TNF v. Windjammer (user search)

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« on: July 14, 2014, 10:37:48 AM »

I'm of course willing to defend my actions.

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2014, 11:05:01 AM »

Quote from: VP windjammer on July 14, 2014, 02:03:28 PM

Already an another court case??

Well, I thought as VP I would have been less controversial than when I was governor, it seems I was wrong Tongue

.
Since the election of PPT is contested, I will finally keep the control of all slots until the supreme court has decided or not if I was right for the recent election.
It doesn't change a lot of things, instead of having 10 slots, I will have 15 slots, not a big change for me.

At least, this court case will be interesting because we will know if write ins are allowed or not!

Hey guys, as you can see, I had already decided to keep all slots until the court decides! I find it normal.

Just to say that instead of having 10 slots, I will have 15 slots (like right now), that's not a big change for me. The PPT was more important before because he had the biggest number of slots (9 slots for him, 6 for the VP), that won't be the case anymore. So no worry, there isn't any problem to issue an injonction.

-----------
By the way, I urge the court to take this case. While I obviously don't agree with TNF on this matter, I clearly understand he has filed a lawsuit against me, because the rules aren't completely clear on this matter.
Just to say that in case the court decides not to take the case, I will try to amend the constitution to allow that in the future. Rules aren't always easy to understand, like for the PPT election, and that would be a good thing if what I will do as VP can be controlled by the Supreme Court.

I will probably make mistakes during my term as VP, and I find that totally normal that a senator files a lawsuit against me if he believes I have (not deliberately though) violated the rules.

Best regards,
VP Windjammer

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2014, 03:11:15 PM »

First of all, I would like to thank Chief Justice bgwah, and Associates Justices Torie and oakvale for having rejected the lawsuit made by Simfan against me, and for having accepted the lawsuit made by Senator TNF against me. Simfan’s lawsuit was indeed frivolous, and while I still believe write ins aren’t allowed for the President Pro Tempore election, I believe as well that the President of the Senate is responsible to the Supreme Court.
If I correctly understand Senator TNF’s analysis, I shouldn’t have strictly respected the senate rules because it would have violated the right of people to choose their representative, and that there would have been a precedent allowing the write in votes during the President Pro Tempore election.
My brief will be divided into 3 parts. The 1st and the 2nd parts will be used to refute the 2 Senator TNF’s arguments . The 3rd part will be used to explain why I believe the Senate rules don’t allow write in votes for the President Pro Tempore election.

If I understand correctly Senator TNF’s court case, Senator TNF seems to believe that no vote shall be invalidated, in order to respect the right of the people to choose their representative. I strongly disagree with the interpretation of this right, because I believe that this right doesn’t mean every vote shall be valid.
Indeed, in basically EVERY representative democracy in the world, there are restrictions both on candidacy and on the votes themselves. For instance, in the United States of America, every person who wishes to be elected to the United States Senate shall be at least aged of 30. In France, write ins are as well forbidden during the presidential elections. Candidates have to depose 500 mayor’s signatures, if they want to be on the ballot (and if they want to be able to receive votes).
In Atlasia, some restrictions are made on the voting and on the candidacy. For instance, no one can become senator if they didn’t have posted 200 posts.
The right of electing his own representative doesn’t mean that EVERY person can be a candidate, or that EVERY vote shall be valid.
I would like to point out as well that Senator TNF had perfectly the right to run for this office. But by failing to declare his candidacy in time, he failed to be declared “candidate” for this office.
Furthermore, the right to select his own representative doesn’t even apply to the President Pro Tempore. While the Governor, the senator, the president represent the legislative and executive powers of a citizen, the PPT doesn’t represent their senators. Indeed, the PPT is a “procedural “ office. According to the constitution, “The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, who shall act as President of the Senate in the absence of the Vice President.” The PPT doesn’t represent the senators, he just serves as President of the Senate when he’s away. The PPT has no power (except the powers exerced by a senator).

That’s why I believe Senator TNF’s first argument isn’t valid, because the right of choosing his own representative doesn’t mean that EVERY citizen can run for an office and that EVERY can be valid. The President Pro Tempore doesn’t represent as well the senators.

