Elections for Term 3 President

[donsig]

actually, the secretary of state(acting as president since the office is vacant) has appointed nobody(the person) to fill the role of Chief Justice, I have already pm'd the new members of the court requesting a review of the situation.

Well, this is news. I must havemissed the acting president's call for interested citizens to contact her. Anyone care to direct me to that announcement?

 

[Strider]

Well, this is news. I must havemissed the acting president's call for interested citizens to contact her. Anyone care to direct me to that announcement?

The Secretary of state only has the power to "appoint" a citizen to the Presidential poistion, also, that is only if the poistion is vacant for one of the following reasons:

A Vacancy occurs when an office is empty due to the office holder resigning, judicial action, impeachment, if no citizen ran for election for that office or when a new office is created.

While yes, it doesn't leave out the option for this type of circumstance, but that would take a Judicial review. However, we are still missing our Chief Justice.

Talk about a circle, we go round and round and round.

 

[Curufinwe]

I would see no reason why the words "contested election", or something to that effect, could not be read into that section, by the judiciary of course.

 

[Swissempire]

I, as duly choosen Censor of the Licentian Republic, have made my decision. While 2 presidents would be cool, i am a triumvirate loyalist, and this would creating a semi-quad-umvirate, which is to say, soemthing really wierd. I also am making my desection based on framers intent. Seeing as i was one of the framers i am going to post a 48 hour poll to decide the outcome. If this runoff produces a tie, i am mandating a Judicial Review as to decide where to procede with this.


All who argue with the Great and Glorious Censor, will be shot( with arrows!)

Goodday!

 

[robboo]

All who argue with the Great and Glorious Censor, will be shot( with arrows!)

What are these arrows you speak of..can we use them in the war department.

 

[Chillaxation]

I, as duly choosen Censor of the Licentian Republic, have made my decision. While 2 presidents would be cool, i am a triumvirate loyalist, and this would creating a semi-quad-umvirate, which is to say, soemthing really wierd. I also am making my desection based on framers intent. Seeing as i was one of the framers i am going to post a 48 hour poll to decide the outcome. If this runoff produces a tie, i am mandating a Judicial Review as to decide where to procede with this.

All who argue with the Great and Glorious Censor, will be shot( with arrows!)

Goodday!

I, for my part, proposed this solution with the intent to expedite matters - and to avert a further delay in the event of a second tie. I think that if the assembly had been more in favor of the idea, I'm sure there would be calls for a referendum on the election rather than calls for a run-off.

Might I say - to anyone who's still listening - that initiative proposals like this are at the heart of, and unopposed to, the triumvirate government? That phrases concerning "elections, as further defined by law" are designed to allow people to make proposals like this?

I welcome criticism of the spirit or manner in which this fix was conceived or proposed. I discussed this proposal with my opponent, in propriety and with respect for our game's electoral processes, as a compromise resolution for a difficult situation.

 

[donsig]

Might I say - to anyone who's still listening - that initiative proposals like this are at the heart of, and unopposed to, the triumvirate government? That phrases concerning "elections, as further defined by law" are designed to allow people to make proposals like this?

The reality is that, to some extent, elections are already further defined by law. It is proper and within the spirit of the game to suggest innovative ways to deal with unforseen situations but established rules - our laws - cannot be ignored when these suggestions are made. There is an established law that states we have as many run-offs as needed. As that law is already on the books it must be adhered to until it is legally amended. The suggestion for co-presidents can certainly be explored with an eye towards changing our current laws but it cannot be used to by-pass the law that currently exists.

 

[Curufinwe]

Bar, of course, interpretation that says otherwise donsig, the judiciary has not spoken.

 

[Whomp]

Chill would it be possible to have Strider execute his programs under the office of the President? This seems to be a reasonable solution to me.

 

[Chillaxation]

The reality is that, to some extent, elections are already further defined by law. It is proper and within the spirit of the game to suggest innovative ways to deal with unforseen situations but established rules - our laws - cannot be ignored when these suggestions are made. There is an established law that states we have as many run-offs as needed. As that law is already on the books it must be adhered to until it is legally amended. The suggestion for co-presidents can certainly be explored with an eye towards changing our current laws but it cannot be used to by-pass the law that currently exists.

Respectfully: bypass was never considered, by me (or, I believe, by my opponent) even for a moment. There was not and has not been an instant at which this solution, however innovative, was conceived simply for the purpose of circumventing the law.

Regarding the moment at which we must or must not change the law: It is whenever the assembly decides it is necessary. Indeed we have a constitutionally established procedure for elections. In addition, the assembly has the ability to convey upon anyone, through recall or initiative, the power delegated by the assembly to anyone else. It also has the ability to pass an amendment. "Until it is legally amended" was exactly the condition upon which the proposal for a co-presidency depended.

