Inks.LWC v. Governor of the Mideast (Benconstine)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

May it please Judge HappyWarrior of the Honorable Mideast Superior Court to hear my case:

I ask that the original results of the Mideast Assembly race in the Mideast Ballot for August be counted and certified and I ask for an injunction against the current Mideast Assembly Elections for the following reason:

Governor Benconstine never officially tabulated and certified the results per Section 4, Clause 3 of the Mideast Election and Vote Regulations Statute, which reads: "When the period of voting has expired, the administrator of the voting booth shall post a declaration of the result in the voting booth, including all those votes which he has discounted, and the reasons for these votes being discounted."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And HappyWarrior can promptly throw out the entire election as it wasn't conducted using STV.

How do you figure?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And HappyWarrior can promptly throw out the entire election as it wasn't conducted using STV.

How do you figure?

Article III, Section 1, Clause 5:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since the election wasn't administered in line with the constitutional specifications the entire thing is invalid.

At least in my opinion.

It was never certified, so it still could be certified as PR-STV.  That's my whole point.  Ben never counted to votes yet, so it's not that it wasn't administered inline with the specifications, it's that it hasn't yet been fully administered.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The voting was done in such a way that it's impossible to say that it was conducted under PR-STV. Unless you're an awful liar or have no clue what STV is.

Ben never gave instructions though.  The vote could still have been conducted under STV regulations.  People didn't list preference, but in this case, everybody who ran got an equal number of votes (because I accepted Al's write in vote), therefore, the details of how the transfer votes occurred is not necessary.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Useless case and total waste of time.

Someone's a sore loser

Once again, you have no clue what you're talking about. This is a waste of time because the wrong electoral system was used.

I don't care if I'm elected or not.

The wrong system wasn't used because NO system was officially used.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Useless case and total waste of time.

Someone's a sore loser

Once again, you have no clue what you're talking about. This is a waste of time because the wrong electoral system was used.

I don't care if I'm elected or not.

The wrong system wasn't used because NO system was officially used.

Exactly. But the vote was conducted in such a way (bullet voting) so as to make the tabulation of the votes via PR-STV impossible.

That's the way people voted.  A lack of explaining the process of voting does not violate the Mideast Election and Vote Regulations Statute Section 4, Clause 2 ("The administrator of a voting booth shall post links to all relevant statute regarding electoral law in the Mideast on the ballot."), because the direction to vote by PR-STV is not written in a statute, but rather the Constitution.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Useless case and total waste of time.

Someone's a sore loser

Once again, you have no clue what you're talking about. This is a waste of time because the wrong electoral system was used.

I don't care if I'm elected or not.

The wrong system wasn't used because NO system was officially used.

Exactly. But the vote was conducted in such a way (bullet voting) so as to make the tabulation of the votes via PR-STV impossible.

That's the way people voted.  A lack of explaining the process of voting does not violate the Mideast Election and Vote Regulations Statute Section 4, Clause 2 ("The administrator of a voting booth shall post links to all relevant statute regarding electoral law in the Mideast on the ballot."), because the direction to vote by PR-STV is not written in a statute, but rather the Constitution.

Regardless of that, the election was not administered under a system of PR-STV as outlined in the Mideast Constitution. Therefore it was unconstitutional.

This really seems like an open and shut case to me. Hopefully Happy will clear this up soon enough.

How was it not administered under that system?  It wasn't fully administered at all.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Useless case and total waste of time.

Someone's a sore loser

Once again, you have no clue what you're talking about. This is a waste of time because the wrong electoral system was used.

I don't care if I'm elected or not.

The wrong system wasn't used because NO system was officially used.

Exactly. But the vote was conducted in such a way (bullet voting) so as to make the tabulation of the votes via PR-STV impossible.

That's the way people voted.  A lack of explaining the process of voting does not violate the Mideast Election and Vote Regulations Statute Section 4, Clause 2 ("The administrator of a voting booth shall post links to all relevant statute regarding electoral law in the Mideast on the ballot."), because the direction to vote by PR-STV is not written in a statute, but rather the Constitution.

Regardless of that, the election was not administered under a system of PR-STV as outlined in the Mideast Constitution. Therefore it was unconstitutional.

This really seems like an open and shut case to me. Hopefully Happy will clear this up soon enough.

How was it not administered under that system?  It wasn't fully administered at all.

You're saying the results have to be certified for the election to be invalid?

