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

[afleitch]

     Bacon King was the 15th voter & Andy Jackson was the 30th. Basically the voting booth eats every vote that begins a new page.

That is very concerning. I think anyone who has any concerns over his or her vote should PM a quote of their vote to the SOFA until the problem is rectified.

Any thought's on that?

[afleitch]

When do polls close?

At midnight, I believe.

I've still to vote. I'm glad I waited

[afleitch]

Cards on the table here. What votes are likely to be challenged?

[afleitch]

Cards on the table here. What votes are likely to be challenged?

Is all of the above an option?

Barnes vote is out as it seems he registered to vote after only 23 posts, two short (unless any have been deleted)

[afleitch]

I didn't know the 25 post requirement at the time, right after posting that I was informed I needed two more posts, within the next few minutes I achieved those posts, and when I voted I had many more than needed. I was also onformed by Hashemite via PM that I could vote. So I certainly think my vote should stand.

Cards on the table here. What votes are likely to be challenged?

Is all of the above an option?

Barnes vote is out as it seems he registered to vote after only 23 posts, two short (unless any have been deleted)

I'd personally say that the 25 post requirement is necessary to vote....rather than register to vote.

In the same manner, 17 year olds can register to vote before their birthday as long as they'll be of age by Election Day.

However, I would say that you need to reach 25 by the 7 days before the election in order to be eligible to vote.

     Which Barnes did. He achieved his 25th post at 10:45 PM on June 11th.

True, his vote should count then so long as he voted properly.

I would contest that under the 6th Amendment

A person may become a registered voter if he has attained twenty-five posts at the forum. In registration, the person must state his name and State of fantasy residence; in addition, he may optionally state a political affiliation.

He registered to vote before he reached his 25th post. His registration was and is invalid as is his vote. For example - you cannot register in your first post on the Forum and then it becomes valid 24 posts later.

[afleitch]

I would contest that under the 6th Amendment

A person may become a registered voter if he has attained twenty-five posts at the forum. In registration, the person must state his name and State of fantasy residence; in addition, he may optionally state a political affiliation.

He registered to vote before he reached his 25th post. His registration was and is invalid as is his vote. For example - you cannot register in your first post on the Forum and then it becomes valid 24 posts later.

I would argue that he became officially registered when every piece of the puzzle fit, which would include his 25th post. At that moment he would have been registered, starting the 7 day counter before he could vote.

But he didn't attain 25 posts when he registered. He only attained that afterwards so his registration was and is still invalid. That is how this law has been interpreted in the past.

EDIT: For example

Hello! I'd like to join the Regional Protection Party, is this where I do that?

You have to have 25 posts before you can join. Also, you might want to look into the DA or JCP because the RPP is a conservative party, for the most part.

I'm glad someone pointed that out, I was just about to post about the posting requirement.

[afleitch]

That example has no legal basis. I'm looking for court decisions on the matter, otherwise I am going to interpret the constitution as I have been: A poster becomes registered when they have reached 25 posts.

I still hold to this interpretation of the Constitution. You will find conversations like this litered throughout the Registration Thread.

vvvvvvvv

Is is still 50? I thought we had reduced it?

It's 50 according to the version of Article V of the Constitution on the Wiki.

Yes, but if you look at the notes below, they indicate:

"^ Section 2, Clause 1 was amended by the Sixth Amendment to read: A person may become a registered voter if he has attained twenty-five posts at the forum. In registration, the person must state his name and State of fantasy residence; in addition, he may optionally state a political affiliation. "

Well, that's kind of silly.  They should really keep the information in reverse: relevant information in the main section and historical information at the bottom.

At any rate, okay, 25 it is.

I actually changed it at one time, but Peter said that the normal way of doing this is to leave the original in tact and put a note by it which is now how we have been doing.

That's the practice regarding the US constitution, which can't be amended in-text. it's also the practice in Atlasia.

I will ask for a court case on this should you choose to count Barnes' vote as valid. I do not believe you can become eligable to register to vote until such as times as you attain 25 posts.

Barnes - this is nothing personal; it's simply because I disagree with the SoFA's interpretation of the Constitution.

