Frack! can I change my vote?

[Goldwateria (Ancient)]

Because people are supposed to stop and take enough time to make sure an "oops" doesn't happen when they're doing something important.

Someone shooting a gun needs to stop and check that it's safe for firing before they can squeeze off a round. If they don't, bad things could result.
Someone hooking up electricity needs to stop and make sure their wiring is gonna be right before they hook it up. If they don't, bad things could result.
Someone voting on a crucial bill needs to stop and make sure they're voting the WAY THEY WANT TO before they hit the shiny buttons. If they don't, bad things could result.

You know what I found out when I was doing electrician work? First - fucking up the electrics going into the fusebox can literally knock you all the way across the hall - but more importantly, after the fact - I was able to replace the fuses I'd blown.

I may have done something stupid, but no one else was deprived because of it.

Similarly, the gun thing - okay, someone with a gun does something stupid, and someone else gets hurt. What we're talking about here is akin to saying "Okay, well Joel DID get shot, but it was Cory's fault - and that means Joel has to just live with it. No hospital for you".

How is anybody 'deprived' in this case? For starters, we don't know what her constituency wanted her vote to be. That is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. She placed a vote, with or against her constituency's wishes doesn't matter because either way she's well within her prerogative as a representative. Just because she was too preoccupied/confused/tired to hit the right button is no excuse to scrap what she did.

She done goofed. No one is arguing this. But if our system of legislative representation is going to survive, we can't allow anyone to change their votes contrary to the law after that vote has been taken. It undermines the very structures of whatever government representative option is being served by allowing her to change her vote.

Work to change the law in the state so that people can change their vote, but at the moment I'm sorry but the dumbass who fucks up in the state legislature has to live with the law as it stands just as the dumbass who smoked a doobie and got caught or broke any other law has to live with that law as it stands.

[United Dependencies]

And once again the Republicans will get away with railroading legislation down our throats.

God I hope we can throw em out this coming November.

[No Water No Moon]

She done goofed. No one is arguing this. But if our system of legislative representation is going to survive, we can't allow anyone to change their votes contrary to the law after that vote has been taken. It undermines the very structures of whatever government representative option is being served by allowing her to change her vote.

Which is nonsense on two separate fronts.

First - no, the 'survival' of our system of legislative representation does NOT hinge on the question of whether or not we allow people to amend their votes. And this is evident because - second - the law would have allowed her to change her vote. IF even one other person had voted EITHER way.

Work to change the law in the state so that people can change their vote, but at the moment I'm sorry but the dumbass who fucks up in the state legislature has to live with the law as it stands just as the dumbass who smoked a doobie and got caught or broke any other law has to live with that law as it stands.

And this is why you're exactly wrong - I'm not arguing about the candidate you have now decided what drugged. I am happy for the electorate to strip her of office, if they so choose. But she is not the one who has to 'live with the law'. Or rather, she might be one of them - but she's one of many - and they ALL have to 'live with it'. Because of an accident.

[Goldwateria (Ancient)]

She done goofed. No one is arguing this. But if our system of legislative representation is going to survive, we can't allow anyone to change their votes contrary to the law after that vote has been taken. It undermines the very structures of whatever government representative option is being served by allowing her to change her vote.

Which is nonsense on two separate fronts.

First - no, the 'survival' of our system of legislative representation does NOT hinge on the question of whether or not we allow people to amend their votes. And this is evident because - second - the law would have allowed her to change her vote. IF even one other person had voted EITHER way.(A)

Work to change the law in the state so that people can change their vote, but at the moment I'm sorry but the dumbass who fucks up in the state legislature has to live with the law as it stands just as the dumbass who smoked a doobie and got caught or broke any other law has to live with that law as it stands.

And this is why you're exactly wrong - I'm not arguing about the candidate you have now decided what drugged. I am happy for the electorate to strip her of office, if they so choose. But she is not the one who has to 'live with the law'. Or rather, she might be one of them - but she's one of many - and they ALL have to 'live with it'. Because of an accident(B).

A: Yes but under the LAW if one other person had voted EITHER way her vote would not of been decisive so change away ye wild wrong-button-pushing moran. But the law specifically says if there's a decisive vote for or against a bill, that vote can't be changed. To allow an exception to that is in blatant violation of the law.

Now, obviously, a move to change the law would be no problem but such a change couldn't be retroactive. Elected representatives should know the laws they're votes are bound under and be responsible enough to be sure they are correct. If this incident makes them realize "Hey, this rule might be stupid." then more power to their move to change the law.

B: Sucks to be her I guess? I'm sure some enterprising group of concerned citizens (aka: Sierra Club) will be able to tie any fracking proposals up plenty long enough for another bill to be made up that says "No fracking" with plenty of time for it to pass what I assume to be a Democrat controlled (or at least, anti-fracking) state legislature. Accidents happen yes, but they also have consequences. There is no place for these consequences to be averted right now because the legislature chose at an earlier point to prevent such consequences from being averted.

Such a decision isn't to be just reversed because some rep. brushed the wrong button. To do so seriously undermines the system as a whole because next time other such decisions on votes could be questioned because of their "unfair" impact on one rep's constituency just as you're claiming this unduly affects this lady's.

[Mike the Progressive]

If anything, I think the real debate here should be about how dangerous it is allowing women to vote. It's a tremendous responsibility they obviously can't handle.

[Raeyh]

If anything, I think the real debate here should be about how dangerous it is allowing women to vote. It's a tremendous responsibility they obviously can't handle.

Please tell me that was a joke and you don't think that women are actually any less responsible then men are.

[Mike the Progressive]

If anything, I think the real debate here should be about how dangerous it is allowing women to vote. It's a tremendous responsibility they obviously can't handle.

Please tell me that was a joke and you don't think that women are actually any less responsible then men are.

Well look I think they are responsible in different ways. Men are responsible for bringing home the bacon, women are responsible for cooking, cleaning, and making their hardworking man happy. See separate responsibilities, but equal in importance.

Separate but equal.

[Raeyh]

Please tell me that was a joke and you don't think that women are actually any less responsible then men are.

Well look I think they are responsible in different ways. Men are responsible for bringing home the bacon, women are responsible for cooking, cleaning, and making their hardworking man happy. See separate responsibilities, but equal in importance.

Separate but equal.

Your invocation of separate but equal makes it clear you are just kidding.

[Mike the Progressive]

Well look I think they are responsible in different ways. Men are responsible for bringing home the bacon, women are responsible for cooking, cleaning, and making their hardworking man happy. See separate responsibilities, but equal in importance.

Separate but equal.

Your invocation of separate but equal makes it clear you are just kidding.

Sir, I am always serious, except when I am not.

[Maurepas]

No, she shouldn't of been drunk when he went to go vote. How the fuck do you "accidentally" vote unless you really don't care and aren't paying attention?

I would question whether it was really accidental. I'd put my money on her being paid off, but figuring her vote wouldn't make a difference, because how often do 2/3rds of anything agree?

[Rakir]

No, she shouldn't of been drunk when he went to go vote. How the fuck do you "accidentally" vote unless you really don't care and aren't paying attention?

I would question whether it was really accidental. I'd put my money on her being paid off, but figuring her vote wouldn't make a difference, because how often do 2/3rds of anything agree?

That's...a very large leap in logic to make without any evidence, isn't it?

[Maurepas]

I would question whether it was really accidental. I'd put my money on her being paid off, but figuring her vote wouldn't make a difference, because how often do 2/3rds of anything agree?

That's...a very large leap in logic to make without any evidence, isn't it?

Well I didn't say that's what happen, just that I'd put my money on that. Is it any greater leap than thinking that someone can legitimately accidentally vote for something?

[Rakir]

That's...a very large leap in logic to make without any evidence, isn't it?

Well I didn't say that's what happen, just that I'd put my money on that. Is it any greater leap than thinking that someone can legitimately accidentally vote for something?

