Users browsing this thread:

Punchwood · 10-04-2014, 07:40 AM

(10-03-2014, 06:06 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:
(10-03-2014, 05:53 PM)Punchwood Wrote: I still stand by what I say recalls should only happen if someone has broken the law or harmed TSP.

Which leads us to a whole new set of problems regarding what 'harming' TSP means. It's pretty obvious that the people who supported the recalls of Glen and Unibot believed that they harmed TSP, so your proposal is a good solution. I trust the Assembly is mature enough to know when someone actually deserves to be recalled, without having to overlegislate that.

Wow, I actually used the overlegislation argument. I feel old now.

By harming TSP I mean damaging TSP's foreign relationships or braking the law.

Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member
Former Minister of Regional Affairs
Former High Court Justice

Punchwood · 10-04-2014, 07:43 AM

If the Assembly wants to change how much the recall requirement is then I would support 66%. Two thirds is a majority it's possible to reach but it's not too low so people can't just call recalls to get rid of people they don't like.

Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member
Former Minister of Regional Affairs
Former High Court Justice

***sandaoguo*** · 10-04-2014, 08:12 AM

There's an underlying issue here that's being hidden by this disagreement on thresholds. We're disagreeing on thresholds because of how difficult or easy they are to achieve politically. Honestly, I think 60% or 66% is too low in this environment, and it would just make it easier for political opponents to use recalls as backdoor elections. If we're going to do that, let's just go straight to a challenge election system -- if you want to recall an official, you better be prepared to run for their seat.

Anyways, because of the political stakes, I don't think there's going to be an agreement, and that means the legitimacy of recalls will be challenged. What we should do is take politics out of it. We do that by having actual reasons for recalls, and not allowing people to lodge them for whatever reasons they want. Take competitive politics out of the equation.

southern bellz · 10-04-2014, 09:46 AM

I don't support 2/3s at all. A recall isn't meant to be another election, it's supposed to be a mechanism to throw someone out of office. That needs a high threshold, especially in an environment where people are getting elected around 50% margins. Both Unibot and GR have brought up multiple good points here.

I do think it should be easy to start a recall because this process has made it clear that we disagree that where the line is drawn. If someone feels that the line has been drawn, I think it is legitimate to discuss it and hold a vote that is difficult to reach threshold.

Ultimately, I have to say if you don't like how Unibot or GR do things, beat them in an election. Despite disagreeing with them more than I do agree with them, they both deserve their office right now.

~~Unibot~~ · 10-06-2014, 01:22 PM

This amendment has passed 10-9. Reaching the 50+1% threshold with 52.6%. for passage.