.::The Official General Election 2015 Thread::.

[UML]

i know. that explains why you still cant answer his question

[UML]

^^lol... The gov't is being very general about the cause and effect of this whilst the opposition including Jack warner have been specific about the process/consequences/possibilities etc

Could please explain these consequences to me. I am a bit unclear.

What are the consequences of term limits, fixed election dates, recall.....

Good sir, in response to you here are the following:

(1) Firstly nobody ever said there were consequences to the above. It is juvenile to pick put the good parts that exist in order to make your argument seem strong.
The current amendments being proposed stops you from a third term as PM, however you can come back after the 15th year. There is nothing saying no one cannot ever serve again. This is open to manipulation for e.g Putin and how he had a puppet installed, called all the shots anyways and then came back. Who is to say term limits in our current system is bad? Suppose someone can do their best work in their third term? Orville London is in his fourth elected term, would you have denied him of this? Whatever your feelings on this are subjective anyway as we all have our own opinions.

(2) No one ever said fixed election dates was bad here and to even throw that out is distracting at best and is a waste of our time

(3) You cannot just say recall etc without being specific. The act itself is not bad, it is the process that is impractical and open to many difficulties. The various problems with a recall as the gov't proposes will leave you with a right you cannot exercise. The elements of which have been repeated ad-nauseum.

Therefore do not be selective and pick out certain things that clearly no one is against to make ppl who are against these amendments seem unreasonable. That is simple-minded and base and you can do better if you tried

he make a point and take front first

is Tobago in a better position within these 4 terms? Tourism numbers? Cost to repair THA house, etc?

[Crackpot]

Crackpot, care to elaborate. I didn't get chance to watch the debate so I honestly just looking to hear the arguments that were presented.

UML, shhhhhh, big people talkin

The main points IMO against were:

1. It will take more votes to remove someone than it is to elect him. The electorate in T&T traditionally do not have large voter turnouts so this is impractical at best. They used the example of the member for St.Augustine who was elected with over 9000 votes but to remove him you need over 15000 votes.

2. The petitition part is open to manipulation as the EBC was neither consulted nor do they have the resources to verify all those signatures required.

3. The removal of an MP ishighly subjective. What criteria does an MP meet to say he performs well?
What is the job description of an MP? What happens when an MP is in an opposition constituency and gets no resources but a petition to remove him is started. Is that what we are encouraging the citizens to do? Get with the winning team or else your vote means nothing?

This is just the tip of all that was discussed but IMO the arguments against could have been stronger as there are more to this that the public did not hear. Anyone thinking scientifically and examining the facts of this with a lack of emotion can determine easily what this is all about

[UML]

It is not picking and choosing I am referring to the most talked about parts of the bill. Using the example of Orville London in his third term is a very bad example for obvious reasons as Tobago is a runaway horse right now. By his second term Patrick Manning had caused the near collapse of our society, would you have wanted him to have a third term? Term limits are there for a reason...

I had mentioned everything that the PNM had opposed without good reason. As I said there needs to be some tweaking but to throw out everything simply because doesn't like it is extremely myopic.

Those are not the most talked about parts of the bill my friend

There are many talked abt parts of the bill that show and prove that it is nonsense but this bill does not need tweaking it needs rubbishing.

Would you click in the drop down box, go to Car classifieds and buy somebody project car that not even wired or running or need engine/transmission work a/c etc??? After you get into it you cannot get out easily.

Don't insult us and tell us that by spitting on us eventually we will get clean.

Relax with you anti-pnm agenda and understand what this will do to T&T in the long run

and AGAIN stop beating around the bush and makign general vague statements...what is the brimstone and fire that the pnm refers to?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

^^lol... The gov't is being very general about the cause and effect of this whilst the opposition including Jack warner have been specific about the process/consequences/possibilities etc

Could please explain these consequences to me. I am a bit unclear.

What are the consequences of term limits, fixed election dates, recall.....

[Slartibartfast]

Crackpot, care to elaborate. I didn't get chance to watch the debate so I honestly just looking to hear the arguments that were presented.

UML, shhhhhh, big people talkin

The main points IMO against were:

1. It will take more votes to remove someone than it is to elect him. The electorate in T&T traditionally do not have large voter turnouts so this is impractical at best. They used the example of the member for St.Augustine who was elected with over 9000 votes but to remove him you need over 15000 votes.

2. The petitition part is open to manipulation as the EBC was neither consulted nor do they have the resources to verify all those signatures required.

3. The removal of an MP ishighly subjective. What criteria does an MP meet to say he performs well?
What is the job description of an MP? What happens when an MP is in an opposition constituency and gets no resources but a petition to remove him is started. Is that what we are encouraging the citizens to do? Get with the winning team or else your vote means nothing?

