Does the Midwest deserve Governor FitzGerald?

[Flake]

[Flake]

[Flake]

[BaconBacon96]

Endorsed!

[Adam Griffin]

I love how I can count on one hand - with room to spare - the number of actual Midwest citizens who have spoken out about the Governor's "actions" in any way more significant than signing a recall petition or placing a joke write-in preference on their ballot after receiving a PM from someone to do so. All one has to do is look at the primary ringleaders of this effort to get a grasp of its actual significance (which is just one big troll-fest, and very much resembles the shakedowns of this past summer).

And how dare you use Carter in this.

[RR1997]

Endorsed.

[Simfan34]

Adam I know he's one of yours but I think you could leave Fitzy to his own fate...

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Flo, baby, don't let the mean man hurt you. Adam can't we find some other Laborite to be governor?

[Flake]

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Governor FitzGerald deserved nothing less than relocation to Vorkuta.

[Flake]

[Vega]

Labor needs to present a united front.

[Adam Griffin]

Considering that it's effectively two separate elections (one for the recall and one for the replacement), I'm willing to bet that Gass decided to run under the assumption that the Governor would/should not be able to run as his own replacement in the event he were recalled. In addition, I would highly doubt that 60%+ of the region supports a recall and then simultaneously votes to put the Governor back into office, so if I were a Laborite or leftist in the Midwest, I'd be happy to know that I would have someone on the ballot to represent me in the event the recall is successful.

[Gass3268]

Considering that it's effectively two separate elections (one for the recall and one for the replacement), I'm willing to bet that Gass decided to run under the assumption that the Governor would/should not be able to run as his own replacement in the event he were recalled. In addition, I would highly doubt that 60%+ of the region supports a recall and then simultaneously votes to put the Governor back into office, so if I were a Laborite or leftist in the Midwest, I'd be happy to know that I would have someone on the ballot to represent me in the event the recall is successful.

Yeah, I was not 100% sure if the Governor would be able to run as his own replacement and I really wanted to make sure that there was a Labor option if 60% of the region wished for Governor Lebron to be removed.

[LeBron]

Anyone else find it weird how Flo in his first days as SoIA, a taxpayer-funded job, is wasting the people's time and money on office time by attacking my campaign rather than doing his actual job to enforce the internal affairs of this country? Last time I checked, the SoIA isn't supposed to launch smear campaigns so he can get his friend elected governor.

Just to address a few of these:

It's funny you say I'm putting my needs before this region, when the region I govern has a nearly 50% Labor electorate. I represent the Midwest people to the best of my ability, and our region is clearly based off of progressive values.

As for my vote for TNF in October, it's every Atlasian citizen's right to vote, and for you to attack me over a vote for the man who can best represent the Midwest in the Atlasian Senate is despicable. Also, I'm pretty sure you're violating forum rules by posting private PM's.

Oh, and people's minds change, in case you didn't know. Back then I didn't realize GAworth would just stab this region in the back by leaving in the middle of his Althing term to take a federal post.

And accusing me of being anti-gay? Really? That's completely disrespectful and I take a lot of offense to that. If there's anyone who needs to resign, it's you Flo.

[Flake]

Of course you can say that, we have freedom of speech (although there are parts that are just not true), but I'm also free to say that your term as Governor has been a failure, and from what I've seen so far, the Midwest is agreeing with me.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Anyone else find it weird how Flo in his first days as SoIA, a taxpayer-funded job, is wasting the people's time and money on office time by attacking my campaign rather than doing his actual job to enforce the internal affairs of this country? Last time I checked, the SoIA isn't supposed to launch smear campaigns so he can get his friend elected governor.

[Simfan34]

What taxes, you dolt?

[Flake]

[LeBron]

I love how you accuse me of bad grammar, yet you failed to even notice the two "voting" words in a row. Our Constitution only has one "voting" just so you know.

Listen, as well as being the governor of our region, I'm also the chief election officer that "oversees all elections" according to our Constitution. Our Constitution has several interpretations, and the way I and others view it is the replacement vote takes place in the case the recall is successful. Adam's post sums it up the best:

I've been a part of many a recall in my day - and witnessed plenty of others - and it's always been a scenario of

a) circulate petition; if threshold is reached, a recall vote occurs
b) a vote to recall is held; if threshold is reached, an election occurs,
c) people eligible to run for office compete in separate election

This combined recall/election concept makes zero sense. Clearly, a petition was circulated that has triggered a recall vote. Said vote will be held in a few days, and if 60% of people vote to recall, then there will be an additional vote with all of the declared candidates vying for the office.

"Along" in this case can also mean "in addition to", which can imply two separate votes.

[Vega]

It's beyond inane how electoral law works in the Midwest. The Governor's decision doesn't really benefit himself.

If I'm re-elected to the Althing, amending the constitution to fix problems like that will be my first priority.

[Flake]

I love how you accuse me of bad grammar, yet you failed to even notice the two "voting" words in a row. Our Constitution only has one "voting" just so you know.

Listen, as well as being the governor of our region, I'm also the chief election officer that "oversees all elections" according to our Constitution. Our Constitution has several interpretations, and the way I and others view it is the replacement vote takes place in the case the recall is successful. Adam's post sums it up the best:

I've been a part of many a recall in my day - and witnessed plenty of others - and it's always been a scenario of

a) circulate petition; if threshold is reached, a recall vote occurs
b) a vote to recall is held; if threshold is reached, an election occurs,
c) people eligible to run for office compete in separate election

This combined recall/election concept makes zero sense. Clearly, a petition was circulated that has triggered a recall vote. Said vote will be held in a few days, and if 60% of people vote to recall, then there will be an additional vote with all of the declared candidates vying for the office.

"Along" in this case can also mean "in addition to", which can imply two separate votes.

Actually, no.

The Recall Amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Fourth_Midwest_Constitution#Amendments_.28As_of_11.2F30.2F13.29

It's very clear that what you're doing is illegal.

[Oakvale]

I love how you accuse me of bad grammar, yet you failed to even notice the two "voting" words in a row. Our Constitution only has one "voting" just so you know.

Listen, as well as being the governor of our region, I'm also the chief election officer that "oversees all elections" according to our Constitution. Our Constitution has several interpretations, and the way I and others view it is the replacement vote takes place in the case the recall is successful. Adam's post sums it up the best:

I've been a part of many a recall in my day - and witnessed plenty of others - and it's always been a scenario of

a) circulate petition; if threshold is reached, a recall vote occurs
b) a vote to recall is held; if threshold is reached, an election occurs,
c) people eligible to run for office compete in separate election

This combined recall/election concept makes zero sense. Clearly, a petition was circulated that has triggered a recall vote. Said vote will be held in a few days, and if 60% of people vote to recall, then there will be an additional vote with all of the declared candidates vying for the office.

"Along" in this case can also mean "in addition to", which can imply two separate votes.

I'm not overly familiar with the regional constitution, but in context it actually seems fairly clear to me that this is not a viable interpretation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clause D requires that, providing 60% of the voters vote to Recall the incumbent, the [Governor] shall be removed from office immediately and replaced with whomever the people vote as the replacement. This clearly suggests that the recall and 'recall election' vote are to be held on the same date, and on the same ballot. To suggest otherwise would be to assume that hidden between the text there is invisible language that would cause the sentence to read "removed from office immediately... and a week later replaced...".

The more important point here is that there's absolutely no reason to assume that there is any grounds for votes separated by either time or location. If there was the tenuous distinction between the Recall Question and the Recall Election, that should be apparent to a reasonable interpreter of your constitution. But no distinction whatsoever is made. The recall vote - which you apparently take to mean the Recall Question, takes place in circumstances specified in detail. There is not a single reference to a separate election, let alone any detail on the timing.

To hold a second recall vote you would be inventing constitutional provisions out of thin air, solely based on... a particular (flimsy) interpretation of the word "along with"?

I thank my old friend Dallasfan for this example -

1. I go to a bar.
2. I leave a few hours later.
3. The next week, Dallasfan goes to the same bar.

Did I go "along" with Dallasfan?

The attempt to hold a second ballot based on this kind of logic is ill-advised. Clause C is clearly referencing the preceding clause (B) when stating "[a]long with voting [...] they", with "they" obviously referring to the electorate in the only election allowed for by any sensible interpretation of the Midwest's constitution - that detailed in clause B.

[Adam Griffin]

Just hold the vote how they want you to hold it, Governor. From lowly regional representatives to the Supreme Court, they're obviously just going to keep this up until they get the result they want.

[Oakvale]

Just hold the vote how they want you to hold it, Governor. From lowly regional representatives to the Supreme Court, they're obviously just going to keep this up until they get the result they want.

I don't have any power to tell the Governor how he conducts the vote barring a lawsuit - and even then I'd be but one vote of three. I just think it would be a bad idea and, quite likely, a waste of time.