Department of Federal Elections

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

My understanding is that if he does not concede, then he'll be elected, and IIRC, we'll need to wait some weeks until he's declared inactive. Though, it does allow him to return - but then again the decision to concede is his to make.

[bgwah]

Hmm, that's interesting. The wording doesn't quite seem right since it obviously wasn't written with the Proportional Representation Act in mind. How would you count it? Since it just says "greatest number of highest preferences" does that mean it would basically be Ben vs. Shua among everyone's votes?

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

My understanding, by the use of the word next, means Ben.

[bgwah]

My understanding, by the use of the word next, means Ben.

Well that's the problem is, that's not how the STV elections work. I don't know who has more highest preferences, but that doesn't sound like the same thing as just re-counting the election without Homely in it.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

"the candidate with the next greatest number of highest preference votes"

"greatest" and "next greatest" in this case may not be equal.

next implies that these 5 must have the greatest; the 5 greatest. The implication is that since this is how you win, then the next person to win, should win.

next also limits me. I would need to pick Homely's of 10, and next greatest would be 9, which would exclude Ben. Unless next in this case did include 10.

However

All of this presumes that they are talking about the first ballot. I do not. I presume all of this refers to the final ballot. Otherwise this clause could well force me to elect JBrase to two Senate seats. On the final ballot, the only other name left is that of Ben.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

And FTR, I am not playing favs here. If I was Shua would win. This is how I interpret the law as written.

[Јas]

The Proportional Representation Act specifies, in section 3, which sections of the CESRA are applicable to STV elections. Section 12, re: concessions, is not included there, and so might not reasonably be considered applicable or relevant to the present case.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Meh. Seems pretty stupid but if that is the law, that's what I will enforce, and Homely will be pronounced elected.

I'm going to bed at some point and waking up at another point. (clearly). I'll be back in 16 hours for sure, and, for 8 hours between now and then.

[Napoleon]

Yeah, if you do this stupid sh**t, I will sue.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Yeah, if you do this stupid sh**t, I will sue.

I'm afraid you are going to have to be far more specific given the options that the law has given me.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

FTR my options are as follows:

1 - Just make Shua a Senator.
I'd like to be able to do this, but, my ethics wont allow it.

2 - Go with my original thoughts, have homely declare, and certify/validate Ben as the winner of the 5th seat.
While this was what I was going to do, Jas has pointed out that the law in fact does not allow for it.

3 - Declare homely as the winner of the 5th seat, and let the Senate deal with the problem.
I'd rather not pass the buck, but the law actually seems to suggest that I do so, and I will not go against my own interpretation of the law.

All options are "stupid" really. I'm a bit disappointed that someone would run for Senate then quit the game right after winning. That being said I've quit myself a few times and know the emotions that go into it and I will not "blame" homely for quitting.

Regardless, I find myself somewhere between a sigh and a facepalm.

[Cincinnatus]

You need homely to quit after validation and swearing in, which would clearly solve the problem.  Can he not come on for the five minutes it would take to do so later? 

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

That still triggers a by-election.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I'm going to bed in about 2 minutes. I'll thus be awake at near 6pm local. Ideally, Homely will have read this thread and will have some kind of decision.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

...Also note that, as was revealed with JBrase was elected, the law is very flawed whenever unexpected things happen like a senator resigns.

Keep in mind that:
A - Homely does not BECOME a Senator until the end of the month. Can he resign from an office he does not hold?
B - Ignoring the above, the date he resigns can impact how long for the by-election by up to 6 days. Ideally he will speak to me in person and I can thumb though all the laws and explain to him exactly what would happen based on his decision.

[homelycooking]

What am I supposed to do? Concede "defeat" in the election? Swear in and then resign?

[Napoleon]

Yeah, if you do this stupid sh**t, I will sue.

I'm afraid you are going to have to be far more specific given the options that the law has given me.

You are violating the Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Act.

[Јas]

...Also note that, as was revealed with JBrase was elected, the law is very flawed whenever unexpected things happen like a senator resigns.

Keep in mind that:
A - Homely does not BECOME a Senator until the end of the month. Can he resign from an office he does not hold?
B - Ignoring the above, the date he resigns can impact how long for the by-election by up to 6 days. Ideally he will speak to me in person and I can thumb though all the laws and explain to him exactly what would happen based on his decision.

A by-election can't take place until a vacancy occurs; and no vacancy can arise in homely's case until at least the start of the next Senate session. IMO, the new Senate can either expel homely early in the session; but the neatest solution would probably be a post-dated resignation by homely.

