Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 14 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds   


By       (Page 1 of 3 pages)   2 comments
Author 36599
Follow Me on Twitter     Message William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Become a Fan
  (2 fans)

In a ruling handed down earlier this year, Germany's highest court, the Federal Constitutional Court, upheld the constitutionality of recent elections to the German legislative branch known as the Bundestag (similar to the US Senate). An English translation of the ruling is now available.

Two of the losing candidates sued for "a scrutiny of the election," in the hope of having it invalidated. They first challenged the election in the Bundestag. After the Bundestag rejected their claims, they appealed to the High Court.

The Controlling Law

The Court declared the constitutional principles that it follows in cases like this. These principles are derived from the German Constitution, or "Basic Law." Article 38, section one, of the Basic Law states, in part, that "Members of the German Bundestag shall be elected in general, direct, free, equal, and secret elections." This has traditionally been interpreted to mean that elections should be conducted in ways that are consistent with the highest principles of democracy. Since the end of WWII, German law has developed and articulated these principles.

The Court stated, for example, "The public nature of elections is a fundamental pre-condition for democratic will-formation." Such public elections are also a "major precondition for the well-founded trust of citizens in the correct operation of the elections." (Para 107 et seq)

Public monitoring of elections is necessary "so that manipulation can be ruled out or corrected and unjustified suspicion can be refuted." Trust in elections is best assured only if they are carried out "before the eyes of the public." (Para 108) Hence, the conduct of elections should not require any specialized knowledge on the part of the voters.

The Complaints of the Challengers

The complainants contended, among other things, that the use of electronic paperless "computer-controlled voting machines" in this election violated Germany's Basic Law.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund, a CA Nonprofit Foundation My new book, Internet Voting Now, on Kindle, at Blog: (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Does the DC Fiasco Damn Internet Voting?


Independent Voters Are On the Move. Two-Party System BEWARE -- Tunisia and Egypt Can Happen Here!

Nonpartisan Elections in CA, NYC, and the Nation

California Prop 14 is GOOD for All States Because Political Parties are Un-American

CA Prop 14 Explained

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: