Advisory Opinion

Kozak's advisory opinion came through. The answers are:

1) When elections end depends on context. In terms of voting, they end at the end of voting, but in terms of the "general process of selecting new representatives" they end when certified and read into the minutes.

2) Candidates can thus withdraw up to the time the results are read into the minutes. This means, by the way, that candidates can withdraw after the Judicial Council certifies the results.

As a result, if anyone drops out, a retabulation must occur, just as if someone was disqualified. This raises a serious feasibility problem, by the way: With enough candidates on board, one could delay final results an enormous length of time by dropping out after each tabulation, requiring a new tabulation. Does this new tabulation need to be done in a public venue, or does the existence of an algorithm allow the Elections Council to consider the results public once they release the vote files and a list of whoever has dropped?

The other consequence, not directly addressed but probably implicit, is that drops in the middle of tabulation will result in starting the whole thing over. But since people can drop after tabulation, there's no real point in doing the strategic drops on the fly. On the other hand, strategic dropping takes on a new dimension in time, where folks will want to wait to see who else drops in order to maximize their own victories.

3) Signatories can withdraw their candidates.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/15/2008 10:41:00 AM #
Comments (2)

. . .

Comments:

"The other consequence, not directly addressed but probably implicit, is that drops in the middle of tabulation will result in starting the whole thing over."

You're wrong. The opinion is referring to candidates who withdraw AFTER preliminary tabulation.

They say nothing to suggest that a candidate withdrawing DURING initial tabulation requires restarting tabulation.

It doesn't really make that much of a difference anyway though...

Also note that the whole issue isn't that important. Cases where strategic dropping can actually make a difference are rare, and they are usually obvious enough that party chairs should act on them right away.

# posted by  Anonymous : 12:35 PM, April 15, 2008

 

I find it hard to believe that the opinion would allow the rule used for dropping both before and after the tabulation to be executed differently for dropping occurring during tabulation, but I guess we'll see what Kozak does with it.

The last time strategic dropping would have changed the party composition in the Senate had a party had the information in front of them and time to test it was only last year. So not all that unimportant

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 12:44 PM, April 15, 2008

 

Post a Comment