Here Come De Judge
Sunday, November 25, 2007 at 00:00
By Marcel Strigberger
After an election there are usually a couple of ridings where the race has been close and the losing candidate asks for a recount. This I understand. But after a couple of these recounts we sometimes see the shorthanded candidate seeking a judicial recount.
Now I am a lawyer and for the life of me I can't figure out why you would need a judge to count some ballots. I am totally in the dark about this process. And why should it be otherwise? It's not something that is usually taught in law school. There is no elective course called, "Ballots 101."
Nor am I even familiar with judges who have a reputation for handling this type of work. To my knowledge no lawyer goes around commenting, "They call that judge, Old King Cole, the counting judge."
And so I ask why do we need judges to count ballots? After all do judges have special qualities making them naturals to count? Do they have extra fingers?
Be that as it may why don't we go the distance and permit a more complete judicial recount, namely a recount by the candidate's peers. In other words why don't we have recounts by a judge and jury?
We can then get us lawyers involved thereby creating more work. A recount by judge and jury could in fact be very exciting.
We could have firstly a jury selection. The lawyers can argue before the judge as they challenge prospective jurors. For example the court registrar would pull a name of a prospective juror out of the drum and announce: "Leslie Wiggly, occupation baker."
Both parties might go for this one. Or one might challenge his ability to count suggesting that perhaps to this gentleman a dozen is thirteen.
Then there would of course be the vigourous statements to the jury by the lawyers, extolling the virtues of their respective clients' positions:
"Members of the jury. The seat was won fair and square by my client Fergus MacDonald. The first tally was 12,501 votes for my client to 12423 for his opponent Mary Sue Balloo. A subsequent recount closed the gap by 25 votes. But one more recount gave Balloo 20 votes more than my client. You will see that this was totally as a result of the chicanery and connivery on the part of that vixen. Thank you."
The lawyer for Balloo would then respond:
"Members of the jury. My learned opponent has failed to tell you that there was hanky panky going on in the MacDonald camp. The evidence will show that scrutineers for MacDonald used sleight of hand to destroy a number of ballots that favoured Miss Balloo. One scrutineer was even caught with his hand in a ballot box and when asked what he was doing, he quickly stuffed a few of the ballots into his mouth and swallowed them. I will ask you to draw the inference that this rendered the circumstances most suspicious. Thank you."
As a commotion stirs up in the courtroom the judge comments. "Silence, or I'll clear the courtroom."
The judge would eventually be soon be in a position to charge the jury after telling them what an "X" looks like:
"Members of the jury. Yours will be the enormous task of counting these ballots. You will retire to the jury room where you will be sequestered in total isolation until you reach a unanimous decision as to the final tally.
Now how do you count? You put all votes for MacDonald into one pile and all votes for Balloo into another pile. And then you start counting from one upwards. Like me, you may use your fingers. I understand there were also a few write-in votes in favour of Alfred E. Newman. You don't include those."
The jury would then retire and try to reach its verdict, to the anticipation of the candidates and their voters. Suddenly the courtroom would reconvene and the judge would say, "Foreman, have you reached a verdict?"
"We have not Your Honour. We were all just getting a bit hungry counting and we'd like to know if someone can send in some pizza."
OK, so this system might experience glitches but it would also make for some exciting courtroom drama in town. With action like this who'd need Rumpole of the Old Bailey?
I like the idea. Count me in.
After an election there are usually a couple of ridings where the race has been close and the losing candidate asks for a recount. This I understand. But after a couple of these recounts we sometimes see the shorthanded candidate seeking a judicial recount.
Now I am a lawyer and for the life of me I can't figure out why you would need a judge to count some ballots. I am totally in the dark about this process. And why should it be otherwise? It's not something that is usually taught in law school. There is no elective course called, "Ballots 101."
Nor am I even familiar with judges who have a reputation for handling this type of work. To my knowledge no lawyer goes around commenting, "They call that judge, Old King Cole, the counting judge."
And so I ask why do we need judges to count ballots? After all do judges have special qualities making them naturals to count? Do they have extra fingers?
Be that as it may why don't we go the distance and permit a more complete judicial recount, namely a recount by the candidate's peers. In other words why don't we have recounts by a judge and jury?
We can then get us lawyers involved thereby creating more work. A recount by judge and jury could in fact be very exciting.
We could have firstly a jury selection. The lawyers can argue before the judge as they challenge prospective jurors. For example the court registrar would pull a name of a prospective juror out of the drum and announce: "Leslie Wiggly, occupation baker."
Both parties might go for this one. Or one might challenge his ability to count suggesting that perhaps to this gentleman a dozen is thirteen.
Then there would of course be the vigourous statements to the jury by the lawyers, extolling the virtues of their respective clients' positions:
"Members of the jury. The seat was won fair and square by my client Fergus MacDonald. The first tally was 12,501 votes for my client to 12423 for his opponent Mary Sue Balloo. A subsequent recount closed the gap by 25 votes. But one more recount gave Balloo 20 votes more than my client. You will see that this was totally as a result of the chicanery and connivery on the part of that vixen. Thank you."
The lawyer for Balloo would then respond:
"Members of the jury. My learned opponent has failed to tell you that there was hanky panky going on in the MacDonald camp. The evidence will show that scrutineers for MacDonald used sleight of hand to destroy a number of ballots that favoured Miss Balloo. One scrutineer was even caught with his hand in a ballot box and when asked what he was doing, he quickly stuffed a few of the ballots into his mouth and swallowed them. I will ask you to draw the inference that this rendered the circumstances most suspicious. Thank you."
As a commotion stirs up in the courtroom the judge comments. "Silence, or I'll clear the courtroom."
The judge would eventually be soon be in a position to charge the jury after telling them what an "X" looks like:
"Members of the jury. Yours will be the enormous task of counting these ballots. You will retire to the jury room where you will be sequestered in total isolation until you reach a unanimous decision as to the final tally.
Now how do you count? You put all votes for MacDonald into one pile and all votes for Balloo into another pile. And then you start counting from one upwards. Like me, you may use your fingers. I understand there were also a few write-in votes in favour of Alfred E. Newman. You don't include those."
The jury would then retire and try to reach its verdict, to the anticipation of the candidates and their voters. Suddenly the courtroom would reconvene and the judge would say, "Foreman, have you reached a verdict?"
"We have not Your Honour. We were all just getting a bit hungry counting and we'd like to know if someone can send in some pizza."
OK, so this system might experience glitches but it would also make for some exciting courtroom drama in town. With action like this who'd need Rumpole of the Old Bailey?
I like the idea. Count me in.
______________
© 2007 Marcel Strigberger. This article CANNOT be copied or reproduced in any way without the expressed written consent of the Author.
Add a comment