MHS' FINAL Vote Count

[MHS2002]

2:00 PM Sunday Update...

[Sam Spade]

Future Prez-True Dem race should be 10-8 Future Prez (last vote Vincent).

[True Democrat]

Future Prez-True Dem race should be 10-8 Future Prez (last vote Vincent).

Actually it should be 10-7-1.  Since FuturePrez has an absolute majority right now, the Wildcard vote wouldn't flow to me yet.

[MHS2002]

Future Prez-True Dem race should be 10-8 Future Prez (last vote Vincent).

Actually it should be 10-7-1.  Since FuturePrez has an absolute majority right now, the Wildcard vote wouldn't flow to me yet.

I've been sending write-ins automatically to their next preference, but technically you would be right.

[Sam Spade]

23 eligible voters left.

Turnout numbers are now as follows:

Nation:
106 out of 138 up to thefactor (10 voters not eligible because of activity) 

Mideast: 25 (33)
Midwest: 11 (21)
Northeast: 33 (40) (41, counting Huck Finn)
Southeast: 18 (20)
Pacific: 19 (24)

[MHS2002]

8:45 Update...

[MHS2002]

There's my vote count. Margin of error: +/- 8857894%

[Emsworth]

4th Round
Siege40/Emsworth: 42
King/John Dibble: 30
Keystone Phil/MHS2002: 29

I count 29 King, 30 Phil

[Sam Spade]

I also think Siege has another vote.

[Defarge]

Tied? TIED?

Oh the improbability of it all.  *shrug* Congragulations to whoever ends up winning.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Tied? TIED?

Oh the improbability of it all.  *shrug* Congragulations to whoever ends up winning.

That's assuming round 4 is correct.
It may be Siege beating Keystone in the final.

[King]

If we do not come up with a conclusive result, I ask that the Senate pass an emergency resolution requiring a runoff between me and Siege.  It is the cleanest solution.

[Colin]

If we do not come up with a conclusive result, I ask that the Senate pass an emergency resolution requiring a runoff between me and Siege.  It is the cleanest solution.

Well we need to have the results certified by the SoFA.

[King]

If we do not come up with a conclusive result, I ask that the Senate pass an emergency resolution requiring a runoff between me and Siege.  It is the cleanest solution.

Well we need to have the results certified by the SoFA.

If they don't come up with one (they are counting twice), then it is the best way to go (I don't want recounts until August).

[Peter]

If we do not come up with a conclusive result, I ask that the Senate pass an emergency resolution requiring a runoff between me and Siege.  It is the cleanest solution.

If a genuine last round tie has occured, then we have  a runoff by law already.

[Speed of Sound]

If we do not come up with a conclusive result, I ask that the Senate pass an emergency resolution requiring a runoff between me and Siege.  It is the cleanest solution.

Well we need to have the results certified by the SoFA.

If they don't come up with one (they are counting twice), then it is the best way to go (I don't want recounts until August).

Al Gore: "RECOUNTS?!?!? DID SOMEONE SAY RECOUNTS?!?!?"

Tipper:"It's OK, dear. it doesn't involve you. take your medication."

LOL

[Sam Spade]

Emsworth is right.

(3) Cash and Red NJ Avatar and Umengus go from Harry to King.

(4) Sarnstrom, Ian, StatesRights and Cosmo Kramer go to Phil.  

Keystone eliminates King 30-29.

Siege wins easily.

Of course, that's only if the rounds before are correct.

[Sam Spade]

In the irony of the evening, StatesRights vote flowing to Keystone Phil eliminates King, who would have tied Siege if StatesRights would have preferenced him instead.

[Ebowed]

Now, the question is, will the SoFA discount ballots where write in tickets were preferenced, but the words "WRITE IN" were not expressly shown next to the ticket?  I think that you're unable to determine whether or not this is a write in preference unless is definitely says "write in," much like we're unable to determine who a person votes for if they just say "Harry."

[Speed of Sound]

Now, the question is, will the SoFA discount ballots where write in tickets were preferenced, but the words "WRITE IN" were not expressly shown next to the ticket?  I think that you're unable to determine whether or not this is a write in preference unless is definitely says "write in," much like we're unable to determine who a person votes for if they just say "Harry."

good point Ebowed

[Gabu]

Now, the question is, will the SoFA discount ballots where write in tickets were preferenced, but the words "WRITE IN" were not expressly shown next to the ticket?  I think that you're unable to determine whether or not this is a write in preference unless is definitely says "write in," much like we're unable to determine who a person votes for if they just say "Harry."

Why wouldn't they just discount the invalid preferences?  If a ballot has valid votes on it, I don't see why the SoFA would throw the entire thing out.

[Speed of Sound]

Now, the question is, will the SoFA discount ballots where write in tickets were preferenced, but the words "WRITE IN" were not expressly shown next to the ticket?  I think that you're unable to determine whether or not this is a write in preference unless is definitely says "write in," much like we're unable to determine who a person votes for if they just say "Harry."

Why wouldn't they just discount the invalid preferences?  If a ballot has valid votes on it, I don't see why the SoFA would throw the entire thing out.

Hmm. Another good point.

[Peter]

Laws cover write-ins explicitly stating that a write-in not be specified as a write-in.

Please read the laws.

[Ebowed]

Laws cover write-ins explicitly stating that a write-in not be specified as a write-in.

Please read the laws.

I'm glad you were thick enough to think I was being serious.  I was making a point about the stupid reasons that ballots have been thrown out.

[Speed of Sound]

Laws cover write-ins explicitly stating that a write-in not be specified as a write-in.

Please read the laws.

Aye-Aye, Captain!