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

[Associate Justice PiT]

ok...so I assume....in the event that Barnes and ElectoralJew are declared invalid in the presidential race....that Lief then leads in the first count by one vote. I was always under the impression that DC United's vote would then cause a tie in the 2nd count....thereby leading to a run-off. Does the number of first preferences, in fact, determine who wins in a tie?

My reading of Section 2 of the Consolidated Eelctoral Reform Act would suggest that a run-off is not necessary.
Per the Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If my disputes are accurate, then the election went as follows:
Count 1
Lief 41
PiT 40
gporter 1

Nobody has a majority, therefore per clause 2 (above), gporter is eliminated.

Count 2
Lief 41
PiT 41 (+1)
gporter 0 (-1)

Again, nobody has a majority.
Per section 3, after the implemntation of section2 (in this case that's the gporter re-distribution), and no majority exists (it doesn't), then we look back to section 2.
Per section 2, as no candidate has attained a majority, we remove the candidate who received the fewest 1st preferences - in this instance PiT.

With the elimination of PiT/HW, then Lief/BK would be declared the winners. (A run-off would only be necessary is the tickets were also tied on 1st preferences.)

     Your argument's problem is that you change the definition of highest preference. You interpret in section 2 to mean the highest preference not yet eliminated (the definition used in all cases in all of Atlasian history) whereas you interpret it in section 3 to mean only 1st preferences. You are suggesting that we change the definition of "highest preference" between two sections in the same statute without any real cause for doing so.

No, he doesn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"If no such candidate shall exist, then Clause 2 shall be implemented again until such a candidate does exist, or until all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes." Not "If  no such candidate shall exist and unless all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes..."
In other words, according to a literal interpretation of the Act, a tie leading to a runoff can only occur from a third count on. There is no provision for a tie after the second or indeed the first count.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the framers of the Act intended at all and the issue only arises through the somewhat awkward wording. (I would also like to take another look at the whole Act to see if there's anything to contradict it.)

     On further thought I do agree that it is not logically inconsistent, though it does seem like a very strange choice of phrasing. It seems like something that will need to be amended at some point.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ok...so I assume....in the event that Barnes and ElectoralJew are declared invalid in the presidential race....that Lief then leads in the first count by one vote. I was always under the impression that DC United's vote would then cause a tie in the 2nd count....thereby leading to a run-off. Does the number of first preferences, in fact, determine who wins in a tie?

My reading of Section 2 of the Consolidated Eelctoral Reform Act would suggest that a run-off is not necessary.
Per the Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If my disputes are accurate, then the election went as follows:
Count 1
Lief 41
PiT 40
gporter 1

Nobody has a majority, therefore per clause 2 (above), gporter is eliminated.

Count 2
Lief 41
PiT 41 (+1)
gporter 0 (-1)

Again, nobody has a majority.
Per section 3, after the implemntation of section2 (in this case that's the gporter re-distribution), and no majority exists (it doesn't), then we look back to section 2.
Per section 2, as no candidate has attained a majority, we remove the candidate who received the fewest 1st preferences - in this instance PiT.

With the elimination of PiT/HW, then Lief/BK would be declared the winners. (A run-off would only be necessary is the tickets were also tied on 1st preferences.)

     Your argument's problem is that you change the definition of highest preference. You interpret in section 2 to mean the highest preference not yet eliminated (the definition used in all cases in all of Atlasian history) whereas you interpret it in section 3 to mean only 1st preferences. You are suggesting that we change the definition of "highest preference" between two sections in the same statute without any real cause for doing so.

No, he doesn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"If no such candidate shall exist, then Clause 2 shall be implemented again until such a candidate does exist, or until all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes." Not "If  no such candidate shall exist and unless all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes..."
In other words, according to a literal interpretation of the Act, a tie leading to a runoff can only occur from a third count on. There is no provision for a tie after the second or indeed the first count.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the framers of the Act intended at all and the issue only arises through the somewhat awkward wording. (I would also like to take another look at the whole Act to see if there's anything to contradict it.)

