Department of Federal Elections

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

WARNING! Do not vote until 0:00 EDT! You will have 72 hours in which to vote - there's no rush!

REPUBLIC OF ATLASIA - In Dave We Trust
Official Ballot

READ THIS FIRST

1. The election will last 72 hours, starting at 0:00 EDT Friday June 18 and ending 0:00 EDT Monday June 21.

2. You are eligible to vote in this election if you have made 8 posts on the Atlas Forum in the past 8 weeks, have registered as a voter with the Registrar General more than 7 days before the start of the election, and have not had your voting rights stripped as a result of deregistration or a court verdict.

3. You must vote by ranking your choices in the order of your preference: 1 for your first preference, 2 for your second preference, and so on. You may write in preferences for candidates not on the ballot. If you only wish to preference one candidate, marking an X next to the candidate's name or simply writing the candidate's name is sufficient, provided that you do not wish your vote to transfer to other candidates.

4. If you do not wish to vote for any candidate on the ballot nor to write in a candidate, you may vote for None of the Above as your first preference. All candidates ranked under None of the Above will not receive those preferences during the counting of the votes.

5. You are permitted, but not advised, to edit your ballot within 20 minutes of posting it within this thread. Deleting your ballot at any time or editing it after 20 minutes will result in the invalidation of your vote.

6. Please check over your ballot thoroughly before you click "Post". You have no excuse for casting a ballot which contains errors or does not accurately reflect your preferences. Failure to correct errors in your ballot may result in its disqualification. While the alphabetically-ordered ballot below is provided for your convenience should you wish to quote this post, you may order the candidates on your ballot however you would like.

PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF ATLASIA

[  ] LouisvilleThunder of Kentucky / Ninja0428 of New Jersey
^{Federalist Party/Democratic Alliance}

[  ] razze of Florida / MB of the Northern Mariana Islands
^{Peace/Labor Party}

[  ] SevenEleven of California / Blair2015 of Massachusetts
^{Labor Party}

[  ] Write-in:______________________________
^{-__________________}

[  ] None of the above

NATIONAL SENATE - NINE SEATS

[  ] AGA of New York
^{Liberal Party}

[  ] DeadPrez of Colorado
^{Federalist Party}

[  ] jtsmd2 / Harvey Updyke Jr of Alabama
^{Labor Party}

[  ] KoopaDaQuick of Iowa
^{Peace Party}

[  ] Kuumo of Idaho
^{Labor Party}

[  ] MB of the Northern Mariana Islands
^{Labor Party}

[  ] OBD of Rhode Island
^{Labor Party}

[  ] Rep. Joseph Cao of Illinois
^{Federalist Party}

[  ] Talleyrand of South Dakota
^{Labor Party}

[  ] weatherboy1102 of South Carolina
^{Democratic Alliance}

[  ] wxtransit of Texas
^{Democratic Alliance}

[  ] Write-in:______________________________
^{-__________________}

[  ] None of the above

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If someone were to accidentally refer to "National Senate" as "House" on their ballot, would it still be counted?

Just think we should get this clarified now since I can guarantee it is going to happen.

[Sestak]

If someone were to accidentally refer to "National Senate" as "House" on their ballot, would it still be counted?

Just think we should get this clarified now since I can guarantee it is going to happen.

Imo it clearly should be counted.

I issued this executive order to ensure this for candidate declarations; I think the same should probably be held for ballots.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

 it. If you've got sheets, send 'em to me, especially if they vary, so I can check the votes that are in dispute.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Given the confusion over disputed votes, I think it'd be better for a complete fresh recount from the DoFE rather than relying on potentially incorrect media and party counts.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Yeah, but counting the votes myself is a pain in the ass (which, at this point, is what my ideal DSoFE would be doing ). I used Sestak's house counts (since they are not as heavily disputed) and made my own presidential counts because nobody had any presidential counts that I could use and examine for contradictions. I counted smoltchanov, DabbingSanta, and Elcaspar as invalid.

Round 1:
LouisvilleThunder / Ninja0428 - 89 (49.17%)
SevenEleven / Blair2015 - 67 (37.02%)
razze / MB - 23 (12.71%)
WI: John Kerry / Hillary R.C. - 1  (0.55%)
WI: literally anyone who isn’t a commie or running with a commie - 1 (0.55%)
Abstain / Exhausted - 1

"literally anyone..." is exhausted, while Kerry goes to Razze.

