Discussion: Amedment - Impeachment

[jdjdjd]

OK, we had decided to leave Impeachment out of the Amendment for the Court, now lets get back to it.

The constitution currently reads, assuming I got it from the right place, we should probably have a thread with it posted and then all the amendments posted after it, and then have it topped, perhaps the new court can have that done...but anyway I digress....
It reads

Impeachment:
All members of our great nation are recognized the right to bring foreword the issue of impeachment of any government official at any time.

A poll will be posted which will expire in no less than 5 days. There are to be three poll options, yea, nay, and abstain. Upon the expiration of the poll, if 2/3 of the people who voted deem impeachment necessary, then the official shall be immediately removed from office. The President shall establish an emergency member to take his/her place until a new election can be held, and a new person voted into office to finish the term. The same holds true for any possible resignations.

Much discussion was made about possibly having the court or the ministers get involved involved in the process before the people vote. The good thing about the above is that it uses the word official, which could be broadly interpreted to mean judge, minister, pres or vp.

So does this need to change?

I think that perhaps we may want some group to rule out frivilous cases, before they go to the people.

Lets discuss.....

[jdjdjd]

This was my proposal during the discussion of the High Court, leaving an option for the people to bypass the govt, should they feel politics is being played....it probably needs revisions.

"This amendment will hereby set the rules of impeachment for all officials of the governement in an elected or appointed post, and limited to these positions, President, Vice President, Justice of the High Court, and Minister. This amendment shall override any prior rules on Impeachment and the Removal of an official from office mentioned in the Code of Laws.

1. Any citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an official to the President or Vice President, who then must poll the Ministers.

2. Should a majority agree, the case is then presented to the High Court, and the President or his dedignee will make the case for impeachment, and the defendent or his designee may present his defense.

3. The High Court will review the case and by vote of a simple majority can approve the case is with merit and to be brought to the people.

4. The general populace will then review the case and vote for removal from office of the defendant. This requires a 2/3 vote.

5. Should the general populace feel an official is being protected for political reasons, they may by referendum (a vote of the general populace), vote to impeach a party by a 75% margin, and therefore bypass the Minister's Vote and the Court's ruling. Then prosecution and defense arguments may be presented directly to the public, who then must agree by 67% vote to remove the official from office. "

[Akron]

There are to be three poll options, yea, nay, and abstain.

Why do we need an abstain option? Would you need a 2/3 majority of yeas among the people who didn't abstain or among all the people who voted? If the former, then abstaining will mean that the percentages given on the poll will be meaningless since you'll have calculate them again. If the latter, then an abstain vote is effectively a nay vote. I suggest that people who want to abstain can just not vote.

[Ninot]

lol.. this thread scared me there for a second.

good ammendment, i feel the original CAN be more detailed.

[Epistax]

Yes you do need an abstain. If you don't have an abstain, then someone can be impeached with far less than 2/3's the vote.

An abstaining IS the same in this case as saying nay, however there is still a difference in the choice.


--- oh, and the president gets to issue his own replacement? I think the VP should replace the president if he/she is impeached, and the old VP should pick a new VP.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Epistax
Yes you do need an abstain. If you don't have an abstain, then someone can be impeached with far less than 2/3's the vote.

An abstaining IS the same in this case as saying nay, however there is still a difference in the choice.


--- oh, and the president gets to issue his own replacement? I think the VP should replace the president if he/she is impeached, and the old VP should pick a new VP.

i completely agree, if the prez should EVER have to vacate his job for any reason, there shouldnt be an election untill the normal period, it should immeadiately be the VP's job unless he cant do it

this is to expediate the process so nothing doesnt get done when there is trouble.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Epi - it has always been the case that the VP takes the Prez's job where they are unable to complete it - ie through resignation, disappearance or impeachment. We would however need a new election for VP in this event. You might think that an election for a new Prez is preferable, and the VP is Prez for a limited time, but think on this.

Elections for any position other than the Prez are short. The Prez, however, need to be entrusted with all sorts of things from playing the game, to posting saves, official polls, updating webpages (maybe) etc etc, and choosing such a person in the middle of a term would take some time to do properly, and result in us perhaps having 3 separate Presidents over the course of 1 month! It is much easier to have the VP assume the Prez;s job for the rest of the term, and elect a new VP. It is much less likely that TWO President would quit in the same month.

