| Changing Recall Procedures |
I'm against the two-thirds threshold - it's not consistent with the rest of our laws. Likewise, we're just pushing the 2/3rd compromise because one guy kept his job that some influential people didn't like. That's very poor lawmaking.
We often have reached 75% for constitutional amendments - it isn't impossible. If you don't reach 75%, you shouldn't be able to argue that someone has grossly broke the PUBLIC's trust. I for one do not think G-R did. (10-03-2014, 04:31 PM)Unibot Wrote: I'm against the two-thirds threshold - it's not consistent with the rest of our laws. Likewise, we're just pushing the 2/3rd compromise because one guy kept his job that some influential people didn't like. That's very poor lawmaking. I agree with Tsu and Uni on this point. I think recalls and constitutional admendments should have a 75% threshold. I dont want recalls to be used as a political weapon. And no, in democracys you dont see many recalls. In fact most troubled politicians dont get recalled and many end up being reelected. Ummm Toronto mayor springs to mind, that coke head D.C mayor, oh and i believe a certain Manuel Noriega got elected prez After serving jail time in the US. Recalls should be for gross misconduct, dereliction of duties, etc.....not just referedums on the current mood of the electorate.
Apad
King of Haldilwe (10-03-2014, 04:31 PM)Unibot Wrote: I'm against the two-thirds threshold - it's not consistent with the rest of our laws. Likewise, we're just pushing the 2/3rd compromise because one guy kept his job that some influential people didn't like. That's very poor lawmaking. 75% is a ridiculously high level of consensus, again just because it is a consistently ridiculous high level of consensus does not mean it is a good idea. I am not in favor of reducing the level of support because one guy kept his job - I am in favor of reducing the level of support needed because the current level is unnecessarily high and supposes a level of consensus that is nearly unobtainable and is not healthy. I would suggest it is poor lawmaking to say "oh look we have this arbitrarily very high level of support needed across the board so let's just stay there" but I wouldn't want to insult the lawmaking abilities of any members here. I do emphasize that a 3/4 majority is very high for a recall vote and even a 2/3 majority is much more sensible. (10-03-2014, 05:08 PM)Apad Wrote:(10-03-2014, 04:31 PM)Unibot Wrote: I'm against the two-thirds threshold - it's not consistent with the rest of our laws. Likewise, we're just pushing the 2/3rd compromise because one guy kept his job that some influential people didn't like. That's very poor lawmaking. And if we are going to go with RL examples, what is the process for removing the President of the United States? Or a Senator from the Senate? It's a 2/3 majority. As is removing a Supreme Court Justice. Etc. etc.
Part of the whole recall process is to persuade other people to your point-of-view. If you aren't willing to put in the effort to rally your team, then don't play the game.
(10-03-2014, 05:17 PM)TAC Wrote: Part of the whole recall process is to persuade other people to your point-of-view. If you aren't willing to put in the effort to rally your team, then don't play the game. What.. does that have to do with my point though? If anything, this idea of 'persuasion' being a significant part of gameplay goes out the window when you have SUCH a high bar to recall - lowering that bar would actually see the 'middle ground' be more influential. Now, hardliners who comprise 25% of the region can prevent even the most outrageous actions from resulting in a recall. How does it make sense that 1/4 of the region can prevent a terrible official from being recalled?
(10-03-2014, 04:31 PM)Unibot Wrote: I'm against the two-thirds threshold - it's not consistent with the rest of our laws. Likewise, we're just pushing the 2/3rd compromise because one guy kept his job that some influential people didn't like. That's very poor lawmaking. Seriously Unibot -- you need to stop these insults. You and GR are two of the most influential people in this region -- especially given how people turn out to support both of you -- so this slander is silly. It's inappropriate and unbecoming of the chair. I'd be willing to go with 66%. 75% is *really* high, especially when we have such few people voting. If we only have 24 votes, that means seven people can stop a recall. Similarly, if there's only 20 people voting, six people can block it. The percentages get highly out of whack when there is a small electorate.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |