but as it says "minimum standard" the region is still allowed to enforce stricter regulations. The federal law does not guarantee a right to edit your vote within twenty minutes, only mandating that any votes edited past the 20 are void.

Explain how these are the same.

[Napoleon]

I've already mentioned that the Supremacy Act, although inspired by Chief Justice Ebowed's decision and the principles behind it, does not limit itself to voter registration.

In its own words, the Supremacy Act applies to "all standards and regulations, including election law." I mentioned Ebowed's decision to illustrate why I dispute your interpretation of what it means to use federal laws as a "minimum standard."

I understand what you're trying to argue, I'm just trying to get you to actually argue it. Ebowed's decision was centered around a region effectively setting up a second system of voter registration and therefore in violation of federal supremacy. Can you explain your argument in the context of "due to the simple fact that (issue X) is handled federally"?

[Napoleon]

According to Governor Sirnick, the Supremacy Act doesn't change anything. It only codifies and acknowledges that federal voting regulations trump regional laws, as the Supreme Court ruled in Atlasia v. IDS (2013).

As that ruling struck down a fifty-post requirement for voting eligibility in the Southeast, which was stricter than the federal requirement at the time, it makes sense to interpret "minimum" as meaning a minimum standard of inclusiveness, i.e. if a vote is valid under federal law it is also valid under regional law.

Where is this so-called Supremacy Act?  I can't find it on the Wiki.

I posted the entire text above. I think its on page 10 of regional governments. Matt was speaker.

[Napoleon]

Regional senate races continue to bore.

[Napoleon]

This is basically October 2012 all over again.

[Napoleon]

This is basically October 2012 all over again.

Universal model for second term attainment?

Perhaps. We just need one more senator to resign so we can elect two trolls and let them have at it.

[Napoleon]

I wonder if Matt has ended up being a drag on the ticket in the eyes of the more right-wing Federalists.

Insulting them during the convention probably didn't do much to win anyone over.