NationStates Jolt Archive

I wish to bring this to the attention of UN Administrators and other delegates about a certain irregularies in the voting of the resolution currently on the floor.

As of 17:53 GMT, the vote tally for "Votes Against" the Anti-Terrorism Act, stood at 4'993. I have reason to suspect that two of the Delegates voting against this resolution are one and the same Nation. The American Insurgency of Former English Colony who has 463 votes in the United Nations and who has been tallied twice in the ATA.

Votes Against: 4993: Frestonia [36], Onahere [4], ...

Notanotherstan [2], The EGI [3], Former English Colony [463], Ain-Soph-Aur [6], Erythrophobia [2], ...

Marion Oaks 2[9], Shocka-Drewloo[3], , Former English Colony[463], Moose Republic[5], Binzer[13], ...

Tallying the votes of all the delegates currently voting against this resolution the tally of 4'993 against, is not achieved without this unusual dual vote. I would like to suggest in the spirit of the UN to not let this pass, and to removed these additional votes from the against tally. I cannot stress the importance of administrator action here, given the extraordinarily close nature of the vote.

Thank you all, and hoping for a speedy rectification,

The People of Yulquen,
As voiced by Political Founder and Brother of the Revolution,
Sander Cortenraad

The People's Republic of Yulquen is delighted to inform that since the initial posting of this thread, appropriate action has been taken. However we would like to keep this thread up here as evidence, so that there may be a record of this happening before, should such am incident recur.

Thank you all,

The People of Yulquen,
As voiced by Political Founder and Brother of the Revolution,
Sander Cortenraad

It's happening again. Former English Colony is listed as having voted both for and against it.

It's happening again. Former English Colony is listed as having voted both for and against it.

It is alarming that this is occuring during such a close vote. Former English Colony, with its 400 some-odd votes makes a substantial dent in either side. For the sake of fairness, I think its votes for either side should be stricken from the tally. Without its votes the count would be at 5571 (Against) and 6189 (For).

It is alarming that this is occuring during such a close vote. Former English Colony, with its 400 some-odd votes makes a substantial dent in either side. For the sake of fairness, I think its votes for either side should be stricken from the tally. Without its votes the count would be at 5571 (Against) and 6189 (For).

Give it time. When the final vote is tallied, the system should recognise the last vote, which was for the proposal.

Give it time. When the final vote is tallied, the system should recognise the last vote, which was for the proposal.

Yes but as the first vote was against, and the second for, it is difficult to tell what they were intending to vote for. What I suggested was neither so that either side would not have an advantage.

I realise that you would most enjoy the delegates' votes being on your side, as I would for mine, but to be truly "democratic", as the UN strives to be, It is important for impartiality.

Yes but as the first vote was against, and the second for, it is difficult to tell what they were intending to vote for. What I suggested was neither so that either side would not have an advantage.

I realise that you would most enjoy the delegates' votes being on your side, as I would for mine, but to be truly "democratic", as the UN strives to be, It is important for impartiality.

Former British Colony votes based on a vote on an offsite regional forum. I checked there. The vote was for the resolution. Now, Former British Colony is a puppet, but the "puppetmaster," so to speak, has said on the regional forum that she voted for.

Confirming Cluichstan's affirmation, when I moved a puppet to The North Pacific and looked at the UN page, I got:

Your Regional UN Delegate, Former English Colony, has voted FOR this resolution.

Fair enough, it is odd however that it accepted the two votes in the first place. I suppose its another bug to be fixed or whatnot. Anyhow, the vote is still very close, which shows great interest for once.

There's only one rational reason for this:

DIEBOLD IS RIGGING THE VOTE!

Wheres Florida?

Wheres Florida?

Look underneath Georgia. That's where I left it.

Last i checked i took a crap in florida and then the whole place went up in smoke..........







j/k