The second argument Senator TNF made is that, acting as President of the Senate, I would have violated every precedent by refusing to allow the write in votes. I believe this argument shouldn’t be taken into account, because every previous president of the senate could have misinterpreted the rules.
But, considering I don’t know if “precedent” is a valid argument, I will just show that Senator TNF’s second argument isn’t valid at all.
The two PPT elections Senator TNF is quoting violate the Senate rules. Indeed, according to the senate rules, quote 3. After forty-eight (48) hours, the PPT Candidacy Declaration Thread shall be closed and a vote on the election of the new PPT shall be opened in a new thread by the President of the Senate. This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained. /quote
And former VPs Cincinnatus and Matt from Vermont didn’t open a new thread for the vote. I believe that two PPT elections which are clearly not respecting the rules and are invalid cannot be considered as “making a precedent”.
Furthermore, I made a research on this forum for all PPT elections since the beginning of Atlasia and here what I have found:

1)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=12311.0
2)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=14719.0
3)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=15954.0
4)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21675.0
5)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=24968.0
6)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=31309.0
7)   https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=34566.0
Cool

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2014, 03:11:46 PM »

Finally, even if Senator TNF avoided speaking about the rules, I believe I have to simply explain my actions as President of the Senate.
I was forced to refuse Senator TNF’s candidacy because he declared at times. Indeed, according to the senate rules:

Quote

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then, Senator TNF tried to mount a write in campaign. The problem is that the senate procedures don’t allow write in votes.
Here are the senate rules on the PPT election:
Article 9: Rules on PPT Elections

Quote

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can all see that there isn’t any provision for “write ins votes”. If write in votes were allowed, it should have been clearly written in the rules. And secondly, “the candidate who receives the greatest number of preferential votes shall be elected PPT.” This is the second proof, I believe, that write ins aren’t allowed in the PPT election, because only “candidates” can be elected PPT. Considering TNF couldn’t be considered as a candidate because he failed to declare his candidacy at time, only Senator North Carolina Yankee was the candidate for this election, he was sure to be the winner for this election. The votes could have been “10 votes for TNF and 0 vote for Yankee”, Senator Yankee would have still been elected because he was the only candidate, the candidate with the highest number of votes (and this time 0).
That’s why I couldn’t take into account the write in votes for Senator TNF.

For all these reasons, I believe that Senator North Carolina Yankee shall be confirmed as President Pro Tempore.

I'm available if you have any questions,
Best regards,
VP Windjammer

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2014, 12:28:06 AM »

May I answer to Former President Bacon King's argument?

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2014, 12:13:26 PM »

An answer to Former President Bacon King's Amicus brief.

I would like to thank Associate Justice oakvale for letting me answer this lawsuit. I would have not requested that if Senator TNF did use this argument against the PPT election.

I would like to point out that I never said that Senator TNF didn't post his candidacy in the good thread. I said he announced his candidacy too late, after the deadline.

For more information:
Here is my post:

Quote from: VP windjammer on July 04, 2014, 01:44:14 PM

Senators, you have 48 hours to declare or nominate for the position of President Pro-Tempore.

And here is Senator TNF's post:

Quote from: Senator TNF on July 06, 2014, 02:09:43 PM

I accept the nominations for PPT and declare that I will seek the position.

If the senate rules for the PPT were:

Quote

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would have agreed with Former President Bacon King's analysis. Because in this case, 48 hours would have been a minimum, and when I would have closed the thread would have been a maximum.

But the senate rules are:

Quote

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The words in bold, I believe, confirm the fact that I couldn't accept the candidacy. Indeed, this is not "shall be open approximately 48 hours", this is "shall be open 48 hours".
Accepting the candidacy of Senator TNF for the President Pro Tempore Election would have violated this part of these rules. Indeed, Senator TNF posted exactly 48 hours 25 minutes and 29 seconds after my post opening this thread.

Considering that according to the senate rules, the PPT declaration thread shall be opened for 48 hours, accepting the candidacy of Senator TNF would have violated this rule, because the PPT declaration thread would have been opened at least for 48 hours 25 minutes and 29 seconds, and not 48 hours.

Using the term "shall", is, I believe, enough for considering that the Candidacy Declaration Thread must be open for a maximum of 48 hours.

