I would like to request that my argument be replaced with the following:

At 9:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, Legislator philipmacaroni requested that their vote on the Assembly Resolution to Call a Great Council (Modified) be changed to abstain. This is after the mandated deadline of 5 days as outlined in the Legislator Procedure Act, which would put it at 9:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, but before the displayed deadline of 9:30 PM Eastern Standard Time.

The deadline was displayed incorrectly due to issues in the code of a local time formatter, which automatically rounded its inputs up to the next half-hour. However, the poll itself closed automatically at the mandated deadline.

To resolve this dispute, the Chair of the Assembly The Haughtherlands, in a press release given to the Assembly, ignored Legislator philipmacaroni's vote (acknowledging their presence but not recording an "Aye", "Nay" nor "Abstain" vote) and then declared that the Chair would make a casting vote.

The petitioner requests that these two actions should be reviewed. The first action, to ignore the Legislator philipmacaroni's vote, is not something the Chair has the legal power to do. The Chair's responsibility, in regards to voting, is to create voting threads and to record those votes [1]. The Chair does not determine the length of these votes – this is already set in stone by the Legislative Procedure Act, which declares the length of the vote on constitutional laws to be exactly 5 days [2]. This is the previously mentioned "mandated deadline". There is no provision allowing the chair to rectroactively change votes after the deadline, and it stands to reason that the Chair should not be able to do this, therefore such a request after the mandated deadline should be ignored.
The second action, to declare that the Chair shall make a retroactive casting vote in order to settle the resulting draw, is an action that the Chair has no legal power to do. The Legislative Procedure Act already clearly gives a stated length for a vote [2], and nowhere in the law is there such a provision that allows a vote to be changed or added retroactively, and it would be clearly absurd for such an ability to be given out of the Chair's responsiblity to maintain "order and decorum" [3] as the Chair claims in their statement regarding the situation.

The petitioner also notes that declaring these two actions null and void would lead to the vote by Legislator philipmacaroni to be recorded as Aye.

References:
[1] Legislative Procedure Act, Article 2, Section 1
[2] Legislative Procedure Act, Article 1, Section 3
[3] The Charter of the South Pacific, Chapter IV, Article 2

---
Thank you.