Representative Recall

[Curufinwe]

We are supposedly a game of democracy, yet the system we use is riddled with flaws. Someone (myself for example) can be elected with about a third of the vote, and remain in power for amonth, even if the vast majority of the people are against his/her/it having that office. Clearly, that is not a democracy. Therefore, I propose that we instate, formally, the representative recall, whereby the people may remove there deputies and replace them with another of their own choice. The details should, of course, go through much discussion, etc. before this even goes to a poll, and all legal formalities must be followed. I merely am introducing this idea.

If you read our constitution, it states in Article J that : "Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people. The will of the people will be determined through discussion and polls, formal or informal." This, obviously, includes the representative recall. However, it would be prudent to formalize this, so as to remove confusion. I remember a constitutional crisis where a poll requesting the Presidents resignation was put forward and the the president refused to (not naming names, and that's only a rough description, details might be off). Therefore, in the name of democracy, I suggest that we instate the representative recall.

 

[Provolution]

I would add more teeth to the terminology, namely impeachment or vote of confidence.

 

[Immortal]

we have a rule that states that anything not specifically defined is considered constitutional as long as it does not conflict with the other articles, clearly your recall would fall into this catagory but I remind you it is subject to the same quorum as the election for said individual.

 

[Curufinwe]

Thank you immortal, for clarifying the legal point of view. Of course it would always be subject to the Constitution, and I agree with provo that we should add teeth to Article J.

 

[Epimethius]

I've been backing a recall option for a long time. I figure we should make it work like an amendment, so that a majority of the census has to vote for it. But I certainly think its a good idea.

 

[DaveShack]

If article G ever passes setting the term length at 1 month, then a specific mechanism to remove an official would be required in the constitution.

 

[MSTK]

I already campaigned for a Recall Ammendment, but I am a horrible campaigner

 

[Epimethius]

That makes two of us.

 

[Cyc]

At this point in time, there is only one way to remove an elected official from Office. That would be by filing a CC with the Judicial Branch. If the official was found guilty, the trial would move onto the Sentencing Poll, where one of the possible Sentences would be impeachment.

Now if the separate Article and Laws posted in the Article G thread are ratified, 2 more avenues of impeachment would be allowed. One would be a Confirmation Poll posted by any citizen 24 hours after the President has appointed a citizen to an elected Office, the other would be when the Judiciary declared an Office vacant after a Leader failed to post Instructions for two conservative Turn Chats.

At this time, setting up a Representative Recall Poll would not be illegal, but would not carry the same weight as the methods listed above (considering the last two were ratified). A Representative Recall Poll could possibly persuade an Official their best option would be to resign, but could not force them to leave Office. That would require appropriate Legislation.

 

[blackheart]

Representative recall... I don't really like this idea for real life, but in a demogame, what the hey it'll be interesting to see how this pans out. We need to draft an amendment that precisely determines the conditions and requirements of impeachment.

 

[ravensfire]

I'm trying to see the need for this, and failing. Basically, there are two ways that I might wish to see a leader removed - they do something illegal, or they do something foolish.

The illegal action is already handled - file a CC against them, and allow the current process to work. Thus, this situation is covered.

This leaves the "foolish" official. Should we allow an official to remain in office that posts poor instructions? My answer is yes - we elected them (or supported their appointment), we (as citizens) are responsible for our choice. Now, that leader is bound by the WoTP - use THAT to guide and direct the actions of the leader in a better manner. If the leader ignores that, they are posting illegal instructions, file a CC on 'em. Thus, this situation is covered.

This impeachment process won't help anything and will represent a hinderance to the game. We have the means to correct our leader already in our Constitution - let's not burden ourselves with more red-tape to fix something that is already working fine.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

I agree with Ravensfire on this, if a leader is posting foolish instructions which are within WOTP then the people are foolish too and we get what we ask for. If it is against WOTP then the leader can be removed via the existing CC process.

 

[Cyc]

I have to agree with Ravensfire and the President also here. In order for the sentiment of the citizens to grow strong enough to consider impeachment, I would think that the line had already been crossed to induce a CC filing. If it hadn't, then it may or may not be the fault of the Leader, even though that's what it appears to be. I'm hoping the legislation in the Article G thread as acted upon, as it will help firm up this legal area even more.

 

[ravensfire]

I have to agree with Ravensfire and the President also here. In order for the sentiment of the citizens to grow strong enough to consider impeachment, I would think that the line had already been crossed to induce a CC filing. If it hadn't, then it may or may not be the fault of the Leader, even though that's what it appears to be. I'm hoping the legislation in the Article G thread as acted upon, as it will help firm up this legal area even more.

Just waiting for the next term (lower quorum numbers, hopefully!) for Article G and supporting CoL sections.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Black_Hole]

good point RF ,im thinking your right

 

[Civman2004]

Wow - I'm agreeing with Ravensfire!

I worry that the ability for a recall could get political. What's to stop the runner-up in a close election from making a few accusations and having the elected official thrown out. I think officials should run their term, or if they are acting illegally, be thrown out by the judiciary.

 

[Dominik]

People should (and will) suffer for their direct decisions (self explanatory), but they shouldn't for indirect ones, ie. elect a leader, leader makes terrible decisions. There's no way that a large amount of thoughtful citizens can mess up Japanatica enough to demand a new President, the single person themselves woul be responsible.

 

[Dominik]

Also, I think we're missing the point of the first post. Why should 2/3 of Japanatica suffer for the decision of 1/3? (I know that's kinda contradicting the above post, but I wanted to reiterate that point)