Amendment to the Constitution of The European Union
-
I am suggesting using a fptp plurality system is dangerous in any election for trust. Single candidate approval votes included. Candidates must always get a majority and no less. No exceptions.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies
-
I will not be supporting this constitutional amendment in its current or amended form. Simply put, my objections range from this amendment being incomplete and unfinished, my belief that instances of unopposed candidates are products of existing political culture rather than institutionalized problems, my belief that the existence of unopposed candidates are a demonstration of democracy and not a democratic deficit, and the fact that this amendment gives shades of 'Commission confirmation's' which were an election procedure that eventually culminated in a political rift that tore the EU in half and left its intuitions inactive for almost 2 years.
First and foremost, even with the suggested amendments, this proposed constitutional amendment is incomplete. Presumably, this approval voting procedure replaces or takes place concurrently with the regular Commission voting for that specific Office? Or does it take place afterwards? This needs to be specified. Also, the length and times of the process need to be specified.
Now onto my objections based on principles. I feel as if this proposal is attempting to address a problem that is a misdiagnosis. I get the impression that this alleged issue stems from the recent Commission elections, which had to be re-run due to the success of write-in candidates and the rejection of all other the candidates. The election had to be re-run NOT because the candidates ran unopposed - although, for some reason, a certain IA candidate thinks this was the issue, and that idea has somehow transplanted itself here - it was because the quality of all the candidates, including those in competitive races, were roundly rejected. This is evidenced by the fact that there were two candidates who ran for Premier, and both of them were rejected for a write-in candidate. In the following election, the current Premier ran unopposed and won. In summary, people approved of the single candidate who ran in the unopposed election, but didn't like the candidates who ran in the competitive race. The issue was never about the candidate running unopposed, it was about the quality of those specific candidates. As an aside, the EU also has a long and storied history of unopposed Foreign Affairs candidates and it has never been an issue.
A hallmark of what makes a democracy a democracy is the ability to put oneself forward for election. Currently, the EU presents virtually no barriers for candidates to nominate themselves, save for the fact that they can be term limited. If someone wants to run for Commission, then they are completely free to do so. Mandating a quota that there needs to be at least two candidates in a potential special election is a forced, inorganic and actually inherently undemocratic process, one which seems especially unusual to force in an instance where there was only one person trying to run in the first place. Standing for election (or not) is a democratic choice, and it is a choice that is currently available.
Uncompetitive elections are also the result of a political climate, not an institutional problem. As I've explained, the EU currently has no institutional barriers preventing people from running, minus term limits. However, certain political climates, whether it be due to political fatigue, inactivity, toxicity or any other variable, can lead to instances of uncompetitive Commission elections. It's these political climates that need addressing, not the institutions. Trying to fix a broader political culture issue with an institutional fix can potentially exacerbate the issue itself, as we have seen in the past.
At one point, the European Council enacted reforms as to how we elected Commissioners. One of those reforms included 'Commission confirmations' where Commissioners had to actually be confirmed to office by the European Council after being elected. At the time, my Inquistan predecessor actually opposed this measure, because it was blatantly unnecessary, but he didn't make too much of an issue of it when it passed because it was done on rather innocuous terms of democratic accountability.
The reform lasted a single election cycle. In the following elections, Commissioners-elect from Icholasen, Inquista and Inimicus barely managed to squeeze out victories, and their bitter election opponents quickly rallied to have all their confirmations blocked, despite them winning the election. The ensuing toxicity resulted in Icholasen, Inquista and Inimicus withdrawing from the EU's political institutions for quite some time. While I feel, and certainly hope, that this proposed amendment won't necessarily have the same impact in magnitude, it's another instance where an unnecessary institutional procedure has been put into place to fix a non-existent issue, which then end sup creating an issue. While the current political climate is perhaps not as polarised and vicious now as it was then, it certainly could be in the future, and we certainty do see instances now where certain countries do oppose or would block a candidate not on their merits, but based on their political affiliation or which country they are from. I can name at least 2 but probably 3 countries who would misuse this procedure to block an unopposed candidate simply because they come from a specific member state, which is not the spirit in which this amendment is being made. If certain member states have problems with another member state running an unopposed candidate, then they are free to run their own candidate against them and beat them, since that options exists. There is no reason to block anything that is already fair.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista -
I will revise Amendment III to the following:
AMENDMENT III
ARTICLE III. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Section III. Election Procedures
Add the following
articlesclauses betweenarticlesclauses V and VI:~*~ VI. If a candidate runs for any Commission office unopposed, there shall be a voting procedure where all member states can vote on whether they approve or disapprove of the candidate. If the candidate fails to get a simple majority approval, there shall be a special election to fill the office, with the previous candidate barred from entering.
*~ VII. The special election may not have less than two candidates.~*~ VII. The special election shall start immediately after the previous election, following the standard commission election procedures, except for the nomination period, which shall run for an indefinite time before two candidates are nominated, in which case it shall run for seven days.
Renumber clauses VI and VII VII and VIII respectively
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Councillor Hartland,
While I agree with the sentiment of this amendment I'm afraid the solution provided appears somewhat arbitrary.
I do agree with you where you say a candidate running unopposed should be subject to further scrutiny via the democratic process. However, that is a consequence of people's willingness to engage in leadership roles.
It might be more prudent to measure the percentage in turnout of votes than only the number of candidates. For instance, if there is a low count of votes the result might represent a dissatisfaction with the candidate who is running unopposed. However, with a high turnout of total votes, the result suggests a more accurate representation of general political opinions.
Therefore I propose the following amendment:
Where the total amount of reported votes is under 80% of all participating members, a special election shall be called. A 'participating member' is here defined as one who has shown themselves to be present in discussion or engagement on this forum to a requisite extent as provided in definition by EU rules of conduct. -
Cllr. Dina, I must admit that I am a little confused by your amendment. What exactly is "this forum?" (OOC: the forum doesn't exist IRP, nor do its rules of conduct) This Council? In any case, requiring 80% of EU members to vote to ensure that an election is valid is too high a barrier, in my opinion. In many cases, abstention itself is an expression of poltiical opinion, and I don't think it ought to be discouraged in this way.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
My apologies, Cllr. Tilkanas, by 'forum' I suppose I meant the European public (OOC: oops my bad).
And you've hit my point right on its head. This amendment would not allow the system to punish the public by giving them a candidate they had no choice but not to vote for. While 80% might be high, recall that if the threshold is not met there would be another election according to this act.
For example, if an unopposed candidate receives under 80% of the votes, then we ought to assume that they are not favoured enough by the general public, and so have a runoff election with the previous candidate barred from entering.
Such is the system we currently operate in Gadalland and Aspern when we have Braetha elections, but the threshold is 70%.
-
Councillors, thank you for sharing your concerns with me. It seems like there is some scepticism regarding this amendment, and because of that, I want to explain my intentions with it. The primary purpose behind this amendment is to give unopposed candidates further legitimacy by putting them on a democratic process. The European Union is a large region, with dozens of member states, and the European Commission is important because it is the executive body of this region. Since the European Union stands for promoting democracy, as mentioned in the preamble section of its constitution, its systemic practices should reflect that. And, in my humble opinion, a person being able to take one of the highest positions in the European Union without any challenge simply because they were the only person that had submitted their candidacy is not a democratic process.
It also cannot be taken for granted that, just because a candidate can run unopposed, that means all the member states were satisfied with said candidate. The person that won unopposed in the latest Premier election is my colleague, the honourable Jean-Claude Juncker. Juncker is an extraordinary politician. He has served in numerous positions, first as a minister in the Spanish government to serving first as Internal Affairs Commissioner and then as Premier Commissioner. While he has also faced some opposition and backlash, he remains one of the most popular politicians in the European Union. And I believe that is a testament to his talent, his skills and his intelligence.
What if it was someone that was the complete opposite of Juncker that managed to run unopposed? What if we had an incompetent politician that managed to get their way into the commission solely because no one else managed to announce their candidacy? My sole opponent in the Internal Affairs election was Tarek Al-Wazir, a hawkish nutjob that was (and probably still is) obsessed with declaring a bogus war against the United Duchies, who repeatedly called me a bootlicker on stage for not playing his games and got arrested at the end of the commission debate for desecrating the flags of the UD and Reitzmag.
It should concern you that he was the sole candidate in the first election he was a candidate in. Al-Wazir was so unpopular that, in the voting period, member states voted for write-in candidates instead, just to block him from getting elected as the IAC. That alone is a significant reason why we should have this constitutional amendment, especially now that the European Court of Justice has declared write-in votes invalid. We need a mechanism in place that allows member states to vote against unopposed candidates.
Time and time again we hear repeated complaints from member states about how they feel underrepresented and unheard within the European Union and its political institutions. We cannot fix this issue if we decline any opportunity to solve it and keep preferring the status quo.
Member states should have the full right to oppose any candidate for commission, for any reason. There is no valid or invalid reason to vote for or against a candidate, the truth is that there are simply different reasons that we may or may not agree with. We cannot police these states on how they vote, nor is it reasonable to disenfranchise them or all member states because they might have their reasons that we find absurd. It is not morally right to assume bad intentions.
