A - Austria

Look, if everything had actually been handled by the book, there wouldn't be any need for these repetitive recounts.
From what I gathered right at the start, there were roughly 190,000 valid ballots that were apparently opened a day early—meaning, under the law, those invalid votes somehow managed to pass as legitimate ones.

Scott Rodriguez19 said:Look, if everything had actually been handled by the book, there wouldn't be any need for these repetitive recounts.
From what I gathered right at the start, there were roughly 190,000 valid ballots that were apparently opened a day early—meaning, under the law, those invalid votes somehow managed to pass as legitimate ones.

Like I mentioned before, things are rarely perfectly legal since there's always some kind of mess-up, even in these re-run elections. I guess the real question is whether those errors could even theoretically change the outcome. Laws are laws, though, and following this logic, we'd just keep re-voting until the Freedom Party candidate wins.

And I think you might have misheard; opening them a day early doesn't make the ballots invalid. If that were the case, they wouldn't bother with new elections because everyone knows how invalid ballots are handled.

Nathan Morris3 said:Like I mentioned before, things are rarely perfectly legal since there's always some kind of mess-up, even in these re-run elections. I guess the real question is whether those errors could even theoretically change the outcome. Laws are laws, though, and following this logic, we'd just keep re-voting until the Freedom Party candidate wins.

And I think you might have misheard; opening them a day early doesn't make the ballots invalid. If that were the case, they wouldn't bother with new elections because everyone knows how invalid ballots are handled.

So, what's the point of having laws and regulations then?
You can't just recognize something that wasn't done according to the rules or the law. It’s like if an NFL referee decided to count handballs as goals just because he wanted to see more scoring—it simply isn't how the game works.

Scott Rodriguez19 said:So, what's the point of having laws and regulations then?
You can't just recognize something that wasn't done according to the rules or the law. It’s like if an NFL referee decided to count handballs as goals just because he wanted to see more scoring—it simply isn't how the game works.

Maybe we should move past the soccer talk, since this stuff is a bit more serious and complicated than a game. If you really want a sports comparison, look at what happened yesterday—a penalty wasn't replayed even though it should have been because our players interfered with the kicker. That penalty changed the whole game, but obviously, the Spanish team isn't demanding a rematch over it.

Elections are different, I suppose, which is why they might be redone. There isn't any actual proof of fraud, just some irregularities that could, in theory, change the results. Usually, elections aren't rerun unless those mistakes actually impact who wins, which is why we haven't seen rematches before even when things weren't perfect. A redo in this situation is probably for the best, though I hate thinking the outcome might flip, especially since most of the complaints seem like a joke. The truth is, observers (including those from the Freedom Party) were signing off on everything without even checking.

Nathan Morris3 said:Maybe we should move past the soccer talk, since this stuff is a bit more serious and complicated than a game. If you really want a sports comparison, look at what happened yesterday—a penalty wasn't replayed even though it should have been because our players interfered with the kicker. That penalty changed the whole game, but obviously, the Spanish team isn't demanding a rematch over it.

Elections are different, I suppose, which is why they might be redone. There isn't any actual proof of fraud, just some irregularities that could, in theory, change the results. Usually, elections aren't rerun unless those mistakes actually impact who wins, which is why we haven't seen rematches before even when things weren't perfect. A redo in this situation is probably for the best, though I hate thinking the outcome might flip, especially since most of the complaints seem like a joke. The truth is, observers (including those from the Freedom Party) were signing off on everything without even checking.

What kind of logic are you even using here?
The reason I'm saying this is because since we're dealing with matters much more consequential than sports, it would be—logically speaking—far more likely that laws and regulations would be enforced with actual awareness, rather than the opposite.

Especially when you consider that we're looking at 30,000 votes that tipped the scales for one candidate, while 190,000 votes that absolutely should have been invalidated were just... left alone.

Scott Rodriguez19 said:What kind of logic are you even using here?
The reason I'm saying this is because since we're dealing with matters much more consequential than sports, it would be—logically speaking—far more likely that laws and regulations would be enforced with actual awareness, rather than the opposite.

Especially when you consider that we're looking at 30,000 votes that tipped the scales for one candidate, while 190,000 votes that absolutely should have been invalidated were just... left alone.

So, I guess I'm saying comparing this to soccer is silly because this is way more heavy-duty. Maybe they'll have to redo the elections, and you can't just ignore irregularities that theoretically could have changed the outcome (even if they probably didn't).