EDIT: Reading Ninot's post above, I quite agree. This way the game continues whilst the election of the new VP takes place.

[Kloreep]

Why involve the ministers in the process? IMO, impeachment should be solely the business of the Court and the people. While ministers, do, of course, need to follow rules, they are elected for their knowledge and experience in things Civ.

Not that I wouldn't trust our current ministers with having such a major say in impeachments, but I'd like to be able to vote on future ministers based on their Civ expertise only.

[civman2000]

. Keep all power to impeach with the people.

[jdjdjd]

Good point Epi, we would need to add that in the amendment re: replacement of the official who was ousted.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Akron


Why do we need an abstain option? Would you need a 2/3 majority of yeas among the people who didn't abstain or among all the people who voted? If the former, then abstaining will mean that the percentages given on the poll will be meaningless since you'll have calculate them again. If the latter, then an abstain vote is effectively a nay vote. I suggest that people who want to abstain can just not vote.

I'm not sure why abstain was included, and I'm not sure why some one would vote abstain here, since you might as well vote no, if you are not convinved the official needs to be ousted. But if they don't vote, then it alters the math, for example:

if 10 people vote, 6 yes, 3 no and one abstain, then there is not a 2/3 vote, its only 60% (6/10). If the abstain decided not to vote, then it would be 6 yes, 3 no, and 2/3 is reached, 6/9 or 67%.

That is why there is a difference between not voting and abstaining, but I agree with you an abstain is essentially a no vote.

[Apocalypse]

With the current system, a minority of voters can keep a corrupt official in. The judges would not be as biased.

[Spiffor]

I think our current system is better than jdjdjd's proposal. Here is why :
Jd's proposal creates several layers of decision before impeachment is said (cabinet -> court -> people, OR people 75%). All these layers will slow down, or even hinder impeachment. In no way, they can accelerate or favor the impeachment process. That's why I think these are layers of protection (even if I'm sure jdjdjd has good intentions)

We'd still need the 2/3 majority of the people with jd's proposal. This means, Apocalypse, that a minority could still keep a corrupt official into power.

And, to bypass these layers of protection, we would need an outstanding 75% majority. Maybe you'll say "oh, it's only 12% more, it's very reasonable". But having a 75% majority is much harder than a 2/3 majority. For 2/3, every naysayer must be compensated by 2 yeasayers ; with 75%, the same naysayer must be compensated by 3 yeasayers. That's 50% more. That means an even tinier minority can keep someone in power, should the administration be corrupt.

We have a simple and efficient way to get rid of our corrupt / unable officials for now. Adding layers of bureaucracy (giving the corrupt one some power against his own impeachment , don't forget officials get to nominate judges, and the corrupt official will have his say in the first layer) will only make it harder to get rid of the black sheep.
With our system, someone must be deemed "bad" by a huge majority (2/3rds) before getting fired. This is enough of a guarantee that valuable or tolerable ministers won't be fired.

Should I amend our current system, I'd keep it simple :

All members of our great nation are recognized the right to bring foreword the issue of impeachment of any justice (instead of a government official) at any time.

[Sheik]

Anyone should be able to post an impeachment poll and it should require 2/3 to impeach. An impeachment poll should have no abstain option. This should apply to all government officials.

[Kramerman]

I think impeachment should be handled soley by the high court and the people, leaving the ministers out of it. The best system would be for the judges to either impeach or not impeach by a 4/5 vote (If somebody is gonna be impeached, I think it is a big deal and the vote should be almost unanimous) and the people ontop of this must have a 2/3 vote in favor of removal to do so. If the court impeaches, but the public doesn't remove, than the official stays in office, like Bill Clinton, who was impeached but not removed from office. However if the court fails to impeach in the first place, and there is an overwhelming feeling in the public to remove someone from office, than a referendum of some high percentage, say 80% in favor, would remove the official from power. This is avery simple system, highlighting the court's importance and ability to make educated rulings, but not undermining the publics ultimate power.