In addition, I want to hear Councillor Lallana explicitly mention which member states she is talking about that might misuse this procedure, and I want the councillors from those member states to defend themselves right here on the council. I also would like to hear how she would like for me to handle a poor political climate, aside from submitting meaningful political reforms like this.
Wirt Harland
Internal Affairs Commissioner of the European Union -
Debate will be extended to 23:59 GMT on 1 February 2023.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I would like to propose the following amendment for clarity purposes:
AMENDMENT V
- If a candidate runs for any Commission office unopposed, there shall be a voting procedure during the voting period of the commission election where all member states can vote on whether they approve or disapprove of the candidate. If the candidate fails to get a simple majority approval, there shall be a special election to fill the office, with the previous candidate barred from entering.
Liam Zachary
Councillor for The State of Elthize -
Due to the amendment, debate will be extended to 23:59 GMT on 5 February 2023.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Debate has ended. Several amendments have been proposed, as follows:
AMENDMENT I
- If a candidate runs for any Commission office unopposed, there shall be a voting procedure where all member states can vote on whether they approve or disapprove of the candidate. If the candidate fails to get a
simple majorityplurality approval, there shall be a special election to fill the office, with the previous candidate barred from entering.
AMENDMENT II
- If a candidate runs for any Commission office unopposed, there shall be a voting procedure where all member states can vote on whether they approve or disapprove of the candidate. If the candidate fails to get a simple majority approval, there shall be a special election to fill the office
with the previous candidate barred from entering.
AMENDMENT III
Section III. Election Procedures
Add the following
articlesclauses betweenarticlesclauses V and VI:~*~ VI. If a candidate runs for any Commission office unopposed, there shall be a voting procedure where all member states can vote on whether they approve or disapprove of the candidate. If the candidate fails to get a simple majority approval, there shall be a special election to fill the office, with the previous candidate barred from entering.
*~ VII. The special election may not have less than two candidates.~*~ VII. The special election shall start immediately after the previous election, following the standard commission election procedures, except for the nomination period, which shall run for an indefinite time before two candidates are nominated, in which case it shall run for seven days.
Renumber clauses VI and VII VII and VIII respectively
AMENDMENT IV
Section III. Election Procedures
-
If a candidate runs for any Commission office unopposed, there shall be a voting procedure where all member states can vote on whether they approve or disapprove of the candidate. If the candidate fails to get a simple majority approval, there shall be a special election to fill the office, with the previous candidate barred from entering.
-
The special election may not have less than two candidates.
-
The special election shall start immediately after the previous election, following the standard commission election procedures, except for the nomination period, which shall run for an indefinite time before two candidates are nominated, in which case it shall run for seven days.
-
Where the total amount of reported votes is under 80% of all participating members, a special election shall be called. A 'participating member' is here defined as one who has shown themselves to be present in discussion or engagement on this forum to a requisite extent as provided in definition by EU rules of conduct.
AMENDMENT V
- If a candidate runs for any Commission office unopposed, there shall be a voting procedure during the voting period of the commission election where all member states can vote on whether they approve or disapprove of the candidate. If the candidate fails to get a simple majority approval, there shall be a special election to fill the office, with the previous candidate barred from entering.
Voting on amendments will begin NOW and continue until 23:59 GMT on 15 February 2023.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen - If a candidate runs for any Commission office unopposed, there shall be a voting procedure where all member states can vote on whether they approve or disapprove of the candidate. If the candidate fails to get a
-
Representing The State of Elthize, I vote FOR the second, third and fifth amendments, AGAINST the fourth amendment and ABSTAIN on the first amendment.
Liam Zachary
Councillor for The State of Elthize -
Voting on amendments has ended. With one vote for, and no votes against, amendments II, III and V have passed; with one vote against, and none for, amendment IV has failed, and with no votes for or against, amendment I has failed.
Final voting will begin now and continue until 23:59 GMT on 27 February 2023.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote AGAINST this constitutional amendment.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of the Democratic Republic of Czech Slavia, I vote AGAINST this amendment.
Sofie Čikarová
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR this amendment
Councillor for United Duchies , James Mizrachi-Roscoe -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this constitutional amendment.
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
The Empire of Inimicus votes AGAINST this Amendment.
Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker -
Representing Elthize, I vote FOR this constitutional amendment.
May Hobbes
Interim Councillor for The State of Elthize -
With 2 votes for and 4 votes against, this amendment has failed.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen
The Kingdom of Spain