|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 11:37:25 GMT -6
First, this is how real nations work. When there is a vote, and if people suspect the vote was not properly carried out, people get to protest. Further, if available, those individuals, providing they have standing, get to demand recounts and/or bring litigation. To imply that filing a suit or demanding a recount is somehow not civil, or questions the "lovableness" of one person is absurd and inherently anti-democratic.
Second, people have been complaining how inactive Talossa has been lately. Well, it's active again.
So to your request - the answer is an unequivocal no. If there is a suspicion that an election was not properly executed, even if by simple human error, it is the responsibility of every person who values democracy and democratic institutions to work to ensure those issues are addressed, and to not give a free pass simply because they think someone is nice. Anything less weakens our institutions.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 11:30:31 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 9:38:30 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 9:20:39 GMT -6
They can be found here: www.talossa.ca/files/election_result.phpIn short: MRPT: 80 seats RUMP: 63 seats FreeDem: 46 seats Rep: 9 seats I EXPLICITLY VOTE AGAINST ALL PARTIES: 2 seats (this party is not registered and this vote might be under review to count as PRESENT). All Referendums are ratified. Senators: Éovart Grischun for Vuode Lüc da Schir for Benito Sevastáin Pinátsch for Ataturk Manus J. Hand for Florencia Update For everyone reading this: It is obvious to me that these are the non-certified results and that until the Electoral commission has done its work, these are the non-certified results. I thought everyone understood that, I was wrong and I am being sued by someone who thinks that I means that these were the certified results. Not only is this a blatant misrepresentation of the suit that was filed, it's also highly inappropriate considering your position as Secretary of State and that you are speaking in your official capacity.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 9:08:18 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 8:58:44 GMT -6
That's a bit revisionist, no? Sir T had announced his candidacy for some time, and you seemed okay with that prospect. But when I jumped in, suddenly you had an issue. So you'll excuse me if I'm not buying this idea that Sir T and I inspired you to increase your activity as the primary purpose for you becoming a candidate. As to my contention with the election result, talossa.proboards.com/thread/11875/demand-transparency-vote-recount-vuode?page=1&scrollTo=148821 already details my concerns. But to tl;dr - my question with two of the votes you received comes down to: (1) were they cast pre-Nov. 25; (2) if yes, were they cast for you, RUMP, or Sir T; and (3) if they were cast for RUMP or Sir T, were they then applied to you once Sir T dropped out and then you received an official endorsement on Nov 25 or were they allowed to vote again? Finally, I appreciate your willingness to bring an up-or-down vote on the issue of the monarchy. That, along with judicial reform, are my two primary issues. Sir, if the results are proper and you are the Senator of the United Provinces, then I will accept those results. I think the people made a mistake, in both this race (to borrow your wording, I believe you'll make a lousy Senator), and on the national level, voters favored status quo without much care for how that is hurting Talossa. But I will work with you, even if it is obvious that you only entered the race because I did when you stated you had no desire, which makes it personal, and that you continue to support the institution of the monarchy, which continues to tarnish our national identity.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 8:49:39 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 1, 2016 21:43:50 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 1, 2016 21:07:34 GMT -6
I'd rather not. No offense to you, but you jumped in only after I did (that is, Sir T had declared his candidacy for some time). Not to mention, the actual number seems highly suspicious.
I will, however, make one exception. I will agree to debate you only if you commit to bringing an up-or-down vote on abolishing the monarchy. It's truly time we got rid of this abomination.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 1, 2016 21:04:39 GMT -6
I'm questioning the count in Vuode. I figured my vote was a long shot, but were votes for the RUMP and/or Sir T given to Eovart?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 1, 2016 9:04:43 GMT -6
Too bad the debate never happened.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 30, 2016 9:44:39 GMT -6
I hope all turns out well.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 23, 2016 8:39:46 GMT -6
Okay so I'm away until Monday. I should be able to check Witt once in a a while, but perhaps we can start the debate?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 19, 2016 15:11:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 18, 2016 8:12:04 GMT -6
I don't think every question asked of us from our would-be constituents must be in a debate. Also, neither of the moderators we suggested are from Vuode. But if you would prefer to wait for the debate to start, that's fine. If, however, you choose to engage, I will gladly answer any questions you pose, as well as any questions I pose.
|
|