CyberTech Rambler

August 31, 2007

Swedish National Body nitpicking procedure irregularity?

Filed under: Uncategorized — ctrambler @ 9:20 pm

By way of Matusow’s blog (and all credit to him for posting this information really quickly), Sweden had decided to annul its recent vote for “Yes with Comments”. However, according to news report, it has nothing to do with the public uproar, but a procedure irregularity.

The irregularity? One member voted twice. To me, it is not good enough to annul the vote itself. To annul the results means you wasted the effect of ALL participants. This is not something you do lightly. One need to make a assessment of the maximum damage this can be done. As only one member voted twice, we must try to take out that effect. Results can be annulled if there is ambiguity after we take this effect out, or if the results changed.  Worst case here is one decision got one more vote.  Can this affect the results? According to, the results is 25(positive)-6(negative)-3(abstain). However you calculate, this irregularity is insufficient to affect the results. Even if I am going to penalize that member bt saying the vote does not count, and be extremely lenient, i.e., taking 2 votes away from one possible outcome and add two to the other, I am still not possible to influence the outcome.

Annulment this way is like collective punishment. A more appropriate action is to name-and-shame the member involved. Too heavy handed? OK, fine the member, bar it from voting in the next few votes etc etc etc are better instrument available at Swedish National Body’s disposal.

If you want an example why is this too heavy handed, let’s take the example of voting in general election. Is there any possibility that there is no irregularity in any election? No. Even in a well known bad scenario, the US presidential election in year 2000, should US Supreme Court had annul the election?

So why is it nitpicking to annul the results? I believe it is just an excuse to annul the result. An excuse that nobody can argue is wrong. Clearly Sweden is unhappy with something else, but it did not want to name the problem because it did not want to name-and-shame, or to go into a confrontation with the accused wrong-doer. What exactly is the reason? I leave it to the internet to speculate.


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: