SAM News Corp. Comment and Debate thread

[KEmperor]

The SoFA's election count was not legitiment.

That is very true.  However, the case of whether it was legitimate is a good question.

[Emsworth]

Thats not what you were saying at the time.

I had no desire to shoot myself in the foot by commenting on what seemed like debatable point. But ultimately it became quite evident that the first certification was not deemed valid.

[jokerman]

The SoFA's election count was not legitiment.

That is very true.  However, the case of whether it was legitimate is a good question.

wtf grammer police?!?!?!?

[ilikeverin]

The SoFA's election count was not legitiment.

That is very true.  However, the case of whether it was legitimate is a good question.

wtf grammer police?!?!?!?

No, but he is a part of the grammar police

[Sam Spade]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would have to agree with many of the sentiments that you express in these two paragraphs:

There remain at least 3 unanswered questions from the last election:

1. Vice President-less ballots
2. The problem surrounding Tweed's activity requirement disqualification(or not)
3. Ben Meyers' vote in the Senate elections.,

True: there is need to address the problems of tactical voting within the present system and that can only be done by statute, but the problems surrounding these three issues could easily be decided in the Courts.

Unfortunately the Court can only react to what is brought to it, it cannot be proactive unlike the Senate and the Executive, and this was taken to ridiculous extremes in the last election. The Senate (amazingly on the advice of one of the forum's most prominent strict constructionists) actively assumed the power to declare the result of a controversial Presidential election as its own, one that by all indication of the text of the Constituition belongs to the Supreme Court.

I have to ask what sort of precedent this has set - is every controversial election result now going to be decided by a show of hands in the Senate?

You read behind the lines of this article well, Peter.  It is really a minor lashing out at myself and at those who did what they did in this election, behind the guise of arguing against Jake's new proposed amendment.

As GM, what happened in this election has certainly altered my judgment and my thinking on some things.  Maybe I shouldn't be so proactive in not bringing cases to the Supreme Court, as I have stated in the past and how I have acted in the past.

I was actually fairly close to bringing a case up on the points above until this resolution appeared.  Of course, after that point, I decided that it was not in the best interests of myself nor everyone else to do so.

But that's what this article is about behind some of the other language.  I hope people take notice.

[Q]

If I had known the Senate was seen as usurping judicial authority, I would not have signed the resolution.

I just wish people had voiced their concerns at the time.  It might have averted this conflict.  Why did the justices, or anyone else, not say something back when action could have been taken?

Also, I agree with Preston: Can we get a final audit of the election results?

[The Dowager Mod]

If I had known the Senate was seen as usurping judicial authority, I would not have signed the resolution.

I just wish people had voiced their concerns at the time.  It might have averted this conflict.  Why did the justices, or anyone else, not say something back when action could have been taken?

Also, I agree with Preston: Can we get a final audit of the election results?

much whining about nothing.

[Joe Republic]

It's a little late to start complaining now.

[Q]

much whining about nothing.

What are you talking about?

That I believe a final accounting of the election results is needed?

[The Dowager Mod]

Fact is the ones involved settled it like adults and didn't need the court so the hindsight is useless.
Not you Q Bell.

[Q]

Fact is the ones involved settled it like adults and didn't need the court so the hindsight is useless.
Not you, Q.  Bell.

Ah, ok.  Thank you, Texasgurl.  I really do agree with you.

[Peter]

I just wish people had voiced their concerns at the time.  It might have averted this conflict.  Why did the justices, or anyone else, not say something back when action could have been taken?

Things moved very quickly, and by the time I saw it the morning after, it was already too late. The decisions were taken with consultation of whoever was available, which was mostly candidates, I certainly wasn't around at 4 a.m. British local.

Even when I did see it, I felt an amount of relief - it was certainly good for one thing - finding a resolution to the whole mess and attempting to move on. Its only as I've thought about it more that the full consequences of the move have become more apparent to my mind - the awful precedent of allowing the Senate to declare winners in controversial cases.