Round 2:
LouisvilleThunder / Ninja0428 - 89 (49.44%)
SevenEleven / Blair2015 - 67 (37.22%)
razze / MB - 24 (13.33%)
Abstain / Exhausted - 2

One vote for Razze is exhausted, the other 23 go to Sev.

Round 3:
SevenEleven / Blair2015 - 90 (50.28%)
LouisvilleThunder / Ninja0428 - 89 (49.72%)
Abstain / Exhausted - 3

House votes to come shortly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Virgin National Senate ballot section versus the Chad House Result Count.

[Former President tack50]

In an interesting note, this huge drop in turnout almost completely cancels out the inflation of the last YT election. Though it is still the third highest turnout election.

Although this election was probably on the lower side turnout wise and I think October will have higher turnout. It felt like both sides left votes on the table. Plus the new system might have made things slightly harder for voters

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

The Virgin National Senate ballot section versus the Chad House Result Count.

Crap. You know what I mean.

[Oakvale]

Two questions for clarification:

1. DabbingSanta's ballot was excluded - I understand this is because he allegedly double posted. Do we have hard evidence of this? Or is it possible for, if necessary, a moderator or similar to confirm?

2. Similarly: has nerd73's ballot been counted? I believe there's some kind of controversy over his having supposedly deleted posts (thus bringing him under the eight posts in eight weeks mark after the fact).

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

YE has confirmed both situations.

[Oakvale]

YE has confirmed both situations.

Many thanks.

Two further clarifications:

1. re: DabbingSanta - what was the exact situation that transpired? He made two separate posts with separate ballots? He posted the same ballot twice? He posted one, then more than twenty minutes later, deleted it and posted another?

2. re:nerd73, is there precedent on a ballot standing because of post-vote post deletions? I may be misinformed but couldn't one argue that this is in effect a voter consciously invalidating their own ballot, as if they were to edit it after the time limit?

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Not sure for either, honestly.

[Oakvale]

Not sure for either, honestly.

Thanks - I think it would be preferable to have clarity on this prior to certification of any result.

[SevenEleven]

YE has confirmed both situations.

Many thanks.

Two further clarifications:

1. re: DabbingSanta - what was the exact situation that transpired? He made two separate posts with separate ballots? He posted the same ballot twice? He posted one, then more than twenty minutes later, deleted it and posted another?

2. re:nerd73, is there precedent on a ballot standing because of post-vote post deletions? I may be misinformed but couldn't one argue that this is in effect a voter consciously invalidating their own ballot, as if they were to edit it after the time limit?

Dabbing Santa made two posts in the booth and deleted one of them.

Nerd deleted his posts after the election was concluded, and the law itself speaks of "having made eight posts", which he certainly had at the the voting booth was locked.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Senate.

Track your vote

[Sestak]

2. re:nerd73, is there precedent on a ballot standing because of post-vote post deletions? I may be misinformed but couldn't one argue that this is in effect a voter consciously invalidating their own ballot, as if they were to edit it after the time limit?

In addition to the above points - that the FEA refers to ‘having made eight posts’, a set of past actions, rather than to a statistic in the present (post count) - there has also, to my understanding, been a legal consensus that invalidations after the election are not permitted and also should not affect the final result if possible.

Keep in mind that if a ballot itself were to be deleted during the time that these post deletions took place, it would fall very directly under the federal crime of ‘ballot tampering’; the name alone here suggests that the status of the election as of the vote closing should be considered final.

And consider the necessary alternative of any other proposal: namely, that every election be allowed to remain in flux all the way through the end of the litigation period - which falls at “one week after certification”. This means that no certification can be truly complete, as it would have to account for possible changes like this in the week after it ism made officia. This despite the FEA also clearly stating “ An official certification is completely final and may only be altered by order of the Supreme Court of Atlasia.”

The textual contradictions here just add up far too quickly - not to mention rather disastrous implications on the game itself.

[Oakvale]

2. re:nerd73, is there precedent on a ballot standing because of post-vote post deletions? I may be misinformed but couldn't one argue that this is in effect a voter consciously invalidating their own ballot, as if they were to edit it after the time limit?

In addition to the above points - that the FEA refers to ‘having made eight posts’, a set of past actions, rather than to a statistic in the present (post count) - there has also, to my understanding, been a legal consensus that invalidations after the election are not permitted and also should not affect the final result if possible.

