Districts 4 and 5...what to do...well..the Constitution says......

[Demrepdan]

If M is not sworn in by noon next Sunday (and he won't be.) there will be a Senate vacancy. WHENEVER there is a vacancy in a district senate seat......a special election is held.

Article I, Section 6,
Clause 2. If any regional Senate seat becomes vacant, the Governor of that region shall appoint somebody to fill the Senate seat until the next available election. If any district Senate seat becomes vacant, a special election shall be held within one week to fill in the vacancy. After an appointed Senator, or a Senator who was elected in a special election, takes office, he or she must face the nearest election whether it be the scheduled Senatorial election or a retention election.

So that takes care of District 4 (or does it?). Now Distrct 5....there IS an election dispute....and what happens whenever there is an election dispute within a region?

Article I, Section 2,
Clause 3. If there is an election dispute as to who shall serve the region as Senator, then the Governor of that region shall declare the outcome of the election. If there is an election dispute  as to who shall serve a district as Senator, the Supreme Court shall resolve the issue and declare the outcome of the election.

That's right...the Supreme Court decides the outcome of the election. So they could pretty much do whatever they want. They can choose between one of the the candidates who received votes, or they may just decide to allow that district to have a special election. This IS an election dispute...if you don't consider a TIE in the vote an election dispute...then what else is it? People can't just take it upon themselves to call for another election. The Supreme Court will decide on District 5. My guess is the Supreme Court will ALSO decide what will happen with District 4. Why?....here's why.

Article I, Section 2,
Clause 2. In order for a senator to be elected, a forum member must declare his or her candidacy for the senate seat of the region or district they wish to represent. Members residing in that region or district shall then appoint said candidate or opponent by proper electoral process.

You hear that folks? huh? Therefor....*ahem*.....M IS NOT A CANDIDATE AND ALL OF HIS VOTES ARE INVALID!!!!! HE DID NOT DECLARE HIS CANDIDACY! THAT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT!!!

You know what I should do? I should just declare it RIGHT now....that M's votes are invalid. But I'm not Attorney General...so I can't do that.

I feel that ultimately this will go to the Supreme Court..but I tell ya one thing, folks....you CAN'T get around....good old...Article I, Section 2, Clause 2.

[Emsworth]

Given this, I withdraw all arguments about a forum election. I propose, for the sake of stability, etc, the Supreme Court nominees start debating the case. Obviously, they could just elect one of the candidates. Still, they might as well call an election.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Especially in the case of the tie, it is important that the Supreme Court set a precedent as to how to resolve this.  There could very easily be ties in the future.  

I don't see the M/Harry situation popping up again soon, though, so the precedent is less important here.

[Beet]

I agree that M's votes are invalid, but would also like to submit (consider this an amicus curiae) that the District 4 election was not proper.

The end of Article I, Clause 2 states:

"...Members residing in that region or district shall then appoint said candidate or opponent by proper electoral process."

prop·er    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (prpr)
adj.
Characterized by appropriateness or suitability; fitting:

A proper electoral process involves choice.

v. e·lect·ed, e·lect·ing, e·lects
v. tr.
To select by vote for an office or for membership.

In an election, an invalid vote may be thrown out when 1) it is not decisive 2) the eligible voter purposely threw away his choice/knew the consequences of his vote. In this case, neither is true. GWBfan and Statesrights were eligible voters. They chose to vote. They did not throw away their choice. They made a choice, not knowing that the specific candidate they selected was invalid. To deny their votes is to deny their choice.

Is that why elections are held?  Is that a proper election? I submit a proper election is one that serves its purpose.

[Demrepdan]

I agree that M's votes are invalid, but would also like to submit (consider this an amicus curiae) that the District 4 election was not proper.

The end of Article I, Clause 2 states:

"...Members residing in that region or district shall then appoint said candidate or opponent by proper electoral process."

prop·er    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (prpr)
adj.
Characterized by appropriateness or suitability; fitting:

A proper electoral process involves choice.

v. e·lect·ed, e·lect·ing, e·lects
v. tr.
To select by vote for an office or for membership.

In an election, an invalid vote may be thrown out when 1) it is not decisive 2) the eligible voter purposely threw away his choice/knew the consequences of his vote. In this case, neither is true. GWBfan and Statesrights were eligible voters. They chose to vote. They did not throw away their choice. They made a choice, not knowing that the specific candidate they selected was invalid. To deny their votes is to deny their choice.

