For the second time, plainly wrong.
Why would the courts need to rule on a recount if it was automatic???
[quote=“LittleBuddhaTW”]
The spokesman from the Central Election Committee last night said that the law called for a recount if the margin was less than 33,000 votes … which it was. Why do you disagree with Taiwan following its own laws, Wolf? I thought this was supposed to be about the “democratic process” … of which this is one part. Lian’s reaction was inappropriate, but the request for a recount is not only reasonable, but it’s the law (at least as far as the dude from the CEC said).[/quote]
There is nothing in the Taiwan election law that I am aware of that provides for a recount, must less for an automatic one.
Maoman, don’t exaggerate! This is not the time to be funny!
Can we verify this? Aside from some states in the US.[/quote]The UK elections often have many recounts, that’s why I said it. sometimes as many as 7 recounts for one constituency. I don’t how they decide if a result was too close,
They use a coin if the votes are even.
For god sakes, lane will you just chill out. After all those PM’s you sent me, I’m starting to think you WANT the Chinese to declare war on Taiwan, or for the people to declare war on each other. 
I just did a google – in the UK recounts are “at the discretion of the Returning Officer.”
Countries with automatic recounts for close results include: Albania, Canada, France, Hungary, Iceland
[I don’t think this is an exhaustive survey though]
Can you be more specific as to what I said that was incorrect? I did look at Google. Several source show that there was no official full hand recount. There was a lot of push for one, but the supreme court rejected them and accepted the state certified results which were based on the machine counts on election day with corrections from 16 precincts, not including the areas which were most in dispute because they did not meet the state imposed deadline. If you going to scoff, at least make it specific.
Some legal boffin on TV today was saying that because Chen has already been declared the winner, the election would have to be declared null and void (whatever it’s called) before you could have a recount.
At least that is how I understood it with my imperfect Chinese listening skills!
Problem is that there is going to be more and more video footage of suspect votes coming out. People putting in double votes. Children voting for sight impaired Granny, it’s all going to be a farce by the time it’s through, wait… too late. Just look at the forums here, almost as emotional as the Taiwanese. Come to think of it, what is the point, they won’t let us vote in these things anyway. Politics in Taiwan is a joke, on both sides, what country could ever take Taiwan seriously.
Politics in Taiwan is like one big Tealit.
[quote=“ludahai”][quote=“LittleBuddhaTW”]
The spokesman from the Central Election Committee last night said that the law called for a recount if the margin was less than 33,000 votes … which it was. Why do you disagree with Taiwan following its own laws, Wolf? I thought this was supposed to be about the “democratic process” … of which this is one part. Lian’s reaction was inappropriate, but the request for a recount is not only reasonable, but it’s the law (at least as far as the dude from the CEC said).[/quote]
There is nothing in the Taiwan election law that I am aware of that provides for a recount, must less for an automatic one.[/quote]
You missed the part of my post that said “at least as far as the dude from the CEC said.” I didn’t go look up the law, I’m just reporting what the CEC representative said.
I don’t. On what grounds? Because it was close? This would be an interesting framework to apply to the upcoming Olympic Games.
“God! That 10,000 meters race was really close. Let’s run it again to make sure.”
Please… [/quote]
that is a silly analogy.
as mentioned above, it’s also about whether the votes were valid, whether valid votes were excluded, whether the counting was correct. not as simple as a footrace
[quote]Quote:
it is common practice in other countries when the result is close.
Can we verify this? Aside from some states in the US.[/quote]
I’ve taken part in counts in the UK. If any interested party has any good reason they can request a recount. The final decision rests with the returning officer. (The person overseeing the counting.)
There is always some error in counting votes. If the difference between winning or losing is a fraction of 1% then a recount is not simply fair - it’s a damn good idea. Any UK returning officer would order a recount under the current circumstances, just to be sure that they got it right.
If a second recount produced the same result then it would have to be accepted. If there was to be a large discrepancy then there may be third or subsequent count until it is clear that one party has won.
One other observation though: the process of voting, and counting the votes, seems a lot more secure and reliable here than in the UK.
Recount? Yes, that will be entirely reasonable if it’s what the appropriate provisions of Taiwan’s law prescribe. Whether a recount should be conducted can only be decided by the judicial authorities vested with the power to render an objective pronouncement thereon according to the law and the facts of the case. It cannot be decided nor influenced by politicians or any other partisan individuals, and certainly not by a howling mob.
Revote? Not on your life! There are no grounds whatsoever for even considering such an undemocratic, socially divisive, and costly exercise. It’s an absurd idea, and none but a fool would seriously countenance it.
