District 4- questionable result

[12th Doctor]

Oh, no.  If Harry challenges this, I swaer, the Freedom Party will use all of it's resources to combat the suit.  We will hire all the finest constitutional lawyers.  We will leave no stone unturned.  WMS won this thing fair and square.

[12th Doctor]

Enough of these loose standards, the rules are the rules.  We cannot simply go willy-nilly changing them everytime we feel bad for the guy who lost.  WMS won.  Enough of this.

[12th Doctor]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

[12th Doctor]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

I don't recall the law regarding how to handle these types of votes having ever been changed. I agree that it needs to be clearer, however. The requirement to have an avatar or a statement in the profile signature should be in the voting booth thread. I'm just offering that as a suggestion for next time. Perhaps I will propose legislation to change this, that would make things less confusing.

Originally, it was no post that was edited would be counted.  Then it was changed to "only if the vote is changed", now... who the Hell knows?

[12th Doctor]

Now, it has been suggested to be either or, simply because we violated the original standard a couple of times.

[12th Doctor]

I'm not attacking you, Eric, I', simply stating that I am tired of all of the challenges.  If we are going to interpriet this a certain way, then fine.  Once a result is released, then let it count towards the next election, but don't apply it ex post facto to this race.  The winner has been declared.  Leave it at that.  Everytime some thing happens on this board, we have a damn court challenge.  Why can't we just let the results stand, it there is no fraud or malicious intent proven?

[12th Doctor]

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

The intent of the law is quite clear, even if the letter is not.  Human oversight cannot be just cause for this case.

[12th Doctor]

Well, I agree that the results should stand if no fraud or malicious intent is proven, but in this case, one could say that thus Democratic Hawk's vote should count, as there was pretty clearly no fraud or malicious intent on his part. The vote is not being allowed to stand, despite the fact that his intentions were clear and he only technically made an error, then made a sloppy attempt to correct it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any laws should be changed to affect this race retroactively. I'm just trying to raise the fact that it's an issue, and perhaps in the future the definition of a vote should be more clearly defined. If the law is meant to mean the entire post, it should say so.

I agree, I'm tired of challenges too, but it's also important to make sure that good voters are not disenfranchised. Disenfranchisement leads to driving otherwise good people out of the Forum. I don't think that makes for a better Forum. Democratic Hawk is clearly a good, solid contributor to the Forum at large, and would be an excellent addition to the regular discourse in Atlasia.

What I meant was no malisious intend or fraud on the part of the declared winner.

[12th Doctor]

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

The intent of the law is quite clear, even if the letter is not. Human oversight cannot be just cause for this case.

Well, I don't agree that it's clear. I don't agree that it's clear that editing ANY portion of the post in which the vote is made is exactly the same as editing the text that constitutes the voter's actual expression of preference.

I would also point out that there were no formal challenges to the allowing of such votes in the June Presidential Elections. Perhaps this was because those votes did not change the results of any races, but there were still no official challanges made.

It seems clear to me that the law means what it says and, inspite of it's unfortunate placement and wording in the Constitution, is meant to extend to all races.

If this is not the case, then I judge this to be a regional issue and thus Governor Htmldon should decide the law for this election, with a national decision pending for the next election.

[12th Doctor]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

I don't recall the law regarding how to handle these types of votes having ever been changed. I agree that it needs to be clearer, however. The requirement to have an avatar or a statement in the profile signature should be in the voting booth thread. I'm just offering that as a suggestion for next time.

Good idea. An even better idea might be to remove the requirement entirely, as it doesn't really serve any purpose.

It was made law as to cut back on confusion.  It appears that the "Iron Rule of Unanticipated Consequences" has struck again.  It appreas that we have made a bigger mess for ourselves.  That does not, howver, change the current status of the law.

[12th Doctor]

This appears in Article II, section 2, dealing with presidential elections.  No such statement appears in the section of the constitution dealing with senatorial elections.

If one wanted to be pedantic, one could say that the vote is valid due to the statement that I have just quoted. However, I would not support that literal of an interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel that the same standards should apply to all elections, not just Presidential Elections.

The intent of the law is quite clear, even if the letter is not. Human oversight cannot be just cause for this case.

Well, I don't agree that it's clear. I don't agree that it's clear that editing ANY portion of the post in which the vote is made is exactly the same as editing the text that constitutes the voter's actual expression of preference.

I would also point out that there were no formal challenges to the allowing of such votes in the June Presidential Elections. Perhaps this was because those votes did not change the results of any races, but there were still no official challanges made.

It seems clear to me that the law means what it says and, inspite of it's unfortunate placement and wording in the Constitution, is meant to extend to all races.

If this is not the case, then I judge this to be a regional issue and thus Governor Htmldon should decide the law for this election, with a national decision pending for the next election.

I agree that the law should be the same for Presidential and Congressional races, but someone who is a strict constructionist and favors a very literal interpretation of the Constitution could disagree. I am not one and do not favor that, however, and thus I disagree with that view.

What I was referring to as unclear is exactly what a vote is. Here's a clearer way to express what I mean, my language has been a bit confusing, I admit.

What constitutes Democratic Hawk's vote, is it this...