Keep in mind that if a ballot itself were to be deleted during the time that these post deletions took place, it would fall very directly under the federal crime of ‘ballot tampering’; the name alone here suggests that the status of the election as of the vote closing should be considered final.

And consider the necessary alternative of any other proposal: namely, that every election be allowed to remain in flux all the way through the end of the litigation period - which falls at “one week after certification”. This means that no certification can be truly complete, as it would have to account for possible changes like this in the week after it ism made officia. This despite the FEA also clearly stating “ An official certification is completely final and may only be altered by order of the Supreme Court of Atlasia.”

The textual contradictions here just add up far too quickly - not to mention rather disastrous implications on the game itself.

Thanks.

I'm actually more interested in the evidence presented via YE - can a moderator actually see if someone deleted a post or not (themselves as vs. being moderated)? Genuine question, I don't know whether they can or not.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

2. re:nerd73, is there precedent on a ballot standing because of post-vote post deletions? I may be misinformed but couldn't one argue that this is in effect a voter consciously invalidating their own ballot, as if they were to edit it after the time limit?

In addition to the above points - that the FEA refers to ‘having made eight posts’, a set of past actions, rather than to a statistic in the present (post count) - there has also, to my understanding, been a legal consensus that invalidations after the election are not permitted and also should not affect the final result if possible.

Keep in mind that if a ballot itself were to be deleted during the time that these post deletions took place, it would fall very directly under the federal crime of ‘ballot tampering’; the name alone here suggests that the status of the election as of the vote closing should be considered final.

And consider the necessary alternative of any other proposal: namely, that every election be allowed to remain in flux all the way through the end of the litigation period - which falls at “one week after certification”. This means that no certification can be truly complete, as it would have to account for possible changes like this in the week after it ism made officia. This despite the FEA also clearly stating “ An official certification is completely final and may only be altered by order of the Supreme Court of Atlasia.”

The textual contradictions here just add up far too quickly - not to mention rather disastrous implications on the game itself.

Thanks.

I'm actually more interested in the evidence presented via YE - can a moderator actually see if someone deleted a post or not (themselves as vs. being moderated)? Genuine question, I don't know whether they can or not.

Moderators have access to a board containing all deleted posts.

[Oakvale]

2. re:nerd73, is there precedent on a ballot standing because of post-vote post deletions? I may be misinformed but couldn't one argue that this is in effect a voter consciously invalidating their own ballot, as if they were to edit it after the time limit?

In addition to the above points - that the FEA refers to ‘having made eight posts’, a set of past actions, rather than to a statistic in the present (post count) - there has also, to my understanding, been a legal consensus that invalidations after the election are not permitted and also should not affect the final result if possible.

Keep in mind that if a ballot itself were to be deleted during the time that these post deletions took place, it would fall very directly under the federal crime of ‘ballot tampering’; the name alone here suggests that the status of the election as of the vote closing should be considered final.

And consider the necessary alternative of any other proposal: namely, that every election be allowed to remain in flux all the way through the end of the litigation period - which falls at “one week after certification”. This means that no certification can be truly complete, as it would have to account for possible changes like this in the week after it ism made officia. This despite the FEA also clearly stating “ An official certification is completely final and may only be altered by order of the Supreme Court of Atlasia.”

The textual contradictions here just add up far too quickly - not to mention rather disastrous implications on the game itself.

Thanks.

I'm actually more interested in the evidence presented via YE - can a moderator actually see if someone deleted a post or not (themselves as vs. being moderated)? Genuine question, I don't know whether they can or not.

Moderators have access to a board containing all deleted posts.

Is that the case? My very vague recollection back from the 'death points' days was moderators only had a list of posts that had been deleted by moderators, rather than by the user, but I was never a mod so my memory may be failing me.

[Sestak]

2. re:nerd73, is there precedent on a ballot standing because of post-vote post deletions? I may be misinformed but couldn't one argue that this is in effect a voter consciously invalidating their own ballot, as if they were to edit it after the time limit?

In addition to the above points - that the FEA refers to ‘having made eight posts’, a set of past actions, rather than to a statistic in the present (post count) - there has also, to my understanding, been a legal consensus that invalidations after the election are not permitted and also should not affect the final result if possible.

Keep in mind that if a ballot itself were to be deleted during the time that these post deletions took place, it would fall very directly under the federal crime of ‘ballot tampering’; the name alone here suggests that the status of the election as of the vote closing should be considered final.

And consider the necessary alternative of any other proposal: namely, that every election be allowed to remain in flux all the way through the end of the litigation period - which falls at “one week after certification”. This means that no certification can be truly complete, as it would have to account for possible changes like this in the week after it ism made officia. This despite the FEA also clearly stating “ An official certification is completely final and may only be altered by order of the Supreme Court of Atlasia.”

The textual contradictions here just add up far too quickly - not to mention rather disastrous implications on the game itself.

Thanks.

I'm actually more interested in the evidence presented via YE - can a moderator actually see if someone deleted a post or not (themselves as vs. being moderated)? Genuine question, I don't know whether they can or not.

Moderators have access to a board containing all deleted posts.

Is that the case? My very vague recollection back from the 'death points' days was moderators only had a list of posts that had been deleted by moderators, rather than by the user, but I was never a mod so my memory may be failing me.

The recycle board is a feature that was only added to the forum in the last couple years.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

2. re:nerd73, is there precedent on a ballot standing because of post-vote post deletions? I may be misinformed but couldn't one argue that this is in effect a voter consciously invalidating their own ballot, as if they were to edit it after the time limit?

In addition to the above points - that the FEA refers to ‘having made eight posts’, a set of past actions, rather than to a statistic in the present (post count) - there has also, to my understanding, been a legal consensus that invalidations after the election are not permitted and also should not affect the final result if possible.

Keep in mind that if a ballot itself were to be deleted during the time that these post deletions took place, it would fall very directly under the federal crime of ‘ballot tampering’; the name alone here suggests that the status of the election as of the vote closing should be considered final.

And consider the necessary alternative of any other proposal: namely, that every election be allowed to remain in flux all the way through the end of the litigation period - which falls at “one week after certification”. This means that no certification can be truly complete, as it would have to account for possible changes like this in the week after it ism made officia. This despite the FEA also clearly stating “ An official certification is completely final and may only be altered by order of the Supreme Court of Atlasia.”

The textual contradictions here just add up far too quickly - not to mention rather disastrous implications on the game itself.

Thanks.

I'm actually more interested in the evidence presented via YE - can a moderator actually see if someone deleted a post or not (themselves as vs. being moderated)? Genuine question, I don't know whether they can or not.

Moderators have access to a board containing all deleted posts.

Is that the case? My very vague recollection back from the 'death points' days was moderators only had a list of posts that had been deleted by moderators, rather than by the user, but I was never a mod so my memory may be failing me.

I'm pretty sure it exists, but at least with nerd's case we have screencaps of his ballot and of him confessing voter intimidation.

[Former President tack50]

Is that the case? My very vague recollection back from the 'death points' days was moderators only had a list of posts that had been deleted by moderators, rather than by the user, but I was never a mod so my memory may be failing me.

This is a very recent change I believe. I think the "recycling board" as it is called was only properly implemented in 2020. As late as 2019 an election I was running in which involved a similar scenario (double posting + deleted ballot) we were forced to depend on well timed screenshots and testimony from people who saw those ballots.

Although perhaps one of our resident mods or admins could say more.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is that the case? My very vague recollection back from the 'death points' days was moderators only had a list of posts that had been deleted by moderators, rather than by the user, but I was never a mod so my memory may be failing me.

This is a very recent change I believe. I think the "recycling board" as it is called was only properly implemented in 2020. As late as 2019 an election I was running in which involved a similar scenario (double posting + deleted ballot) we were forced to depend on well timed screenshots and testimony from people who saw those ballots.

Although perhaps one of our resident mods or admins could say more.

I don't know the exact date of implementation and I want to say it has existed since I was mod in late 2019 though whether it was fully effective yet or not someone else would have to say. I have seen the deleted post in the recycle board as well and can confirm its existence.

[Oakvale]

Is that the case? My very vague recollection back from the 'death points' days was moderators only had a list of posts that had been deleted by moderators, rather than by the user, but I was never a mod so my memory may be failing me.

This is a very recent change I believe. I think the "recycling board" as it is called was only properly implemented in 2020. As late as 2019 an election I was running in which involved a similar scenario (double posting + deleted ballot) we were forced to depend on well timed screenshots and testimony from people who saw those ballots.

Although perhaps one of our resident mods or admins could say more.

I don't know the exact date of implementation and I want to say it has existed since I was mod in late 2019 though whether it was fully effective yet or not someone else would have to say. I have seen the deleted post in the recycle board as well and can confirm its existence.

The key thing to me, it would seem, is whether those two posts were less than twenty minutes apart.