I don't really get what you mean about voiding votes? People filled out their ballots correctly, so why punish them by throwing away a vote they handed in perfectly fine? I guess your logic is a bit fuzzy—would it feel fair to you if someone tossed your vote just because someone else messed up the process? The election law defines what counts as a valid ballot, and you can't just invalidate votes just because Scott Rodriguez19 thinks they should be gone. You know? We have to follow the law. It's a bummer they didn't follow it during the first round, but I don't see how bypassing the law now makes any sense.

There isn't a perfect solution, I suppose. I was wondering if they could just redo things in the specific spots where the errors happened (like how it works back home), but even that feels a little off. If you call people back to vote again, then everyone's vote suddenly carries more weight than it did the first time. Plus, if you hold a redo, you have to invite everyone, which means you might get a totally different group of voters than the first time. But maybe that's the lesser of two evils.

Nathan Morris3 said:So, I guess I'm saying comparing this to soccer is silly because this is way more heavy-duty. Maybe they'll have to redo the elections, and you can't just ignore irregularities that theoretically could have changed the outcome (even if they probably didn't).

I don't really get what you mean about voiding votes? People filled out their ballots correctly, so why punish them by throwing away a vote they handed in perfectly fine? I guess your logic is a bit fuzzy—would it feel fair to you if someone tossed your vote just because someone else messed up the process? The election law defines what counts as a valid ballot, and you can't just invalidate votes just because Scott Rodriguez19 thinks they should be gone. You know? We have to follow the law. It's a bummer they didn't follow it during the first round, but I don't see how bypassing the law now makes any sense.

There isn't a perfect solution, I suppose. I was wondering if they could just redo things in the specific spots where the errors happened (like how it works back home), but even that feels a little off. If you call people back to vote again, then everyone's vote suddenly carries more weight than it did the first time. Plus, if you hold a redo, you have to invite everyone, which means you might get a totally different group of voters than the first time. But maybe that's the lesser of two evils.

Scott Rodriguez19 didn't write the laws!
But if the law states that mail-in ballots aren't to be opened until 9:00 AM the following day, then opening them a day early is illegal—period. If there is a law stating a ballot is invalid—say, if both candidates are circled, making the ballot void—then you can't just decide to give everyone one vote anyway. There are specific laws regarding the counting of votes, and they must be adhered to.
It's like if the law says you can drive at 18; it would be illegal to drive at 17, even if that one day wouldn't have made much difference in your actual driving ability. There is no room for debate there.
You can try to trivialize the legalities all you want, but how is that anything but unfair to the voters who did everything by the book?
I know the truth—you just wouldn't be okay if Norbert Hofer had won. If he had, you'd probably be out there on the barricades right now.😁

Scott Rodriguez19 said:Scott Rodriguez19 didn't write the laws!
But if the law states that mail-in ballots aren't to be opened until 9:00 AM the following day, then opening them a day early is illegal—period. If there is a law stating a ballot is invalid—say, if both candidates are circled, making the ballot void—then you can't just decide to give everyone one vote anyway. There are specific laws regarding the counting of votes, and they must be adhered to.
It's like if the law says you can drive at 18; it would be illegal to drive at 17, even if that one day wouldn't have made much difference in your actual driving ability. There is no room for debate there.
You can try to trivialize the legalities all you want, but how is that anything but unfair to the voters who did everything by the book?
I know the truth—you just wouldn't be okay if Norbert Hofer had won. If he had, you'd probably be out there on the barricades right now.😁

I mean, I’m just explaining how the law actually works here. And then you jump in talking about how we should just ignore the rules or toss out ballots that were filled out perfectly fine, just because they don't favor "your" candidate? I guess we can't have that.

If the law says mail-in ballots aren't supposed to be opened until 9:00 AM the next day, then opening them early would be against the rules, I guess. And if there’s a rule about invalid ballots—like, if someone circles both candidates, the ballot is just void and you can't count it as one vote for each—then that should stand. If those laws regarding the vote count exist, they really ought to be followed, maybe.

Opening envelopes the day before? Yeah, that's definitely against the rules. But I guess that doesn't automatically mean we need a redo. Like I've said a few times before—sorry if I'm repeating myself—it’s really up to the Election Commission to decide if those slip-ups actually changed the final result. Even without proof of fraud, they have to weigh if the outcome could have been different. So, maybe just counting early doesn't trigger a new election if observers were there and the count itself followed protocol. That's their call, not ours. And honestly, I'm not sure where you got that idea about ballots being invalid just because someone "contaminated" them. That info seems wrong to me. If the ballots were filled out correctly and submitted properly, they shouldn't be voided. Maybe the counting process was messy, but the votes themselves should still stand.