It's quite common for resignations to be stated as taking effect as of a specified time/date of the resigner's choosing. I can't see why that couldn't also be applicable for the current instance, e.g. homely specifying that he's resigning his office as of 12.01 on the date of swearing-in.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Yeah, if you do this stupid sh**t, I will sue.

I'm afraid you are going to have to be far more specific given the options that the law has given me.

You are violating the Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Act.

Again I don't follow. You are going to have to be more specific.

I can see you are trying to threaten me to attempt to force me away from doing something, but you are going to have to explain what it is you do not want me to do.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

What am I supposed to do? Concede "defeat" in the election? Swear in and then resign?

You are not supposed to do anything. The decision is yours. Concessions are impossible under the law.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

...Also note that, as was revealed with JBrase was elected, the law is very flawed whenever unexpected things happen like a senator resigns.

Keep in mind that:
A - Homely does not BECOME a Senator until the end of the month. Can he resign from an office he does not hold?
B - Ignoring the above, the date he resigns can impact how long for the by-election by up to 6 days. Ideally he will speak to me in person and I can thumb though all the laws and explain to him exactly what would happen based on his decision.

A by-election can't take place until a vacancy occurs; and no vacancy can arise in homely's case until at least the start of the next Senate session. IMO, the new Senate can either expel homely early in the session; but the neatest solution would probably be a post-dated resignation by homely.

It's quite common for resignations to be stated as taking effect as of a specified time/date of the resigner's choosing. I can't see why that couldn't also be applicable for the current instance, e.g. homely specifying that he's resigning his office as of 12.01 on the date of swearing-in.

He would still need to swear in, which he can not do if he's not here.

The one thing that is clear to me however, is that the "fix" to this "problem" no longer falls within the jurisdiction of this department. It's "not my problem" and while that normally wouldn't sit well with me, I just woke up and my allergies are bothering me, so I am very apt to say "fine" to that.

There is nothing I can do regardless one way or another. Therefore...

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=139799.msg3001499#msg3001499

[Јas]

...Also note that, as was revealed with JBrase was elected, the law is very flawed whenever unexpected things happen like a senator resigns.

Keep in mind that:
A - Homely does not BECOME a Senator until the end of the month. Can he resign from an office he does not hold?
B - Ignoring the above, the date he resigns can impact how long for the by-election by up to 6 days. Ideally he will speak to me in person and I can thumb though all the laws and explain to him exactly what would happen based on his decision.

A by-election can't take place until a vacancy occurs; and no vacancy can arise in homely's case until at least the start of the next Senate session. IMO, the new Senate can either expel homely early in the session; but the neatest solution would probably be a post-dated resignation by homely.

It's quite common for resignations to be stated as taking effect as of a specified time/date of the resigner's choosing. I can't see why that couldn't also be applicable for the current instance, e.g. homely specifying that he's resigning his office as of 12.01 on the date of swearing-in.

He would still need to swear in, which he can not do if he's not here.

The one thing that is clear to me however, is that the "fix" to this "problem" no longer falls within the jurisdiction of this department. It's "not my problem" and while that normally wouldn't sit well with me, I just woke up and my allergies are bothering me, so I am very apt to say "fine" to that.

There is nothing I can do regardless one way or another. Therefore...

I'm pretty sure Supreme Court jurisprudence would suggest that a swearing-in isn't necessary (though I have no intention of researching the case law). IIRC, the Court has held that persons elected become Senators whether or not they swear-in; though swearing-in is necessary to carry out official duties of their office. I can't imagine any problem arising from a resignation along the lines I outlined earlier.

At any rate, even were it held that swearing-in were necessary, unless practice has changed, it was the case that pre-emptive swearings-in were allowed for previous Senates; so homely could swear-in now and follow-it up with a resignation effective after the time he is due to take office.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Right now I'm stuffing my mouth full of allergy medicine and it's probably going to knock me back to sleep, so I'm in a bit of a bad mood, but in short, it's not my problem anymore. You guys are welcome to discuss it in here however.

[Yelnoc]

Right now I'm stuffing my mouth full of allergy medicine and it's probably going to knock me back to sleep, so I'm in a bit of a bad mood, but in short, it's not my problem anymore. You guys are welcome to discuss it in here however.

You too?  I have to take two Aleve twice a day for a cross country injury.  This morning I took those pills, and two and benedril (I don't remember if they were AM or PM) and have been out of it all day.  Here's to the end of allergy season!