Josh Martin Posted December 5, 2013 at 05:27 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 at 05:27 PM Normally, when the assembly believes that the teller's report is inaccurate, the solution is simple - order a recount, within certain time limits. In certain circumstances, however, this may not be possible (or it may not fix the problem). The ballots might have been lost or destroyed before they were supposed to be destroyed, or the society may believe the ballots have been tampered with. Under such circumstances, is the society obliged to abide by the results as they were originally announced, or may the society declare the results null and void and conduct a new ballot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 5, 2013 at 06:50 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 at 06:50 PM I don’t think enough facts exist to answer the question as posed. The recount is used to verify the facts contained in the tellers report, but if the recount can’t be done for whatever reason, the society has to assume the report is correct and move on as if it is. Whether or not a point of order can be raised at this depends upon what is alleged to be wrong. If the society has 100 members and the tellers report shows 103 votes, could a point of order be raised for anyone who was elected by 3 or fewer votes over their opponent? I think so, even without a recount. However if the only concern is that Joe won by a vote of 51 to 49 and only 100 votes were cast, then no point of order could be raised that the election is invalid simply because a recount can’t be done. Joe's elected. I hope I understood the question, but please add more if I totally missed the point (or got it wrong). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 5, 2013 at 07:03 PM Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 at 07:03 PM I don’t think enough facts exist to answer the question as posed. The recount is used to verify the facts contained in the tellers report, but if the recount can’t be done for whatever reason, the society has to assume the report is correct and move on as if it is. Whether or not a point of order can be raised at this depends upon what is alleged to be wrong. If the society has 100 members and the tellers report shows 103 votes, could a point of order be raised for anyone who was elected by 3 or fewer votes over their opponent? I think so, even without a recount. However if the only concern is that Joe won by a vote of 51 to 49 and only 100 votes were cast, then no point of order could be raised that the election is invalid simply because a recount can’t be done. Joe's elected. I hope I understood the question, but please add more if I totally missed the point (or got it wrong). I'm sure it was my fault if the question was not understood. Let me put it in stronger terms to get at the meat of the question. Suppose an assembly suspects that there has been fraud on the part of the tellers (or others) such as stuffing the ballot box, tampering with ballots, etc. Can the assembly declare the results to be void and conduct a new election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 5, 2013 at 07:08 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 at 07:08 PM I'm sure it was my fault if the question was not understood. Let me put it in stronger terms to get at the meat of the question. Suppose an assembly suspects that there has been fraud on the part of the tellers (or others) such as stuffing the ballot box, tampering with ballots, etc. Can the assembly declare the results to be void and conduct a new election? Because they can't do a recount to verify it? No. (nothing on pp. 444-446 seems to say otherwise) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 5, 2013 at 08:28 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 at 08:28 PM I'm sure it was my fault if the question was not understood. Let me put it in stronger terms to get at the meat of the question. Suppose an assembly suspects that there has been fraud on the part of the tellers (or others) such as stuffing the ballot box, tampering with ballots, etc. Can the assembly declare the results to be void and conduct a new election? An assembly suspects there has been fraud? How do you know? Did they adopt a motion saying so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 5, 2013 at 09:00 PM Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 at 09:00 PM Because they can't do a recount to verify it? No. (nothing on pp. 444-446 seems to say otherwise) Yes, I'm supposing a situation in which the fraudulent ballots cannot be distinguished from the legitimate ballots, so that a recount wouldn't really help. The question is not whether the count is accurate, but whether the ballots themselves are legitimate. An assembly suspects there has been fraud? How do you know? Did they adopt a motion saying so? You're right. I should have said that certain members of an assembly suspect there has been fraud. Without a vote, we don't yet know whether the hypothetical assembly itself feels this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 5, 2013 at 09:16 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 at 09:16 PM You're right. I should have said that certain members of an assembly suspect there has been fraud. Without a vote, we don't yet know whether the hypothetical assembly itself feels this way. Okay, so what do these members suspect happened that was fraudulent? You previously mentioned "stuffing the ballot box", and "tampering with ballots", but I'm not sure exactly what is meant by either of these. Certainly it would not be too late to raise a point of order if they can establish that the ballot box had been "stuffed" with fraudulent votes, or that ballots had been altered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 5, 2013 at 09:26 PM Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 at 09:26 PM Okay, so what do these members suspect happened that was fraudulent? You previously mentioned "stuffing the ballot box", and "tampering with ballots", but I'm not sure exactly what is meant by either of these. Stuffing the ballot box would involve someone inserting additional ballots into the ballot box, marked for a particular candidate or proposition. Thinking of an example of tampering with ballots that couldn't be detected with a recount is more difficult, but I suppose it would be possible to mark blank ballots for a candidate. Certainly it would not be too late to raise a point of order if they can establish that the ballot box had been "stuffed" with fraudulent votes, or that ballots had been altered. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted December 5, 2013 at 09:33 PM Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 at 09:33 PM Certainly it would not be too late to raise a point of order if they can establish that the ballot box had been "stuffed" with fraudulent votes, or that ballots had been altered. But given the initial set of facts they might have to establish that through some other method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 6, 2014 at 11:58 AM Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 at 11:58 AM But given the initial set of facts they might have to establish that through some other method. If, by this, you mean that the facts must be established by some procedure other than by raising a point of order, I don't know what you have in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 6, 2014 at 03:00 PM Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 at 03:00 PM If, by this, you mean that the facts must be established by some procedure other than by raising a point of order, I don't know what you have in mind. It's been a month, but I think I was simply noting that from a practical standpoint it might be challenging to present a point of order and have it be well taken when " The ballots might have been lost or destroyed before they were supposed to be destroyed, or the society may believe the ballots have been tampered with" (presumably tampered with after the Secretary took custody of them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 7, 2014 at 11:46 AM Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 at 11:46 AM I'm sure it was my fault if the question was not understood. How come Josh gets to have things his way all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.