View Topic

I don't even know why I bother with you sometimes, Chanku.  You're all for bending the law when it suits you, but god forbid anyone else do it, because you'll clamp down on them harder than anyone else including Wintermoot would even care to do.

But that's discussion better fit for somewhere out of here.

Hell even if I wasn't running in this election, I wouldn't support bending this. This is relatively hard put in the Fundamental Laws based upon these two facts:

1. Elections must occur during the first week of a set of months (Currently it's the first week of August). Therefore it leads that the first day of a month starts the elections.
2. If the number of candidates are equal to the amount of seats then no election shall occur.

Given that the second statement can only trigger at the start of an election, it must mean that the first statement has already occurred. The election should have begun on August 1st. However when it became August 1st, there were only five candidates (as there are five seats open). Because of that, all of the candidates were immediately elected because of Article I, Section 2.

I will admit a person can be added to the election after nominations begin, as nominations aren't legally defined. The only requirement to be apart of the vote is that someone stand for the election whether or not that is before or during the election (as legally there is no prohibition on that). The elections are already considered over as per the Fundamental Laws.

Now would I like to have an election, yes. Should we violate the Fundamental Laws and hold one? No. We should not.

As you wish, your majesty.  Your word is law, after all.  I shall never attempt to ever question when you bend a law, because clearly your word is absolute, and you can do no wrong.

As you wish, your majesty.  Your word is law, after all.  I shall never attempt to ever question when you bend a law, because clearly your word is absolute, and you can do no wrong.

Okay really? You're resorting to petty attacks against me? C'mon man, you can do better than this.

No, my king.  I'm giving up.  After all, you are the one who knows the law absolutely and enforces justly, even more so than the very monarch does.  Clearly it is you who should rule.

So I humbly back down and accept your absolute ruling.

I am afraid ... oh, the Julian calendar says it's 23 July? Wintermoot, you didn't specify which calendar we are using!

On a slightly more serious note, since there hasn't been much legislative work done or to be done for the recent sessions so far, I challenge the Underhusen to repeal and replace the Constitution. That sounds fun.

The Underhusen has probably been one of the most depressing parts of the region for awhile now...entire terms go by without much if anything at all going on, nominations that barely produce enough people to fill seats, and elections that few of the candidates really bother with, and in some cases don't even vote in.

I think that Pengu put together a great campaign topic, he's obviously getting involved with drafting law, and he took part in the steak fry...regardless of the law, is it really fair to him or the region to not have an election where people would get to decide whether he should be part of the Underhusen? Is that what's best for the region? Or is what's best for the region just not matter? I mean, if anyone has them they're perfectly valid opinions...I just want to know.

Unfortunately yes. While yes, it's obvious he wants to be apart of the UH, which is great. However he missed the deadline and we have to uphold the regional laws, because if we don't what do we have?

If Pengu wants to get involved he can participate in the Citizen's Platform or he can attempt to recall someone. As much as I would enjoy an election, the law is clear on this.

Technically they're considered elected by default. It doesn't say WHEN they're elected.
You could very easily interpret that to mean that if there are only 5 candidates during the end of the election period.
It does not state 'no election is necessary', it states 'elected by default.'
In national elections, if there was only one candidate for a seat (a common occurrence in Singapore), they still go through the rigamarole of waiting until the election is over to announce the winner by walk over.

"7. Any Citizen who voted in the previous regular election as defined in Article I Section 3 shall have the right to petition for the recall of any member of the Underhusen unless there are fewer than twenty-one days left until the next regular election."

In addition, does a walkover means all citizens voted or no citizen voted? If no citizen voted, does that mean this current Underhusen is immune to recall?

I withdraw my candidacy. If this really is going to be such a petty and rule bound, bureaucratic and self-serving UH I want no part in it. And since we would not have the minimum number of candidates, would an extension on nominations not be required?

1. Elections must occur during the first week of a set of months (Currently it's the first week of August). Therefore it leads that the first day of a month starts the elections.
2. If the number of candidates are equal to the amount of seats then no election shall occur.

Given that the second statement can only trigger at the start of an election, it must mean that the first statement has already occurred. The election should have begun on August 1st. However when it became August 1st, there were only five candidates (as there are five seats open). Because of that, all of the candidates were immediately elected because of Article I, Section 2.

Actually, if it just says that elections must occur in the first week, and since it is only Saturday, then technically the election could start tomorrow.

So here's what we're going to do. Everyone that wants to run for Underhusen will indicate or re-indicate their interest here. If there's more than five people by tomorrow, we'll have a quick election...if not then on the 7th the people that want it will have it without an election. And if someone has a problem with this, they can sue me. This is just too petty an issue to have this kinda of drama over.

And then someone needs to fix this damn thing so the UH is actually an active thing.

To make it really easy, I'm mentioning the people who stood before: @Mathyland, @North, @Chanku, @Crushita, @BraveSirRobin, @Coco Bandicoot.

I stand. Again.
Because I want an election, and we need at least 6 people so...
Oh and this saves me resigning my seat so Pengu can hold it. Honestly I don't deserve another term, I've done literally nothing.

I also stand.