This is just the tip of all that was discussed but IMO the arguments against could have been stronger as there are more to this that the public did not hear. Anyone thinking scientifically and examining the facts of this with a lack of emotion can determine easily what this is all about

Thanks. I really appreciate this. I was originally supporting the passing of this bill and I normally don't agree with PNM at all, but those points seem more than good enough to justify a postponement of the passing of the bill. Those items really need to be revised and amended to ensure that this does not cause confusion later on.

I still think the general ideas are good, but a lot of work still needs to be done on it.

[Crackpot]

^^ You quoting the wrong statements, go back and read my previous statements

[Crackpot]

Lemme educate the folks some more as hearsay is ridiculous.


http://www.ttparliament.org/documents/2246.pdf

Follow the above link and educate yourself as to what the amendments are really about.

To pull a few stuff from the link though

(Quote) In relation to the recall of members of the House of Representatives, the Bill would, by
clause 5, amend section 49(2) of the Constitution to require a member of the House of
Representatives to vacate his seat where the Speaker informs the House that he has
received from the Chairman of the Elections and Boundaries Commission, a petition
requesting that the member be recalled and that a bye-election be held in the
constituency that the member represents. The petition must be supported by at least
two-thirds of all the persons who, on the date of issuance of the petition, were registered
voters in that constituency.

Now for the links. http://www.trinidadandtobagonews.com/ar ... sults.html
http://ebctt.com/historicalData.php

Ahem: for example the member for Arima Roger Samuel who won in 2010 with 7612 votes of the eligible 24115 votes won with only 31.6% of the votes. To remove him you would have to get nearly 16000 votes Now with Two-Round system this means that of the close proximity of his votes of 7612 and Laurel Lezama-Lee Sing 7,241 votes there would be a run-off. Now the member is not elected at all untill the run-off. If any candidate so chooses he can come to an agreement with the other party to try to get the other meagre 371 votes to get into power which is an electoral cop-out and a compromise on one's political beliefs to simply get power at any means necessary which is despicable. Also where are you gonna get 16000 votes to remove this M.P? Productivity is already at an unacceptable level in this country of holiday after holiday, now is election after election. Allyuh give the voters ah chance to breathe nah after 4 years of P.R and continuous campaigning.

(Quote): An application for a recall petition would be required to be in a form which would be
included in a new Fourth Schedule to the Constitution. A person would not be able to
apply for a recall petition before the expiration of three years, or after the expiration of
four years, from the first poll of the last general election. The Elections and Boundaries
Commission would not, however, approve the application unless it is supported by at
least ten percent of all the persons who are registered to vote in the constituency.

^^ Why wait so long to remove some-one who is doing nothing in your area? This is giving power to no-one. Also the third and fourth year of every term will be chaos and confusion as everyone will try to weaken each other before the general election out of strategy and spite. Is this good for the nation?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_fatigue . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system


(Quote): A person who is registered to vote, and who resides, in the particular constituency would
be able to canvass for signatures in support of an application for a recall petition after the
expiration of three years from the first poll of the last general election. The text of the
petition would need to be on each page containing the signatures of persons who are in
support of the application.

^^ You have to put your name next to whatever the petition is. For instance. This petition is for the removal of the MP for [ ] for corruption/contracts given to gangsters/absenteeism/immorality/misbehaviour in public office etc. Your name and info is next to whatever two people put there. Good luck with that after you are in public stopping people's money.

(Quote): A person who canvasses for signatures would be required to make a statutory declaration
that he is registered to vote, and resides, in the constituency specified in the petition, that
the signatures were voluntarily given and were not obtained by means of harassment,
intimidation or threat, and that to the best of his knowledge, the signatures were given
by persons whose names appear on the list of registered voters in the constituency.

^^ Where is BRIBERY? Where is coersion? How loose is this G.String? Where is giving of gifts? This is not written therefore no action can be taken to stop anything like this

(Quote): The Elections and Boundaries Commission would cause the petition to be published in the
Gazette, newspapers and on its website and would make it available for inspection and
for the casting of ballots in support of it at for a period of twenty-one days. Registered 6
voters would be able to cast their ballots at advertised locations between 8:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., including on Saturdays and Sundays, but not on public holidays. In as much as
the Elections and Boundaries Commission may not have the resources to ensure that each
registered voter who casts a ballot still resides in the constituency, a person would be
required to make a statutory declaration that he is registered to vote, and resides, in the
constituency, before he casts his ballot.

^^ All of your signatures and info would be published and you are no longer an anonymous voter putting you in danger of victimisation, threat, violence, and other forms of intimidation.

(Quote): TRS lessens the problems of ‘vote-splitting’, the common situation in many
plurality/majority systems where two similar parties or candidates split their combined
vote between them, thus allowing a less popular candidate to win the seat. Also, because
electors do not have to rank-order candidates to express their second choice, TRS may be
better suited to countries where [color=#FF0000]illiteracy is widespread than systems which use
preferential numbering like the Alternative Vote or the Single Transferable Vote
[/color]
^^ It is in the document under Advantages that this is good for where illiteracy is widespread
They are insulting the population and the "MAJORITY" of us don't even know it How dare them?

