Recall

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
I would like to propose a new piece of legislation that would allow citizens or RA's the right to recall cabinet members and/or the Prime Minister. It would begin with a petition in which, if 55% of RV's who had voted for the candidate signs the pettition then a recall vote would be held where a 50% plus one would recall said minister. The Chief justice or the security council should approve the list. I would also like a time restraint, where a recall vote and petition would not be accepted until after a month and a half after the minister was sworn in.

If anyone would like to help by actually writing the legislation, I would be more than thankful.
 
Would that be this?

Article Five:
Section 7. Impeachment.

A - Any registered voter may bring charges against a Cabinet-level position if they believe the officeholder has violated this Constitution or partaken in other gross misconduct. The registered voter must provide enough evidence to a Grand Jury to warrant a trial.
B - A panel of five registered voters who are not holding a Cabinet-level position and who are randomly selected from a jury pool shall be selected by the Chief Justice to review the evidence given. If the Chief Justice is being impeached, the Prime Minister will randomly select the Grand Jury. If any jury member expresses a clear bias, they shall be excluded from the Grand Jury and replaced with another juror. The Grand Jury shall have not more than 96 hours to review and weigh the evidence cited in the complaint, and determine whether a trial is warranted.
C - All proceedings shall be recorded and sealed by the Chief Justice, or his/her designees, where applicable (including the Prime Minister if the Chief Justice is being impeached), until that officeholder is either exonerated or removed from office. Thereafter, the proceedings shall be published.
D - If the Grand Jury, by majority vote, decides that the given information provides a reasonable basis to warrant a trial for removal from office, the Chief Justice (or the Prime Minister, if the Chief Justice is being impeached) shall call a trial. This trial shall be conducted under the same rules as a criminal trial, except that the Prime Minister shall preside if the Chief Justice is being impeached, and all remaining Cabinet Ministers shall serve as the Jury. Should the defendant be found guilty, they will be immediately removed from office. After removal, the removed officeholder may be subject to expulsion from the Region following a separate criminal trial.
Click to expand...

And there's other stuff. Article five sections four and five.
 
Nope, impeachment is if the minister has commited infractions towards the constitution or civil law. Recall is when a minister has commited infractions towards the populace.
 
If a minister has failed to live up to their campaign promises or just overall does a bad job, I feel that citizens should have to right to recall ministers. Under certain conditions of course.

This way, we don't have to wait until an election to dump ministers who turn out to be disappointments, semi-corrupt, abrasive, vindictive, or any other quality that's shunned by the voters.
 
Could a recall be called at any time for any reason, or do you have an outline of criteria fulfilled before a recall would be possible?
 
I don't see any need for this legislation!! We have impeachment procedures should a member of government abuse their position or become inactive!!

Wanting to get rid of someone because you don't like them or the direction they are taking the region via their office is not a reason to remove them from office and should not be supported by legislation!!
 
Poltsamaa:
I don't see any need for this legislation!! We have impeachment procedures should a member of government abuse their position or become inactive!!

Wanting to get rid of someone because you don't like them or the direction they are taking the region via their office is not a reason to remove them from office and should not be supported by legislation!!
Click to expand...
:agree:

I don't see a reason for a recall. If we elect the minister, we should deal with them for the term.
 
Yea, I'd have to agree with that. Three month terms aren't really long enough to warrant recalls, IMO.
 
A recall would be were the voters (or assemblypeeps) vote to remove a Minister, instead of having an actual impeachment trial. At least, that's what I'm getting, but....I'm not entirely sure.
 
I agree with Poltsamaa. There are specific proceedures in place for the removal of elected officials as a result of various constitutional/activity infractions.

The implementation of a recall proceedure is opening the door for a very nasty political tool and setting the stage for ballot-box coups.

R
 
Recall is not incompatable with impeachment.

Recall is an essentially political choice made by the voters that they have lost political confidence in an officeholder and desire their prompt removal from office prior to the next election.

It is a form of ultimate policial control by the voters over policy actions of an elected officeholder. It would not be unconstitutional as far as the Declaration of Rights is concerned, since the Declaration guarantees democracy, accountability and transparency in our regional government; and a recall process would clearly be consistent with these three guaranteed objectives.
 
I like the idea. It's a bit of extra legislation, perhaps a bit of added complexity, but I agree with MS that while the impeachment proceedings allow for trial in case of infraction against the region, there is no way for the voters to remove a candidate who has deeply displeased them. If a candidate made false campaign promises, then that is hardly impeachable. The voters must be able to remove a candidate who has not represented as he/she promised. For 55% of the pros to change their votes means significant infraction. This won't be something done at the drop of a hat.

