|
| RE: Precise results | Justice dal Navâ | January 31, 2005 - 14:04 | | la garçâ malpadert | February 01, 2005 - 03:06 |
|
Parent message | | Justice dal Navâ | January 31, 2005 - 14:04 |
| RE: Precise results(#1046), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], February 01, 2005 - 03:06. Viewed 417 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | > > 1. That Title Two, Article One, Section 6 be amended to read as follows:
> > " No person may be re-elected to more than two consecutive terms as President."
> >
> > PASSED by 9 votes to 2..
>
> It's anti-democratic.
Firstly, an 82% majority in a referendum is plenty democratic. :) Secondly, the whole representative government system is not-quite-democratic - and a Senate, which you love, is almost explicitly counter-democratic. But we're doing it anyway because it's fun. If we were going to be purely democratic, we'd keep going with the current "Direct Democracy / PGC" system.
> Keeping the people from selecting anyone who is eligible and is who they want is flat-out anti democratic.
But... you voted *against* Amendments 6, 7 and 8!
Miestrâ Schivâ
"The Republic's Most Articulate Spokeswhatever" - R. B. Madison
A slave begins by demanding justice, and ends by wanting to wear a crown. |
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | January 31, 2005 - 17:37 |
|
Parent message | | Justice dal Navâ | January 31, 2005 - 14:04 |
| RE: Precise results(#1035), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], January 31, 2005 - 17:37. Viewed 353 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | > > 1. That Title Two, Article One, Section 6 be amended to read as follows:
> > " No person may be re-elected to more than two consecutive terms as President."
> >
> > (moved by Ián Anglatzarâ; seconded by Martì-Páir Furxhéir.)
> >
> > PASSED by 9 votes to 2.. Voting for: Schivâ, Kelley, Furxhéir, Angaltzarâ, Lowry, Vercária, Cooper, Higraff, Verbotten. Voting against: Valcádac'h, Gruber.
>
> It's anti-democratic. Keeping the people from selecting anyone who is eligible and is who they want is flat-out anti-democratic.
But the amended §2.1.6 says that after two terms as President said President isn't elegible any more.
Looking at an amendmend that did not sail through, it's quite perfect that eligibility is restricted in case of President elections. How is it more anti-democratic to prevent somehow eternal Presidencies than to prevent Presidencies of people that just became citizens of the Republic?
Let's live with it, since it's the decision of majorities those who voted on the proposed amendments.
- D. N. Vercáriâ |
|
| | Justice dal Navâ | January 31, 2005 - 19:23 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | January 31, 2005 - 17:37 |
| RE: Precise results(#1039), posted by Justice dal Navâ, [IP Hidden], January 31, 2005 - 19:23. Viewed 334 times. |
|
Justice dal Navâ
Group: admins
(5222 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 13:43)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | > > > 1. That Title Two, Article One, Section 6 be amended to read as follows:
> > > " No person may be re-elected to more than two consecutive terms as President."
> > >
> > > (moved by Ián Anglatzarâ; seconded by Martì-Páir Furxhéir.)
> > >
> > > PASSED by 9 votes to 2.. Voting for: Schivâ, Kelley, Furxhéir, Angaltzarâ, Lowry, Vercária, Cooper, Higraff, Verbotten. Voting against: Valcádac'h, Gruber.
> >
> > It's anti-democratic. Keeping the people from selecting anyone who is eligible and is who they want is flat-out anti-democratic.
>
> But the amended §2.1.6 says that after two terms as President said President isn't elegible any more.
>
> Looking at an amendmend that did not sail through, it's quite perfect that eligibility is restricted in case of President elections. How is it more anti-democratic to prevent somehow eternal Presidencies than to prevent Presidencies of people that just became citizens of the Republic?
"Perpetual presidencies?" Do you honestly think that the people of the Republic will keep someone in power forever? And if they do, is that not the prerogative of the voters to choose who they want, if that person is eligible?
However, putting restrictions on newbies wanting to run for the presidency is completely consistent with democratic ideals. It doesn't say "You can never do this," it just says "You can't do this for a while." Barring re-election of a president past that one chance is a Never Again proposition. And therefore, undemocratic.
> Let's live with it, since it's the decision of majorities those who voted on the proposed amendments.
I'll live with it, but I will also complain. :-)
--------------------------------------
E isc al Arendra del Bún Úr. Fáden es fóclan gleðen fer brach. El Bún Úr fólat ëtfin cún sino synt prepar. Cún þis paset, þa omin isc fólen. Es lyþ was sár. -- vól Cúliðlaþ
Chirischtôval Curt Cavéir,
Dean of the Republic of Talossa
|
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | January 31, 2005 - 19:58 |
|
Parent message | | Justice dal Navâ | January 31, 2005 - 19:23 |
| RE: Precise results(#1041), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], January 31, 2005 - 19:58. Viewed 339 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber |
> However, putting restrictions on newbies wanting to run for the presidency is completely consistent with democratic ideals. It doesn't say "You can never do this," it just says "You can't do this for a while." Barring re-election of a president past that one chance is a Never Again proposition. And therefore, undemocratic.
Oops. Now I see what you mean. Anyway I understood the amendment like "you can't do this for a while", or more precisely, like "after two consecutive terms it's time to time to stand down for at least one term". If someone proves that indeed this amendment is a "never again" clause, then we should possibly try to amend the amendment.
- D. N. Vercáriâ |
|
| | President Anglatzarâ | February 01, 2005 - 02:46 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | January 31, 2005 - 19:58 |
| RE: Precise results(#1044), posted by President Anglatzarâ, [IP Hidden], February 01, 2005 - 02:46. Viewed 447 times. |
|
President Anglatzarâ
Group: admins
(3194 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 07:21)
Citizen #2:
Chris Gruber | The amendment only stops presidents from sitting three terms in a row, nothing else.
--
 |
|
|
|
