I haven’t written anything substantial on this topic as of yet, but it is one of the set of new ideas I’ve had for revitalizing the charter. When cabinet members or other positions must be recalled, the rules currently state there must be a 3-day debate time on the recall and on top of that, a full new election must be organized for a new member being voted in. Generally speaking, in my experience, positions are only recalled when a person has gone inactive or has deviated from acceptable behavior. These are almost always clear cut and without a need for debate. Additionally, since inactivity is usually the most common reason, even before the recall, the government would be essentially without a player in that position. Tacking on 3 days of frankly useless debate plus a full length voting period plus a snap election is like two to three more weeks without anyone in the position. For that reason, I believe we should:
Shorten the debate and vote time on the recall vote. It don’t need to be that long. Snap that election, it’s almost always obvious, and if it isn’t, it probably doesn’t need to resort so quickly to recall. If anything, a discussion thread can be opened in cases of iffyness separate of official debate times.
Increase the parameters of office vacancy in the election act so if there’s ever a vacant slot, it’s just filled by the PM or whatever alternate authority presides over that position. Frankly, the plan is to someday eliminate some of those elections (aka ministerial ones), but that’s a topic for another day.
Lmk any thoughts, comments, or ideas. If the thread does gain some traction, it shouldn’t be too bad to write up a quick legal amendment.
I agree that debate time should be shortened as the recall itself has already been debated but the elections should remain the same length.
Taking this opportunity to remind you that the minimum full length of passing an amendment to constitutional laws is currently 10 days, which can be motioned for the election to begin before the minimum 5-day debate period but that can be objectified by any legislator.
(^As finely demonstrated in thread replies when the Minister of Media, who won the position by a landslide with the campaign of abolishing the Ministry, began the amendment thread).
I disagree on the elections. That tacks another week on to any recall where there is no person in that position. How is that fair to the ministry or the region?
Also I’m not 100% sure how the amendment times are relevant to this
Because it’s fair to the legislators time management; it’s also fair since recalls due to non-vacancy reasons carry a lot of weight with them which means a lot of legislators might need more time to make a decision.
I’m subtly suggesting that there shouldn’t be mandatory minimum nor maximum debate times at all. Usually they are finished before the minimum debate time (wasted) or they are extended far beyond the minimum debate time (in which case the minimum debate time is irrelevant).
Only tangentially related, but people generally cast their Assembly vote in the first two days of the vote, so often there is little reason to have 3-day or 5-day votes.
This is basically what I mean when I’m saying election times don’t need to be that long. I also still think the vacancy should just be filled by a PM appointment. Accelerates the process considerably. Legislators who are actually active (a totally separate issue I’m also trying to address) usually vote much quicker than the allotted time. In cases like recalls where expedience is key, that time should be shortened.
In cases where the recall obviously has no merit - yes. However, in cases where a determined effort is made to recall someone, especially if the recall at least seems to have a case, a process where the recall can just be rammed through is not a good idea.
Disagree. If it becomes obvious that a contentious recall is being very clearly rushed to vote, the body would vote against it. We’re not exactly a group of just purely uninformed voters
There’s nothing in our current body of law that prevents the Prime Minister from appointing a deputy to oversee a ministry while a minister is inactive. Some past Prime Ministers have even personally sought to fill the role of a minister during periods of inactivity or extended leaves of absence. There’s also nothing that prevents informal organization within a ministry for a deputy minister to assume a greater role pending the conclusion of the recall process.
I don’t see how expediency is key in this case. If we look at the actions of past Prime Ministers, they have hardly been expedient in seeking the recall of inactive ministers even with the knowledge that they would have to navigate this supposedly slow and cumbersome process. There are a range of options available to address any short-term issues arising from an inactive minister already.
I’m fairly ignorant about the ministries makeup, but isn’t it normal to have a deputy minister, or is it just a once in a while thing? And if it’s normal, shouldn’t the deputy just slide into running the show while the minister is off doing whatever?