Tweet
The court cannot arbitrarily say "so and so is the winner because we say so." What the court can do is come up with a procedure for figuring out what to do. For example:
Bob and Bill are running for some position. The election results in a tie. Bob and Bill do not like eachother, and neither of them will compromise.
The court follows the procedures that were set up under GodKing & OPD vs. The People. The court looks at who voted, and discoveres that of the 500 votes, each person had 25 non-citizens vote. If Bill & Bob were no longer tied after discounting non-citizen votes, a winner would be declaired here.
As it is still tied, the courts look at the their next test, say bribery by the candidates or whatever. Then if still tied, the test after that. So on and so on. Eventually, after the first couple of tests, it is highly unlikely that it would still be tied. If so, they can call it a draw and call for either a re-vote, or whatever they view as fair.
I wouldn't look for the courts to appoint someone or just arbitrarily declare someone the winner. What we need is for some procedures to be laid out, with the courts administering (they are the only governmental agency that isn't being elected, and are supposidly neutral), so that when and if there ever is any problems, we know what to do instead of just sitting on our bums saying "I dunno".
Bob and Bill are running for some position. The election results in a tie. Bob and Bill do not like eachother, and neither of them will compromise.
The court follows the procedures that were set up under GodKing & OPD vs. The People. The court looks at who voted, and discoveres that of the 500 votes, each person had 25 non-citizens vote. If Bill & Bob were no longer tied after discounting non-citizen votes, a winner would be declaired here.
As it is still tied, the courts look at the their next test, say bribery by the candidates or whatever. Then if still tied, the test after that. So on and so on. Eventually, after the first couple of tests, it is highly unlikely that it would still be tied. If so, they can call it a draw and call for either a re-vote, or whatever they view as fair.
I wouldn't look for the courts to appoint someone or just arbitrarily declare someone the winner. What we need is for some procedures to be laid out, with the courts administering (they are the only governmental agency that isn't being elected, and are supposidly neutral), so that when and if there ever is any problems, we know what to do instead of just sitting on our bums saying "I dunno".
Comment