It is true that those who won did nothing wrong, but if the results of the lottery are allowed to stand, it would mean that those who won would be allowed to benefit from a minstake. Yes, it was not their mistake, but it was a mistake. Taking advantage of a mistake is not fairness.
If a cashier at a supermarket mistakenly gives me twice the the amound of change she should have, it would be unfair for me to take the money and justify it by saying, "well, she made a mistake, not me, therefore I am entitled to this extra money."
The U.S. government did not promise anyone anyting in relation with this lettery other than that all entrants will have an equal chance to win. If as a result of a mistake/error/glitch entrants did not have an equal chance to win, then that is the only U.S. government promise I see broken here. And they need to correct that broken promise. And corrent it they did.
It is true that those who won did nothing wrong, but if the results of the lottery are allowed to stand, it would mean that those who won would be allowed to benefit from a minstake. Yes, it was not their mistake, but it was a mistake. Taking advantage of a mistake is not fairness.
If a cashier at a supermarket mistakenly gives me twice the the amound of change she should have, it would be unfair for me to take the money and justify it by saying, "well, she made a mistake, not me, therefore I am entitled to this extra money."
The U.S. government did not promise anyone anyting in relation with this lettery other than that all entrants will have an equal chance to win. If as a result of a mistake/error/glitch entrants did not have an equal chance to win, then that is the only U.S. government promise I see broken here. And they need to correct that broken promise. And corrent it they did.
MS801,
I can tell you trying to make a genuine analogy with the super market. But it is a jarring comparison. Because whenever there is a seller and a buyer or sale, the law of contract governs that sale or transaction. As a result either the buyer or the seller can not void the contract at any point. It all depends on the facts and circumstances whether it can voided. So the question of fairness does not apply to your super market analogy. It will all depend on the facts and circumstance: whether it was a unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, and either the buyer or seller detrimentally relied on that mistake etc.
But here, it is a lottery and the the law of contract does not govern the lottery. Thats why DOS can void the lottery at anytime and can decide to cancel it at their own discretion without any consequence. And that is exactly what they hvae done.
Read the instructions very well, and you will notice that there few promises though not explicit. For example, they said entrants should come online to check their status, there is no guarantee that a selectee will be granted visa etc. So even when you win, you know that it does not necessarily mean that you will be granted the visa.
Although, the instuctions expressly state that, every entrant will be given a fair and the same chance of winning as any other applicant, no where in the instruction did it say that, if the selection is not fair, or random because of an error, the already-selectees results will be voided or cancelled. So clearly what is happening now is unprecendented. Thats why there is a need to find a solution that wont hurt or disappoint anyone.
It was an error but the DOS can regardless make it a harmless error where no one would be affected including the DOS itself. It is mandated the 50,000 visas be granted, however it not required that selectees must be 100,000. So to make it a harmless error, I think the DOS can add the already selectees to their usual 100,000 making 122,000, even though they are not obligated to do that. Its a petition that people are making and not demanding any right to proceed with further processing.
As much I want a common ground to be found, I think that those who did not win simply want 22,000 selectees result voided. But the selectees are only appealing that their results should not voided regardless whether entire redraw or just additional draw. But those who did not win disagree but only want redraw. There is wisdom in what the selectees are saying because regardless of the two options, those who did not win still have the chance to be selected. But the selectee have everything to lose if just one of the option (entire redraw) is taken because some of them might lose or possibly all of them could win again.
In my honest opinion, think they should be allowed to proceed knowing very well that, this is a unprecendted problem in the history of the lotter, while a draw be done for 100,000 so that DOS can winnow the entire selectees to the 50,000 visas mandated by the law.