TNF v. Windjammer

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The way I see it is, there is nothing in the rules expressly prohibiting write ins. They are accepted on all ballots in this game, and never before have we forbidden write in votes so long as the write in candidate wanted to accept them. "Candidate" is not defined as one that is declared either either. It merely said "candidate" and that can be a declared or a write in candidate. If it said the winner is the "declared candidate receives the most votes" then this would make sense, but it does not say that.

In cases where a vote is at stake, the Court typically will err on the side of a vote counting. There is a high standard in place to strip a person of their right to vote.  My preference would be for the VP to merely break the tie for his preferred candidate and save us the time of going through this court proceeding. I am uncomfortable with invaliding a whole host of votes for some technicality that can only be gleaned from reading the law as rigidly as possible. And I say this as a strong supporter of Yankee. However, I believe he would agree that this is not the way to go about things.

But what do I really know? I don't know if I passed the bar yet.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Oh no, my main argument isn't saving time. My assertion is, from my interpretation, once a candidate accepts write ins, they are considered a "candidate" even if they have not declared. The rules state the "candidate with the highest number of votes wins," not "the declared candidate with the highest number of votes."

As for saving time, I meant you could merely have voted for Yankee to break the tie and then all of this wouldn't be necessary. We will see who's right though!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Right, I know. I'm not looking to change your mind. I know you think you're right, and I think I am right.

And you're correct; senate rules are not federal law. I am arguing about the definition of "candidate." You believe "candidate" means "declared candidate" and I believe "candidate" is either a declared candidate or a write in candidate, assuming they state they will accept the votes. I don't see enough express language in the law to justify not counting the 5 write in votes that were invalidated.

I can be wrong too. All I can say is, may the best argument win!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Whenever a question of whether a vote should count or not, I would always err on the side of counting it unless there was express language in the law that said it should not count.

And my statement about breaking the vote obviously means that you'd just count the votes, but you are a man of strict interpretation of the rules, and you genuinely believe invalidating those 5 votes is okay, and that's fine, perhaps you are right and I am just sounding like an idiot arguing my point.

I'm interested to see how the court rules though, I know that!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'd go ahead and let the court rule anyway so we can clarify for future cases. That doesn't mean Windjammer cannot certify the results anyway in the meantime.