[afleitch]

This is ridiculous.  My vote counts, and I stand by that.  And just to prove it to you, here is a PM I got from the Secretary of Forum Affairs: (I apologize for saying earlier that I recieved one from Hashemite)

Re: (No subject)
« Sent to: Barnes on: June 12, 2009, 02:46:01 pm »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »     

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Barnes on June 12, 2009, 02:45:11 pm
About the Elections for June, I registered to vote in the Northeast yesterday (June 11), and I've been a member since June 8. Am I qualified to vote in the June elections?

Thanks,
Barnes


Yes, I believe so.

I agree with you 100%, Barnes. Your vote should count. You had 25 posts in time, and you registered in the registration thread. If your vote is not counted and it affects the outcome, I'm sure there will be a lawsuit, and I think it will rule in your favor.

Let me put it this way.

The Consitution states

A person may become a registered voter if he has attained twenty-five posts at the forum. In registration, the person must state his name and State of fantasy residence; in addition, he may optionally state a political affiliation.

Barnes went into the Registration Thread and registered to vote by stating his name, party and residency when he reached 23 posts. What else was he doing in that thread other than registering? Was he therefore a registered voter, given that he was not allowed to register to vote until he had attained 25 posts? Or was his registration invalid because he had not reached 25 posts?

It is a Registration Thread - you are not declaring an 'interest' you are registering to vote.

[afleitch]

May I also point out that Forum Affairs Law is specific on how it is to be interpreted;

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Forum_Affairs_Law#Voter_rolls

"The Secretary of Forum Affairs is required to keep an up-to-date list of each registered voter. To be a registered voter, a citizen must attain twenty-five posts and then post three pieces of information within the registration thread"

[afleitch]

May I also point out that Forum Affairs Law is specific on how it is to be interpreted;

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Forum_Affairs_Law#Voter_rolls

"The Secretary of Forum Affairs is required to keep an up-to-date list of each registered voter. To be a registered voter, a citizen must attain twenty-five posts and then post three pieces of information within the registration thread"

Hmmm, that could very well change my opinion on this matter. How much legal standing does this primer have? It seems to be a publicly edited piece, but it could be important in interpreting law.

That is probably up for discussion. But it is the SoFA's 'handbook' if you will and he could be seen to deviate from that if he rules against Forum Affairs Law.

[afleitch]

May I also point out that Forum Affairs Law is specific on how it is to be interpreted;

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Forum_Affairs_Law#Voter_rolls

"The Secretary of Forum Affairs is required to keep an up-to-date list of each registered voter. To be a registered voter, a citizen must attain twenty-five posts and then post three pieces of information within the registration thread"

Hmmm, that could very well change my opinion on this matter. How much legal standing does this primer have? It seems to be a publicly edited piece, but it could be important in interpreting law.

That is probably up for discussion. But it is the SoFA's 'handbook' if you will and he could be seen to deviate from that if he rules against Forum Affairs Law.

Here's my thing:
I didn't know that. And I'm sure a lot of people didn't. No one informed Barnes that he had to register again. Dan specifically said "Get 25 and you're in". I think it's unfair to "punish" Barnes for this, when it is everyone's fault for not telling him he had to re-register.

It's easy to find. Look at the second to last post on the registration thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought it was common knowledge which is why I was suprised people were quite defensive when I raised it.

[afleitch]

But no one told that to Barnes after he registered. I mean, why would he be looking in the "New Register" thread? It wasn't mentioned till just a few days ago, so he wouldn't of had time to be able to register and vote. It was our mistake for not telling him.

Maybe. But ignorance of the law, if this is what we presume the law to be, is no excuse I'm afraid.

[afleitch]

But no one told that to Barnes after he registered. I mean, why would he be looking in the "New Register" thread? It wasn't mentioned till just a few days ago, so he wouldn't of had time to be able to register and vote. It was our mistake for not telling him.

Maybe. But ignorance of the law, if this is what we presume the law to be, is no excuse I'm afraid.

That I agree with. Ignorance of the law does not make up for not abiding by the law. That said, I have doubts as to whether this, in fact, deviated from the law to the extent that Barnes's vote would be discounted. I usually prefer to see as few votes invalidated as possible and so side with a broader interpretation of the law, but it is up to the SoFA and the courts to decide this one.

I agree. Which is why I'll be taking it to the court. I don;t know if there are any other votes that may be affected in this race

[afleitch]

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?

I would hope so. I tend agree with your interpretation of the validity of votes and if it comes down to Court hearing then I will support you. It also means that there are two arguments to be made to not count Barnes' vote.

[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.