BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights - ECPv6.15.20//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://aspercentre.ca
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Toronto
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20110313T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20111106T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20120311T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20121104T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20130310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20131103T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20121024T123000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20121024T140000
DTSTAMP:20260421T081642
CREATED:20170621T144544Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20170621T144544Z
UID:889-1351081800-1351087200@aspercentre.ca
SUMMARY:Of Irregular Votes and Robocalls: Resolving Disputed Elections in Canada and New Zealand
DESCRIPTION:Andrew Geddis\, Professor\, Faculty of Law\, University of Otago \nAbstract: This paper begins with the broader question of how a constitutional order based upon a liberal-democratic commitment to letting the people choose their lawmakers ought to respond to allegations of flaws in its election process. After all\, any large-scale human undertaking is bound to fall short of perfect implementation\, so why do such claims matter so much? And if such claims do matter so much\, what are the various issues that need to be resolved in order that they may be properly confronted and settled? From this general discussion\, the paper then turns to examine how these issues are addressed in two nations that enjoy similar historical\, cultural and constitutional traditions: Canada and New Zealand. The point of this comparison is not to illustrate the breadth of all possible responses to the challenge that a disputed election poses to a liberal democratic constitutional order\, but rather to demonstrate that even relatively small differences in legal doctrine can have important real-world consequences. Furthermore\, it is argued that such differences as can be discerned between the two nations are attributable to the balance each has struck between the perceived need for ensuring procedural correctness and bringing closure to the election process so as to permit elected representatives to carry out their lawmaking functions. Insofar as both of these goals emerges from the model of liberal democratic constitutionalism itself\, each jurisdiction’s choices illustrate that any legal response to the challenge of disputed elections is not necessarily “required” but rather the result of a conscious preference for one over the other. \nAndrew Geddis completed his undergraduate work at the University of Otago\, studying law and political studies. In 1996 he was awarded a Fulbright scholarship to Harvard Law School\, where he completed his LLM degree. In 2000 he returned to Otago to take up a lecturing position. He was appointed an Associate Professor in 2007\, a Professor in 2011. \nA light lunch will be served. \nFor more information and a copy of the draft paper contact Nadia Gulezko: n.gulezko@utoronto.ca \nEvent date: Wednesday\, October 24\, 2012\, from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM\nLocation: FLB\, Flavelle House\, Faculty of Law\, University of Toronto
URL:https://aspercentre.ca/event/of-irregular-votes-and-robocalls-resolving-disputed-elections-in-canada-and-new-zealand/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR