Issue arising from the election of Tresville

Well, I will go with whatever is decided upon. Naturally, I am uncomfortable with the thought of a re-election, given that I managed to squeeze in by 1 vote. Tresville might have less to worry about, taking into account his landslide victory.

It was very generous of Khark to state that he does not intend to submit a candidacy should a re-election occur. However, I would still support an RA motion on the issue – as I believe it is still far more appropriate for the situation - it isn't a matter for the ballots.
 
Rhindon Blade:
mr_sniffles:
You asked me how to run for office not whether you were eligible. Jeez, doesn`t anyone take the responsibility to READ the laws anymore...
Click to expand...
And you directed me to submit a candidacy - also oblivious to that clause that everyone had overlooked. I'm not trying to shift blame - I'm simply pointing out that the Speaker and the Election Comissioner were just as unaware as the candidates were.
Click to expand...
Directed you?


Ok, you now need to provide proof. I'm giving you full consent to post the PM's and if you don't I will.
 
mr_sniffles:
Rhindon Blade:
mr_sniffles:
You asked me how to run for office not whether you were eligible. Jeez, doesn`t anyone take the responsibility to READ the laws anymore...
Click to expand...
And you directed me to submit a candidacy - also oblivious to that clause that everyone had overlooked. I'm not trying to shift blame - I'm simply pointing out that the Speaker and the Election Comissioner were just as unaware as the candidates were.
Click to expand...
Directed you?


Ok, you now need to provide proof. I'm giving you full consent to post the PM's and if you don't I will.
Click to expand...
omgshutup

We can always vote on whether or not we should vote. That sounds fun.
 
Heft:
mr_sniffles:
Rhindon Blade:
mr_sniffles:
You asked me how to run for office not whether you were eligible. Jeez, doesn`t anyone take the responsibility to READ the laws anymore...
Click to expand...
And you directed me to submit a candidacy - also oblivious to that clause that everyone had overlooked. I'm not trying to shift blame - I'm simply pointing out that the Speaker and the Election Comissioner were just as unaware as the candidates were.
Click to expand...
Directed you?


Ok, you now need to provide proof. I'm giving you full consent to post the PM's and if you don't I will.
Click to expand...
omgshutup

We can always vote on whether or not we should vote. That sounds fun.
Click to expand...
I want a vote on whether we should vote on a re-vote.
 
Heft:
mr_sniffles:
Rhindon Blade:
mr_sniffles:
You asked me how to run for office not whether you were eligible. Jeez, doesn`t anyone take the responsibility to READ the laws anymore...
Click to expand...
And you directed me to submit a candidacy - also oblivious to that clause that everyone had overlooked. I'm not trying to shift blame - I'm simply pointing out that the Speaker and the Election Comissioner were just as unaware as the candidates were.
Click to expand...
Directed you?


Ok, you now need to provide proof. I'm giving you full consent to post the PM's and if you don't I will.
Click to expand...
omgshutup
Click to expand...

And have my name slandered? No. Would you?
 
Plank 'em all!

[size=-7]The above statement in no way indicates anything I am about to do whatsoever, it's just a random statement made in an attempt to defuse the situation with humour. Thank you very much, have a nice day.[/size]
 
This is a minor issue and is a distraction from the more important issue at hand.

Rhindon Blade and Tresville were ineligible at the time of nominations because neither one of them were in the Regional Assembly for the 30 days that is mandated in our constitution.

I have submitted a motion for a re-vote in the RA, and the decision to move forward on that depends on the courts verdict on the request for an official ruling that I have submitted.

Request For Court Ruling
 
Haha Mr. Sniffles I'm not trying to slander you!

Were you just as unaware of the clause as Flem was? If so...thats as far as my point goes. No one was aware, even the higher-ups. I'm fully prepared to admit it about myself too!

But yes, I think we should vote here if we should have a vote about whether or not to have another elections vote. :yes:
 
Rhindon Blade:
But yes, I think we should vote here if we should have a vote about whether or not to have another elections vote. :yes:
Click to expand...
I think we should vote on that first.

Oh, and for the record, as I've posted in the courts, Tresville was outside the 30 day limit when voting begun.
 
picard-facepalm.jpg
 
Let us not forget that we are still in a time of war, where Gates has promised to exploit this situation to spread discord in the region. By all means, let's have a judicial ruling, a rerun if necessary, but let's do it with good humour and unity.

I think all of us involved in the election - candidates, commissioners, everyone, are sorry we did not realise that the rules had been broken. Shit happens, sometimes. The thing that shows quality is how you deal with it.

:toast:

oops. Forgot it was pirate day... er .... avast ye landlubbers .... hoist the parrot, splice the plank, walk the eyepatch... arrrrrrrr.
 
Actually, I saw Gates lurking on the forum about an hour ago, despite the fact he swore never to come here again.

Unfortunately, he left before I had a chance to look at the Online Users list and see what page he was viewing.
 
Actually, to be fair he never said he would not look in, just that he would not post.

He never promised not to stick his nose in, he just said his gob would not be involoved.
 
Well, I have missed a lot haven't I?

I look at this problem and I see one running theme, and that is that everyone on every level was oblivious to the breach of the Constitution. Now regardless of that we cannot create a precedent where an electoral result holds more weight legally than the Constitution. That would not be right and I would seek reform if we were to head down that route.

But I must stress that some of the attacks levelled at respected members of our Regional Assembly are completely unnacceptable. To claim that Cisco was attempting to decieve is a personal attack against someone who had overlooked a small portion of the requirements for candidacy. Perhaps he took for granted the fact that he has been part of this community continuously for longer than most of us regardless of Regional Assembly membership. But that is besides the point as every single person involved overlooked the requirement.

We can learn from this, we can be much wiser to the responsibilities an Electoral Commissioner has to uphold the constitution and scrutinise the process from every angle. It is not a job that should be taken lightly and we see some scandal with every election it seems regarding the electoral commissioner.

Now, it is the Judiciaries responsibility to uphold and enforce the Constitution and their grounds only to decide on the matter. So everyone else needs to take a step back and a deep breath and relax and watch the proceedings with varying levels of interest. If you're so keen to enforce the Constitution then do so by letting the Court do their job rather than provoking an argument in the wrong place.
 
Ok, we can scrap the constitution and resume debate about a new constitution-- the greatest amount of fun for this crowd.

Or, we can scrap the election, and resume having an election-- still fun but less fun

Or, we can redefine that (30 day rule) part of the constitution as a subordinate clause, allowing for administrative leeway. This allows the Electoral commission, CLO, and or supreme court to "respect the will of the people" But this negates its usefulness as an anti raiding device as Gates and the entire Guard probably have 30 days or more total.

Or we could install runners-up recognizing runners up keeps tthe same election and the constitution-- no fun but no problem.

If option number 3 is used, then all bodies should reach a supportive result-- a commission report, RA resolution, CLO decision, Court ruling in general if not specific agreement. This would eliminate the legitimacy problem and create an impossible precident for an invader.

best quote: omgshutup

We can always vote on whether or not we should vote. That sounds fun. _Heft
:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top