     On further thought I do agree that it is not logically inconsistent, though it does seem like a very strange choice of phrasing. It seems like something that will need to be amended at some point.

     Actually, read here. Particularly, notice that near the bottom it says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     It seems to me that this use of "first preference" would agree with the bizarre (though historically used) definition of "first preference" in CESRA.

     Furthermore, if you compare it with the first revision, you will notice True Democrat wrote the sentence that referred to "first preferences" above.

     If you look at the Unified Electoral Code Bill, on of the forerunners to CESRA, & the bill that included that text previously, it was principally sponsored by none other than True Democrat.

     Furthermore, if you look at the bill that True Democrat's bill initially replaced, the Omnibus Election System, Procedure, and Certification Act, it has the same section, but with the text "least preferences" in lieu of "fewest first preferences".

     With that, I submit that this is significant evidence suggesting that the use of first preferences in CESRA is incorrect & that highest preferences is the intended meaning there.

[Associate Justice PiT]

ok...so I assume....in the event that Barnes and ElectoralJew are declared invalid in the presidential race....that Lief then leads in the first count by one vote. I was always under the impression that DC United's vote would then cause a tie in the 2nd count....thereby leading to a run-off. Does the number of first preferences, in fact, determine who wins in a tie?

My reading of Section 2 of the Consolidated Eelctoral Reform Act would suggest that a run-off is not necessary.
Per the Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If my disputes are accurate, then the election went as follows:
Count 1
Lief 41
PiT 40
gporter 1

Nobody has a majority, therefore per clause 2 (above), gporter is eliminated.

Count 2
Lief 41
PiT 41 (+1)
gporter 0 (-1)

Again, nobody has a majority.
Per section 3, after the implemntation of section2 (in this case that's the gporter re-distribution), and no majority exists (it doesn't), then we look back to section 2.
Per section 2, as no candidate has attained a majority, we remove the candidate who received the fewest 1st preferences - in this instance PiT.

With the elimination of PiT/HW, then Lief/BK would be declared the winners. (A run-off would only be necessary is the tickets were also tied on 1st preferences.)

     Your argument's problem is that you change the definition of highest preference. You interpret in section 2 to mean the highest preference not yet eliminated (the definition used in all cases in all of Atlasian history) whereas you interpret it in section 3 to mean only 1st preferences. You are suggesting that we change the definition of "highest preference" between two sections in the same statute without any real cause for doing so.

No, he doesn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"If no such candidate shall exist, then Clause 2 shall be implemented again until such a candidate does exist, or until all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes." Not "If  no such candidate shall exist and unless all candidates have the same number of highest preference votes..."
In other words, according to a literal interpretation of the Act, a tie leading to a runoff can only occur from a third count on. There is no provision for a tie after the second or indeed the first count.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the framers of the Act intended at all and the issue only arises through the somewhat awkward wording. (I would also like to take another look at the whole Act to see if there's anything to contradict it.)

     On further thought I do agree that it is not logically inconsistent, though it does seem like a very strange choice of phrasing. It seems like something that will need to be amended at some point.

     Actually, read here. Particularly, notice that near the bottom it says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     It seems to me that this use of "first preference" would agree with the bizarre (though historically used) definition of "first preference" in CESRA.

     Furthermore, if you compare it with the first revision, you will notice True Democrat wrote the sentence that referred to "first preferences" above.

     If you look at the Unified Electoral Code Bill, on of the forerunners to CESRA, & the bill that included that text previously, it was principally sponsored by none other than True Democrat.

     Furthermore, if you look at the bill that True Democrat's bill initially replaced, the Omnibus Election System, Procedure, and Certification Act, it has the same section, but with the text "least preferences" in lieu of "fewest first preferences".

     With that, I submit that this is significant evidence suggesting that the use of first preferences in CESRA is incorrect & that highest preferences is the intended meaning there.

Earlier you accused me of changing definitions - now you're quite clearly aiming to do just that.