Ultimately the problem here is: Does the short term benefit of quickly and decisively ending the electoral dispute outweigh any long term problems with the sidelining of the Court in similar disputes, and also does it just delay the problem of the Court making a decision on the controversial issues?

[jokerman]

Fact is the ones involved settled it like adults and didn't need the court so the hindsight is useless.
Not you Q Bell.

Damn the "settling" of a few high power individuals.  It is not their constitutional power to do so.  This democratic republic cannot survive if we do not have strict accountability in our elections to produce one clear result with all disputes resolved by the proper authorities as dignified by the constitution.

[Ben Meyers]

Fact is the ones involved settled it like adults and didn't need the court so the hindsight is useless.
Not you Q Bell.

Damn the "settling" of a few high power individuals.  It is not their  constitutional power to do so.  This democratic republic cannot survive if we do not have strict accountability in our election to produce one clear result with all disputes resolved by the proper authorities as dignified by the constitution.

Well said, Preston.

[The Dowager Mod]

Fact is the ones involved settled it like adults and didn't need the court so the hindsight is useless.
Not you Q Bell.

Damn the "settling" of a few high power individuals.  It is not their constitutional power to do so.  This democratic republic cannot survive if we do not have strict accountability in our elections to produce one clear result with all disputes resolved by the proper authorities as dignified by the constitution.

Sour Grapes

[jokerman]

Fact is the ones involved settled it like adults and didn't need the court so the hindsight is useless.
Not you Q Bell.

Damn the "settling" of a few high power individuals.  It is not their constitutional power to do so.  This democratic republic cannot survive if we do not have strict accountability in our elections to produce one clear result with all disputes resolved by the proper authorities as dignified by the constitution.

Sour Grapes

I preferenced Joe Republic higher than Emsworth (2nd versus 3rd) and I would still probably prefer him to Emsworth.  My opinion on this matter is not shaped by any corrupt commitment to getting one candidate elected but my firm commitment to a strong and healthy democracy.  Nice try in turning the debate into a personal attack on me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Calm it down please

[TomC]

Look, this discussion is a little late, but many posters here are involved because they care about democratic practices and success. Let's not just throw chiched insults at people because they want electoral practices to work.

[King]

People, let's save all this anger for the battles after the February Presidential Election!

[Sam Spade]

If I had known the Senate was seen as usurping judicial authority, I would not have signed the resolution.

I just wish people had voiced their concerns at the time.  It might have averted this conflict.  Why did the justices, or anyone else, not say something back when action could have been taken?

Also, I agree with Preston: Can we get a final audit of the election results?

I am with Peter in my recognition of what happened on this one, even though I saw it happen a little earlier and probably recognized what happened later.  The editorial is just me venting a little bit, which you may call sour grapes, but I plainly realize there is nothing that can be done now and just wanted to make some comments on where this takes us.

Besides, ever since I took the GM spot, I have been debating myself as to how much neutrality I should give on the forum at large.  With the SC, it's clear as to what deserves neutrality and what doesn't.  The issue for me is deciding where those boundaries fit with the GM.

Earlier, I said that I would not present any court cases, but I seem to have changed my mind.  What happened here decided that.

What I have decided now after this present affair is that I will speak up on legal matters and forum affairs issues, but not on political races or most importantly, on policy matters, because I have direct consequence on those affairs.

[True Democrat]

Ironically, I believe I would be the first Jewish Atlasian Secretary of State.

[True Democrat]

Just to let the GM know, the second report of the Reforming Social Security Act is due in like four or five days, I'm pretty sure.

[Peter]

Ironically, I believe I would be the first Jewish Atlasian Secretary of State.

I think M was a jew, though I'm not sure.

[Sam Spade]

Ironically, I believe I would be the first Jewish Atlasian Secretary of State.

Sharon would find that interesting, but I doubt that would change his opinion.  Israeli does not equal Jewish.

[The Duke]

Ironically, I believe I would be the first Jewish Atlasian Secretary of State.

I think M was a jew, though I'm not sure.

He was.