Some may say, why not just have the referendum by the people, why include the judges? Well, for 80% (or something high like this) of the people to want to remove someone from office is very unlikely to happen. Only if that person is severely hated would this vote pass. However on a lesser note, a combination of an educated court decision of 4/5 and 2/3 public vote is more likely to succede at removing a very much disliked official, and not an all out hated one like wht the referendum would require.

Also, if a court justice is wanted to be removed, it would have to go through the same system (4/5 vote, where if any justice doesn't vote it would probably be the one everyone is trying to remove) and then the 2/3 civilian vote. If the court fails to impeach (would is likely to happen with one judge likely not wanting to impeach himself) then a citizen referendum could be called requireing the 80% vote.

Kramerman

I think this is a fair and simple idea, though would like to hear arguements, suggestions, and rejections, if need be.

[civman2000]

The ministers should in no way be involved. Though I would like only the people to be involved, i might compromise with something like this:
1. judges impeach 4/5, people impeach 51% OR
2. people impeach with 67%.

[GodKing]

I agree similar with civman2000, except with some of the percentages.

judges only 2/3, with people confirming by simple majority.
The people with 75%, as this is going arount the investigative procedures of the court. I am scared of some sort of hystaria occuring in which a person is accused of something, they aren't on the boards for the weekend to defend themselves, no real investigation takes place and they get impeached, then they arrive on monday to find out about whatever and they were innocent, but now without a position. OK, not the most likely of situations, but it is something that is possible.

[civman2000]

with 5 judges, 2/3 is the same as 4/5.

[GodKing]

Ya, but I think only 3 should be needed to look into this as in any other case. Also, what if a judge or 2 is out of town on holiday. Does the whole thing get put on hold....

I think it should be kept as flexable as possible.

[Spiffor]

I still say no government and no judges involved (except the one who sets up the poll as soon as a citizen asks him to do).
I keep my position because I want impeachment to happen when the need arises. With an even more outstanding majority (Kramerman's 80% are delirious : that's 4 yeasayer per naysayer), or the same delirious majority of the court, impeachment will most probably never happen, except if someone made a major offense combined with perpetual incompetence.

We should impeach bad officials. With Jdjdjd's or kramerman's proposal, we'll keep very bad officials into power (because everybody has some merits, when you look closely), and we'll fire only the worse among the worse, i.e nobody -because the voters can(t be fooled into voting for the very worse possible minister.

Accepting jdjdjd's or kramerman's proposals will exactly be like deleting our procedure of impeachment : we'll never impeach.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I still say no government and no judges involved (except the one who sets up the poll as soon as a citizen asks him to do).
I keep my position because I want impeachment to happen when the need arises. With an even more outstanding majority (Kramerman's 80% are delirious : that's 4 yeasayer per naysayer), or the same delirious majority of the court, impeachment will most probably never happen, except if someone made a major offense combined with perpetual incompetence.

We should impeach bad officials. With Jdjdjd's or kramerman's proposal, we'll keep very bad officials into power (because everybody has some merits, when you look closely), and we'll fire only the worse among the worse, i.e nobody -because the voters can(t be fooled into voting for the very worse possible minister.

Accepting jdjdjd's or kramerman's proposals will exactly be like deleting our procedure of impeachment : we'll never impeach.

I guess I was looking at it from a different perspective, that is, the removal of an official who was already placed into power by the people, whether this is confirming vote by the people of a judge or an election of Pres, VP or minister. Should an official the people chose be able to be removed so easily?

I also consider as Godking mentioned, that tempers could rule the day and oust an official, without properly looking at the facts.

And finally, as can happen in democracies, is that the majority uses its influence to destroy the minority, or at least silence them.

I think that is what I was thinking. Do the ministers and the court need to be in the process, no, but there should be some formal procedure for review of the charges and for presentation of a defense of the charged. And the official should have violated certain rules, or the Code of Laws, or something specific to come up for impeachment, not just in general that people do not like his opinions.

I said at the beginning my proposal would need revisions...so let us revise it or scrap it and start from another point; but I think the original language could use some more detail.

After all, having the extra layers is for the protection of the innocent man, not the guilty.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by civman2000
The ministers should in no way be involved. Though I would like only the people to be involved, i might compromise with something like this:
1. judges impeach 4/5, people impeach 51% OR
2. people impeach with 67%.

I like civman2000's proposal. I would vote for this impeachment system.

[Kramerman]

I made my percentages in a hypothetical sense, but like Jdjdjd, I fear a political impeachment of a relatively good official by a select few of nay sayers who are only impeaching through political motives. This is why I think the percentages should be higher and the process be covered with checks and balances, i.e. the court and public system. No matter the decided percentages though (mine were, again, just tossed out there for debate, which I'm gald I'm seeing - let democracy work baby!) I believe a system of a court ruled impeachment then a public vote needed to finalize the removal be nessecary. And then, for checks and balances sake, a extremely high % vote by the public can bypass a courts decision to not impeach and directly remove the offending official. This basic system, as described in more detail in my above post, provides the essential checks and balances neccessary to squelch either corruption or a minority successfully removing an official.
Again, my percentages (4/5 judicial plus 2/3 public; or just an 80% public) are very debatable and should be.

Kman

EDIT: civman's proposal mirrors mine, but with lower percentages. I find this acceptable and would vote for either his or my higher ones. Again, the checks and balances is the main security for protecting against a minority winning or corruption.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by GodKing
Ya, but I think only 3 should be needed to look into this as in any other case. Also, what if a judge or 2 is out of town on holiday. Does the whole thing get put on hold....

I think it should be kept as flexable as possible.

The impeachment of an official is no small deal, it can be the deciding factor of a polictical career. An impeachment is almost a permanent black mark it it is unlikely that the individual would ever again be elected or appointed again. This is why if we must wait a couple days for some justices to return, than that shouldn't be a problem. If we must wait longer than we can always by pass the court by just polling the public for the much higher percentage that is needed for impeachment and removal with out the courts input or overriding their decision.

Kman

[Spiffor]

Jdjdjd :
Back in the old days, when we just begun to debate about the court (at least 10 days ago), someone suggested the court would have a role in impeachment : to be a place where people listen to the attack and defense of the impeached.

I don't know if this suggestion was yours, but I think it's great. Indeed, such a "trial" would be of best use to inform the public of the achievments (good and bad) of the impeached official. It would also be fun to roleplay a whole trial.

In my view of the "trial" suggestion, the court has no power, except giving someone the right to speak (such as "now, the official can speak", "now, citizen #xxx can speak" etc.). A trial would be a chat where members of the court are moderators.
Once this chat has been held, present justices select someone among them to write a comprehensive and neutral summary, for the citizens who couldn't attend the chat. The complete log of the chat must also be disclosed, for the very interested citizens who coulmdn't make it.

Once the trial has been held, and the summary is out, then we can consider the people are informed enough, and can vote on the impeachment, with a 2/3 majority.

This trial suggestion will slow things down a bit (up to 5-6 days), but it will adress the problem which haunts court-partisans : uninformation among the people.

[Togas]

I have a proposal:

First, we need to state grounds for impeachment. One should not be impeached for being unpopular, that's what elections are for. Impeachment should be a serious affair where someone is violating the rules or abusing the system.

Second, any citizen should be able to bring charges of impeachment before The Court. The Court would either give it's stamp of approval on the impeachment (majority vote), or deny the impeachment (and state reasons). The Court's role to make sure that it's a valid impeachment -- that there's some evidence to proceed, and that it's not a popularity issue, etc.

Third, the citizen takes his case to the people. At this point, we need to decide if we want a poll, informal trial, whatever. The vote happens, 2/3rds majority, and if enough people vote to oust the minister, he's out.

I don't feel we need to change the original text too much, just give some explaination of why a minister would be impeached. I like the idea of the people being able to directly remove their elected officials. We should try to keep it in their hands. The Court's role shouldn't be to preside over a "trial" (it would be impractical to try to hold one), and The Court shouldn't need a super-majority to let the people decide for themselves. The Court is there to make sure that it's a valid call for impeachment -- to rule on the legal aspect of it only -- not to decide who stays and who goes.

--Togas

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Jdjdjd :
Back in the old days, when we just begun to debate about the court (at least 10 days ago), someone suggested the court would have a role in impeachment : to be a place where people listen to the attack and defense of the impeached.

