| Executive action: Contested election |
Well, there is a new Cabinet that will be in place next month for all those whinging about the current Cabinet. That said, as a member of the incoming Cabinet, I probably do agree with the decision made here. What they did may not be entirely legal or it may be, haven't looked into it either way to check. As the matter is before the courts though, it makes sense to me to wait for them to rule on the matter in an election that has an uncertain winner.
It comes down to another grey area in legislation, what happens if a candidate appeals an election result. I can see both sides, as to whether the "legally" elected candidate takes the role immediately, as this legality is questioned in multiple ways. As this is a first, and hopefully last time something like this occurs, I prefer waiting on the courts rulings then legislating to ensure a similar situation is covered. It may not be entirely fair on Wolf, but as far as I can tell, the votes are not yet legally confirmed due to the various appeals. I am not sure how it works in other countries, but here the new government/member is not officially in power until all the necessary legal boxes are ticked, which includes waiting on any vote recounts etc. As for the decision on having three people undertake the role in the meantime, I am a bit undecided, and possibly opposed, but I do support the general process here of waiting for the courts decision to ensure legitimacy of the MoFA result. Would type more, but running late for a meeting at work. Later.
The Cabinet went around the Assembly where the amount of support needed for this didn't exist. This was a huge power grab and was done knowing that it would be hard to get the 75% vote to overturn it.
I fail to see how this is a power grab or how this is a violation of any law. The election for Minister of Foreign Affairs is contested and pending before the High Court. The Cabinet has announced that it will wait until the Court clarifies all issues, before officially recognizing any single candidate as Foreign Minister. I see that as responsible behaviour, not as a power grab.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Except this goes against what is established in law, viewable in The Election Law. As I have asked several times, I shall ask again: where exactly does this law not exist? The Election Law, while not 100% specific, clearly outlines the election process from start to finish. No elected official should be barred from the seat of his or her office because the Cabinet did not like the vote outcome or did not agree with it. This is compounded by the fact that the courts have slowly lost power during the reign of this cabinet.
Furthermore, the executive action was not intended to give the Cabinet limitless power in the government. The executive action was never meant to be used as a "well, it doesn't say we can't do what we want" clause." That's anarchy. Not only that, but it subverts the democractic process of The South Pacific, stifles the Assembly, and impedes the courts. It essentially reduces everyone who is not in the cabinet to that of an advice-giver. So, seeing as the cabinet can now make whatever isn't specifically stated in the Charter the equivalent of law, we groundlings humbly advise the Cabinet to consider hopefully maybe quite possibly The Charter and allow citizens to create the laws. We understand our process of forming laws is kind of slow, but it involves the most input from other citizens in the region, citizens who are attempting to follow the Charter to the best of their ability. This is ridiculous, irresponsible behavior by the cabinet that absolutely should be reversed, one way or another.
This is still a relevant part of the problem. This is the part you keep ignoring Todd. READ IT!!!
Quote:Article 4 - Election Commission Again, this all stems from: Citizenship Removal The EC discounting a vote No amount of complaining will achieve what you seek.
"Elections will be run" seems rather cut-and-dry to me. Hileville ran them. Hileville ensured the vote counts were correct. Hileville verified the votes of citizens and found one to be in error. Therefore, Hileville declared a winner. The cabinet, especially the outgoing cabinet where a clear Conflict of Interest exists, is not mentioned in this process. Administrators can be EC's, provided they are not running in the elections, but that right was forfeited when Hileville was declared an EC.
Todd McCloud Wrote:Hileville verified the votes of citizens and found one to be in error. And that's what has everyone calling shenanigans. Whether or not Hileville (as EC) had the legal authority to invalidate the vote (which coincidentally completely turned the tide of the election.)
(03-30-2015, 06:27 PM)Hileville Wrote: The Cabinet went around the Assembly where the amount of support needed for this didn't exist. This was a huge power grab and was done knowing that it would be hard to get the 75% vote to overturn it. Wtf are you overturning? It's an executive action — not something that can be overturned, unless the Assembly wants to change the law. Again — we have no laws dealing with contested votes or contested elections. We can cite the election law all we want, but the clauses we need aren't going to magically appear there. If the Assembly wants to deal with this, they can. I would be more than happy to allow them to decide this outcome. Heck — I would be happy to allow ANYONE to decide this.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
This is really, really messed up. How does the cabinet not understand that there are election laws, and per those laws, Wolf is the MoFA. The cabinet doesn't have the power to invalidate election results that were established by the charter and laws passed by the assembly. Executive policy can't contradict the charter, and anything but abiding by our election results is in violation of your power.
If this is how the cabinet wants to act, I will work on taking away powers given to them in good faith and basically abused. You don't choose the election results, we do.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
(03-31-2015, 09:08 AM)southern bellz Wrote: This is really, really messed up. How does the cabinet not understand that there are election laws, and per those laws, Wolf is the MoFA. The cabinet doesn't have the power to invalidate election results that were established by the charter and laws passed by the assembly. Executive policy can't contradict the charter, and anything but abiding by our election results is in violation of your power. SB — No one is taking anything away from Wolf. As I've now said repeatedly, I want him to be sat with the full faith of region so I'm asking for a couple days for the court to rule. EDIT: Actually, the problem is that we don't know what the election results are. Instead of grandstanding about how "you choose the election results" work on clarifying the election law. That's more in the region's interest than threatening the Cabinet.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |