Reopened Nominations: Attorney General

The Voting Booth

The Voting Booth

TNPer
-
Reopened Nominations: March 2014 Judicial Election

ec-seal.png

The North Pacific will be electing a Attorney General, to serve until the next election in July.

To run, one must either accept a nomination or simply declare candidacy in this topic. Nominations, acceptances of nominations, and declarations of candidacy must be posted in this topic to be valid. Acceptance of a nomination is understood to also constitute declaration of candidacy (you cannot take someone off the ballot by removing your nomination of them at the last minute). This allows for transparency and clear record keeping. All nominations, declarations of candidacy, or acceptances of nomination are legally required to be posted during the nomination period, which will last for 48 hours from 17 March 2014, 17:00 (05:00 P.M.) GMT until 19 March 2014, 17:00 (05:00 P.M.) GMT.

This topic is intended for nominations and may not be used for campaigning. Please keep in mind that lying about the election is election fraud, and that lying for any purpose is fraud. All Regional Assembly members except those listed below are eligible to be nominated.

Ineligible to be nominated:

Treize Dreizehn
Gracius Maximus
Ator People
Romanoffia
SillyString
Leekem

Accepted

Chasmanthe
Geniva
Empire of Narnia

Nominated

Declined

Election Commissioners: McMasterdonia, Cormac
 
I evidently can not accept a nomination but will accept votes and will serve in the position if elected by RA write-in vote. :)
 
ah man IDK like for serious, I'm still new, and i'm trying to learn and make associates with everyone, I appreciate the offer, its a great oppurtunity, I always figured myself as a lawyery Mr. smith goes to Washington type. and while i think im smart it is more in the my cousin vinney sort of way. (I did take Criminal Justice where I was a lieutenant but that was more private security/police american search and seizure law kinda thing) and while a nomination and being a candidate itsnt a sign i'll win. I'd rather bide my time and get some tenure. I don't want to take the chance to be the n00b who takes a position from a seasoned TNP vet. and I'm still stinging from my failed student council Presidency bid in high school all those years ago....Can I think about it?
 
However my own home nation has informed me if President Washington's Liberty party will not endorse me, the Rent is too damn high party will, should DD not be sarcastic or have some kind of unseen motive other than being funny, and should I decide to accept (Which I haven't yet)
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
i'll quaduple post meerkat! i guess if i want to add something i should edit my first post?
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, please do. Posting more than once in a row is extremely frowned upon in most places unless there's a good reason to do so (like if you're doing one of those fancy forum games with a starting post and a rules post or something)
 
im used to facebook not forums. where its comment stacking. honestly i've never been good on forums and the forums i used to be on where never strict like that. I used to argue on the myspace forums back in the day
that tells my age
 
Yeah, new environments. Multiple posts at one go just look extremely unsightly on forums.

Anyway, less talk here, this place is supposed to be for nominations, not chatting!
 
I'm going to say something that might grind on this whole situation here.

If someone can stand for office only once in an election cycle, it would mean that no one who ran in an election that was re-opened for nominations could be re-nominated.


Hence, by logic, if ten people ran for AG and the nominations were re-opened by the initial voting tally, then it would mean that none of those ten people could be nominated for the re-opening of nominations because they already stood for electing in that 'cycle'.

As a result, no only are the people who were nominated in the first go-around denied their right to stand for office, but the people of the region are denied to vote for the initially eligible candidate of their choice. Think about it.
 
Roman, the law is that people can only stand for one office, not that they can only stand once. So since this is the same office, the original slate of candidates is still eligible to run.

EDIT: Considering that you're a court justice, and this law is currently the subject of three pending reviews, do you really think it's wise to comment on it here? And do you also think it's wise to display your total lack of understanding about the law in the process?
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
I nominate CoE? he does have the gavel. and just got done justicing?...might be cool to watch him square off with his judge replacement
Click to expand...
He declined already, you derp.
 
Wow I have a fan! and its someone i havent had the chance to make mad at me yet! yay!

Edit: what about the meerkat does he wanna run? I was gonna make an asian joke about being stickler for rules, they argue with me over a 1 cent price difference but i'l llet it go cause i like olvern and dont want to possibly offend him or run my fans off

P.S.S I didnt double post!
 
Romanoffia:
I'm going to say something that might grind on this whole situation here.

If someone can stand for office only once in an election cycle, it would mean that no one who ran in an election that was re-opened for nominations could be re-nominated.


Hence, by logic, if ten people ran for AG and the nominations were re-opened by the initial voting tally, then it would mean that none of those ten people could be nominated for the re-opening of nominations because they already stood for electing in that 'cycle'.

As a result, no only are the people who were nominated in the first go-around denied their right to stand for office, but the people of the region are denied to vote for the initially eligible candidate of their choice. Think about it.
Click to expand...
Not quite.

the Law states that a person may only stand for one office during an election cycle. It does not say that they may only stand for office once. There is a subtle difference between the statements.

Since the original nominees are standing for the same office, there is nothing preventing them appearing on the ballot paper more a second time.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Wow I have a fan! and its someone i havent had the chance to make mad at me yet! yay!

Edit: what about the meerkat does he wanna run? I was gonna make an asian joke about being stickler for rules, they argue with me over a 1 cent price difference but i'l llet it go cause i like olvern and dont want to possibly offend him or run my fans off

P.S.S I didnt double post!
Click to expand...
I like this guy.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Someday I want a 6 red star icon... i havent really thought about it...but you know what the heck?..ill accept if only for the lulz.
Click to expand...
Well, you have quite a ways to go before 'earning' that distinction, but glad you want to run for AG. If you were to win I am certain it would make for interesting Court proceedings.
 
I shall just take the time to remind PWL42 that he hasn't accepted/declined his nomination yet. Nominations end in like less than a day!
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
I thought I said yes?

Well thx for the reminder.

For the record and to make it binding I ACCEPT
Click to expand...
It's a good thing that the office of Attorney General doesn't require attention to detail, like whether you actually accepted a nomination or not, for example...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top