Demand for transparency – Vote Recount in Vuode

[Viteu Marcianüs]

There’s something rotten in the United Provinces, and it’s this vote.

I bring attention to your the following issues:



1) Chirbi Scherpa-Carriedo voted for Viteu Marcianus, yet his vote has been recorded as “Abstained.”



2)The RUMP officially endorsed Sir T, who withdrew his candidacy on November 17, 2016. To the best of my knowledge, Cresit only endorsed Mr. Grischun on November 25, 2016. To that end, were all Grischun votes specifically for him (i.e., did those individual list them on their ballots, and I ask only for those that are “public” ballots), or were votes for Sir T reassigned? Further, were any votes received pre-Nov. 25 marked “RUMP” awarded to Mr. Grischun, and if so, is it legal for a party to retroactively endorse a candidate, thus giving them votes they may not have otherwise received? Finally, were people allowed to change their vote from Sir T to Mr. Grischun?


I trust these questions can be answered prior to certification to save Vuode and Talossa a prolonged legal battle over these callous discrepancies.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Dec 1, 2016 21:43:50 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

There’s something rotten in the United Provinces, and it’s this vote.

I bring attention to your the following issues:



1) Chirbi Scherpa-Carriedo voted for Viteu Marcianus, yet his vote has been recorded as “Abstained.”

You are 100% correct. Her vote has been corrected.

2)The RUMP officially endorsed Sir T, who withdrew his candidacy on November 17, 2016. To the best of my knowledge, Cresit only endorsed Mr. Grischun on November 25, 2016. To that end, were all Grischun votes specifically for him (i.e., did those individual list them on their ballots, and I ask only for those that are “public” ballots), or were votes for Sir T reassigned? Further, were any votes received pre-Nov. 25 marked “RUMP” awarded to Mr. Grischun, and if so, is it legal for a party to retroactively endorse a candidate, thus giving them votes they may not have otherwise received? Finally, were people allowed to change their vote from Sir T to Mr. Grischun?


I trust these questions can be answered prior to certification to save Vuode and Talossa a prolonged legal battle over these callous discrepancies.

As I indicated in the past, if you don't vote for the Senate, no vote is recorded at all. You have to explicitly vote in the Senate for your vote to be counted. Just voting for the party puts you as an abstain for the Senate, even if there is an endorsement.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Dec 2, 2016 4:41:42 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

You have to explicitly vote in the Senate for your vote to be counted. Just voting for the party puts you as an abstain for the Senate, even if there is an endorsement.

But OrgLaw IV:5 says:

A political party may endorse a candidate for any vacant Senate seat. In the event that a voter specifies that party as his choice for that Senate seat and the election is conducted by the Chancery, his vote shall be counted for the candidate so endorsed.

Not that it makes a difference here. V only asks about public ballots, and all Vuodean public ballots were cast in the voting thread here on Witt, and were for a named Senäts candidate rather than for a party.

BTW, Chirbi is male.

[Lüc da Schir]

Dec 2, 2016 4:48:52 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Dec 2, 2016 4:41:42 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

You have to explicitly vote in the Senate for your vote to be counted. Just voting for the party puts you as an abstain for the Senate, even if there is an endorsement.

But OrgLaw IV:5 says:

A political party may endorse a candidate for any vacant Senate seat. In the event that a voter specifies that party as his choice for that Senate seat and the election is conducted by the Chancery, his vote shall be counted for the candidate so endorsed.

Not that it makes a difference here. V only asks about public ballots, and all Vuodean public ballots were cast in the voting thread here on Witt, and were for a named Senäts candidate rather than for a party.

This is true only if the voter filled the "Senate line" with the name of a party, I think MPF meant that if you vote for a party on the "Cosa line" and leave the Senate option blank, no endorsment is counted as you effectively abstained on the Senate race.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Dec 2, 2016 4:52:58 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

Dec 2, 2016 4:48:52 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

But OrgLaw IV:5 says:

Not that it makes a difference here. V only asks about public ballots, and all Vuodean public ballots were cast in the voting thread here on Witt, and were for a named Senäts candidate rather than for a party.

This is true only if the voter filled the "Senate line" with the name of a party, I think MPF meant that if you vote for a party on the "Cosa line" and leave the Senate option blank, no endorsment is counted as you effectively abstained on the Senate race.

Exactly... and the previous 3 elections were certified with the current system. 

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Right, I see what you mean now.

