Poll on Democratic Hawk's Vote

[minionofmidas]

I don't really care, actually, but:
From a legal precedent point of view, clearly yes.

He dumbly tried to vote in all the races, but we've left such a vote stand once before - although we maybe shouldn't have. A voter should be able to figure out that this is clearly not what he's supposed to do.
He edited his text without editing his vote, but we've left such votes stand before - something I approve of.
He didn't have a Georgia avatar or signature at the time of voting, but he did at the time of polls closing. This, again, follows established precedent. (Not that that rule is good for anything anyways.)
He deleted his vote, well after ballots got counted - sfw? Where does it say you can't delete your vote from old poll threads? Show me where it says that. If I'd delete my vote now, would anybody claim Gabu lost and StevenNick won? Huh?
Now don't get me wrong...I can see why it should bug people, especially hyperpartisans and the anally retentive (Note: These are two separate groups of people! No cause for offense!) , if somebody falls into all the minor traps of our election law at the same time, and his vote still counts.
But that's not a legally valid argument.

[minionofmidas]

There was not a Supreme Court case, but the SOFA allowed such votes to stand in June, and no one even challenged it to the Court as there was a pretty wide spread consensus that this was the right decision (at least in public statements, perhaps some people opposed these votes being counted but didn't want to publically state their views).

Public opinion is irrelevant, the reason it wasnt challenged was because it wouldnt have affected the outcome of the election.

This may be very well true, and I would have understood very well if the supreme court had ruled Hawk's vote invalid.
But the SOFA should have stuck to his own precedent.

Not that it matters now, this thing is over, and I'd like to congratulate WMS on his victory.

[minionofmidas]

Democratic Hawk wouldn't have made the mistakes that he did if he thought that they would cause his vote to not count; the fact that such things had been allowed in the past led him to believe that editing his post only and not his vote would not be a problem.

Do you know this for sure? Or are you just making claims for the sake of argument here? I had figured he was just a very uninformed voter...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very wise words.