ELECTION: Term 3 Minister of Domestic Affairs

Gilgamensch · February 15, 2003, 09:39

ELECTION: Term 3 Minister of Domestic Affairs

Dear Apolemurians,

this election is to vote for a Minister of Domestic Affairs, who will serve a one month term.

The only person running for this office is MrBaggins.

Therefore the poll will be only a Yes/No/Abstain-poll, with the meaning:

Yes = You want MrBaggins to become a elected Minister of Domestic Affairs
No = You reject MrBaggins as a Minister of Domestic Affairs
Abstain = You don't care.

This poll will expire in 5 days on the 20th February 2003, 14:00 GMT.

In the name of our constitution and the name of our people, Senior Justice Gilgamensch

MrBaggins · February 15, 2003, 10:07

Although I am uncontested, I still feel I should demonstrate my suitability for office.

Firstly, I am an active CtP2DG participant. I usually am able to attend turn chats and have no reason to think that I will not in the future.

In terms of domestic policy, I am primarily concerned with defense and scientific development. As we are at war, I pledge to carefully consider the needs of the Ministry of Defense, to provide for their tactical requirements.

Although I feel that I have a firm understanding of the needs of our nation, I will, naturally poll the will of the people to determine their desires, regarding the importantant decisions ahead.

Finally, as a gesture of friendship towards the APP, I intend to, in the event of my election, have Tamerlin as a delegate.

MrBaggins

mapfi · February 15, 2003, 10:25

Well, I think the nominations for this election would need clarification by the court but I can't file a case.

I'm sure that Mr Baggins would do a very good job here but I'd rather see the contested election - that's why I vote no.

MrBaggins · February 15, 2003, 10:35

Firstly... Zaphod filed the nomination too late... in violation of nomination rules.

Secondly, the nomination of Tamerlin was not done in person, in violation of nomination rules.

If you have a problem with the nominations, you should take it up with the court, and have them issue a ruling before voting.

mapfi · February 15, 2003, 10:48

Well, I can't.

Even if this election is legal, we still have someone who'd also run for this position and I'd like to see that race - that's what will happen if this election gets voted no - so that's why I did what I said. - it's nothing personal

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 15, 2003, 11:34

could gilgamensch and mr baggins please explain, why they want to cheat on this election? the nomination of comrade tamerlin has been posted at 11:57 today. the period ended at 12:00. the corresponding thread was closed by the poll even more than an hour later.

i can understand mr baggins, who has already some experience with rigged elections, as you might see, if having a look at the wp-chairman-election-thread, doesn't understand or value democracy. but i can't believe a judge is helping him in doing this. if gilgamensch won't close this poll and open a correct one during the next 24 hours, the app will have to impeach him. its a shame those people try to turn our young democracy into a military dictature.

MrBaggins · February 15, 2003, 11:41

The nominations should have ended at 15-02-2003 10:38... which would be 3 days... but anyway...

Tamerlin did not announce his candidacy.

He is required to do so by the constitution.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 15, 2003, 11:49

as clearly stated by gilgamensch as response to a request of mine, the nominations should have ended at 12:00 gmt.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 15, 2003, 11:56

furthermore, the candidacy of tamerlin has been expressed publicitly by a release of the app, which has been posted by the press bureau of the app in the nomination thread, as well as being sent by the same bureau via pm to the wellknown journalist gilgamensch. interestingly the lemurian herald has not yet published or reacted to this press release. of course, the question arises, if the editor of that newspaper is willingly hiding information from the populace.

MrBaggins · February 15, 2003, 12:17

Political parties are not recognised in the constitution.

Heresay (a published account) isn't recognised.

A candidate has to announce his own candidacy, as clearly stated in the constitution.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 15, 2003, 12:20

the con says a candidate has to express his candidacy, it doesn't say, that can't be done by a press information of his party!

MrBaggins · February 15, 2003, 12:23

A lack of evidence of something (in the constitution) is not tacit proof.

To recognise the validity of political parties... and their announcements... we'd need to ammend the constitution.

MrBaggins

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 15, 2003, 12:30

we would need to ammend the constitution to achieve what you are falsely declare as a fact: that a person can only speak through posts which where posted from his personal account

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 15, 2003, 12:32

in addition it is quite interesting to see, that you try to argument your opponent out of the election with made up juristic tricks. puts your democratic attitude quite under question.

MrBaggins · February 15, 2003, 12:39

I believe that the constitution is our first concern in such decision making. It is you that is trying to twist it to suit your purposes.

Quote:

(e) At the start of the election process, the Court must start a nomination thread. All citizens who wish to be candidates for an office must publicly express their nomination in this thread. For this they have three days.

There is no mention of third party nominations... and certainly no mention of political party nominations.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 15, 2003, 12:42

and no mention, that they have to do this from their own account.

MrBaggins · February 15, 2003, 12:46

Yes it does...

All citizens who wish to be candidates for an office must publicly express their nomination in this thread.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 15, 2003, 12:49

so has comrade tamerlin done, through an press release of the app, presenting all candidates in one post. tamerlin can and will ensure you of this, as soon as he will be online tonight

MrBaggins · February 15, 2003, 12:56

1) Political parties are not recognised by the constitution. The Lemurian Herald is not recognised by the consititution.

2) the nomination must be made in the nomination thread, by the candidate. Merely stating an intention in another thread is insufficient.

3) The article in question clearly states that the citizen must publicly express their candidacy. No 3rd party nomination, without the express statement of the candidate, himself, has ever stood.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 15, 2003, 13:05

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins

the nomination must be made [b]in the nomination thread

as it was done

MrBaggins · February 15, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

the nomination must be made in the nomination thread, by the candidate

No, it wasn't.

The candidate in question did not post any candidacy post in the nomination thread. You did.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 15, 2003, 13:14

from where are you quoting?
that sentence isn't in the con!

if quoting, one should always indicate from where one is quoting, otherwise it looks as one would try to fool the people

MrBaggins · February 15, 2003, 13:21

I was quoting my earlier post...

Quote:

by mrbaggins
1) Political parties are not recognised by the constitution. The Lemurian Herald is not recognised by the consititution.

2) the nomination must be made in the nomination thread, by the candidate. Merely stating an intention in another thread is insufficient.

3) The article in question clearly states that the citizen must publicly express their candidacy. No 3rd party nomination, without the express statement of the candidate, himself, has ever stood.

just as you did.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 15, 2003, 13:33

yes, i did quote you, responding to your arguments.
your quote nevertheless might have been misread as from the constitution if someone would read not as carefull. i wanted to point out, that you aren't reciting the con.

i think you mrbaggins and myself we won't achieve any much more here until a judge and your contrahent in the elections show up. so let me ask you soem other question, just for passing time, from prime secretary of one party to "chairman" of another: how do you believe, democracy works? what do you think of people, who claim the are the head of any organisation, be it a club, a political party, or a nation, though there was no election?

MrBaggins · February 15, 2003, 13:43

I was directly responding to the prior post, and INCLUDING THE ENTIRE SENTENCE. You ommited a part of the sentence without any notification, since to include that part of the sentence, which I had enboldened would have invalidated your position.

I believe a Democracy works by adherance to the constitution, AS WRITTEN.

If the constitution does not apply to a particular event, you don't assume that something is permitted or denied, but clarify through the judicial process.

Speech of political parties or groupings is irrelevent; they are arbitrary self organization of citizenry. Only individual citizens are recognized under the constitution.

I believe that the consititution is clear on the requirements of valid nomination. I welcome a judicial ruling.

MrBaggins

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 15, 2003, 13:53

the constitution isn't that clear, at least not in that direction to which you and gilgamensch interpret it. it doesn't distinguish between nominees and candidates.

MrBaggins · February 15, 2003, 14:03

Correct.

There is no such thing as a nominee in the constitution.

Only candidates. Candidates nominate(notice the verb) themselves.

Tamerlin · February 15, 2003, 14:18

The nomination was supposed to end tonight at midnight so my nomination would have to be accepted. Furthermore I don't see why Zaphod won't be able to nominate me as MoDA as this has been extensively discussed between us. I don't have the time to catch up with the threads now but you should already be informed I will contest the result of this election as I am accepting the nomination and as the time limit was supposed to be tonight at midnight.

Tamerlin · February 15, 2003, 14:22

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
If the constitution does not apply to a particular event, you don't assume that something is permitted or denied, but clarify through the judicial process.

Most of the real word democracies adhere to the following principle as far as law is concerned: "what is not expressively forbidden is allowed".

H Tower · February 15, 2003, 14:23

oh geez. talk about divinding our country over party politics. Shame on both parties in this.

I weep for our future.