[Lüc da Schir]

Nonetheless... I'm pretty sure the current electoral law for the Senate will need a bit of overhauling in the next Cosa. Now that we've got IRV/RCV, it's time to ensure independents can feasibly run for a Senate seat (without an endorsement) by being able to register to the race in the same way parties register to contest an election to the Cosa.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Dec 2, 2016 5:00:16 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

Nonetheless... I'm pretty sure the current electoral law for the Senate will need a bit of overhauling in the next Cosa. Now that we've got IRV/RCV, it's time to ensure independents can feasibly run for a Senate seat (without an endorsement) by being able to register to the race in the same way parties register to contest an election to the Cosa.

Oh, I am NOT in a disagreement with you!

And perhaps, we could even add a 50 word statement for Senate Candidates!

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Let us be clear- I do not dispute that simply entering "RUMP" in the Senate box would be counted as a vote for the RUMP's endorsed candidate. My question is a bit more nuanced, can a party endorse a candidate after a vote for that party was cast and then have those votes retroactively applied? Hence, the issue is one of timing. While Hool's vote was cast on Nov. 29, was Troxta's? (I looked through the thread and, although I recall seeing it once, cannot find his vote). Were people allowed to change their vote? Is that allowed?

So yes, there are a lot of questions with this vote count.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Dec 2, 2016 8:49:39 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

Let us be clear- I do not dispute that simply entering "RUMP" in the Senate box would be counted as a vote for the RUMP's endorsed candidate. My question is a bit more nuanced, can a party endorse a candidate after a vote for that party was cast and then have those votes retroactively applied? Hence, the issue is one of timing. While Hool's vote was cast on Nov. 29, was Troxta's? (I looked through the thread and, although I recall seeing it once, cannot find his vote). Were people allowed to change their vote? Is that allowed?

So yes, there are a lot of questions with this vote count.

Once you vote, you cannot recast your vote. Hool voted for Troxta, so that's his final vote.

As for the vote for the PARTY as per the Senate, I interpret the party as a person at the moment of entering the vote.

Here are a few scenarios:

Day 3: Jim votes GCP for the Senate and the Cosa
Later on Day 3: I enter Jim's vote for the Cosa, but the GCP didn't yet declare an endorsement, so it's an Abstain vote. I can't do anything else.
Day 4. after I am at sleep: James  votes GCP for the Senate and the Cosa, but he is the GCP leader and immediately messages me that the GCP endorses Jack for the Senate.
Day 5: I wake up, see the endorsement, enter it in the system, see the vote, and casts James's vote as being for Jack in the Senate.
Day 6: Jill votes for the GCP for the senate and the Cosa
Later on Day 6: I enter Jill's vote for Jack in the Senate.

Day 22, the election is over, the EC will determine if I was right to mark Jim's vote as an Abstain, and if I was right to Mark James vote as being for Jack. Jill's vote is non-controversial.

Now that all of this is explained, here are the jurisprudence to my knowledge:

Jim's situation didn't occur yet in previous elections. It didn't occur in this election either. No one voted publicly for a party in the senate in which no endorsement was made.

James situation didn't occur either. No one voted voted publicly for a party in the senate in which no endorsement was made when they voted, but was made before I entered the vote.

Jill's situation didn't even occur! No one voted for a party in the Senate, publicly.

As for privately, people can now only vote for a specific candidate, not for a party.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

To clarify, I did not mean Hool, I meant Aladna la Mha-Coca (you'll excuse the confusion).

You will cease your condescension; your little scenario didn't really explain anything, as it does not much differ from the point I'm making.

My question remains - of the public votes, on which date were they received and did they explicitly state Grischun? Of the private votes, the EC will need to confirm that they are appropriate.

And I'm not apologizing for this, but the fact that you concede that there is a significant difference between private and public votes (i.e., you can vote party in one but not the other), then I'm not putting much stock into your other claims.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Dec 2, 2016 9:08:18 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

To clarify, I did not mean Hool, I meant Aladna la Mha-Coca (you'll excuse the confusion).

You will cease your condescension; your little scenario didn't really explain anything, as it does not much differ from the point I'm making.

My question remains - of the public votes, on which date were they received and did they explicitly state Grischun? Of the private votes, the EC will need to confirm that they are appropriate.

You are asking a recount and I am trying to explain the way I did the original count. 

As for  Aladna la Mha-Coca, she didn't vote RUMP, she voted explicitly: Senate (Vuode): Éovart Grischun. I fail to see the problem!

Check here: talossa.proboards.com/thread/11841/official-50th-cosa-voting-thread

These are ALL of the public votes, and all of them which voted for the Senate were for an individual, and none of them for the Party.

