This thread is to consider the request filed by Abstain here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7066977/1/#new
Discussion of Review: Justice Special Election
- Thread starter r3naissanc3r
- Start date
Funkadelia
TNPer
- TNP Nation
- Funkadelia Island
I'm going to recuse myself from the matter, for obvious reasons.
First of all, some thoughts on how I think we should hear review cases.
I expect that all of us will jointly discuss each review, until at least the point where a decision on the matter under review that is supported by a majority is reached. Depending on how long it takes, we will also be discussing legal arguments, but for obvious practical reasons not exhaustively.
Once a decision is reached, it is customary I believe that the CJ writes the opinion in most cases. I have no problem doing that, in fact I quite enjoy writing. However, should RL time issues arise, I may be asking another Justice to do the drafting. Obviously, should I be in the minority in soem case, one of you guys will need to draft the opinion
.
Also, I think we should encourage a tradition where Justices in the minority submit dissenting opinions. It is not necessary to do this every time there is no unanimous decision, but I think it should be encouraged. Having a stream of dissenting opinions will, I believe, contribute considerably to the legal tradition of the region, and provide useful insights to the region and future justices into the internal workings of previous courts.
I like using google docs for NS-related drafting, as it's excellent for collaboration and makes it easy for other contributors to leave comments. Would that work for everyone?
Moving on to the actual case now. I am not yet convinced on whether we should proceed with the case or just dismiss it. I will need to ponder over the matter before I can post something more substantial, but I would love to see your thoughts in the meantime.
I expect that all of us will jointly discuss each review, until at least the point where a decision on the matter under review that is supported by a majority is reached. Depending on how long it takes, we will also be discussing legal arguments, but for obvious practical reasons not exhaustively.
Once a decision is reached, it is customary I believe that the CJ writes the opinion in most cases. I have no problem doing that, in fact I quite enjoy writing. However, should RL time issues arise, I may be asking another Justice to do the drafting. Obviously, should I be in the minority in soem case, one of you guys will need to draft the opinion
.Also, I think we should encourage a tradition where Justices in the minority submit dissenting opinions. It is not necessary to do this every time there is no unanimous decision, but I think it should be encouraged. Having a stream of dissenting opinions will, I believe, contribute considerably to the legal tradition of the region, and provide useful insights to the region and future justices into the internal workings of previous courts.
I like using google docs for NS-related drafting, as it's excellent for collaboration and makes it easy for other contributors to leave comments. Would that work for everyone?
Moving on to the actual case now. I am not yet convinced on whether we should proceed with the case or just dismiss it. I will need to ponder over the matter before I can post something more substantial, but I would love to see your thoughts in the meantime.
Roman, I believe you need to recuse yourself as well. In which case, ignore the second part of my previous post 
. Let's just discuss the points I made about hearing cases in general.
. Let's just discuss the points I made about hearing cases in general.
Funkadelia
TNPer
- TNP Nation
- Funkadelia Island
I was thinking yesterday about how we should present dissenting decisions from now on. I agree with the post.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
I would have to recuse myself in term of actually litigating on this item because, IIRC, I was a candidate in the election in question, but I can offer some advise on the matter, off the record, of course.
Hehe - talk about election fraud: voting for the same person twice. That is what this is really about.
Logic stipulates that if you have a choice of multiple candidates then you can vote for more than one candidate, but not the same candidate twice because the ballot directs you to vote for up to x amount of individual candidates.
Hence, the first argument stated by Abstain:
It is a straw man argument for the second half of the argument. Because there may have been an error in the tabulation method concerning the votes does not in anyway indicate that an omission of a certain stipulation entitles to permit someone to vote multiple times for one candidate.
Abstain's argument for being allowed to vote for the same candidate twice when there is an option for voting for up to x amount of candidates because it was not specifically stipulate in the rules or law is tantamount to saying that one can withdraw one's vote from one candidate and give it to another after an election is tabulated because the rules do not specifically stipulate that you cannot do so.
The second question is whether or not Abstain's double vote for Blue Wolf would have made a difference, or even if the tabulation method made a difference in the election results. Either way, it is moot because that election is now totally irrelevant given the recent proper election.
The third question is whether or not Abstain's entire ballot should have been discounted because of the fact he voted for the same candidate twice. Should that double vote for the same candidate have been considered an erroneous vote and that since it was for the same person twice, it being a 'partial vote' that indicates a single vote for Blue Wolf? Probably so.
Of course, the decision could be scotched in such a way as to place the onus on the Election Commission to refine the rules on how votes are tabulated. I suspect it was an honest error (if there was an error) on the part of the EC and without malice on their part. One could also conclude that it is the EC's duty to regulate elections, the voters to determine those elections, and not the Court's purvey to determine election results that may conflict with the voting data and kick it back to the EC, which would be largely moot at this point. Either way, it does matter because it affected the results of an election (possibly) by a variance in the tabulation methods.
As per dissenting opinions, I think that is a great idea. Even if someone has to play 'Devil's Advocate' it is a great idea, even if they aren't in the dissenting position (in the event of a unanimous decision). In the event of a unanimous decision, some consideration of possible dissenting issues could be given lip-service as an indicator of the logic involved in arriving at a decision.
Hehe - talk about election fraud: voting for the same person twice. That is what this is really about.
Logic stipulates that if you have a choice of multiple candidates then you can vote for more than one candidate, but not the same candidate twice because the ballot directs you to vote for up to x amount of individual candidates.
Hence, the first argument stated by Abstain:
It is a straw man argument for the second half of the argument. Because there may have been an error in the tabulation method concerning the votes does not in anyway indicate that an omission of a certain stipulation entitles to permit someone to vote multiple times for one candidate.
Abstain's argument for being allowed to vote for the same candidate twice when there is an option for voting for up to x amount of candidates because it was not specifically stipulate in the rules or law is tantamount to saying that one can withdraw one's vote from one candidate and give it to another after an election is tabulated because the rules do not specifically stipulate that you cannot do so.
The second question is whether or not Abstain's double vote for Blue Wolf would have made a difference, or even if the tabulation method made a difference in the election results. Either way, it is moot because that election is now totally irrelevant given the recent proper election.
The third question is whether or not Abstain's entire ballot should have been discounted because of the fact he voted for the same candidate twice. Should that double vote for the same candidate have been considered an erroneous vote and that since it was for the same person twice, it being a 'partial vote' that indicates a single vote for Blue Wolf? Probably so.
Of course, the decision could be scotched in such a way as to place the onus on the Election Commission to refine the rules on how votes are tabulated. I suspect it was an honest error (if there was an error) on the part of the EC and without malice on their part. One could also conclude that it is the EC's duty to regulate elections, the voters to determine those elections, and not the Court's purvey to determine election results that may conflict with the voting data and kick it back to the EC, which would be largely moot at this point. Either way, it does matter because it affected the results of an election (possibly) by a variance in the tabulation methods.
As per dissenting opinions, I think that is a great idea. Even if someone has to play 'Devil's Advocate' it is a great idea, even if they aren't in the dissenting position (in the event of a unanimous decision). In the event of a unanimous decision, some consideration of possible dissenting issues could be given lip-service as an indicator of the logic involved in arriving at a decision.