Commission XXI Elections, March 2016


  • Moderator

    The debate period has ended and it's now time to vote for our new Commission. The vote works in the following way: One vote per PLAYER, and for this election we are using a preferential voting system. Simply rank as many candidates as you wish in order of preference.

    The candidates are as follows:

    • Richard DAWSON (Aalen, EPA)
    • Anja EMERETT (Inquista, EPA)
    • Thomas ERICSSON (Fremet, EPA)
    • Marie SOLOMON (Halsberg, Ind.)
    • John H. THOMAS (Broome, Ind.)

    As per the ECoJ's ruling, voting starts on the 28th March at 20.30 GMT and will therefore end on the 4th of April at 20.30 GMT. The new Commission will then immediately take office.



  • The Duxburian Union challenges the validity of the voting phase, as there was technically no debate as required. Last election cycle, the debate was re-run as it was found to have been a question time. This cycle, only one candidate even showed up. We formally ask the ECoJ to order the debate re-run until at least two candidates speak and fulfill the obligation set forth in the European Constitution.

    Dante Maximillian
    Steward of the Duxburian Union



  • ECoJ

    @Duxburian-Union
    The ECoJ is currently deliberating on the issue and will hopefully come to a decision soon.

    Justice Hubert Christian



  • By an unassailable majority vote of three justices (CHRISTIAN, AL-KAHINA, JOUBRAN) to none (N/A), the European Court of Justice has determined that this voting phase is illegitimate, on the grounds that it has not followed "a seven day period in which debates shall be held" (Const., III.III.II.), since, despite one being organised and despite the appearance of one candidate, in that seven day period no substantive debate actually took place. The Court therefore orders that the voting phase be cancelled, to allow for another seven day period in which debates shall be held. Voting will, therefore, commence on 28th March, 2016, at 20.30 GMT, and last for seven days from then. Since "the European Court of Justice shall be elected at the same time as the European Commission," (Const., IV.III.I.), the start of voting in ECoJ elections will be delayed to that same time.

    Salim Joubran
    Chief Justice of the ECoJ
    "Waiting for your call!"

    ((OOC: You may as well continue with the current debate thread.))



  • VOTING IS NOW OPEN



  • The Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter votes as follows:

    1. Marie SOLOMON
    2. Thomas ERICSSON
    3. Anja EMERETT


  • The Democratic Republic of Sitanova, will vote for the following:

    • Thomas ERICSSON
    • Anja EMERETT
    • Richard DAWSON

  • ECoJ

    Inimicus is severely and extremely disappointed with how this and previous Commission elections have played out. However, not casting a vote takes away one's right to complain. ((OOC: I know some had good reasons for being absent, but I also know some did not and just didn't bother. Is this how we're going to make the Commission work again?)) Therefore, Inimicus votes in the following fashion:

    1. Anja EMERETT
    2. Thomas ERICSSON
    3. Marie SOLOMON


  • The Republic of Levantx is withholdig (abstain) its vote in the election of the Commisssion,


  • Commission

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is not satisfied with the field as it stands and their lack of effort in the Commission debates. As such, the Election Commission has cancelled the vote for European Commission and on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom, we ABSTAIN from the voting process.


  • Moderator

    Inquista votes as follows:

    1. Anja EMERETT

    2. Thomas ERICSSON

    3. Richard DAWSON

    4. Marie SOLOMON



  • The Federation of New Huffington votes as follows:

    1. Marie SOLOMON, 2. Richard DAWSON, 3. Thomas ERICSSON, 4. Anja EMERETT



  • The Rosebourg Monarchy is unable to make a judgement for or against any of the candidates as we have to little information at our disposal. We also join our European neighbours in abstaining for this electoral cycle.


  • Commission

    It is quite clear that none of these candidates possess the necessary ability to hold a commission office, let alone the position of Premier Commissioner which is what we are electing them for. I had wished to see more promise from candidates from nations such as Halsberg, Inquista and even from the nations which are more recently members of the European Union. From the way that most of these candidates have treated the debate phases shows utter contempt for the region and it's population. I hope that some of these new commissioners are not going to do this in order to promote the changes that were proposed some weeks ago, yet failed to gain a super majority as necessary. I really hope that this is not the case.

    However as nations of the EU are responsible for the commission with regards to voting, and it is our votes that determine the people who lead us I do vote for the following candidate only as a first preference.


    1. Marie Solomon, Halsberg


    I really do hope that the incoming commissioners are able to improve the current situation. I hope they make full use of their powers and abilities that are given to them. Above all I hope that all these commissioners realise the privilege that has been afforded to them.



    Rt Hon Cllr Nicola Heaven CEDM

    Minister of State for the European Union
    Davishirian European Councillor




    C


  • Moderator

    Now after seeing some of the votes, abstentions and the comments made, I feel like I need to make an address.

    If you have voted for a candidate because of their particular ideology and policies, then by tall means are excused from what I am about to say. If you genuinely like or don't like where a candidate stands on certain issues, then by all means vote whichever way you want. For example, I understand the vote coming from Councillor Stuart, because I know she's so frightened of Europe that even the mentioning of Europol gives her an aneurysm, and I know from personal experience that even whispering European President will make her toes curl and send her into a state of sadism. That's the only bedroom experience I'll share about Councillor Stuart, but trust me, there are plenty more with her. Obviously she will never vote for an EPA Candidate, although that still confuses me, seeing as that the EPA holds a high regard for Marie Solomon, and that Marie Solomon herself didn't have any disagreements with any members of the EPA either, and even went on to say that she would "associate [herself] with many of the remarks Ms. Emerett has made". So who knows how she made it unto #1 on Stuart's list!

    The voting stage that has happened here is a hypocrisy of the highest order. I really don't know where to begin other by saying that if nations or their Councillors ever make issue of this upcoming Commission's activity, I will personal remind them, every single time, that they deliberately voted against the most active debate participants. Not only are they deliberately voting against the most active participants, but it's clear that they haven't even witnessed the inactive debates that have been called into question.

    Mrs. Heaven's comments, followed by her vote, is the most hilarious example of this. "None" of the candidates possess the ability to hold office? Really? And she wishes "to see more promise from candidates from nations such as Halsberg, Inquista and even from the nations which are more recently members of the European Union"?

    Seriously, what more could of Anja Emerett have done? No seriously, what more? She is the only candidate to participate in both debates and the only one to do so in the first. Not only that, but she made up 80% of the debate responses, answered every question given to her, but also made two separate speeches outside of the debate, to better get her message across, and also released a campaign video - which, trust me, took a long time for the EPA team to make. Anja not only participated by far the most, but also clearly gave the most detailed and lengthy responses, which contrast the vast majority of nothingness the came from the other debaters.

    Furthermore, not only was Anja by far and away the most active and engaging debate participant, but she made it clear that one of the biggest part of her platform was to increase Commission activity and that establishing an active Commission environment was part of her primary goals. Considering that she brought up this point twice in the debate, and twice in other speeches, I think that this point was made clear, if not central, to her campaign. No other candidate even brought up Commission activity. Yet, people aren't even regarding Anja's goals. So these same people are not only disregarding the most active candidate, but are also disregarding actual promises of activity.

    Councillor Heaven's point clearly shows she paid no attention to the debate in the first place. Not only does her calling out of Anja show that she clearly had not seen who was contributing to the debate conversation, but her vote for Marie Solomon shows doubly so. Councillor Heaven clearly mentions she doesn't want the upcoming Commission to go ahead with Commission reform that has been defeated before, but I'm sorry to inform that her that not only do the vast majority of the candidates here want to, but her single favoured candidate, that being Marie Solomon, explicitly said that she would, and that Commission reform is unfortunately (unfortunate for you, but not me) is quite literally the only the she campaigned on, and it is what she mainly promised in her debate performance.

    Don't get me wrong, I love Marie and I love that her and Anja are on same page (again, Marie said she would like to associate with many of the things Anja said!), but it's bizarre that she is being rewarded by people that are lambasting Anja and the rest of the EPA for inactivity, when the EPA was pretty much the only active force this whole campaign period. The fact that Anja has not only been left out of votes, but the fact that she's actually been ranked 3rd and 4th is seriously mind boggling. Wow, what positive reinforcement! Never mind those who have abstained because they have felt that all off candidates have been inactive. Even better positive reinforcement. So Anja doesn't even get any benefit or reward for debating in the first place, and she should of stuck to being inactive like the rest of the crowd. Anja also campaigned on some of the least offensive promises ever, and literally campaigned on the premise of activity.

    These votes are absurd and are more ridiculous than the fact that the debate had to be re-run in the first place.


    Edward Firoux

    Councillor of Inquista


    ((OOC: This post has been inspired by Rhine Ruhr's EV loss to Red Croatia, that time Lizcows almost lost the Most Influential Award to Kligenberg, mixed in with a bit of Dromund Kaas' rage quit. Also ,I'm being highly sarcastic and facetious. Although, I'm seriously waiting for Councillor Heaven to be replaced again soon. Although I'm not kidding when I say I'll remind every person who complained about inactivity about this vote. I'll resend you this whole message in private, including a transcript of the debate, and of all of Anja's out of debate promises.)).



  • Commission

    I advise Cllr Firoux to get a grip. It is quite clear from the number of abstentions that you have not provided every single member state with the confidence to vote for either the Inquistan candidate or other candidates for the position of premier. I am merely voting as instructed and giving my own remarks.


    Also Councillor Firoux, I advise you that I will not be going anywhere anytime soon.


    Cllr Nicola Heaven



  • 1. Anja EMERETT

    2. Thomas ERICSSON

    3. Richard DAWSON

    4. Marie SOLOMON




  • 1.Thomas ERICSSON

    2. Anja EMERETT

    3. Richard DAWSON

    4. Marie SOLOMON



  • In accordance with Commission Election results, the Duxburian Union votes as follows:

    1. Anja EMERETT (46.3%)

    2. Abstain (39.5%)

    3. Thomas ERICSSON (8%)

    4. Marie SOLOMON (4.2%)

    5. Richard DAWSON (1.3%)

    6. John H. THOMAS (0.7%)

    It should be noted that "Abstain" is now an official choice on Duxburian ballots for European Union level elections. It was added to the ballot on Day 76, Year 825 of the Union, via Citizens' Petition #825-14, M. Byran Lunde petitioner, on behalf of Legal Minor Mz. Ria Levion, originated from the City Meeting of Dairghazbury, thresholded with 16,203,748 signatures, fast-tracked, passed 68% - 32%, certified by the Office of Elections. All votes for "Abstain", all spoiled ballots, and all write-in votes for ineligible candidates are counted as "Abstain".









  • Voting is over. There were nine valid votes. As there were only five candidates, the STV process is unnecessary and all candidates are elected to the Commission. Congratulations to them. The results of the AV process to determine the Premier Commissioner are thus:

    Anja Emerett - 4 ---> 6

    Marie Solomon - 3 ---> 3

    Thomas Ericsson - 2 ---> ELIMINATED

    John Thomas - 0 ---> ELIMINATED

    The Other One - 0 ---> ELIMINATED

    Anna Emerett is duly elected Premier Commissioner. Congratulations to her and commiserations to the other Commissioners.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.