BK vs. IDS: Improper Certification of Nov. Legislative Elections (ATTN DIBBLE)

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Bacon King were sincerely concerned about a gap in the election laws for which he was already aware, why did he not bring this up prior to the election?

He's attempting to disenfranchise close to half the electorate simply because he lost an election. The intent of the ballots is clear and should stand.

[Velasco]

Bacon didn't run for this election. There were four candidates for three seats. It would make sense if we were talking about a Seatown's claim. Maybe the voter's intention was clear, but the procedure was irregular. That's the problem with regimes based in the Empire of Law: the forms also matter.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The will of the people should be paramount. The people do not want seatown to represent them, they have chosen Duke, Sjoyce and Xanas.

If Labour believes that the vote was irregular than Xanas should resign his seat in protest.

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

Why would he resign his seat, so you get rid of a labor? Now who is doing things based on their own bias

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, so. He's willing to accept the results? Then they should stand.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

There was one contesting being held in this case. It is pretty clear to any reasonable person what office the voters were voting on. Merely posting in that thread "clearly identifies the contest in which a vote is intended to be applied."

Ruling that 12 votes are invalid would be a greater injustice to The People than ruling on this technicality.

I know we have had issues in the past in the IDS with voting, but using that as an argument in order to get 12 votes disqualified is a bit hypocritical.

[Bacon King]

As such, it seems to me that in an election where there is only one contest on the ballot it's pretty clear what most people were casting their ballot for and for whom they were voting... or are you telling me that you are confused as to which of the one out of one contests these people were voting on?

Thank you for your rapid response, your overlordliness.

While your arguments are quite clear regarding what the law should be, Overlord Dibble, the fact is that the Constitution's requirements are quite clear that the office must be listed for a vote to be valid, and that Southeastern law allows absolutely zero leeway for election officials to determine a voter's intent when they do not fulfill this requirement, no matter how obvious it may be.

Furthermore, I note that the Southeastern Region first adopted the electoral regulations containing the passage in question at a time when our region only had a single elected office (i.e., Governor, back when the Lieutenant Governor was appointed).

Given the fact that the law is quite clear, and that precedent obviously indicates that these regulations were still intended to apply for single-election contests, I believe that to allow Governor PiT's certification to stand as-is would be a gross miscarriage of justice against our region and it's constitution.

While I agree these regulations are outdated and ridiculous, the fact remains that they are part of the supreme law of our region. I hope this court case raises awareness so that they can be repealed (or, at the very least, so that most voters can fill in their ballots appropriately). However, for the purpose of this trial these hopes for the future are moot. For the present, unfortunately, the law simply does not allow the ballots in question to be counted.

*grovel grovel grovel grovel grovel*

Thank you for your time.

[Bacon King]

I'm not sure whether I'm violating protocol by posting, and I apologize in advance if that is the case, but there's already a lot of chatter in here and I think that I have a worthwhile point to bring to the attention of all parties.

Defending the count as a matter of common sense and established practice makes some sense, but it seems unnecessary to me. As far as I can tell, Emporer PiT's count is consistent with not only the spirit of the law, but also its letter.

As only one election took place in the voting booth, the act of posting a ballot in that thread is itself sufficient to fulfill the law's requirement that each voter "clearly identify the contest in which a vote is intended to be applied." The intent behind this act is as explicit as the intent behind including additional text to that effect on a ballot. Nowhere in federal or regional law is it required that each voter make his or her indication in writing.

That is all.

Your input is certainly appreciated. However, the law in question states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe that posting in the appropriate thread is, in itself, a sufficient threshold for "clearly identifies the contest," especially considering that when this law was first established, there was only a single contest that people could be voting on. If that alone was sufficient, the regulation in question would have been entirely irrelevant when enacted. I therefore believe there is, quite obviously, a higher standard is required of voters to clearly identify the election in which they are voting, than simply where they happen to post.

In addition, the that the voter casts a ballot in the correct thread is a different law entirely (that was also passed at the same time as the regulation in question). Would not that already have covered the law, if your assertion was correct?

[Bacon King]

I don't believe that posting in the appropriate thread is, in itself, a sufficient threshold for "clearly identifies the contest," especially considering that when this law was first established, there was only a single contest that people could be voting on. If that alone was sufficient, the regulation in question would have been entirely irrelevant when enacted.

The earliest reference to the current text of the voting regulations that I have been able to find also includes a section titled "Declaration of Gubernatorial and Lieutenant Gubernatorial Candidacy." I have no idea what was happening in the South at the time, but the regulations seem to be written as if there were multiple elected offices.

That was a revision of the electoral regulations, altered to reflect the fact that the Lieutenant Governor had become an elected position. It took me a while to find, but here's the statute before that modification (hosted on former Governor Ernest's old Southeast Website ). You'll notice it includes the text requiring that voters "clearly identify the contest..." even though it only has provisions for the election of a single office.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you referring to another part of Article IX, or something else?
[/quote]

Yes. Article IX states that the voter "makes only a single post in that election thread." If someone makes zero posts in the election thread, the vote obviously wouldn't be counted!

[Bacon King]

I'm about to leave for my grandparent's place in South Georgia for Thanksgiving and probably won't be back until sometime on Saturday. I may have intermittent internet access at some point, but the probability is unlikely. I believe my case stands on it's own merits, especially given the information I have provided to the Almighty Judicial Overlord.

I'll return on Saturday if there's still unfinished business here, but absent unforeseen circumstances, I hereby rest my case.

Thank you, Overlord Dibble, for your consideration of my case.

*grovel grovel grovel grovel grovel grovel grovel*

[John Dibble]

SILENCE! *bangs gavel, the Earth quakes*

The time for you lot to grovel and make your petty arguments in your feeble attempts to win my favor is over. Now is the time for you to tremble in fear and listen to my almighty judgement.

It seems to me that no official in this great region, rightfully feared by all the others, who has officiated any election has ever had any doubt as to the clarity of the intent of the voter when counting the votes for an election wherein only one race is being voted upon even if the voter did not specify in words the position being voted upon. The laws states that the voter "clearly identify the contest in which a vote is intended to be applied" and since no electoral official has had any issues with divining the clarity of the obvious I find these votes to be valid. The law doesn't state specifically how to make it clear what contest you're voting on, it just says make it clear, and in this case there is simply no other possible contest which they voter could be voting on so making it clear is quite easy by just voting. The matter is decided in favor of the defendant, the Imperial Dominion of the South - may it's glorious victory today strike terror into the hearts of those living in lesser regions!

On the matter of Xahar's foreign language vote, as there are no rules prohibiting the submission of a foreign language alteration of the official ballot and the officiating official was able to translate appropriately I find that the vote shall be maintained as valid. However, I suggest to the Emperor - may his enemies writhe in agony for a thousand years - that he get the ball rolling on introducing new laws to clarify voting procedures so we can avoid any hiccups in the future.

*bangs gavel, the Earth quakes*

This trial is over. Don't forget to clean up after yourselves before you leave or I'll have the bailiff flay you alive.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I thank you for your wisdom, Judicial Overlord Dibble. *grovel* It should please us all that the Legislature is already debating an amendment to enact the desired change here. Glory to the Empire, forever!

[Bacon King]

Thank you for the swift ruling!

[LastVoter]

This election is neither free nor fair.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

lol

[Associate Justice PiT]

This election is neither free nor fair.

     An election is freest and fairest when 12 clearly and faithfully cast ballots are dismissed based on a literalistic interpretation of an obscure election law? I posit you should rethink your definitions. The People spoke and their words have been upheld.

[CatoMinor]

Democracy wins.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Well, I know we in the legislature need to fix this immediately. I was looking back on our past elections, and if this had been ruled the other way, almost all of our elections where only 1 office was being contested would be thrown out, which would certainly not be "fair" to disenfranchise those voters based on a technicality.

In regard to the contest, it can be argued that the "contest in which the vote be applied" was labeled on the thread title, and by posting in that thread, it clearly identifies the contest. What else would they be voting in? It is intended to be applied to the November IDS regional election. It does not state anything else. The law says nothing about what a specific post should say. The act of entering the booth is showing their intent to vote in that contest.

[John Dibble]

This election is neither free nor fair.

The bailiff can freely and fairly flay you alive - would that make you happy?