A Survey on Presidential Elections.

[Senator Cris]

I was planning to present legislation in the Senate on the presidential election process, but first of doing that, I'd like to know what are Atlasia's thoughts on this matter.

Please take part at this poll!
Link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc9HheKdlu-6A7HlCoyOek2qqKUWVW4asve1Rb04wbUxGnNAg/viewform

[Senator Cris]

Bump.

[Clyde1998]

NOTA and Yes, FTR.

[Poirot]

NOTA and Yes, FTR.

For the second question, I was a Yes thinking the vote is public and the SoFE just applies the rules and calculates vote totals. But there will be situations where a decision is made by the judgement of SoFE because there are no rules or it's the first time something occurs and you are in a conflict of interest if you run the election and are a candidate. For example deciding the eliglibity of some voters in a run off. So I am a No now. 

[Clyde1998]

NOTA and Yes, FTR.

For the second question, I was a Yes thinking the vote is public and the SoFE just applies the rules and calculates vote totals. But there will be situations where a decision is made by the judgement of SoFE because there are no rules or it's the first time something occurs and you are in a conflict of interest if you run the election and are a candidate. For example deciding the eliglibity of some voters in a run off. So I am a No now. 

Fair point. I guess it really depends on what the case is, as a court case would resolve any major issues.

[Poirot]

Maybe that is just me but I have a problem with the impartiality of the court.

[Clyde1998]

Maybe that is just me but I have a problem with the impartiality of the court.

At the moment it does appear to weighted towards the Federalists. We should really have a "public jury" for all court decisions to prevent, as much as possible, against the court being bias.

[Leinad]

At the moment it does appear to weighted towards the Federalists.

How so? There's nothing that inherently makes the court more Federalist. To pick Justices you need to win Presidential and Gubernatorial elections--Adam was President and picked Windjammer, I am President and picked Dereich, if TJ resigned Mike Wells would pick a liberal Justice. Would you be complaining if I had picked a Laborite instead of Dereich and there was a liberal majority?

[Poirot]

At the moment it does appear to weighted towards the Federalists.

How so? There's nothing that inherently makes the court more Federalist. To pick Justices you need to win Presidential and Gubernatorial elections--Adam was President and picked Windjammer, I am President and picked Dereich, if TJ resigned Mike Wells would pick a liberal Justice. Would you be complaining if I had picked a Laborite instead of Dereich and there was a liberal majority?

That tends to show the picks are politically biased, but each side do it so it's normal.

[Clyde1998]

At the moment it does appear to weighted towards the Federalists.

How so? There's nothing that inherently makes the court more Federalist. To pick Justices you need to win Presidential and Gubernatorial elections--Adam was President and picked Windjammer, I am President and picked Dereich, if TJ resigned Mike Wells would pick a liberal Justice. Would you be complaining if I had picked a Laborite instead of Dereich and there was a liberal majority?

There should be an even split, IMO - although that's not currently possible with five justices (albeit you need an odd number to prevent a tied verdict).

[Poirot]

Maybe that is just me but I have a problem with the impartiality of the court.

At the moment it does appear to weighted towards the Federalists. We should really have a "public jury" for all court decisions to prevent, as much as possible, against the court being bias.

And there is someone on a ticket sitting on the court. Imagine if the court had to rule on a SoFE decision, the SoFE also being on a ticket for the election.

[Adam Griffin]

Maybe that is just me but I have a problem with the impartiality of the court.

At the moment it does appear to weighted towards the Federalists. We should really have a "public jury" for all court decisions to prevent, as much as possible, against the court being bias.

And there is someone on a ticket sitting on the court. Imagine if the court had to rule on a SoFE decision, the SoFE also being on a ticket for the election.

FYI, this is also the second time in the past four elections where the SoFE has been on one of the major party tickets running for President/Vice President.

Furthermore, if we had had to go to court last weekend, then either Yankee would have needed to recuse himself, possibly running the risk of a 2-2 hung court...or he wouldn't recuse himself, potentially creating the conditions for claims of bias. Considering what has happened, we can't say this is an unlikely scenario any more.

[Leinad]

At the moment it does appear to weighted towards the Federalists.

How so? There's nothing that inherently makes the court more Federalist. To pick Justices you need to win Presidential and Gubernatorial elections--Adam was President and picked Windjammer, I am President and picked Dereich, if TJ resigned Mike Wells would pick a liberal Justice. Would you be complaining if I had picked a Laborite instead of Dereich and there was a liberal majority?

There should be an even split, IMO - although that's not currently possible with five justices (albeit you need an odd number to prevent a tied verdict).

So (hypothetically) if there were 6 seats on the Supreme Court: 3 liberal, 2 conservative, and 1 vacant Federal seat, would President Clyde pick a conservative to balance it out?

[Clyde1998]

At the moment it does appear to weighted towards the Federalists.

How so? There's nothing that inherently makes the court more Federalist. To pick Justices you need to win Presidential and Gubernatorial elections--Adam was President and picked Windjammer, I am President and picked Dereich, if TJ resigned Mike Wells would pick a liberal Justice. Would you be complaining if I had picked a Laborite instead of Dereich and there was a liberal majority?

There should be an even split, IMO - although that's not currently possible with five justices (albeit you need an odd number to prevent a tied verdict).

So if there were 6 seats on the Supreme Court: 3 liberal, 2 conservative, and 1 vacant Federal seat, would President Clyde pick a conservative to balance it out?

Yes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Perhaps this talk of bias is all fine and dandy in theory, but judicial rulings are not GOTV events.

[Poirot]

For the first part of the survey, I chose run off. There were not different options for this choice but I prefer running it like a special election. I don't think voters who were just deregistered because for months and months didn't bother to vote should have the calendar rewind and give them the right to vote while new voters who registered without knowing there would be a runoff the next weekend still don't have the right to vote even if registered for seven days. (if this is the case at the moment)

Or only let those who voted participate in the runoff.

[Senator Cris]

Final bump.

[Hatman 🍁]

My preference would be:

> First preferences
> Run off
> House (Pres) Senate (VP) [last resort]