Election Tracker - NE Special

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's unfair to every other voter in the region, including Julio, to attempt to change the result of an election after the fact by invalidating a vote. Moreover, it might even be illegal per the Vote Sanctity Act; it may not a clear case, but it's certainly an interesting one.

I don't see any way that law could be interpreted to apply to this.

"It shall be a crime against the Republic of Atlasia for any citizen to instruct or encourage a voter who has already cast his or her ballot to take an action that would have the effect of invalidating the ballot."

"The instruction or encouragement of a voter shall be interpreted to include any action which indicates the possibility of invalidating a vote to affect a federal election."

Nowhere in the law does it say that the voter and the instructor cannot be the same person. And, frankly, it doesn't make much sense to punish someone for encouraging someone else to invalidate a vote but not for editing their own vote to achieve the same end.

It does when you consider what led to the law in the first place was people feeling pressured by other people to invalidate their votes.  It is a prevention against voter intimidation, not something  to limit what people can do with their own vote.  Are we really going to have draconian punishments for people for spoiling their own ballots?    Who even does that?

[Napoleon]

Section 3: Run-off Elections

If all remaining candidates shall have the same number of highest preference votes, then the following procedure shall be used to break the tie:Run-off elections shall begin between midnight Eastern Standard Time on the first Thursday after the initial election and 0001 Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday thereafter, and shall conclude exactly 72 hours after the beginning.Those candidates who have tied shall be automatically entered onto the ballot. No other candidacies shall be allowed.Voters shall only be able to cast a vote for one candidate.If any candidate shall gain a majority of the votes cast, then he shall be declared winner.

Same number of highest preference votes. Nothing about lower preferences.

What bill is this from?

Consolidated electoral reform act. What you're thinking of is in the Proportional representation act. That apllies to at large seats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It also says this, unless I am looking at an older version or this only applies to at-large seats.

You're reading that wrong. That's for two candidates tied for least highest preferences.

[Lief 🗽]

Velasco, I encourage you to lawyer up.

[Talleyrand]

Section 3: Run-off Elections

If all remaining candidates shall have the same number of highest preference votes, then the following procedure shall be used to break the tie:Run-off elections shall begin between midnight Eastern Standard Time on the first Thursday after the initial election and 0001 Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday thereafter, and shall conclude exactly 72 hours after the beginning.Those candidates who have tied shall be automatically entered onto the ballot. No other candidacies shall be allowed.Voters shall only be able to cast a vote for one candidate.If any candidate shall gain a majority of the votes cast, then he shall be declared winner.

Same number of highest preference votes. Nothing about lower preferences.

What bill is this from?

Consolidated electoral reform act. What you're thinking of is in the Proportional representation act. That apllies to at large seats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It also says this, unless I am looking at an older version or this only applies to at-large seats.

You're reading that wrong. That's for two candidates tied for least highest preferences.

Ah... I think that means you're correct then.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Velasco, I encourage you to lawyer up.

     As a fellow Spaniard, I will pledge $10,000,000 of my own money to funding Velasco's legal council, should it prove necessary.

[Napoleon]

It's unfair to every other voter in the region, including Julio, to attempt to change the result of an election after the fact by invalidating a vote. Moreover, it might even be illegal per the Vote Sanctity Act; it may not a clear case, but it's certainly an interesting one.

I don't see any way that law could be interpreted to apply to this.

"It shall be a crime against the Republic of Atlasia for any citizen to instruct or encourage a voter who has already cast his or her ballot to take an action that would have the effect of invalidating the ballot."

"The instruction or encouragement of a voter shall be interpreted to include any action which indicates the possibility of invalidating a vote to affect a federal election."

Nowhere in the law does it say that the voter and the instructor cannot be the same person. And, frankly, it doesn't make much sense to punish someone for encouraging someone else to invalidate a vote but not for editing their own vote to achieve the same end.

It does when you consider what led to the law in the first place was people feeling pressured by other people to invalidate their votes.  It is a prevention against voter intimidation, not something  to limit what people can do with their own vote.  Are we really going to have draconian punishments for people for spoiling their own ballots?    Who even does that?

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/November_2008_Special_Senate_Election

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Lol, you cannot "encourage" yourself to do something. You do it or you don't. If "encouraging oneself" is outlawed, then "thinking"  or "reaching a conclusion" is effectively outlawed as well. And that's completely ridiculous. I agree that this is an unfortunate way to end an election, but come on. A person can do to their vote whatever they please.

The point of the restriction on campaigning for invalidation is that people should not feel pressured by others to undermine their own democratic right. That's the sense I have gotten over the years.

If we're being perfectly honest though, my preference for freedom of speech actually makes me wonder if we should ban the practice of campaigning for invalidation in the first place. Either way though, spoiling your own ballot is a democratic right that is not prohibited by the letter of the law.

[Napoleon]

Lol, you cannot "encourage" yourself to do something. You do it or you don't. If "encouraging oneself" is outlawed, then "thinking"  or "reaching a conclusion" is effectively outlawed as well. And that's completely ridiculous. I agree that this is an unfortunate way to end an election, but come on. A person can do to their vote whatever they please.

The point of the restriction on campaigning for invalidation is that people should not feel pressured by others to undermine their own democratic right. That's the sense I have gotten over the years.

If we're being perfectly honest though, my preference for freedom of speech actually makes me wonder if we should ban the practice of campaigning for invalidation in the first place. Either way though, spoiling your own ballot is a democratic right that is not prohibited by the letter of the law.

Are there any first world democracies with freedom of speech guarantees that allow people in a polling place to looknover your vote and make sure you vote the right way? And if there was, you support allowinh that half wayvthrough the counting process? That's crazy.

[Deus Naturae]

Lol, you cannot "encourage" yourself to do something. You do it or you don't. If "encouraging oneself" is outlawed, then "thinking"  or "reaching a conclusion" is effectively outlawed as well. And that's completely ridiculous. I agree that this is an unfortunate way to end an election, but come on. A person can do to their vote whatever they please.

The point of the restriction on campaigning for invalidation is that people should not feel pressured by others to undermine their own democratic right. That's the sense I have gotten over the years.

If we're being perfectly honest though, my preference for freedom of speech actually makes me wonder if we should ban the practice of campaigning for invalidation in the first place. Either way though, spoiling your own ballot is a democratic right that is not prohibited by the letter of the law.

While Velasco's action may not have been illegal, I don't think it would be wise to set the precedent that invalidating one's own vote because of knowledge obtained after the vote was made is a "democratic right." At the very least, it makes the game more unrealistic given the impossibility of such an action irl.

[Oakvale]

I'm slightly bemused by Lumine's desperation to concede.

[Talleyrand]

Should editing votes be banned outright? There's a preview button for a reason.

[Napoleon]

Should editing votes be banned outright? There's a preview button for a reason.

Yes. And if not, allow vote editing through the whole election to make it fair.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You cannot ban editing votes because you cannot track within that first two minutes. It then becomes a case of seperate and unequal. Those who have fast connections can, those who don't cannot. Good to know the left is still sticking up for the poor and opposing discrimination.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Lol, you cannot "encourage" yourself to do something. You do it or you don't. If "encouraging oneself" is outlawed, then "thinking"  or "reaching a conclusion" is effectively outlawed as well. And that's completely ridiculous. I agree that this is an unfortunate way to end an election, but come on. A person can do to their vote whatever they please.

The point of the restriction on campaigning for invalidation is that people should not feel pressured by others to undermine their own democratic right. That's the sense I have gotten over the years.

If we're being perfectly honest though, my preference for freedom of speech actually makes me wonder if we should ban the practice of campaigning for invalidation in the first place. Either way though, spoiling your own ballot is a democratic right that is not prohibited by the letter of the law.

Are there any first world democracies with freedom of speech guarantees that allow people in a polling place to looknover your vote and make sure you vote the right way? And if there was, you support allowinh that half wayvthrough the counting process? That's crazy.

I don't support changing the law halfway through an election, Napoleon. But someone who votes on Sunday night can obviously base their decision on how others have voted as well, yet that's not discouraged. Strategic voting happens, yet there's nothing we can do about that. I just think it's silly to limit communications because "everyone can see how people vote!" Proving that someone has campaigned for invalidation is difficult, and, in the case of some at-large elections, informing someone that they might want to consider invalidating their vote could actually help that individual see the outcome they would have preferred in the first place. Our voting system isn't great, but the "visible vote" encourages a unique style of politics that we just can't separate from Atlasia. Having strange regulations on campaigning and communication around invalidating ballots is, to me, like trying to fill a hole in the hull of a ship that has a million other holes anyway.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nice timing on the connection hang AOL.

[Velasco]

Well, guys, I want to apologise because it was an awful idea editing my vote. I feel sorry because I might have provoked a little drama and that wasn't my intention. I think it's better if I de-register myself as an Atlasian citizen for a couple of months, as a sort of self-punishment

Velasco, I encourage you to lawyer up.

As a fellow Spaniard, I will pledge $10,000,000 of my own money to funding Velasco's legal council, should it prove necessary.

Thanks for the offer, anyway

[Adam Griffin]

You cannot ban editing votes because you cannot track within that first two minutes. It then becomes a case of seperate and unequal. Those who have fast connections can, those who don't cannot. Good to know the left is still sticking up for the poor and opposing discrimination.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also I agree with Hagrid's interpretation, but only because I held that stance before he posted.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Also I agree with Hagrid's interpretation, but only because I held that stance before he posted.

[Adam Griffin]

Also I agree with Hagrid's interpretation, but only because I held that stance before he posted.

Just this part

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Well, guys, I want to apologise because it was an awful idea editing my vote. I feel sorry because I might have provoked a little drama and that wasn't my intention. I think it's better if I de-register myself as an Atlasian citizen for a couple of months, as a sort of self-punishment

I wish you hadn't - it's six months before you can register again.   The attempt made to shame you tonight was awful.

[Talleyrand]

Well, guys, I want to apologise because it was an awful idea editing my vote. I feel sorry because I might have provoked a little drama and that wasn't my intention. I think it's better if I de-register myself as an Atlasian citizen for a couple of months, as a sort of self-punishment

I wish you hadn't - it's six months before you can register again.   The attempt made to shame you tonight was awful.

2 months, so he's right. Don't feed him blatantly false information and your fake sympathy.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Well, guys, I want to apologise because it was an awful idea editing my vote. I feel sorry because I might have provoked a little drama and that wasn't my intention. I think it's better if I de-register myself as an Atlasian citizen for a couple of months, as a sort of self-punishment

I wish you hadn't - it's six months before you can register again.   The attempt made to shame you tonight was awful.

2 months, so he's right. Don't feed him blatantly false information and your fake sympathy.

Thanks again Mr Eyerolls for your wonderful contribution of eyerolls.  It will be noted in the Book of Life in Eyeroll Heaven.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Lol, you cannot "encourage" yourself to do something. You do it or you don't. If "encouraging oneself" is outlawed, then "thinking"  or "reaching a conclusion" is effectively outlawed as well. And that's completely ridiculous. I agree that this is an unfortunate way to end an election, but come on. A person can do to their vote whatever they please.

Legally, I might agree with you if not for the definition of "encouragement" in the second clause that I quoted.

If that was the intent the legislature had, why didn't it just expressly outlaw the vote invalidation?  Why word it so awkwardly?  It's applying a technical reading of the statute that, when read with common sense, quite clearly does not make sense.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You can't deregister within 24 hours of an election, so Velasco's attempt is not even valid.

Well, at least one act done in haste has been prevented tonight.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Lol, you cannot "encourage" yourself to do something. You do it or you don't. If "encouraging oneself" is outlawed, then "thinking"  or "reaching a conclusion" is effectively outlawed as well. And that's completely ridiculous. I agree that this is an unfortunate way to end an election, but come on. A person can do to their vote whatever they please.

Legally, I might agree with you if not for the definition of "encouragement" in the second clause that I quoted.

If that was the intent the legislature had, why didn't it just expressly outlaw the vote invalidation?  Why word it so awkwardly?  It's applying a technical reading of the statute that, when read with common sense, quite clearly does not make sense.

Plenty of Atlasian laws are worded awkwardly.

Thats because few of us are lawyers.