PRESS RELEASE
Ruling on Vote Openings and Changes
by Cryo
19 MAY 2022
Yesterday, Legislator @philipmacaroni attempted to switch his vote from "Aye" to "Abstain" but the poll had closed 9 minutes before the clock said it should. Debate started quickly. This ruling was made following the considerations of arguments from @anjo, @Ryccia, @philipmacaroni, and others.
Before we can begin, some key facts must be established. Firstly, the vote is auto-formatted and creates the clock which rounds to the nearest half hour. The poll is made second with the thread, which leads to a minor difference between the two. This typically isn't a problem, however @philipmacaroni's last minute change did cause a problem as a major difference had formed due to an accidental discrepancy between the two that I did not realise.
One argument was if @philipmacaroni's vote should be counted in the first place due to him being readmitted after previously indicating intent to resign. As legislators are only removed after each month, he was still a legislator with all of the powers of a legislator. His votes still count.
Now on to vote timing. The Legislative Procedure Act,[1] a constitutional law, states that votes end either in 3 or 5 days exactly, no more, no less. The Times Act[2] on the other hand is one tough cookie. The letter of the law says nothing about being the exact deadline, although the spirit of the law implies it. Therefore, the clock deadline is simply a suggestion of the actual deadline, which is when the poll closes. Given that the L.P.A. is a constitutional law and the T.A. a general law, the L.P.A. holds more weight and trumps the T.A. With this being said, @philipmacaroni's vote change was after the "official" deadline, that being the poll, and therefore shouldn't count. The stated deadline was wrong.
However, this would be unfair to @philipmacaroni, who reasonably thought that he could switch his vote. But it'd also be unfair to allow his original vote to stand. This unfortunately forms a draw, where both sides could win based on if the vote is punished ex post facto or I if give an exception (although not a perfect tie). I have decided ignore @philipmacaroni's vote entirely (he will still be a voting member to prevent non-compliance) and make a casting vote, which is implied by the Charter to maintain order and decorum.[3] This vote will be announced with the announcement of results.
In summary, @philipmacaroni's last minute vote change was after the voting period had officially came to end, but was caused by confusion due to a discrepancy between the poll and clock deadlines caused by mine own mistake. To be fair to both sides, his vote will be ignored and he will be simply marked as "Present" rather than count or discount it, and I, as Chair of the Assembly, will make a casting vote to decide the outcome from this draw. In the future, I will strive to prevent this from happening again.
References:
[1] Legislative Procedure Act, Article I, Section 3
[2] Times Act, Article II
[3] Charter of the South Pacific, Article IV, Section 2
This ruling is to be considered null and void following the opinions on [2206.RR] Review of the Chair of the Assembly's Decision to Mark a Vote Invalid and [2207.HQ] In re Assembly Vote Closures.
@Press Gallery
[/font] |
|