District 1: Full - The Bulldog (D-NY); Interim - True Democrat (D-PA)

District 2: Abstain

District 3: Al (I-WV)

District 4: Harry (D-MS)

District 5: Gabu (D-WA)

Dave



Or is it this:

District 4: Harry (D-MS)

It could be argueed that Democratic Hawk did not grant us clear intent with his vote.  He voted for all five seats, which he was not allowed to do.  Thus it is difficult to say what he thought/believed/intended for his vote to be.  He marked District 2 as "Abstain".  Lets suppose that he believed that he only had one vote or was registered in District 2, how would that have changed his voting pattern?  Know what I mean?

[12th Doctor]

Anyway, you guys wonder why everyone is so damn confussed all the time, it is because you guys change the law with every single tiny irregularity that comes up.

I don't recall the law regarding how to handle these types of votes having ever been changed. I agree that it needs to be clearer, however. The requirement to have an avatar or a statement in the profile signature should be in the voting booth thread. I'm just offering that as a suggestion for next time.

Good idea. An even better idea might be to remove the requirement entirely, as it doesn't really serve any purpose.

It was made law as to cut back on confusion.  It appears that the "Iron Rule of Unanticipated Consequences" has struck again.  It appreas that we have made a bigger mess for ourselves.  That does not, howver, change the current status of the law.

I agree. In this case, the unintended consequence was that the confusion over what exactly was meant by the term "signature" is what caused the vote to be invalid. Democratic Hawk thought that "signature" meant "words written at the end of the post" and not "words written in your profile".

On the Forum, a signature is clearly defined as being the words that you append to the bottom of your profile that appear in every post. But using real life terminology as opposed to Forum lingo, the confusion is understandable, given that the dictionary definition of "signature" is

1. One's name as written by oneself.
2. The act of signing one's name.
3. A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity

If this is clearly definded on the forum, then does that not trump the argueement that he should be given a bye for ignorance?

[12th Doctor]

This is how I feel:
Democratic Hawk didn't change his vote, he simply edited his post.  I'm definitely going to talk to some advisors and consider challenging it.

Of course that is how you see it.  I would have expected nothing different.

[12th Doctor]

Eric, honestly, a "quoted portion".  This needs to end right now.  The vote is first invalid and now, gone.  WMS is the declared winner of this race.  So it is written, so let it be done.

[12th Doctor]

Democratic Hawk PMed me and said he wants to challenge in court.  So apparently he is planning to sue for his voting rights.

After deleting his own vote?  This stinks of bullsh**t.  He basically destroyed evidence if he wants to go to court, meaning that he is in violation of federal law.  You cannot destroy evidence.

[12th Doctor]

Democratic Hawk PMed me and said he wants to challenge in court.  So apparently he is planning to sue for his voting rights.

After deleting his own vote?  This stinks of bullsh**t.  He basically destroyed evidence if he wants to go to court, meaning that he is in violation of federal law.  You cannot destroy evidence.

I don't think he really knew what he was doing, but we all saw and we all know how he voted....We really shouldn't get bogged down in such picky technecalities.

We are already bogged down in technicalities.  I will simply turn it up a notch.

[12th Doctor]

Harry you lost, and I urge you to accept that. I have also lost elections, but I never questioned the technicality, even in a close race.

An example is when it was special election time in the Senate and I ran against Demrepdan. Nym90 told BRTD to vote, though BRTD had not voted in any election before and missed the Presidential vote in June. I personally feel that Nym90 did some illigal campaigning to elect a firnd of his to the Senate, but I Never brought that up.

I urge you to accept that you can be defeated and that you were, and doing that makes you an honorable man whether you be a Senator or not.

I think that Harry has lost Seante races more than any sitting Senator, and still he always manages to win in the courts.

[12th Doctor]

Harry you lost, and I urge you to accept that. I have also lost elections, but I never questioned the technicality, even in a close race.

An example is when it was special election time in the Senate and I ran against Demrepdan. Nym90 told BRTD to vote, though BRTD had not voted in any election before and missed the Presidential vote in June. I personally feel that Nym90 did some illigal campaigning to elect a firnd of his to the Senate, but I Never brought that up.

I urge you to accept that you can be defeated and that you were, and doing that makes you an honorable man whether you be a Senator or not.

I think that Harry has lost Seante races more than any sitting Senator, and still he always manages to win in the courts.

[12th Doctor]

anyway, I'll reiterate that I'm not personally going to challenge the vote.  But if Democratic Hawk wants to, and he's told me he does, I'll support him in it.  But if Demohawk decides not to, or if he does and the SC rules against him, I'll concede.
There's no need for anyone to make any personal attacks on me regarding this.

Well then let him come and speak for himself.  I haven't heard a peep from him.

[12th Doctor]

If he is so angry, why hasn't anyone heard a word from him?  For that matter, why did he delete his vote?

[12th Doctor]

If he is so angry, why hasn't anyone heard a word from him?  For that matter, why did he delete his vote?

We have heard a word from him; he posted here asking if he could challenge and ColinW told him absolutely not.
He also PMed and said he wanted to.

I didn't see it.  At anyrate, I already talked to one of the Supreme Court Justices and he is siding with us.  Based on that, I think that it is an uphill battle for you guys.