I'm of course available if anyone wants more clarification.
Best regards,
VP Windjammer

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2014, 01:00:22 PM »

Quote from: Senator Alfred F. Jones on August 05, 2014, 12:56:21 PM

Quote from: VP windjammer on August 04, 2014, 03:11:46 PM

The votes could have been “10 votes for TNF and 0 vote for Yankee”, Senator Yankee would have still been elected because he was the only candidate, the candidate with the highest number of votes (and this time 0).

This is looking suspiciously similar to a totalitarian regime here.

I would like to point out that this is the former senators/current senators who have written the rules. You have perfectly the right to modify the senate rules. And you didn't do that.
I'm not responsible of the lack of clarity of the senate rules, the former senators (and considering every senator was already a senator at the beginning of the 62nd senate), the senators are.

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2014, 01:08:22 PM »

Quote from: Senator Alfred F. Jones on August 05, 2014, 01:06:35 PM

Befehl ist Befehl, Mr. Vice President, sir?

Hehe

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2014, 02:19:25 PM »

Quote

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will quote the constitution (Article 1, section clause 1):

Quote

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senate rules are different from the federal rules.

Quote

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) Nothing allows the write ins neither
2) And this is the candidate who receives the highest number of preferences who shall be elected PPT. This is the second proof write ins aren't allowed.

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2014, 02:35:28 PM »

Quote from: Senator Cynic on August 05, 2014, 02:32:24 PM

When I was VP, I didn't create an "official ballot" for the election of the PPT, but I was perfectly willing to allow write-ins (which no one did). There was in fact a question when it happened as to whether or not a member of the body could be elected PPT (I put him on the ballot anyway as I recall). However, that was many years ago and things have changed since then. As we've seen at least twice before recently (I'm not going through every one of those threads. I haven't got the time), Write-in votes have been accepted, which creates precedence.

Yes, the Senate may establish rules and proceedings and since write-ins have been accepted before, that creates precedence.

Nothing expressly forbids write ins. The Senate is a democratic body that should have the right to vote how it chooses in its own elections. I don't understand how receiving the highest number of preferences disallows write-in voting. A write-in vote, is in fact, expressing preference for that candidate.

You didn't put write ins in the ballot, so I consider you didn't accept that.

And no, using 2 invalid elections as a precedent isn't a good argument.

That's simple, the "candidates" declared their candidacy in the PPT declaration thread in time, and the candidate who receives the highest number of votes is elected PPT.
There is just a candidate: Yankee. So he was sure the winner.
That's an another proof that shows write ins aren't allowed.

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2014, 02:51:33 PM »

Quote from: Senator Cynic on August 05, 2014, 02:43:52 PM

I just told you that I would have accepted write-ins Tongue

I accepted a candidate that wasn't even a Senator on the ballot! You consider incorrectly, but I'm not going to argue over that. It was nearly a decade ago.

You've failed to provide any reasonable argument in my opinion as to why the Senate can't elect a PPT in it's own way.

The candidate who receives the highest number of votes does not say "the declared candidate". It just says "the candidate". This comes down to a matter of Senate independence. Do we not have the right to elect candidates in our own way, especially when, and I can't stress this enough, there is nothing in the law that forbids write-in voting. You keep saying the "candidate", but as I understand the law, the "candidate" could be either a declared candidate or a write-in candidate.

And I can't see anything that allows write in either.
Nope, a write in vote is a vote for someone who isn't a candidate for this election.

Glad to see you have at least given up the "precedent" argument.

Quote from: Duke on August 05, 2014, 02:45:19 PM

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.

I disagree with this analysis.
I was elected to respect the senate rules.
I cannot valid votes that I believe are invalid.

That doesn't mean I'm right. But I try to do what I believe is fair.
If the Supreme Court believes I'm wrong, fine I would break the tie.

So the argument "saving time", I can't take it.

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2014, 02:55:42 PM »

Quote from: Senator Cynic on August 05, 2014, 02:53:24 PM

Since TNF accepted write-ins, that does in fact make him a candidate under federal law.

Senate rules aren't federal laws.

That's why the Supreme Court hesitated a lot before taking this case.

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2014, 03:01:24 PM »

Quote from: Duke on August 05, 2014, 02:58:46 PM

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!