In this time when we're considering eliminating the RV or RA or both, this is a most valuable aspect of cirect democracy that should be added to our constitution.
 
Pope Hope:
Could a recall be called at any time for any reason, or do you have an outline of criteria fulfilled before a recall would be possible?
Click to expand...
Actually I specifically outlined a time constraint, somewhere between a month or a month and a half after being sworn into office.

Once again, this is not a tool used by people who wish to get political payback and should not be used if the minister has broken the constitution but if those who did vote for the minister cannot even justify why the minister should hold his/her job then I think citizens should have a choice.

As for the accusations against me about political assasinations, bite your tongue. I have in no way singled any politician out and your accusations only make yourself seem insecure.

Polts: Wanting to get rid of someone because you don't like them or the direction they are taking the region via their office is not a reason to remove them from office and should not be supported by legislation!!

If 55% of the public that voted a minister in cannot find a reason why they should remain in power and should not be allowed to voice their dissent, then something is gravely wrong with the notion of democracy. The people deserve to have their voices heard, my legislation does not allow recall at a whim but by not only the same amount of votes that put the minister in but with an additional five percent.

The argument that people should not have a say in their government until election time only breeds such a spectator democracy. I believe my legislation will instead empower the citizens to continually make an informed choice, to create a participatory democracy if you will. Where ministers must always keep an eye on the public mood and not just care for their consent once every three months. If a week is a lifetime in politics then three months in NS is a century.
 
I have mixed feelings on the whole concept of taking someone out because you don't think they are doing well enough...

Also, who would take their place? The deputy?
 
I'll be honest I have never heard of Recall elections before - they are not something we have in the UK. I think it would be interesting to have a mechanism to remove a minister or prime minister who had not broken any specific laws, but who had not lived up to election promises or had proved inactive or incompetent.

However, given that our terms of office are only three months, I think we can live with a less than ideal minister for that long. Also, I fear that this would become a process that could easily be abused by trouble makers to constantly attack a minister they do not like - Recall after recall. I believe that there are states in the US where every governor routinely faces recall moves, and I could forsee that happening in NS also.
 
Flem, in real life, California has a recall mechanism, that has been a part of that state's constitutional framework for almost a centiry.

Three years ago, just months after having won re-election, Gov. Gray Davis was subject to a recall election by a petition of the voters of California. He was removed from office by a majority, who then elected current Governor. Arnold Schwartzenegger as his successor for the remainder of the term. A regular election for the governorship is scheduled later this year.

Other US states also have the mechanism......in the late 1970s/early 1980s, the state of Florida recalled half of its hoghest appeals court from office at the same election. Again, no crime was alleged, just that the political winds of dissatisfaction had arisen and as a result the incumbents were removed during their terms of office.

Any recall proposal could provide not only the means and circumstanes under which a recall election would be held, but whether any vacancy would be filled at the same special election, or under other existing procedures could be determined as part of such a proposal.
 
I tend to agree with Flemingovia!!

We do not have recalls in Australia either, but if we have a term length of 3 months and have to wait 4 to 6 weeks before recall action can be taken. This will more than likely entail the chasing up of all those that voted for the Minister in question to get their vote for or against the recall followed by organising the RV/RA vote to confirm the recall which will take at best another two weeks but in reality probably 3 to 4 weeks. This means that by the time we get around to recalling the Minister 7-10 weeks of a twelve week term has elapsed and we still have not replaced the Minister we have recalled!! Taking into account that nominations start before the previous term ends and we run into a situation where we will recall a Minister just in time for the next elections!!

Perhaps it is better to think about who you vote for and encourage more people to run for office but, as has been seen, this region is not really ready nor interested in truly open elections but prefers elections that are engineered to rotate people through office like a game of pass the parcel!!
 
While not entirely sure whether this would be needed, I'm quite interested to see where this goes.

A couple of questions that sprung to mind. What kind of restrictions would be placed on the petition process? You mentioned a month or month and half period of grace for ministers, but does this apply to any kind of petitioning or just when its announced? For instance, could someone petition from the day a minister takes office, and just wait with the fully signed petition for the grace period to end?

How public would the whole process be? While I can see the need to keep the individuals on the petition secret, could the petition process be conducted behind closed doors? Would a minister have the right to know a petition was being carried out against them? I can see in certain circumstances, especially those where a minister is just too abrasive for peoples tastes, the minister may have no idea that they are rubbing people up the wrong way until the petition lands on the AG's desk. Would a minister be given a chance to explain themselve before the petition was submited, or before the general vote on their recall?
 
I always liked recall elections because I think they further democracy, but I dont think they'd work very well here.

It wouldn't be 55% that needed to change their minds, only 5%. What if a polorising minister only just got elected by 51% got office? It'd be all too easy to hold a recall vote for political reasons and destabalise their position, undermining their authority and weakening the state.
 
The process is not secret at all, in RL. Organizers organize petition drives to have registered voters sign the petitions, and they are filed (depending on the state) with either the state office, or local office that handles voter registeration. If the petitions contain the required number of valid, registered voter signatures, then a recall election is promptly scheduled.

The proportion required in real life is no where near 50 per cent. In college, the version I introduced into the student government constitution was more like the number equal to twenty percent of the number who voted in the last election for that office.

One other thing to keep in mind. It is a device that could be used to remove an officeholder who has abandoned their office. In the current situation, we have an Attorny General who vanished immediately upon their election. A recall could have resolved that issue cleanly/ The absence of the Attorney General has excerbated the problem of a Associate Justice of the Court who has been absent from the region since the beginning of Augustm immediately after they took office. The failure of the current and previous Attorney General to file impachment proceedings under the circumstances, even after having been formally requested to do so, is a major failing of the Ministry of Justice and the last two Attorney Generals. There us simply no justification for such non-feasance of office.

It is circumstances such as these that may well make the idea of adding a recall process quite attractive.
 
Fedele:
I have mixed feelings on the whole concept of taking someone out because you don't think they are doing well enough...

Also, who would take their place? The deputy?
Click to expand...
No, another election will take place to find a replacement. The normal election procedures will take place for whoever feels they would make a better replacement, excluding the one recalled however.

We would have two votes. One to whether recall the minister or not then another one to see who replace him/her.

I also find arguments of revolving door recalls unfounded, since there is a month or even a month and a half of grace only one recall is technically feasible in a minister's term. The person who wins the recall election will only be allowed to serve the remainder of the term.

It has worked successfully in California (with the usual show and pizzaz that goes along Californian politics and in many cities in the united states, like more recently Spokane, Washington.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...anemayor03.html
 
Do you know how long an election would take? You might as well just leave them in office. That would ruin any motivation they had before and all this work would cause a strain on the government as a whole. Elections are not simple procedures.
If we were to put this into use I would suggest putting the deputy in. That is what they are there for. They are meant to take the minister's place in the event that the minister is no longer capable of doing their job.
 
Obviously it would call for a short election, something along the lines of a week or two.

But just having the deputy take over would be easier. I personally feel that having the deputy take over would hinder the principle, since the deputy would always be seen as connected to the recalled minister. They are basically their appointed, right hand man.
 
mr_sniffles:
It has worked successfully in California (with the usual show and pizzaz that goes along Californian politics and in many cities in the united states, like more recently Spokane, Washington.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...anemayor03.html
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that California's was exactly successful... Didn't they have over 100 candidates for Governor, most of which were celebrities who had no busniess in politics? Fortunately, "Ahnold" does sort of know what he's doing...

I'm still not sure this would be a good idea. Someone with a personal vendetta against a Minister could be clamoring for their recall all the way through their term - even if they're a good Minister, this sort of thing may prevent them from running again. Worse yet, the Minister wouldn't be able to file libel or harassment charges, as the recall process would be protected by law.

I just don't think this is a good idea.
 
I disagree because it's not about ONE PERSON but about 55% of the voters (you and me) who make that decision. On the view of political revenge, it's actually easier for that one person to petition a complaint or even have an impeachment process brought up against a minister.

Plus even with over 100 candidates on hand, Arnold still won a 53% victory. I call that a victory for democracy.

When you say good minister though, how could you be a good minister if 55% of those who voted for you doesn't feel that you're worth your job. (not directed specifically at you of course)
 
Mr.Sniffles, you still have not addressed the issues I raised about time constraints!! You have to wait 4-6 weeks before a recall motion can be commenced!! By the time you contact and get the opinions of those that voted for the minister in question another 1-2 weeks has passed (most likely more as this part will take time to chase all these people up and organise some sort of vote), that coupled with the RV/RA vote to follow would be another 1-2 weeks!! Therefore 7-10 weeks of a 12 week term has passed and that is not even including the new election you speak of which takes another 1-2 weeks as you stated for a "quick" election!! Add to that the fact that nominations commence before the previous term has ended and we will literally achieve nothing from the recall process as the minister in question will probably still serve the full term while all this posturing is going on!!