And I'm not apologizing for this, but the fact that you concede that there is a significant difference between private and public votes (i.e., you can vote party in one but not the other), then I'm putting much stock into your other claims.

What do you mean condenscension??? I tried to explain the 3 scenarios I saw!!

I am not sure I am understanding this sentence.

I can read it two days:

1 ) You see that I have succesfuly explained the difference between public and private vote, and as such, you are putting a lot of trust in what I said and as such, are accepting what I am saying, but I fail to see why you would say "claims", but perhaps my second-language English sees the word Claims in a negative light when it is not.

or

2 ) You forgot a word in your sentence and means that you are NOT putting much stock into my other claims, therefore implying I am dishonest and/or incompetent.

If it is #1, thank you. I try to be as non-partisant as possible and to conduct elections an in as impartial method as possible.

If it's #2, I feel hurt and feel like I deserve either an apology or further elaboration of what you are doubting in details so I can defend my honor from what I consider baseless accusations considering that from my point of view, you seem to be implying that I attributed to your opponent votes which shouldn't have gone to him, when I tried to explain that I did no such thing, and if #2 is right, you are responsing to my explaination by basically calling me a liar and attacking my reputation.

I am hoping you really meant #1.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

1) No, those are not all of the public votes. Where is Trotxa's? He is marked as public but not on that thread. So your assertion that all of the public votes are found on the thread above is false.

2) Your little scenario and breakdown was highly condescending. End of debate.

3) What you fail to consider is that I am not refuting your explanation and that, in fact, it is exactly what I'm talking about? Perhaps you can put your pride aside for a moment and actually read what I wrote?

4) You are correct, I forgot to put "not" in my sentence. You will receive no apology from me, as you are asking me to believe your claims when there are now multiple inaccuracies in your various claims (e.g., you misrecorded a vote; you claim all public votes can be found somewhere when that is not true). If you feel your reputation is being damaged, perhaps you should consider your own actions.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Dec 2, 2016 9:38:30 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

1) No, those are not all of the public votes. Where is Trotxa's? He is marked as public but not on that thread. So your assertion that all of the public votes are found on the thread above is false.

2

Ah... I see your confusion...

Trotxa voted in the database, had you named him as your point of contention, that's what I would have explained.

I can understand why you think my explainaing was condending since I provided my explaination on Hool's vote, since that's the person who you cited. As you cited Trotxa, my explaination would have been much different indeed!

Please note that this discussion is being very unpleasant. you have visibly decided to be angry at me and to paint my replies as being negative toward you. I am merely trying to explain to you that you whole preminse is wrong, WHILE in the background, making sure that everything I am saying is 100% true.

I am not talking out of pride, but rather I checked my facts before speaking. You mentionned Hool and public votes, so I assumed that you meant voted made in Public (in other words, Wittenberg).

My explaination for those votes was 100% accurate, but it wasn't what you were looking for. Please do not assume malice on my part, I simply took your example at face value, and replied as much. 

so, Trotxa made a private vote, meaning that he received his ballot, went to the voting form, filled in his citizen number and his PSC and filled the form himself, with no intervention on my part.

He voted in the Senate using a list of citizens (all citizens of Vuode) and picked his choice of candidate. He didn't enter "RUMP", he specifically voted for that person.

But Marti-Pair, it is a public vote! you are lying!!! You might be tempted to say.

The difference with Trotxa is that he voted in private, using the automated form, but decided to mark his vote as being public.

To me, that's a vote made in private, but it is revealed. To me, it's different than a vote in public, since a vote in public needs to be manually entered by me into the database, requiring sometimes a little interpretation (like Per VS Yes VS I agree VS In Favor), or someone voting Rump VS RUMP.

To everyone else, Trotxa made a vote in public, because you can SEE his vote, but it was made very differently.

Do you understand now? Do you need more explanation? I can provide more explanation if you need me to. I don't mind, it's part of my job.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

I appreciate the change in tone of your last post.

To the point of Trotxa, when did he vote (i.e., what was the date)?

I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation in regards to the public v. private aspect of a vote done using the automated form. By virtue of the fact that he marked "public," it makes no difference as to the method (as long as it was legitimate) as the vote itself is public. Put another way, the very form he filled out is public record, and that vote should be available for review by anyone. His vote is, by virtue of his choice, not private. That means all aspects of it. Your interpretation offers some unwritten regulation that finds that by virtue of using a certain method, your vote is by default private. That's not the system is supposed to work.