On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > >> wrote: > >> > In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may > >> > not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist), > >> > you may be referring to it, but you're not "clearly identifying" it, > >> > therefore not voting. > >> > >> This implies that blanket votes are generally ineffective. *shrug* > > > > Well, the current jurisprudence is that they're effective as an > > administrative convenience, as long as they can be mapped onto a clear and > > unambiguous set of individual votes (and therefore, in a strict legal sense, > > that they identify every member of that set). I know I used this sort of > > logic in CFJ 2316 (that's the first CFJ that comes to mind). -G. > > But the statement "I vote on all decisions etc" implies only that at > least one such decision exists; it certainly does not acknowledge that > P7000 exists, so by your logic, it couldn't be a valid vote on P7000.
I agree, strictly it doesn't, just the way I vote 100xFOR isn't 100 announcements of casting a ballot FOR (or at least, it wasn't until very recently). My point is, if we allow those sorts of notices to map onto individual ballots, then we must take each of those individual mappings of having all the properties of individual ballots (including identifying each matter specifically). So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots (which we do; no one has directly questioned 100xFOR for a long time) then you must allow those legal fictions to include all the properties that are required for ballots to have, not just some of them. Clearly identifying the specific matter is one of those properties. So you can claim that such mappings have all of the properties of votes (current practice and precedent) or claim they have none of them (major reversal of same). But not halfway in between. -G.
