Recall

the times you suggested were not in the spirit of what I have said. Please display your wisdom in the error of this timetable:

After a month: a petition may be circulated and accepted.
(candidates will be allowed to start running even if in two weeks time, the majority wishes to keep a minister)
After a month and a half: Two votes will be held. 1) Do you wish to recall this minister? 2) Who would you support as their replacement?

Other variations would be more than welcome.
 
mr_sniffles:
the times you suggested were not in the spirit of what I have said. Please display your wisdom in the error of this timetable:

After a month: a petition may be circulated and accepted.
(candidates will be allowed to start running even if in two weeks time, the majority wishes to keep a minister)
After a month and a half: Two votes will be held. 1) Do you wish to recall this minister? 2) Who would you support as their replacement?

Other variations would be more than welcome.
Click to expand...
My timetable stands!! I'll post it once more for you!!

After 6 weeks you want to hold 2 votes each taking 1-2 weeks!! This means that 8-10 weeks of the 12 week term has elapsed before we commence the "quick" election for the replacement remembering that nominations for the next term commence a week or two before the previous term ends!! There is an overlap and if the recall is held it will most likely not see the Minister recalled before his/her term is up anyway!!
 
actually what I just presented is a new timetable, where after one month the petition and election begins at the same time.

We can dump a minister at a record time of a month and a half.
 
No, you said after a month and a half 2 votes would be held!! The petition would start after a month!! So, my timetable still stands!! After 6 weeks you'd commence the voting on the recall!!
 
The vote will be held at exactly six weeks. The election would begin after four weeks, see candidates can begin campaigning not just for the recall but for themselves. More like the California recall system. After six weeks, we would not commence the voting, we'd vote and dump.

What would you need changed Polts?
 
So, you'll be holding an election for the replacement before you have even got the confirmation that 55% of those that voted for the minister in question?!
 
Poltsamaa:
So, you'll be holding an election for the replacement before you have even got the confirmation that 55% of those that voted for the minister in question?!
Click to expand...
exactly. The defendant has a right to face their accuser and make an honest case how the alternative is not much better.
 
In that case, I really think it's causing way too much unneeded activity... Instead of quarterly elections, we're effectively going to end up with an election every month and a half.

Posted at same time... the above was referring to your first post.
 
The most obvious point which hasn't been mentioned yet, in all other cases of the Minister leaving their position the Deputy takes over. Why in this situation should it be any different?

Not only that, but it would reduce the time needed for this process and make it more viable legislation.
 
This isn't an election on a whim but an election if 55% of the electorate agree to a recall. A candidate can start a petition and fail in garnering enough signatures as easily as Polts can shoot down any of my ideas.
 
mr_sniffles:
This isn't an election on a whim but an election if 55% of the electorate agree to a recall. A candidate can start a petition and fail in garnering enough signatures as easily as Polts can shoot down any of my ideas.
Click to expand...
Be nice - that is borderline flamebait.

I thought you just said that an election would be held even if there weren't 55% of the signatures...?
 
mr_sniffles:
Poltsamaa:
So, you'll be holding an election for the replacement before you have even got the confirmation that 55% of those that voted for the minister in question?!
Click to expand...
exactly. The defendant has a right to face their accuser and make an honest case how the alternative is not much better.
Click to expand...
This proposal is sounding worse and worse the more I read about it!!
 
Hersfold:
I thought you just said that an election would be held even if there weren't 55% of the signatures...?
Click to expand...
Yes, he did!!

Haor Chall:
The most obvious point which hasn't been mentioned yet, in all other cases of the Minister leaving their position the Deputy takes over. Why in this situation should it be any different?
Click to expand...

I hadn't got that far yet!! ;)
 
Ok, it's just that the two of you seem to be getting a little annoyed with each other - why I've been hovering around this forums for a while now. Back on topic, please... if you want to talk about it more, Polts, please send me a PM.
 
Hersfold:
I thought you just said that an election would be held even if there weren't 55% of the signatures...?
Click to expand...
I actually don't remember saying that but I deeply apologize if that's the impression any of you had. I think I might have accidently left it out as I was so busy rehashing the timetable. But the 55% is basically the main principle of the matter, 55% of the populace must want a recall for it to happen.
 
Ohhhhh nevermind, now I get what you're saying. Anyone can compete to be the replacement once the petition is out. After all they are basically competing for both the vote to occur and to throw out an incumbent for something better.
 
I can't agree with a recall proposal either. And from practical experience, the recall we had in California left a sour taste in my mouth. That instance resulted from people who were too lazy or too unconscientious to vote during the proper election cycle. If people do not like the candidates running for a given office, then I suggest that it is partly their fault for not being more engaged in the democratic process. This is especially true on this forum, when anyone can run. If people want the right to kick out public servants before their term is up, I suggest that the same people exercise their right to run during the proper election cycle.

"Crimes against the populace" is not, in my mind, grounds for kicking someone out. This is just a fancier way of saying that elected officials may do certain things that upset some people, which is almost guaranteed in a democratic system. If the official does not show up, or is never on the forums, that may constitute grounds for impeachment. However, simply because one does not like the way they carry out their job does not mean they are not entitled to serve out their term.. a term which a majority of RV's elected him/her to serve.

Furthermore, on these boards, we have elections every 3 months. In reality, there is only about 2.5 months to get any work done. Having recalls would result in the real possibility of near-constant elections, which would further fatigue all of us AND discourage new people from joining us.
 
I agree with Wiz. The problem with a 'recall' is that recalls can be called for any or no reason at all - which would provide a very nasty political tool.

R
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top