I'd like your thoughts on this as I believe it is vital to the feasibility of your proposal before even touching on the personal views on whether people think it is a good idea or not!! All well and good to say it works in RL in California but this is not California and it is not real life!!
 
A petition can be circulated from the moment a minister takes office, it is up to the people to decide whether they support the petition or not. The petition can also be accepted if it meets the rules and is signed by a member of judiciary; chief justice. The actual vote however cannot be held until an agreed upon time, a month or a month and a half. So basically after a minister is elected, you have a month or a month and a half to garner the signatures of 55% of those who voted for the minister. After a month or a month and a half has passed, a vote will be called.

As for nomination rules, obviously these would have to be shorter than a run of the mill election. The election time for a recall would be much shorter than an average election, about a week or two, whatever we choose to agree on. I feel that this would be appropriate since we are only deciding the fate of one ministry and not the whole government like a normal election.
 
so it would be only viable if the petition was commenced as soon as the Minister took office!! That does not support your view that the recall would be based on failure to meet election promises or poor performance and they have had no chance to do anything before the petition is started!!

The only reason to commence such a petition immediately upon the Minister's taking office is through personal vendetta and smear!! Why would people who voted for someone change their mind a few days later without having seen the Minister in action in their ministry?!
 
The timeline is meaningless, it only allows a person to circulate a petition not launch a political assasination Polts. I find it very hard to believe that you find it inconcievable that people might change their minds after one month. What we're asking is not for any ONE person to bring down any minister they please but for one person to vent their grievances, AND IF OTHERS AGREE THEN A VOTE SHOULD BE HELD. I've never seen anyone get so worked up over letting people vote before, I must say.

However, if this matter is so grave to you then I'm willing to offer several concessions. A) a petition may begin to circulate after one month and B) that a vote may only be held after a month and a half and C) the current members of this administration will be immune to a recall vote.
 
The timeline is relevant as if the petition commences too late then the process of recall will not be completed until after the term is over!! That makes the process unnecessary bureacracy!!

If it is started at a time whereby the recall procedure will be complete before the term is voer then it must start as soon as the Minister takes office which does cast doubts over the reasons for the recall as I outlined in my previous post!!

I am not even starting on whether I believe the process is necessary or not, just its feasibiliy!! I am not worked up, just trying to get you to look at what you are proposing in a purely logistical sense!! Perhaps you can focus on that rather than try and throw up a smokescreen of emotion!!

EDIT: Your concession C seems to intimate that my comments here are somehow an act of self-preservation!! That is not the case at all!!
 
A smokescreen of emotion? All I'm calling for is allowing citizens to make an informed choice and you're putting up to two or three exclamation marks about personal vendettas and smears.

The recall is about allowing more quick action in removing unsettling ministers, I find it completely feasible that voters will change their minds after a month or a month in a half. If you are unwilling to accept that then that is no one's problem but your own.

A recall could be held as soon as after seven to eight weeks of a twelve week term. If you support a month of continued poor government performance then so be it, but I trust you would at least allow this legislation to come to a vote. To allow it go through the usual measures, be it victory or defeat, despite your own personal grievances.
 
Ah, the old exclamation marks line!! i use two for all posts except for questions where I use a ?! instead!! Never three!!

As for the rest of your post, you have still failed to address the time needed for the recall to be dealt with within the constraints of a 3 month term!!

Again, I ask you to look at the feasibility of what you are proposing!!
 
Again I still believe that one month of poor leadership is not something we should stand for. It is feasible. You're the only one saying it's not.
 
Perhaps you should go back and read the couple of times I outlines the time involved in such a process basing it on the timelines you cited in your proposal!! It clearly shows that the process you are proposing will most likely not be complete by the end of the term the Minister in question is serving!! If it were to commence at a time enabling the process to be completed prior to the end of the term then it would need to start as soon as the minister took office or very soon after meaning your reasons for wanting the recall procedure in place could not have occurred in that short amount of time!!

I have not even begun to discuss whether the procedure is necessary, just discussing the logistics of it all!! I see no point in adopting such a procedure for the sake of having it if it does not achieve anything that it supposedly hopes to achieve!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top