Is that why elections are held?  Is that a proper election? I submit a proper election is one that serves its purpose.

They made a choice...and if we deny them their choice.....then we did not condone things in the "proper" election process...is that what you're saying?

Well....regardless of us denying their choice.....what ulitmately matters...is that their choice was invalid. Whether they made the choice or not..it went against the constitution..and what the constitution defines as "proper" election process.

[Emsworth]

Everyone, let us keep the arguments for the court.

[dunn]

The SC neads to be aproved by the senate.

Supreme Court members shall be appointed by the President with Senate approval

[The Dowager Mod]

yes. yes it does.
and quickly.

[Beet]

Everyone, let us keep the arguments for the court.

Emsworth - The Court will have final say. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't have access to the private opinions of others.

Demrepdan - No, I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying their votes are not invalid; the constitution clearly says they're invalid because M can't be elected. The Attorney General or SC can easily declare this just as you said. But additionally the entire District 4 election is not proper, because eligible voters were effectively denied a choice. In this case the evidence suggests they made a genuine mistake (In the future, with guidelines clearly posted, we can avoid that problem). Surely when you wrote the constitution you put that clause in there because you realized there could be an improper election.

[Emsworth]

Everyone, let us keep the arguments for the court.

Emsworth - The Court will have final say. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't have access to the private opinions of others.

Definitely. I just think that this is going round and round without any constructive result.

I would like to raise a question: Harry certainly has standing to sue in the court, but what standing does the Republican Party have? Never has M declared that he is a Republican candidate, so how can the Republican Party conduct a case on his behalf?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Everyone, let us keep the arguments for the court.

Emsworth - The Court will have final say. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't have access to the private opinions of others.

Definitely. I just think that this is going round and round without any constructive result.

I would like to raise a question: Harry certainly has standing to sue in the court, but what standing does the Republican Party have? Never has M declared that he is a Republican candidate, so how can the Republican Party conduct a case on his behalf?

I would think that anyone who VOTED for M would have standing to argue that their candidate should be seated in the Senate.

[dunn]

If M does not show up till friday - it's over really.
If he does I have the feeling he will not be intresting in the mass that was created w/o his knoledge and will step down - and It's again over.

pur problem is Dis5

[minionofmidas]

Did all the other write-in candidates declare themselves officially somewhere? Well, I sure hope so...Don't want even more election disputes up...In our case, the legal course seems indeed to be for the Supreme Court to decide. Until we have a (sworn-in) Supreme Court, the seat should remain vacant. However, I'll have to think over my personal course of action after conferring with my party members and possibly my opponent.

[dunn]

Did all the other write-in candidates declare themselves officially somewhere? Well, I sure hope so...Don't want even more election disputes up...In our case, the legal course seems indeed to be for the Supreme Court to decide. Until we have a (sworn-in) Supreme Court, the seat should remain vacant. However, I'll have to think over my personal course of action after conferring with my party members and possibly my opponent.

they did

[Gustaf]

I would like to briefly give my view on this. I think we can all agree on this:

1.M won the election, since he got more votes.

2. Unless he shows up soon he cannot serve (some of you will argue that he cannot even so, but let's leave that aside for the moment)

However what should happen if a candidate who cannot serve gets elected? For exaple, it sometimes occurs that a dead person gets elected. Some of you seem to think that the runner-up should then be handed the seat. I personally disagree and think that the seat would be vacant, so a new election would be in order.

Just my 2 cents.

[dunn]

I would like to briefly give my view on this. I think we can all agree on this:

1.M won the election, since he got more votes.

2. Unless he shows up soon he cannot serve (some of you will argue that he cannot even so, but let's leave that aside for the moment)

However what should happen if a candidate who cannot serve gets elected? For exaple, it sometimes occurs that a dead person gets elected. Some of you seem to think that the runner-up should then be handed the seat. I personally disagree and think that the seat would be vacant, so a new election would be in order.

Just my 2 cents.

I second that

[Inmate Trump]

I would like to briefly give my view on this. I think we can all agree on this:

1.M won the election, since he got more votes.

2. Unless he shows up soon he cannot serve (some of you will argue that he cannot even so, but let's leave that aside for the moment)

However what should happen if a candidate who cannot serve gets elected? For exaple, it sometimes occurs that a dead person gets elected. Some of you seem to think that the runner-up should then be handed the seat. I personally disagree and think that the seat would be vacant, so a new election would be in order.

Just my 2 cents.

I couldn't agree with you more.  Unfortunately, the Democrats on the board would rather settle this via the courts than use a democratic special election to decide the matter.  How funny that the Democrats in real life are exactly the same--they can't get their agenda passed through by a democratic vote, so instead they take it to the courts (abortion, same sex marriage, prayer in school, and the list goes ever on....)

[ShapeShifter]

I would like to briefly give my view on this. I think we can all agree on this:

1.M won the election, since he got more votes.

2. Unless he shows up soon he cannot serve (some of you will argue that he cannot even so, but let's leave that aside for the moment)

However what should happen if a candidate who cannot serve gets elected? For exaple, it sometimes occurs that a dead person gets elected. Some of you seem to think that the runner-up should then be handed the seat. I personally disagree and think that the seat would be vacant, so a new election would be in order.

Just my 2 cents.

I disagree.

1. Harry won the elections beause he recieved the one and only valid vote.

2. He can't evn be sworn in because he was not elected.

Just my 3 cents.

[JohnFKennedy]

I would like to briefly give my view on this. I think we can all agree on this:

1.M won the election, since he got more votes.

2. Unless he shows up soon he cannot serve (some of you will argue that he cannot even so, but let's leave that aside for the moment)

However what should happen if a candidate who cannot serve gets elected? For exaple, it sometimes occurs that a dead person gets elected. Some of you seem to think that the runner-up should then be handed the seat. I personally disagree and think that the seat would be vacant, so a new election would be in order.

Just my 2 cents.

I disagree.

1. Harry won the elections beause he recieved the one and only valid vote.

2. He can't evn be sworn in because he was not elected.

Just my 3 cents.

why are the other votes not valid though?

[ShapeShifter]

I would like to briefly give my view on this. I think we can all agree on this:

1.M won the election, since he got more votes.

2. Unless he shows up soon he cannot serve (some of you will argue that he cannot even so, but let's leave that aside for the moment)

However what should happen if a candidate who cannot serve gets elected? For exaple, it sometimes occurs that a dead person gets elected. Some of you seem to think that the runner-up should then be handed the seat. I personally disagree and think that the seat would be vacant, so a new election would be in order.

Just my 2 cents.

I disagree.

1. Harry won the elections beause he recieved the one and only valid vote.

2. He can't evn be sworn in because he was not elected.

Just my 3 cents.

why are the other votes not valid though?

I have stated my reason a thousand time.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=13;action=display;threadid=2599

You can try that for starters.

[JohnFKennedy]

People accepted Jesus' write-in vote for himself.....

I am not arguing with you, I wanted to know why you think the votes weren't valid.

[Inmate Trump]

People accepted Jesus' write-in vote for himself.....

I am not arguing with you, I wanted to know why you think the votes weren't valid.

The vote weren't valid b/c Harry lost.  Or at least that's all that I could figure out...

[Beet]

I would like to briefly give my view on this. I think we can all agree on this:

1.M won the election, since he got more votes.

2. Unless he shows up soon he cannot serve (some of you will argue that he cannot even so, but let's leave that aside for the moment)

However what should happen if a candidate who cannot serve gets elected? For exaple, it sometimes occurs that a dead person gets elected. Some of you seem to think that the runner-up should then be handed the seat. I personally disagree and think that the seat would be vacant, so a new election would be in order.

Just my 2 cents.

I second that

I fourth that (GWBfan third), for the constitutional reasons stated before.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The Court should decide both of these cases.  I really don't care how they decide.  But if one side just concedes at this point, the issue may just come up again in the next elections and we will have the argument all over again.  We need a precedent.

[Gustaf]

The Court should decide both of these cases.  I really don't care how they decide.  But if one side just concedes at this point, the issue may just come up again in the next elections and we will have the argument all over again.  We need a precedent.

Yep. We cannot let this one drop, that's for sure.

ShapeShifter, I'm not sure whether you actually read my post...all the votes were valid. The candidate might be invalid, but there was nothing wrong with the votes.