Even if Chen wins a recount, Lien is still going to be howling about the 300,000 invalid votes which he assumes were mostly for him.
Without investigating the issue of those invalid ballot papers we’re never going to hear the end of it from the Lien camp, recount or no recount.
I’m up in Dongguan now. There’s quite a broad range of opinions in the office. To my surprise, quite a lot of people are sympathetic to CSB. The more educated folks are all saying that Lian and Song should stop bitching and respect the rule of law and the need for stability. One of them joked that the PLA should intervene to force Lian Zhan to step down and to block a revote. Many mainlanders have a pretty high level of adversarial respect for CSB; although they aren’t comfortable with him leading Taiwan, they think Lian and company are murderous KMT bastards. I don’t think they can figure out what they hate more, Taiwan independence or the KMT.
And of course some are still carrying on with the kurouji nonsense; they’re the ones who refuse to look at any of the four Chinese newspapers I brought up from HK this morning. Some people just insist upon remaining ignorant.
Any English version of the Public Officials Election and Recall Law?
Anyone good enough to translate the relative provisions (article 104?) of the Chiense version?
www2.nccu.edu.tw/~s00/eng/link/p … %20Law.htm
Soemone reported that the law says a recount will take place if there is serious evidence of fraud/cheating. What the KMT presented yesterday was hardly serious evidence, and as I pointed out in the other thread, wouldn’t have changed the result at all.
Brian
Can you be more specific as to what I said that was incorrect? I did look at Google. Several source show that there was no official full hand recount. There was a lot of push for one, but the supreme court rejected them and accepted the state certified results which were based on the machine counts on election day with corrections from 16 precincts, not including the areas which were most in dispute because they did not meet the state imposed deadline. If you going to scoff, at least make it specific.[/quote]
You misunderstood me Jlick, I was thanking you for your post and mentioning that Ski’s knowledge of the US election in question does not seem to extend beyond his favorite search engine.
[quote=“spack”]
Even if Chen wins a recount, Lien is still going to be howling about the 300,000 invalid votes which he assumes were mostly for him.
Without investigating the issue of those invalid ballot papers we’re never going to hear the end of it from the Lien camp, recount or no recount.[/quote]
Never mind, if an angel came down from heaven and gave the mantle of power to Chen, they would still claim he was the devil himself. The whole point of this exercise by the KMT is to discredit Chen’s administration. If it’s not invalid ballot papers it will be something else.
[quote]Any English version of the Public Officials Election and
Recall Law?[/quote]
A true glutton for punishment I see. 
Excerpted from the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Law:
[quote]CHAPTER SIX
ELECTION AND RECALL SUITS
Article 94 When an elected official has one of the following deeds, the election or recall organ, the prosecutor, or a candidate may, within fifteen days after the proclamation of the list of the elected officials, sue for the nullification of the election [results] in a court with competent jurisdiction:
-
The number of ballots won by the elected official is so inaccurate as to have affected the election results.
-
A person who employs threat, violence, or other illegal means obstructs candidates from engaging in campaigning, qualified voters from exercising casting rights freely, or staff of election affairs from executing duties.
-
A person commits acts specified in Article 76, subparagraph 1 of paragraph 1 of Article 79, or paragraph I of Article 146 of the Criminal Code.
-
A person commits acts specified in paragraph I Article 78 sufficient to affect the election results.
The deeds specified in the preceding paragraph shall not, when the court has adjudicated and declared the invalidity of the elected official, be affected by the part of absolution of the criminal judgment in the same case.[/quote]
cec.gov.tw/e-cec/ElectoralLaw.htm
[Edit: Looks like Art. 94 in the official English version is Artcle 104 in the official Chinese version. That’s Taiwan for you. 
]
I think the prevailing analysis is that Lien and Soong have a very weak case for nullifying the vote based on pure legal grounds. However, a strongly worded China Times editorial today called for the political, i.e. extra-legal, resolution of the matter. It asked CSB to:
-
Direct the executive branch to do an “administrative” recount of the votes (that is, sidestepping the judicial process and hurdles dictated by law)
-
Form a special commission to investigate the shooting (that is, sidestepping or supplementing the official police investigation)
This is a hard one.
In a mature democracy, such a solution would be clearly unthinkable. Imagine if Bush & Gore directly negotiated the election impasse in 2000 rather than let it wend its way through the courts?! Plus it would set a horrible precedent.
But as everyone knows, Taiwan does not yet have a true society based on the “rule of law.” Given that the protests are really political (“the election was unfair”), not legal in nature, a political resolution may really be necessary.