Constitutional Article Proposition: Article P

[MSTK]

Well, I'm bored. And I decided that I wanted to make a difference!

Article P - All elected officials must step down from their post if a recall is
            passed because of general miscontent with the officials' actions.
            Recall must be proposed by a statement and passed by a poll
            opened for at least 72 hours, posted by the target official.  If the
            recall may pass with a 2/3 majority, the citizens of Japanatica have
            are obligated to the task of selecting a new holder of the empty
            position through the nomination and election process, in the same
            manner as if an official had been absent for two weeks.

I don't actually expect it to pass, but I'd like to make a difference. That's why I moved to this country.

[marconos]

I would suggest that you make it a super majority for the recall to pass ... 2/3rds of voting citizens must agree. As well it should be a matter presented to the governors to decide if the action is warranted.

[MSTK]

Originally Posted by marconos

I would suggest that you make it a super majority for the recall to pass ... 2/3rds of voting citizens must agree. As well it should be a matter presented to the governors to decide if the action is warranted.

Thanks

I added that.

Do you think there's any chance of it being passed?

[Cyc]

So what you're saying is that Article P would require any Official to step down from their current Office if any citizen were to post a statement in the Official's thread demanding a recall that turned out to be successful. When the citizen demands a recall of the Official, said Official must post the recall poll against themselves. The recall poll must be open for 72 hours, achieve 2/3 of the active census' support, and if successful, the citizen's method of replacing the Official would match the impeachment/absenteeism method. Is that more or less what you're saying?

[DaveShack]

The concept has some merit, but by the time all this has happened it's time for elections again. This is why there have been some suggestions that the judiciary have the power to rule that instructions are contrary to the will of the people, and post replacement instructions if the official refuses to change them.

(donsig is now falling off his chair -- yes I've been listening )

[Immortal]

a recall is protected by the article mentioning any action not defined in the constitution is lawful

[Civman2004]

The wording seems a little bizzare to me "If the recall may pass with a 2/3 majority, the citizens of Japanatica have are obligated to the task of selecting a new holder of the empty..." I would consider changing it to "The recall may be considered passed if a 2/3 majority approve it. In the event that the recall passes, the citizens of Japanatica are obligated to select a new person to fill the empty..." or something like that. But on the other hand, why do we have deputies, if not to fill in when something goes wrong with the initial leader?

I'd also change "two weeks" to "the applicable period" or something, otherwise when if we change that part of the constitution, this part becomes outdated.

Is it worth changing "recall" to "vote of no confidence"? or something like that?

One other suggestion: I'd make the poll have to be posted by the target official or the president. If I was confident of losing, I'd be inclined tempted to not post the poll personally.

The concept is a good one though - sorry if this post sounds critical - it's not meant to be, just a few ideas to tighten it up.

[Black_Hole]

this just makes it easier for offices to go vacant, if really need be you can CC that leader
the way this is set up, there doesnt nessecarily have to be a reason to boot the leader, a CC is much better(tho it might take longer)

[Comnenus]

Originally Posted by Black_Hole

this just makes it easier for offices to go vacant, if really need be you can CC that leader
the way this is set up, there doesnt nessecarily have to be a reason to boot the leader, a CC is much better(tho it might take longer)

Just one point here.

Veterans here sling acronyms around like there was no tomorrow. Those of us new to the game haven't got a clue what you are talking about (speaking for myself, at least). Can we at least have a list of acronyms somewhere? I am always asking what such and such means.

BTW, what does "CC" mean?

[Bobby Lee]

I concur with Comnenus, we need a list of acronyms. I also see no problem with this.
*mumbles under his breath "Though I still say this would be better with a Senate"*

[zorven]

CC = Citizen Complaint; a judicial procedure that accuses someone of wrongdoing.

If we do recalls, I would consider having the judiciary post the recall poll and if it is successful, normal rules apply for filling the vacancy.

[MSTK]

Argh. OH well. No passing.

[Epimethius]

How did governors get into this? The idea of the recall is to make the system more democratic by letting the people hold a vote of no confidence. This makes sure that the official will actually do the will of the people, rather than saying one thing and doing another. I don't see any reason at all why the governors of all people should need to approve such an action. I don't see why anyone should. Its the people, not a bunch of officials, who would be doing this.