Yes, and if the Governor certifies them in a way that makes them invalid (i.e.: doesn't use PR-STV), I will initiate a recall petition.  If he legitimately thinks that we need a revote, that's fine, but if he intentionally breaks the law to force a revote, that's unnaceptable.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Useless case and total waste of time.

Someone's a sore loser

Once again, you have no clue what you're talking about. This is a waste of time because the wrong electoral system was used.

I don't care if I'm elected or not.

The wrong system wasn't used because NO system was officially used.

Exactly. But the vote was conducted in such a way (bullet voting) so as to make the tabulation of the votes via PR-STV impossible.

That's the way people voted.  A lack of explaining the process of voting does not violate the Mideast Election and Vote Regulations Statute Section 4, Clause 2 ("The administrator of a voting booth shall post links to all relevant statute regarding electoral law in the Mideast on the ballot."), because the direction to vote by PR-STV is not written in a statute, but rather the Constitution.

Regardless of that, the election was not administered under a system of PR-STV as outlined in the Mideast Constitution. Therefore it was unconstitutional.

This really seems like an open and shut case to me. Hopefully Happy will clear this up soon enough.

How was it not administered under that system?  It wasn't fully administered at all.

You're saying the results have to be certified for the election to be invalid?

Yes, and if the Governor certifies them in a way that makes them invalid (i.e.: doesn't use PR-STV), I will initiate a recall petition.  If he legitimately thinks that we need a revote, that's fine, but if he intentionally breaks the law to force a revote, that's unnaceptable.

Hold on; why am I intentionally breaking the law here?  I think we need a revote; which is why I opened another booth.  The idea that I would intentionally break the law is quite absurd.

I didn't say that I thought you would.  The way Xahar said it seemed like he wanted you to break the law.

What you legally are obligated to do is count the votes, and not count anybody's votes for Assembly, because nobody voted correctly.  Since you still administered the voting booth under the law, you would then appoint the 3 assembly members.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Useless case and total waste of time.

Someone's a sore loser

Once again, you have no clue what you're talking about. This is a waste of time because the wrong electoral system was used.

I don't care if I'm elected or not.

The wrong system wasn't used because NO system was officially used.

Exactly. But the vote was conducted in such a way (bullet voting) so as to make the tabulation of the votes via PR-STV impossible.

That's the way people voted.  A lack of explaining the process of voting does not violate the Mideast Election and Vote Regulations Statute Section 4, Clause 2 ("The administrator of a voting booth shall post links to all relevant statute regarding electoral law in the Mideast on the ballot."), because the direction to vote by PR-STV is not written in a statute, but rather the Constitution.

Regardless of that, the election was not administered under a system of PR-STV as outlined in the Mideast Constitution. Therefore it was unconstitutional.

This really seems like an open and shut case to me. Hopefully Happy will clear this up soon enough.

How was it not administered under that system?  It wasn't fully administered at all.

If it wasn't administered, then it wasn't administered under the system prescribed.

I said it wasn't fully administered.  The only thing he needs to do to complete the administration is certify the results, by using PR-STV

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I have to agree with what seems to be the majority opinion here, you can not count a ballot that was done in the wrong format.  I advise a complete revote from start to finish.

But the ballot was done in no format at all.  He simply put up a list.  The law never states that you have to explain what form of voting is to be used.  Is this an official ruling from you?

If so, what all does the Governor have to say in terms of instructions on how to vote?

EDIT: Also, if this is an official ruling, then the same would go for the Lt. Governor election, and as the Constitution states, preferential voting is to be used.  You would have to invalidate the Lt. Governor's election results as well.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I have to agree with what seems to be the majority opinion here, you can not count a ballot that was done in the wrong format.  I advise a complete revote from start to finish.

In that case, I don't know if I can do this but someone with standing (cough, Inks, cough) should move to have this go to the Supreme Court as HappyWarrior has a clear conflict of interest.

And what conflict is that?  Do you think I would honestly allow something to conflict with my interpretation of the law?  Frankly I am offended.

I have to agree with what seems to be the majority opinion here, you can not count a ballot that was done in the wrong format.  I advise a complete revote from start to finish.

But the ballot was done in no format at all.  He simply put up a list.  The law never states that you have to explain what form of voting is to be used.  Is this an official ruling from you?

If so, what all does the Governor have to say in terms of instructions on how to vote?

EDIT: Also, if this is an official ruling, then the same would go for the Lt. Governor election, and as the Constitution states, preferential voting is to be used.  You would have to invalidate the Lt. Governor's election results as well.

Then so be it, hold a new Lt. Governor election if need be.  However I believe(at least this is how it worked in my term) that when a Lt. Governor is Appointed rather than elected, a simple yea or nay is all that is required.

It is, but he didn't specify how to vote.  That's the violation that you're claiming he made in the Assembly election.  I'm simply asking what law(s) you're basing that on, and whether you're giving an official ruling.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I have to agree with what seems to be the majority opinion here, you can not count a ballot that was done in the wrong format.  I advise a complete revote from start to finish.

In that case, I don't know if I can do this but someone with standing (cough, Inks, cough) should move to have this go to the Supreme Court as HappyWarrior has a clear conflict of interest.

And what conflict is that?  Do you think I would honestly allow something to conflict with my interpretation of the law?  Frankly I am offended.

I have to agree with what seems to be the majority opinion here, you can not count a ballot that was done in the wrong format.  I advise a complete revote from start to finish.

But the ballot was done in no format at all.  He simply put up a list.  The law never states that you have to explain what form of voting is to be used.  Is this an official ruling from you?

If so, what all does the Governor have to say in terms of instructions on how to vote?

EDIT: Also, if this is an official ruling, then the same would go for the Lt. Governor election, and as the Constitution states, preferential voting is to be used.  You would have to invalidate the Lt. Governor's election results as well.

Then so be it, hold a new Lt. Governor election if need be.  However I believe(at least this is how it worked in my term) that when a Lt. Governor is Appointed rather than elected, a simple yea or nay is all that is required.

It is, but he didn't specify how to vote.  That's the violation that you're claiming he made in the Assembly election.  I'm simply asking what law(s) you're basing that on, and whether you're giving an official ruling.

yes he did, it clearly says "aye or nay".

Yes, but he didn't do it by citing the area in the Constitution that says how to vote in that instance, and that is what is up for debate now.  Whether or not the Mideast Election law that says that you have to post relevant "statute" regarding elections includes the Constitution.  I'm arguing that statute does not include the Constitution, but rather all laws passed by the Mideast, which does not include a law that states that you must tell the voters the method of voting.

Therefore, ben should certify the election using PR-STV and award no votes to anybody because nobody used that method of voting.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If need be, I'll certify the first election, and appoint the 3 winners of the second election.

That's my suggestion.  It's not that I'm trying to be an asshole, but I feel that we need to do the proper thing, not just the "easy" thing.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

OK, so I understand Inks case about STV not being used for the Assembly, but how could it be used for the Lt. Gov race?  Would the ballot have just been:

[_] The Mikado
[_] Write-in
[_] None of the Above

Because it seems to me that it would've had the exact same effect as the Aye/Nay vote.

No, my point was not that it had to be STV, but that if the argument against the Assembly election is to be valid, that it would be because ben didn't directly quote the part of the Constitution that talks about using PR-STV, and that the Lt. Governor affirmation would be invalid because he didn't quote that part of the Constitution.

This all stems from Section 4, Clause 2 of the Mideast Election and Vote Regulations Statute (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Mideast_Election_and_Vote_Regulations_Statute).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So, ben, what are you doing?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So, ben, what are you doing?

I'm going to certify the original elections, declare no one elected, and then appoint the 3 winners from the re-vote.

Alright.  I drop my lawsuit.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So, ben, what are you doing?

I'm going to certify the original elections, declare no one elected, and then appoint the 3 winners from the re-vote.

Alright.  I drop my lawsuit.

Wait...you got screwed and your going to drop your suit???

I got screwed because we performed this how the law dictates (other than the original ballot).  A revote would've been illegal, and we couldn't count the original votes - even I voted incorrectly, and it's the voters responsibility to know how to vote (perhaps something we should change).

I'm not happy, but I'd much rather we abide by our laws than elect me in an unlawful election.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

As the Attorney General, I don't believe I have any legal authority here, but because I'm a nice guy, I'll look at this and offer some free advice.

The first voting booth simply said vote for 3 but did not specify the voting method. All voters voted as if the election were using approval voting. So this election resulted in 0 valid ballots and a 4 way tie among 4 candidates.

The Mideast Constitution only addresses vacancies and does not address the event of a tie.

1. This a flaw in the Constitution that must be fixed.

2. The governor could try holding a second election (which has happened) or appoint members (which as happened) but because this was the result of a tie and not a vacancy a member of the region would have a strong case that the governor does not have the power to do either one of these since it is not stated in the Constitution.

If you want to be safe, work on a Constitutional Amendment that would that would address what to do in the event of a tie, pass it, then implement that method.

Was it a tie since nobody got any votes?