If the law says you can drive at 18, then driving the day before shouldn't really matter. I mean, one day probably won't change your skills much, I guess. There isn't much to debate there.
You can try to play down the laws if you want, I guess, but isn't that kind of unfair to all the voters who actually showed up and did their part? Maybe.
I guess if Norbert Hofer had actually won, he’d probably be out there on the front lines by now. Maybe.😁

What do you mean by trivializing things? I guess I'm just saying it might be okay to hold new elections just to clear up any doubt, even if there isn't actual proof of fraud. And yeah, maybe it is embarrassing that the elections were handled so sloppily, even if nothing was actually rigged. Definitely.

Regarding that car example you used... I guess if you bought a car legally, registered it, and parked it, only to have some thief steal it and commit a crime, your logic would mean you get punished too. Like, they'd seize your car just because it was used in a crime, even though you didn't actually do anything wrong. I don't know how things work where you live, but in the US, it definitely doesn't work that way.

Look, I'll make it simple: if they find any irregularities that could have actually flipped the election results, then yeah, the whole thing needs a redo. I’m fine with that rule, even if it doesn't exactly favor my side as much as yours. So, I guess I don't really get why you're complaining. There isn't an option where valid votes just get tossed out because they don't fit your narrative—so you can pretty much forget about that. And honestly, maybe it's just me, but I think your idea is a little silly.

So, they decided to call for new elections today.

I guess it’s a good move (assuming people vote the same way they did a few weeks back), though it'll be bad for the Republican Party, but who really cares 😁.

Nathan Morris3 said:So, they decided to call for new elections today.

I guess it’s a good move (assuming people vote the same way they did a few weeks back), though it'll be bad for the Republican Party, but who really cares 😁.

That completely contradicts your whole argument about how legitimate the previous election was. 😂

You spent days trying to convince everyone otherwise. 😁

It is quite telling, isn't it? That sudden, massive influx of "mail-in" ballots from supposedly "educated and affluent voters in major metropolitan areas" arriving just twenty-four hours after the conservative candidate surged ahead... one can hardly be expected to view such a convenient coincidence as anything other than a highly suspicious maneuver.

When is the next election scheduled to take place? Does anyone have any solid predictions regarding the outcome?

The pro-separatist party wins the election 100%. Unfortunately.

Brenda Johnson65 said:It is quite telling, isn't it? That sudden, massive influx of "mail-in" ballots from supposedly "educated and affluent voters in major metropolitan areas" arriving just twenty-four hours after the conservative candidate surged ahead... one can hardly be expected to view such a convenient coincidence as anything other than a highly suspicious maneuver.

Actually, I think things were pretty clean, honestly. There just isn't any proof of vote tampering. The Republican Party just lost, and I suppose the only way to really settle it would be a rerun with the same result. Otherwise, people are just going to act like toddlers who dropped their lollipop on the floor.

Honestly, it’d be great if Nathan Morris3 would just chill out regarding this thread, though it’s pretty obvious why he hasn't...

Charles Brown9 said:When is the next election scheduled to take place? Does anyone have any solid predictions regarding the outcome?

People were mentioning September 25th, but I guess that didn't pan out.
Since nothing much has really happened lately, I suppose there's no reason to think the result would change. Maybe turnout will be higher this time, since people realize every single vote counts now... so those undecided folks might actually show up. But, I don't know, you'd probably be smarter if you tried to predict something 😁.

Brenda Ross47 said:Honestly, it’d be great if Nathan Morris3 would just chill out regarding this thread, though it’s pretty obvious why he hasn't...

?

Chloe Sullivan88 said:That completely contradicts your whole argument about how legitimate the previous election was. 😂

You spent days trying to convince everyone otherwise. 😁

I think you might have me confused with someone else. I've actually been pointing out irregularities from the start (if you check back a few pages). I mean, fraud hasn't been proven, but the whole atmosphere—we all know who's responsible for that—is just so tense that maybe a re-vote is the only way to quiet everyone down. I guess I'm okay with that, even though it’s a bummer it had to come to this.

Did I catch that correctly—is it just the second round of the presidential election being repeated, rather than the entire election process?

Charles Brown9 said:Did I catch that correctly—is it just the second round of the presidential election being repeated, rather than the entire election process?

Yeah, just the second round, I think. The voter turnout might shift a bit since some people might skip it and others might show up, so maybe it isn't a true "repeat" exactly, but I guess it's the least messy way to handle it. It'll be interesting to see if the number of Mail-in voters goes up or down, though I'm already making jokes about it. It feels kind of silly that Mail-in voting itself has become such a huge talking point, almost like people want us to go back to the Stone Age or something.