One's interpretation of the discussion from this point onward - as to whether it is most proper quickly to propose and to enact such an amendment, or to follow established procedure in spite of its shortcomings - is a matter of taste, not of law. Were I, as you suggest, to propose such a change occur outside of the assembly, it would be highly improper, and the change itself illegal. And as it is, our capable censor has seen fit to place a run-off on the ballots. Again, had my opponent's and my idea had more support, it would not have been illegal for it to be referred to the assembly and passed. Legislatures, like executives and judges, can act in arising situations.

 

[Chillaxation]

Chill would it be possible to have Strider execute his programs under the office of the President? This seems to be a reasonable solution to me.

To speak, perhaps too late, as a candidate - if I am elected president I will oppose policies and programs that impede the execution of my own mandate. I would, if elected, have a responsibility first to the people who voted for me to implement my platform, and I have to say that I refuse to promise anything else.

To speak personally, Whomp - on the one hand it really would be preposterous to imagine that I could "keep Strider from" doing what he wants to do, and nowhere in my platform does it say "19. Keep Strider from working on the RPG." Honestly, as differently as I and my opponent see the relative importance of what we each stress in our platforms, I do respect his enthusiasm and willingness to work. On the other hand, I'll have the responsibility as president, if elected, to oppose anything that gets in the way of my platform. That will go for everyone else as well as my opponent, who at that point should be treated as respectfully as any other citizen by every member of government. If his personal involvement coincides and synergizes with mine - the better for everyone. If it doesn't, I will have a responsibility to those who elected me to oppose him.

As a citizen, I would expect any elected official - including my opponent if he is elected - to do the same thing.

Reflecting personally on my attitude towards the office: even in the co-presidency arrangement I proposed with Strider, I fully expected that differences between our platforms would have to be ironed out by negotiation when they came up. For better or worse, if elected, I won't have to use whatever diplomatic abilities I have within the office, but with those outside of it.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[Whomp]

That's interesting Chill and what it tells me is a co-presidency would never work. Gridlock at its best. You have your agenda and Strider has his.

With that said, I think you should execute your platform and if you agree with some of Strider's ideas, say for example organizing the stickys, then let him run with that. Just a thought.

 

[Strider]

That's interesting Chill and what it tells me is a co-presidency would never work. Gridlock at its best. You have your agenda and Strider has his.

The co-presidency could have easily worked, my agenda was completely differant from Chill's agenda. Also, it's not like there will be much confrontation anyway. Everything will be decided by the citizens, one way or the other.

 

[donsig]

Regarding the moment at which we must or must not change the law: It is whenever the assembly decides it is necessary.

...

One's interpretation of the discussion from this point onward - as to whether it is most proper quickly to propose and to enact such an amendment, or to follow established procedure in spite of its shortcomings - is a matter of taste, not of law. Were I, as you suggest, to propose such a change occur outside of the assembly, it would be highly improper, and the change itself illegal.

Even the assembly cannot pass ex post facto laws. When judging the legality of an action the laws in effect at the time of the action are used as the criteria. My point was merely that innovative solutions cannot be used if the law addresses the *problem*. IMO the constitution and CoL prohibit a co-presidency and so my remarks that such a device would by-pass our laws. I never meant this as an accusation that you or Strider wanted to knowingly by-pass laws. I only meant to point out that before making new suggestions the current law should be looked. If there is no law covering the suggestion then it is quite appropriate to try implementing an innovation whithout formally getting the assembly to pass a law.

 

[Swissempire]

This is where the power of the exectutive and legislaqtive can come in handy. First, we need a CD on the matter. After that, the Assembly can vote for an amendment to allow them to pass laws. Other choice, Chill is using the yet unused power executive leglation. according to the contsttionThe President has all powers not expressly given to another official and not retained by the Citizens Assembly.
. Stemming from that you could create an optional co-presidency, or even give that power to the citiziens. Since no one yet has legalative power, you get it.

P.S. I could have sworn there was something about something called a decree, that the president could use to create new offices, but that seems to have disapppeared

 

[DaveShack]

From CoL, the section on the cabinet:

1. Changes in the Offices of the Cabinet.

A. The Triumvirate may Decree a change in powers or offices of the Cabinet.
B. All Officials who are affected by a Decree must consent to it for the Decree to become official.
C. Any Citizen may within 72 hours of the Official Decree start a non-conformation Poll. Should said poll be approved the Decree will not take place.
D. Any changes done by Decree are in effect only during the term in which the Decree was made. To make the changes permanent an Amendment must be approved.​