At any rate, the Presidential election certification you cite predates CESRA.
Further, the other electoral laws you refer to are redundant given CESRA.
CESRA is the law and, as far as I can see, my count is based on a strict interpretation of what it says.

If you want to change the Act's wording, you can introduce a Bill to do so.
If you want to challenge it, the Court will no doubt grant you a hearing.

The wording is reasonably clear and one doesn't need to rely on repealed statutes to interpret it.
The SoFA can only reasonably act on what the law says - and on this I believe the application of the law is clear.

     I am positing that the phrase means something other than its commonly accepted definition here, drawing upon similar sections in previous bills & known uses of the phrase by the bill's author that are consistent with the alternate meaning of the phrase that I proposed. If you take issue with that, then so be it. Regardless of the original intent it should be amended to what it previously had been.

     As a side note, this would mean that there have been past races that were certified improperly (February 2008 Midwest Senate race, for one).

[Associate Justice PiT]

Indeed so - I object to the application of laws in a manner which goes wholly against their plain meaning.

The bills you present are, for good or bad, obsolete. And at any rate those bills were by different authors, so I don't understand how your line of intent follows (CESRA was put together largely by Dave Hawk and Peter, not TD).

     The line in question came from the Unified Electoral Code Act, which was compiled by True Democrat. It was edited from a different wording in the Omnibus Election System, Procedure, and Certification Act.

That is indeed your prerogative as a Senator to try to do.
I would wonder though that if you believe it's meaning is actually as you say it is, why does it need amending at all?

     For the sake of clarity, since looking up the case law for a awkwardly-worded section is not something that seems like people should have to go through.

I have no doubt that previous elections may have been certified improperly, but that is no reason to do so now.

     Indeed, though it goes to show that this has been a troublesome section. I believe I may as well introduce an amendment to change it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Just curious. Does anyone plan on actually bringing a challenge to the court? Or are you all just talking about it with no intention of acting.

     I'm speaking with my legal counsel about the possibility of bringing a suit to have there be a runoff (along the lines of what Lewis was talking about).

[Associate Justice PiT]

What are the colors for? Why am I Black?

     Your party is not important enough to have its own color.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I think Fritz probably got the most first preferences of any candidate in any election.

I also would not doubt I got the most votes of any losing candidate

     You got more than 41? Cause that's what I had when I lost.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I think Fritz probably got the most first preferences of any candidate in any election.

I also would not doubt I got the most votes of any losing candidate

     You got more than 41? Cause that's what I had when I lost.

KEmperor lost 50-46 back in February '05.

     Ah, that makes sense. I remember hearing that there were more people in Atlasia back in early 2005 than there are now.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Why is Mideast so conservative ?

Pre-Tmth, it was a respectable region. Now it's become The Dirty South 2.0.

     When I first came to Atlasia, it was arguably the most leftist region. Why am I not surprised you'd find that more respectable than its current state of affairs?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Democrats actually lead Republicans.

There is no Democratic or Republican Party in Atlasia anymore, and if you're not aware, then you shouldn't be Senator.

The Democratic Party actually was recently reborn in Atlasia. Both KyleGordon and myself are among the members, and at least one of us will be elected to the Mideast assembly tomorrow.

     Three members isn't really what I would call an impressive rebirth.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Democrats actually lead Republicans.

There is no Democratic or Republican Party in Atlasia anymore, and if you're not aware, then you shouldn't be Senator.

The Democratic Party actually was recently reborn in Atlasia. Both KyleGordon and myself are among the members, and at least one of us will be elected to the Mideast assembly tomorrow.

     Three members isn't really what I would call an impressive rebirth.

Hey, who said anything about impressive? I'm just correcting the statement that we don't exist at all. Besides, the way parties and registrations come and go around here, having lasted over a full month makes us practically venerable. ;-)

And hey, it's three more than the Atlasian Republican Party has. :-P

Actually its only two more. I think Winfield is still a Republican. If he is, he is like a relic of a by gone era, almost museum worthy, you might say.

     Indeed, Winfield is a Republican.