An interesting idea from Davis

An interesting idea from a (former?) Davis justice:

Currently, at universities nationwide, there is a problem with elections. That being, that (1) if a candidate gets disqualified, they very frequently sue anyone and everyone until the right people roll over and let them take office, since no one but the candidate themselves cares about it enough to go to court over it; and (2) the candidate invariably cites a misguided interpretation of "democracy" or "will of the people" to support their position. It has been of little avail to advise them that its not "will of the people" if they had an unfair opportunity to influence "the people" or "the people" didn't know critical information about their character. But I came up with a solution that utterly resolves both these problems.

Keep the system of "campaign violations" or "censures" which are given in various amounts for various severities of violations. BUT where currently a certain number mandate disqualification (three in ASUCD, five at Berkeley I believe), replace disqualification with automatic recall. Basically, the candidate still gets elected into office, but a recall election is immediately scheduled for them the following week.

In this matter, it can be conclusively determined whether "the People" would overlook their indiscretions, and I can't imagine a lawsuit overcoming this second voicing of the "will of the people."

How about it, "will of the people" lovers?

By the way, I assume he's wrong about "no lawsuit." They'll still sue and say they got the censures illegally or some such.

Update: I haven't given my opinion. As a matter of principle I don't like the idea, because I don't think "will of the people" arguments are legitimate, and allowing folks to violate the rules if they can get enough popular support doesn't sit well with me.

That said, allowing folks to violate the rules if they can hire enough lawyers isn't too cool, either. As a matter of practice, humiliating folks is the best we can hope for, and a recall may help publicize the wrongdoings more explicitly.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 11/28/2006 03:46:00 PM #
Comments (6)

. . .

Comments:

What about due process? What if the disqualification is unjust? The appeals process is there for a reason.

Also, the ASUC is more well funded and plays a larger role on campus than any other student government. We should be setting the example, and I think the system has worked very well this past year.

# posted by  Anonymous : 6:30 PM, November 28, 2006

 

Um... what about due process and appeals? I don't see how that's relevant to this idea.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 6:51 PM, November 28, 2006

 

I have previously proposed that as a condition for running for office that candidates should agree to binding arbitration in the form of the internal Judicial process, and agree to use that as alternative dispute resolution.

I suppose the problem with forcing student candidates to agree to binding arbitration by the Judiciary is that students who don't wish to be bound by such arbitration are denied the right to run for office. Thoughts?

# posted by  Anonymous : 7:57 PM, November 28, 2006

 

They are already required to sign an agreement to abide by the election by-laws and suffer the consequences of their violation...

# posted by  Anonymous : 9:06 PM, November 28, 2006

 

In general, any such agreement would be meaningless, as we've seen. The complaint merely needs to be "Hey, the ASUC didn't follow its rules," and then they run to court.

# posted by  Beetle Aurora Drake : 9:10 PM, November 28, 2006

 

Not former YET!

# posted by  Anonymous : 10:47 PM, November 28, 2006

 

Post a Comment