Yeah, I'd say so. When you've been voting on bills all day and it comes down to the wire to get those last few votes in, you'd be pretty liable to make some sort of error.

[Maurepas]

Well I didn't say that's what happen, just that I'd put my money on that. Is it any greater leap than thinking that someone can legitimately accidentally vote for something?

Yeah, I'd say so. When you've been voting on bills all day and it comes down to the wire to get those last few votes in, you'd be pretty liable to make some sort of error.

If you say so. I know I've spent 8 hours on my feet with no break until 6AM operating a cash register with no mistakes. I find it somewhat hard to believe voting on bills takes all that much effort in comparison.

[New Chalcedon]

No, she shouldn't of been drunk when he went to go vote. How the fuck do you "accidentally" vote unless you really don't care and aren't paying attention?

She wasn't drunk - it was the end of a long session (11:30 PM), and the Republicans rushed the bill through, rather than waiting until the next morning for the vote.

Which doesn't particularly excuse her clumsiness.

[AiliailiA]

No you can't. Idiot.

I don't know what's dumber: doing it, or admitting to doing it. Don't say anything until you've talked to a doctor and a lawyer and sounded out the plausibility of "temporary red/green colorblindness, by freak accident coinciding with left/right dysphasia from eating a suspect muffin" ... I think dysphasia is the word but hey, that's why she should have taken the advice before saying anything.


Though in general I don't see why that couldn't be allowed as a house rule. There's a limited time to make a vote, right? And what matters is the tally at the end of that time. So changing a vote shouldn't matter so long as it's still inside the allotted time. It seems a reasonable house rule, so long as it already applied to everyone (not retrospective and not on special appeal) and didn't involve changes after the allotted time. If they have that arrangement where the voting is finished as soon as each member present has voted (saves a little time) then everyone would be free to change their vote up until then, except the very last to vote.

[No Water No Moon]

No, she shouldn't of been drunk when he went to go vote. How the fuck do you "accidentally" vote unless you really don't care and aren't paying attention?

I would question whether it was really accidental. I'd put my money on her being paid off, but figuring her vote wouldn't make a difference, because how often do 2/3rds of anything agree?

This is actually something I'd thought about, but I decided it wouldn't really matter - because the issue isn't why she hit the wrong button, but whether other people should have to live with her inability to fix it.

[AiliailiA]

Like voting machines for voters, this technology intended to make things quicker and easier also allows mistakes of carelessness.

In the Westminster system a formal vote is taken by physically moving to one side of the chamber or the other. Then the numbers on each side are counted one by one, and until a member is counted they are still free to literally "cross the floor". You'd have to be majorly oblivious of what you were voting on to "accidentally" stand on the side with all the people you disagree with. Particularly since they're probably from the other party and all the people from your own party will be standing on the other side of the room yelling insults at you.

[Samuraikoku]

The idea is that you pay attention during voting session.

[AiliailiA]

The idea is that you pay attention during voting session.

And I see a "naming and shaming" penalty as sufficient to ensure that.

I'd write "you can change your vote up until the allotted time or until every member present has voted" into the house rules, but there would still be a record of anyone who did so. They'd get asked why, and if the best explanation they had was "I made a mistake" then they're shamed, without any need to later undo what is after all a mistaken government action.

But according to Yahoo:

Under state law, lawmakers can change their vote if they make a mistake—unless their vote changes the outcome.

Now that's just weird. That doesn't make any sense to me.

[Samuraikoku]

The idea is that you pay attention during voting session.

And I see a "naming and shaming" penalty as sufficient to ensure that.

I'd write "you can change your vote up until the allotted time or until every member present has voted" into the house rules, but there would still be a record of anyone who did so. They'd get asked why, and if the best explanation they had was "I made a mistake" then they're shamed, without any need to later undo what is after all a mistaken government action.

But according to Yahoo:

Under state law, lawmakers can change their vote if they make a mistake—unless their vote changes the outcome.

Now that's just weird. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Nor to me. Legislative voting is a responsibility that those exercising it should do properly. That implies reading what they're going to vote, and taking the necessary care to make sure their vote is well cast. It doesn't sound like an unreasonable thing to ask.

I mean, these aren't NSG polls.

[No Water No Moon]

And I see a "naming and shaming" penalty as sufficient to ensure that.

I'd write "you can change your vote up until the allotted time or until every member present has voted" into the house rules, but there would still be a record of anyone who did so. They'd get asked why, and if the best explanation they had was "I made a mistake" then they're shamed, without any need to later undo what is after all a mistaken government action.

But according to Yahoo:



Now that's just weird. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Nor to me. Legislative voting is a responsibility that those exercising it should do properly. That implies reading what they're going to vote, and taking the necessary care to make sure their vote is well cast. It doesn't sound like an unreasonable thing to ask.

I mean, these aren't NSG polls.

Just off the top of my head, though - and this is going to be purely academic, since we can't synthesize the effect of having been debating and/or casting votes on variants of the same thing all day, and being well into the middle of the night by the time the thing finally gets to the floor...

It's easy to imagine, isn't it... that someone could be temporarily confused by something as simple as wording? Like "Do you vote yes or no on the issue of allowing fracking", "do you vote yes or no on a veto on the issue of allowing fracking", or "do you vote yes or no on over-riding a veto on the issue of allowing fracking".

I can see how someone might get confused. I can't see how it is an advantage to make that 'accident' stick.

[Samuraikoku]

It's easy to imagine, isn't it... that someone could be temporarily confused by something as simple as wording? Like "Do you vote yes or no on the issue of allowing fracking", "do you vote yes or no on a veto on the issue of allowing fracking", or "do you vote yes or no on over-riding a veto on the issue of allowing fracking".

There's, I hope, a time to read what they're voting, and an opportunity to speak on the issue, stating what your opinion is before pressing the button.

I can see how someone might get confused. I can't see how it is an advantage to make that 'accident' stick.

It's not an "advantage", it's just the fulfillment of the law. What is voted stands, and the vote stands no matter how wrong it was. This would have been easily solved if the representative in question had read, stated her opinion, and voted accordingly as is the job of any other in the house.

[Tekania]

My opinion is divided on this one.... I don't think it should be standard practice to allow vote changes, and it's poor on the part of the rep to mistakenly vote in such a way and then expect to change it.... that being said, however.... NC allows vote changes in most circumstances, and as such I do not think it would be out of line for someone to be upset they can't in this case.

[AiliailiA]

And I see a "naming and shaming" penalty as sufficient to ensure that.

I'd write "you can change your vote up until the allotted time or until every member present has voted" into the house rules, but there would still be a record of anyone who did so. They'd get asked why, and if the best explanation they had was "I made a mistake" then they're shamed, without any need to later undo what is after all a mistaken government action.

But according to Yahoo:



Now that's just weird. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Nor to me. Legislative voting is a responsibility that those exercising it should do properly. That implies reading what they're going to vote, and taking the necessary care to make sure their vote is well cast. It doesn't sound like an unreasonable thing to ask.

Then it should apply all the time, surely? The exception for the times when the vote is most important (ie when one vote would change the outcome) ... it's like letting people shoot a gun down main street but only punishing them if they hit someone ... which like most gun analogies someone here is probably fine with.

I'm not doing a good job of expressing just what is so wrong with that rule. It feels sort of ass-about somehow.

According to the source that Yahoo cites, she was the last to vote. If she'd been anything BUT last the rule would not prevent her changing her vote, because the speaker would have had no grounds to refuse that appeal because at the time of her appealing a change would not affect the outcome.

So it looks like my proposed "until time is up or everyone has voted" rule would have caught her out anyway.

I wonder how often members do make a mistake and change their vote (by appeal because that rule does not apply).

They really should look at putting the red and green buttons side by side rather than one above the other I think.