I don't know if this suggestion was yours, but I think it's great. Indeed, such a "trial" would be of best use to inform the public of the achievments (good and bad) of the impeached official. It would also be fun to roleplay a whole trial.

In my view of the "trial" suggestion, the court has no power, except giving someone the right to speak (such as "now, the official can speak", "now, citizen #xxx can speak" etc.). A trial would be a chat where members of the court are moderators.
Once this chat has been held, present justices select someone among them to write a comprehensive and neutral summary, for the citizens who couldn't attend the chat. The complete log of the chat must also be disclosed, for the very interested citizens who coulmdn't make it.

Once the trial has been held, and the summary is out, then we can consider the people are informed enough, and can vote on the impeachment, with a 2/3 majority.

This trial suggestion will slow things down a bit (up to 5-6 days), but it will adress the problem which haunts court-partisans : uninformation among the people.

Hmmm, interesting proposal, I do like it, a good compromise.

It could even be in written form, i.e. all present there cases in written form, with a pre-poll debate, such as this, with a time limit that starts once the original complaint is made and defendant's answer is filed.

Oh BTW, I would love to take credit for a good idea, but impeachment was brought up in conjunction with the court by someone else.

BTW, BTW, I like Togas idea, but I see that a good amount of us are against the court having the power to dismiss charges.

What do you think of Togas idea Spiff? It is in line with Civman and Kramerman thoughts.....

Hmmm, I must think about all this.

[Spiffor]

Kramerman :
I understand your conception, and I also find civman's compromise very agreeable. That's strange we both agree on the compromise, as the debate between your conception of impeachment and mine is feeded by totally oposite views :
- You try to protect an official, whose results aren't THAT bad.
- I try to make it possible (you might say easy) to impeach bad officials, not just purposefully evil ones.

I understand your fears from the lack of information of the public, and I think the suggestion of my previous post adresses it pretty well.
However, I still think the court shouldn't have decision power, or nothing too overwhelming to get over the people. Justices are human like anbody else, and can make mistakes. 5 mistake-able people shouldn't have more power than 100+ mistake-able people.

You speak about a " minority successfully removing an official". But, in an election, more than 50% is never a minority. However, with your suggestion, a very small minority could keep a corrupt official to power. An outstanding majority is nigh impossible to get as soon as points are debatable. I hope you realise your suggestion could be dangerous for Democracy in the worst-case scenario, where a big majority of the people wouldn't be able to get rid of a rotten official, because he has few partisans.

Worse, nothing says the court will never be caught by politics. If I understand correctly, next term, only the president will appoint justices. He could very well appoint people from his party (and independents who shares the same beliefs), + 1 from the opposite party, just to look god in front of the voters.
If such a president does this, you'd have a disproportionate majority of people from a given party in the court. I don't say it's sure to happen. I say it might happen, if the Prez is corrupt. Do you imagine the court will impeach him, while the justices owe all to him ? Do you imagine such a corrupt Prez wouldn't be able to secure a solid minority of partisans who can defuse all 80%-of-the-people attempts ? (it's very easy to secure support, if you promise enough things to people in particular).

I have no doubt the 1st generation of justices will be very sincere, and will try their best for Apolytonia. I also think ministers who appoint them will try to appoint the best, not just those who share their political values. But the future could be worse.


Togas is right : the court should observe the legality of the impeachment procedure. It shouldn't decide who gets fired. That's the power of the people.

[GodKing]

Togas summerizes my views very well. Thanks. Spiffors idea of how to handle the situation is excelent - the idea of a review of the charges, a chat, then debate and voting on teh forums is good. I am glad that there is no rush to get this out fast, as this can be very important. I have a final exam tomarrow, but after that I should have some more free time so if people want help with wording, I would be glad to do some then. Thanks.

[Captain]

I agree with Togas.

The court doesn't decide if a minister goes or stays. It simply decides whether there are grounds for impeachment, that is, has any LAW been broken?

If not, the charges are dismissed. Unpopularity is for elections, not impeachment.

If so, the Court sets a date for the Impeachment poll - this is to provide sufficient time for both sides to make their cases.

Then, the accusor(s) list their charges and their evidence and arguments. The defendant can list their evidence and arguments.

At the determined date, the official poll is created. 2/3 vote is needed for the indictment.