labradore

"We can't allow things that are inaccurate to stand." — The Word of Our Dan, February 19, 2008.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

The constitutional argument

Dave Bartlett reports in today's Telegram on the controverted Paradise election case:
[Curtis] Coombs' lawyer, Eli Baker, filed a motion in Supreme Court arguing a draw is no way to decide a democratic election, and was unconstitutional.

"The (recycling) bucket doesn't get a vote," Baker told The Telegram at the time. "And even more ridiculous, the bucket doesn't have a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote."

But Baker also argued that if a draw is deemed constitutional, there should have been a second one after the judicial recount, instead of letting the original one stand.
The bucket doesn't have the right to vote, true enough. Then again, neither do you, at least not in municipal elections: the constitutional guarantee in s. 3 of the Charter only applies to elections for the House of Commons and provincial and territorial legislatures. Constitutionally, you and the bucket are equals; the municipal franchise is entirely statutory.

But never mind that, whether merely statutory, or constitutionally entrenched, why on earth should the bucket get two votes, when the rest of us only get one?

3 Comments:

At 5:29 PM, January 28, 2010 , Blogger Simon Lono said...

Some clarity to the point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative

 
At 5:56 PM, January 28, 2010 , Blogger WJM said...

Yeah, yeah, but what I said is funnier. Stop spoiling the funny.

 
At 7:34 PM, January 28, 2010 , Blogger Simon Lono said...

That is true :)

I just thought it was also funny today when at least one media outlet reported the judge's q's of the argument as pointing out a contradiction. Note to outlets: send reporters who can follow what's going on or will ask if they don't.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home