Results: June 2013 Special Judicial Election

Cove

Cove

TNPer
June 2013 Special Judicial Election Results​
ec-seal.png

Results
Hileville - 19
Blue Wolf II - 17
Mall - 6
Romanoffia - 6
Funkadelia - 4
Belschaft - 3
Chasmanthe - 0
Iro - 0
Scarpanto - 0
Zyvetskistaahn -0
Abstain - 10
Invalid - 1

Congratulations to Hileville and Blue Wolf II, who are elected with 19 and 17 votes, respectively.

Results were certified by the Election Commissioner in this election, Jamie.
 
I'm a little unsettled that BW didn't even have the courtesy to post a manifesto, but congratulations to both winners nonetheless.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Iro:
I'm a little unsettled that BW didn't even have the courtesy to post a manifesto, but congratulations to both winners nonetheless.
Click to expand...
A manifesto? Nah, that would just make me seem crazy.
Click to expand...
Dammit, he figured out our secret. :clap:
 
Blue Wolf II:
Iro:
I'm a little unsettled that BW didn't even have the courtesy to post a manifesto, but congratulations to both winners nonetheless.
Click to expand...
A manifesto? Nah, that would just make me seem crazy.
Click to expand...
Of course!

Not saying a word tends to get people elected around here!

*slips BW an envelop containing an undisclosed amount of Swiss Francs* Hile only takes American Express. :P :lol:
 
Looking at the way the ballot was set up and posted I contest these results. The two justice positions were clearly shown to be elected individually and not to be the top two vote gatherers from all votes cast.

A brief examination of the voting thread would suggest that no one managed to receive a majority of votes cast for either the position labeled "justice 1" or the one labeled "justice 2" and runoffs may be needed.
 
Abstain:
Looking at the way the ballot was set up and posted I contest these results. The two justice positions were clearly shown to be elected individually and not to be the top two vote gatherers from all votes cast.

A brief examination of the voting thread would suggest that no one managed to receive a majority of votes cast for either the position labeled "justice 1" or the one labeled "justice 2" and runoffs may be needed.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting and surprisingly valid point. Thanks for bringing it up Limi.
 
Abstain:
Looking at the way the ballot was set up and posted I contest these results. The two justice positions were clearly shown to be elected individually and not to be the top two vote gatherers from all votes cast.

A brief examination of the voting thread would suggest that no one managed to receive a majority of votes cast for either the position labeled "justice 1" or the one labeled "justice 2" and runoffs may be needed.
Click to expand...
If you would like to contest the elections, feel free to do so, but I do not believe I have done anything wrong in my actions, and I will point out the previous justice election used these rules, and was not contested.
 
Technicalities are a tradition in TNP! :P

Jamie is correct about the election - since one is voting for two open positions, it would be impossible for the two winners to both get a 50%+1 margin. And, it is one election for two positions and not two separate elections.

This is why we need to go to a simple plurality rather than a 50%+1 method of elections. It would tend to eliminate a lot of run-off situations unless there was actually a tie in the initial vote.
 
Romanoffia:
Technicalities are a tradition in TNP! :P

Jamie is correct about the election - since one is voting for two open positions, it would be impossible for the two winners to both get a 50%+1 margin. And, it is one election for two positions and not two separate elections.

This is why we need to go to a simple plurality rather than a 50%+1 method of elections. It would tend to eliminate a lot of run-off situations unless there was actually a tie in the initial vote.
Click to expand...
No, it would be possible. Whoever got 50%+1 for each respective slot should have won.
 
Or you could read the Constitution which states:

5. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a plurality vote every four months.
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty clear that Justices are elected by a plurality.
 
According to the recent court ruling regarding the election commission, I'm pretty sure that the EC can count the votes any way that is allowed by the constitution, and don't necessarily have to post the details of that in the OP or on the ballot.
 
That permits the election fraud, and if the ruling should be interpreted as such then that is quite disappointing.

EDIT: After reading that thread, there is no way in which one could interpret the ruling to read that.
 
Legal Code:
"Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of citizens with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.
Click to expand...
I don't think it allows election fraud. The method of counting votes is not listed among the specific areas that are covered by the definition of election fraud. Also, even if it were, Jamie would have had to willfully have deceived us to be guilty of any kind of fraud, election or otherwise. I don't think he did. I'm sure he simply assumed that we would know the votes would be counted the same way they've always been. There have been no significant changes to the structure of the ballot since the last judicial election, except possibly the removal of the WA Nation field.
 
Hileville:
Or you could read the Constitution which states:

5. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a plurality vote every four months.
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty clear that Justices are elected by a plurality.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing things up, Hileville.
 
As such, the only relevant question here has nothing to do with the structure of the ballot. The only relevant question is "did more people vote for Hileville and Blue Wolf than voted for anyone else?" The clear answer is yes.
 
No, the relevant question is indeed the structure of the ballot because if there were two slots, then the votes should indeed have been counted in the terms of those slots. If it simply said "Select two candidates from the following list to elect as Court Justices" then the way the votes were counted would be okay, but that is not how it was done.
 
I think that some people just misinterpreted the ballot. In fact, you cannot vote for the same person twice. The ballot didn't make that explicitly clear, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't do it. There *are* two slots, and they get filled by the two people who get the most votes. It's really pretty simple.
 
Well it might not change that fact but the point is that people were led to believe that the two slots were being counted separately, and I for one organized my votes considering that matter. Limi and I both agreed that we would have voted differently if it were absolutely clear that the votes were being counted collectively.
 
Going only by public votes, if they were counted in the way you expected them to be, Hileville would have won the first slot, and Blue Wolf II would have won the second. Only 1 private vote was cast for Hile, and no private votes were cast for Blue Wolf II. The one private vote Hile received would not have let him surpass Wolf's vote total in the second slot, and no other candidate received enough private votes to come close to either Hile or Wolf's total in either slot.

So, in other words, it doesn't matter how Jamie counted the votes - the results would have been the same.

EDIT: Actually, it appears Hile and Wolf were tied on the second slot, but since you can't be two Justices at once (as both are elected positions) the only legal way to resolve that would be to give the victory to Wolf. Personally, I think that method of counting votes is illegal because of that possible scenario, but I'm no expert.
 
Iro:
Perhaps it would simply be easier to just have one slot and allow up to two choices.
Click to expand...
That's essentially the way a multiple judicial election works according to the existing rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top