But this is an argument you have made Duke.
And sorry, I disagree. If I believe some votes shouldn't be invalid, I don't count them. That's just a question of honesty.
I can be wrong, but I want to be honest. Tongue

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2014, 03:09:42 PM »

Quote from: Duke on August 05, 2014, 03:04:29 PM

Right, I know. I'm not looking to change your mind. I know you think your 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! Wink

Yep, and I can be wrong too on this argument.

However, I'm sorry, but the fact that you have thought I should have broken the tie for Yankee, just for saving time, this is really weird, and really.
This is doing something against the job of VP. The VP tries to interpret the rules as best as he can, he doesn't take into account the "saving time" argument.
If he believes some votes should be invalid, he doesn't count them (that's why I didn't break the tie, because there was no tie for me).
The VP, even if he's wrong, should NEVER take into account this argument of saving time. Trying to Respect the rules is something that is much more important.

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2014, 05:26:07 PM »

This has been seen and I will answer tomorrow.

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

	Re: TNF v. Windjammer « Reply #15 on: August 07, 2014, 05:20:44 PM »
	« Edited: August 07, 2014, 05:48:52 PM by VP windjammer »

Sorry for the delay:

1) Well, the senate rules aren't the federal laws regarding the federal elections. If in the federal rules, writing his name is considered as a declaration of candidacy, that's fine, I respect that. The problem is that this isn't considered as a declaration of a candidacy in the senate rules. In the senate rules, there is only one way: declaring his candidacy (in time) in the PPT candidate declaration thread. But by writing his name, he may have declared his candidacy, but unfortunately, far after the deadline. Indeed, having accepted his candidacy would have violated clause 2:

Quote

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no provision for write ins in the senate rules as well. (While there is a provision for write ins in the federal rules)
So I couldn't accept Senator TNF's candidate because I believe it would have violated this clause 2. Candidates are according to me recognized only if they announce, in time, their candidacy in this thread.

2) Just to be clear, I made this research just to prove that considering that 2 invalid elections could be a precedent for allowing the write ins. By this search, I just showed that most of the time, write ins weren't on the ballot, a proof, for me, that there is no precedent for allowing the write ins, and a proof that write ins shouldn't be allowed.

3) Associate Justice oakvale,on the 8 elections where write ins were allowed, 4 of them are clearly invalid because of an irrespect of senate rules (not creating a new thread for a vote): (44,46,,47,48 from my previous post). 3 of them were administered by former Vice President Kalwejt, who managed to make an enormous mistake by breaking the tie too early during this election (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=127729.0). There is finally just one election, this one, where former Vice President Bacon King seemed to be quite hesitant (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=104802.0) with the election. In fact, there is really just one election (Bacon King), where we can say that the Vice President hasn't made an important mistake worthy of invalidating this election (forgetting to open a new thread, whereas the rules asked to do that) or breaking the tie too early and finally correcting his mistake after the intervention of the senators (not invalidating the election, but just showing that the Vice President doesn't understand clearly the rules). An only election can only make a precedent.
I would like to point out that for some elections, when there was an only candidate, there wasn't even a vote that was held: a proof that write ins weren't allowed: this election for instance: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=87931.0 only one candidate, no vote.

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2014, 08:26:36 AM »

Associate Justive oakvale, Associate Justice Torie, Chief Justive bgwah,

Please, tell me exactly what I have to do if you decide to rule for TNF (I hope you will rule for me of course). Shall I start a new PPT election, or shall I simply break the tie.

Thank you,
Windjammer

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2014, 06:25:19 AM »

Well,
Considering Yankee has formally withdrawn. If the senate rules in favor of me, it will be an another rule disaster.
So I prefer to accept Senator TNF's lawsuit. If I have to do an another PPT election, that would be really weird for the sake of Atlasia.
That doesn't mean I don't believe write ins shouldn't be allowed, but, I want to move on, I want the PPT to administer the senate, so, that's the best thing to do.

Logged

windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon

Posts: 15,515

Re: TNF v. Windjammer

« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2014, 09:28:13 AM »

Quote from: SirNick on August 10, 2014, 09:17:20 AM

This would have never happened under Vice President Dallasfan

I don't reproach me anything for that. I genuinely believe write ins shouldn't be allowed.

Logged

Pages: [1]

	Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email? April 25, 2024, 04:53:42 PM

News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more