Comments on: Yerkir: 224,184 Contracts Signed http://blog.oneworld.am/2008/02/10/yerkir-224184-contracts-signed/ News, Photography, Blogs & Analysis Tue, 22 May 2012 00:53:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Onnik http://blog.oneworld.am/2008/02/10/yerkir-224184-contracts-signed/#comment-2501 Onnik Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:26:56 +0000 http://blog.oneworld.am/2008/02/10/yerkir-224184-contracts-signed/#comment-2501 Yeah, sure, but I don't get your point. There's nothing in the electoral code to prohibit such a thing and the agreement I suppose could be considered legally contestable if breached by either party. However, I haven't had a close look at one so am not sure what the text for the voter's side says. Does it say "I'm with Vahan" or "I'm going to vote for Vahan." At any rate, while an interesting exercise, I wouldn't say that because 224,184 have been signed (but whose word do we take for that?) it means that many people are going to vote for Hovannisian. Actually, I'm not sure it really can be taken to represent anything more than an interesting way to reach out to potential voters. Legally I don't think it means that 224,184 people have to vote for Hovannisian (and that presupposes there are no duplicates etc) although I suppose the ARF-D could take them to court, but how to prove who they did or didn't vote for? I think you're getting too interested in what is a nice gimmick, but nothing more than that really. Still, I suppose you're trying to discredit the initiative, but I think there's no need. It has no legal basis to be used, for example, if Hovannisian doesn't poll 224,184 votes or indeed to validate that number if they do but the count is contested. It's just a nice approach to reaching out to voters, that's all, It can be taken as nothing more than that. Yeah, sure, but I don’t get your point. There’s nothing in the electoral code to prohibit such a thing and the agreement I suppose could be considered legally contestable if breached by either party. However, I haven’t had a close look at one so am not sure what the text for the voter’s side says. Does it say “I’m with Vahan” or “I’m going to vote for Vahan.”

At any rate, while an interesting exercise, I wouldn’t say that because 224,184 have been signed (but whose word do we take for that?) it means that many people are going to vote for Hovannisian.

Actually, I’m not sure it really can be taken to represent anything more than an interesting way to reach out to potential voters. Legally I don’t think it means that 224,184 people have to vote for Hovannisian (and that presupposes there are no duplicates etc) although I suppose the ARF-D could take them to court, but how to prove who they did or didn’t vote for?

I think you’re getting too interested in what is a nice gimmick, but nothing more than that really. Still, I suppose you’re trying to discredit the initiative, but I think there’s no need. It has no legal basis to be used, for example, if Hovannisian doesn’t poll 224,184 votes or indeed to validate that number if they do but the count is contested.

It’s just a nice approach to reaching out to voters, that’s all, It can be taken as nothing more than that.

]]> By: nazarian http://blog.oneworld.am/2008/02/10/yerkir-224184-contracts-signed/#comment-2495 nazarian Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:11:28 +0000 http://blog.oneworld.am/2008/02/10/yerkir-224184-contracts-signed/#comment-2495 I thought that the voters were signing the contract. I thought that the voters were signing the contract.

]]> By: Onnik http://blog.oneworld.am/2008/02/10/yerkir-224184-contracts-signed/#comment-2494 Onnik Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:59:29 +0000 http://blog.oneworld.am/2008/02/10/yerkir-224184-contracts-signed/#comment-2494 Well, Hovannisian's signature is not personally signed and the thing just says "I'm with Vahan" or something and details what he promises to do so probably legally it's not a contract. Well, Hovannisian’s signature is not personally signed and the thing just says “I’m with Vahan” or something and details what he promises to do so probably legally it’s not a contract.

]]> By: nazarian http://blog.oneworld.am/2008/02/10/yerkir-224184-contracts-signed/#comment-2491 nazarian Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:20:05 +0000 http://blog.oneworld.am/2008/02/10/yerkir-224184-contracts-signed/#comment-2491 Well, a contract is a legally binding document about the obligations and rights of the signing parties (it implies rewards and penalties that can be enforced in the court of law). If one signs a contract to vote for a candidate then he or she must vote for that candidate otherwise he or she can be taken to court. As such, the voter will take a precaution to have a proof that he or she has voted for the right candidate. In return, he or she will expect something in return. And that is called electoral fraud. If the document in question is not signed and doesn't have provisions for enforcing anything then it's a promise and not a contract. Well, a contract is a legally binding document about the obligations and rights of the signing parties (it implies rewards and penalties that can be enforced in the court of law).

If one signs a contract to vote for a candidate then he or she must vote for that candidate otherwise he or she can be taken to court. As such, the voter will take a precaution to have a proof that he or she has voted for the right candidate. In return, he or she will expect something in return. And that is called electoral fraud.

If the document in question is not signed and doesn’t have provisions for enforcing anything then it’s a promise and not a contract.

]]> By: Onnik http://blog.oneworld.am/2008/02/10/yerkir-224184-contracts-signed/#comment-2474 Onnik Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:26:14 +0000 http://blog.oneworld.am/2008/02/10/yerkir-224184-contracts-signed/#comment-2474 I don't think there's any issue about legality. Simply, it was a nice idea but it has no legal basis at all. There were no observers, nobody to check who signed only once or if all of them were signed and so on. However, it was a nice campaign ploy but at the end of the day not relevant to the real vote at hand. That is, it might give ARF-D something to shout about if the number is not met at the polling stations, but ultimately, it is legally unconnected to that anyway. Simply it can be seen as a way for a candidate to interact with his or her potential electorate, but nothing more. I don’t think there’s any issue about legality. Simply, it was a nice idea but it has no legal basis at all. There were no observers, nobody to check who signed only once or if all of them were signed and so on. However, it was a nice campaign ploy but at the end of the day not relevant to the real vote at hand. That is, it might give ARF-D something to shout about if the number is not met at the polling stations, but ultimately, it is legally unconnected to that anyway. Simply it can be seen as a way for a candidate to interact with his or her potential electorate, but nothing more.

]]> By: nazarian http://blog.oneworld.am/2008/02/10/yerkir-224184-contracts-signed/#comment-2470 nazarian Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:14:55 +0000 http://blog.oneworld.am/2008/02/10/yerkir-224184-contracts-signed/#comment-2470 I wonder about the legality of such contracts before the elections. Has anyone seen the text? I wonder about the legality of such contracts before the elections. Has anyone seen the text?

]]>