Beit Shemesh, Israel.
Chabad Councilman Opposes Beit Shemesh Recount
Moshe Abutbul, the Charedi mayor of Beit Shemesh, west of Jerusalem, filed an appeal with the Israeli Supreme Court against a lower-court ruling invalidating the results of the city’s recent election for city council and mayor and ordering new elections.
The ruling followed an investigation into allegations of irregularities, including forgeries in the balloting.
City Councilman Meir Balish also appealed the new round of voting. An attorney for Balish’s Dor Ehad Chabad (One Generation Chabad) party – which received one council seat – expressed the concern of small parties who reached the representation threshold, as he said, without forgeries, that a new round of voting would undo that achievement.
Milhouse
The headline does not reflect the article. There is no recount to oppose; the lower court ordered a re-election, not a recount.
K
Stating the obvious: A re-election would automatically include a recount of the votes.
Milhouse
Um, no, it wouldn’t. K, as usual, displays his inability to comprehend plain English.
K
According to Milhouse, a re-election WOULDN’T automatically include a recount of votes.
Which means, after the re-election, the votes would NOT be counted, since they were already counted in the earlier election, so why recount them?!
Classic Milhouse Logic!
Milhouse
Sheesh. No, the votes in the re-election have not already been counted! How can they have been, when they haven’t been cast yet? They may never be cast, since there is a chance that re-election will not be held in the first place. If the re-election is held, the votes will, in the ordinary course of events, be counted only once. There may then be a recount, if the circumstances warrant one, just like at any election, but it will certainly not be automatic. This is obvious to every sane person, but not to K.
k
After a new election there will be again a counting of the votes, ergo a re-count! Is that too complicated to understand?
Milhouse
Garbage. Utter unfiltered nonsense.
K
Milhouse, is it utter nonsense to count votes after a re-election?!
When there is a new election, the votes must be recounted.
I know, talk sense to a fool and he calls it garbage.
Um.... no....
A recount would mean that the vote that had already taken place and had already been counted would be counted again to be sure that the original counting had been done properly. A recount could not possibly refer to a new election in which the votes had not yet been counted even once.
K
This is what happens when one person has da’as Torah and the other ne doesn’t. “Ain dayos’sayem shovim” – their da’as simply cannot match. A Torah Yid talks might say the same words but they have a totally different meaning. After learning yomom v’laylah for many years – I developed a da’as Torah. That is what my words are based on, not gibberish.
Rbs resident
Balaish knows that chabad won’t vote for him this time around after what he did the first elections and he won’t get his seat and vice mayor post again.
Milhouse
Maybe. Or maybe they will, but why should he risk it if he doesn’t have to? If the original election was valid then he’s entitled to the seat, regardless of what the voters think of him now. And therefore he has standing to be heard as to why the original result should be upheld.
K
He is in total conflict of interest.
His entitlement to a seat and therefore standing is the ultimate question. It would be circular for him to have standing on the issue of election which would remove his seat and standing.
Due to conflict, he cannot have standing on this issue.
Milhouse
Good grief. Are you insane, or do you simply have no idea what standing means. Only a person who will be affected by the decision has standing! If it wouldn’t affect him then he wouldn’t have standing. How can you not know this?
K
“Standing” (locus standi) is the right to file a lawsuit or file a petition under the circumstances.That is the ultimate “nogeah b’davar” which disqualifies the party from deciding the issue. As stated, his conflict of interest is totally conflicted. Therefore he cannot give a valid opinion before the ultimate question is decided.
Milhouse
Are you nuts? Seriously, do you just paste words together at random? You are making no sense at all.
Standing requires him to have an interest in the outcome. You just admitted that. Which is the exact opposite of your claim. Now instead of admitting that you were wrong you are saying….what? What exactly is your new point, how does it relate to your previous point, and what does it have to do with the topic at all? Do you have a point? Did you ever? Sheesh.
Milhouse
If we follow K’s illogic, there must have been a recount in the recent NYC mayoral election, since they votes were already counted in 2009, and before that in 2005, and about 25 times before that in the previous century alone! Indeed, the only vote count that was not a recount must have been the one after the first election ever held, anywhere in the world! This is absurd.
K
“recount”
1. To narrate the facts or particulars of.
2. To enumerate.
These definitions apply after each election (or alternatively, do not apply at all).
I guess the dictionary definition is also “absurd”. (Or as Milhouse wrote, “K, as usual, displays his inability to comprehend plain English”).
Milhouse
K continues to display either illiteracy or dishonesty (or both). Votes are neither narrated nor enumerated. Ever. A recount (which, by the way, is a noun, not a verb) means a second or subsequent tally of votes which have already been counted once. To paraphrase Alice, you can’t have a recount if you haven’t yet had an original count.
K
The verb “recount” simply means “to count again”. After each election the votes are counted again. Milhouse seems to think they are being counted for the very first time ever. That is possible, if the voter never voted before, but the vast majority of voters had voted in previous elections and now their voted is being counted again, a.k.a. recount.
Milhouse
Good grief, how does one counter such stupidity?
No, K, immediately after an election the votes that have just been cast have not yet been counted. Therefore they cannot be recounted. The first time those votes are counted it is just a count. Sometimes, not often but sometimes, after they have been counted once, they are counted again; that is a recount.
It is completely irrelevant whether the people who cast the votes were voting for the first time or the twentieth; they only get to cast each vote once, and each vote must counted for the first time before it can be recounted.
Any normal person understands this without being told, but apparently you don’t.
K
In the Midbar Hashem kept RECOUNTING the Bnei Yisroel. Hashen wasn’t merely re-checking if the earlier count was accurate, but He had the Yidden RECOUNTED.
Milhouse
And this has what to do with the topic? Or with anything else?
And no, these were not recounts, they were independent counts of a changing population. The census of 2010 was not a recount of the census of 2000, it was a brand new census, and it’s not surprising that it found a different total. The same applies to the censuses in the midbar, even the first two which found the same total.
AH
Milhouse, realize that K is simply trying to get a rise out of you (and succeeding, by the looks of it).
Milhouse
Of course he’s succeeding; if a clown spits in your face, what are you supposed to do?
K
If a clown keeps spitting in my face, I would open my umbrella.
K
AH, I am engaging Milhouse so that he will join my chaburah (Thursdays at 8 pm – Zvochim). I would love to teach him pshat in a shtikel Gemorah. I think it would be fun.
Milhouse
Given your demonstrated incapacity at logic, you’re probably slaughtering the gemoroh.
K
I get the pun – “slaughtering” in zevochim, good one!