There are also more dis-advantages to this than there advantages in the very document and the advantages clearly do not outweigh the disadvantages.

[Slartibartfast]

Again... Thanks crackpot. I was seriously out of the loop on this one.

[pete]

What are you talking about? That same case you pointed out the winner had a majority over 50% and there would be no run off election.. There were only two parties

[Crackpot]

What are you talking about? That same case you pointed out the winner had a majority over 50% and there would be no run off election.. There were only two parties

no padna, read again

[pete]

For the % they would use votes cast and not eligible voters. Nobody would ever get over 50% of eligible, voter turnout is usually less than that.

[Crackpot]

For the % they would use votes cast and not eligible voters. Nobody would ever get over 50% of eligible, voter turnout is usually less than that.

EXACTLY my friend. Now why bring amendments to the Constitution of all things when you are highly unpopular and affect changes that you know will not be good for the country

This will be mired in run-offs after run-offs whilst alienating people who do not align themselves to PNM/UNC having to choose who they believe is the lesser of two evils to pick.

[desifemlove]

Does Kamla know what PR actually is?

Wit dis run off ting, most UNC/PNM constitencies gonna get 50%. and even in run off, dey still gonna win. So it only gonna be de marginals in de racially mixed constitencies that will feature here.

Kamla seem to be tinking dat ILP people is ex/current UNC, so dey vote for she. but then who says there'll be no PNM splitner group? Not all parties that break off will be UNC-leaning. So this system Kamla does want ent gonna reflect voter totals for seats. lol..

My system, if I were in Kamla's place, everybody get two votes in de booth - one is a constituency vote. De next is a list, where you does check a party. So yuh could vote PNM for constituency, but UNC for de list, or vice versa. Each party registered to run draws a list of 30 people, and when de list votes calculated, each party does get share of seats. So if UNC/PNM get 40% list votes, they get 80% of all list seats.

[Habit7]

#rentacrowd

[Crackpot]

The Sheep will tell you that the PNM did it too...

Yet still this is the most set of rent-a-crowd, blind loyalists in the history of this country.

Everytime there is a protest against this gov't they bus their supporters and force Cepep and Urp workers to show up or else.

This is fascism right in our eyes, but who have eyes to see let them see

[Crackpot]

Where is the amendment to recall non-elected members?

Where is the amendment to remove the A.G ?

Where is the logic if someone is elected by 50-60% of the people to have a recall initiated by 10% who can be opposition cronies?

Where is the fairness if it took one week from last week to now to bring this legislation in the 4th year to use it in the future but not last year when the public could have used it

[pioneer]

Nobody knows crowd procurement better than pnm.

[Crackpot]

Nobody knows crowd procurement better than pnm.

*shew*

[De Dragon]

Where is the amendment to recall non-elected members?

Where is the amendment to remove the A.G ?

Where is the logic if someone is elected by 50-60% of the people to have a recall initiated by 10% who can be opposition cronies?

Where is the fairness if it took one week from last week to now to bring this legislation in the 4th year to use it in the future but not last year when the public could have used it

Did you attend any of the Constitutional Reform Committee hearings?

[PariaMan]

"A population of sheep will one day get a government of wolves"

Looks like that day has arrived

[Crackpot]

Where is the amendment to recall non-elected members?

Where is the amendment to remove the A.G ?

Where is the logic if someone is elected by 50-60% of the people to have a recall initiated by 10% who can be opposition cronies?

Where is the fairness if it took one week from last week to now to bring this legislation in the 4th year to use it in the future but not last year when the public could have used it

Did you attend any of the Constitutional Reform Committee hearings?

Were you? if so then point out in the link i provided where in the amendments are the above.

[PariaMan]

The UNC knows that they can do anything g and eighteen seats guaranteed. PNM on the other hand know that they only have about three guaranteed seats

We are now very close to a majority of UNC sheep. The wolves are circling..

[shogun]

Look meh girl...

Died and resuscitated from laughter at this idiot, when i saw it orn the news.

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

http://m.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-08-12 ... dment-bill


Dookeran, Carolyn vote against Constitution (Amendment) Bill


Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Dookeran this morning voted against a bill that many have said would signal the death of his political party in future elections.

Dookeran, former political leader of the Congress of the People, and Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan, the party's current chair, both voted against the Constitution (Amendment) Bill after a marathon session in the Lower House.

Another COP member, Rodger Samuels, abstained.

COP political leader and Legal Affairs Minister Prakash Ramadhar voted for the bill, along with Arts Minister Lincoln Douglas. The Bill passed with Government's simple majority.

In his contribution to the debate, Dookeran said his decision came after listening to his “inner voice.”

Earlier in the day Prime MInister Kamla Persad-Bissessar had announced that she would allow a division to be called at the end of the debate, despite needing a simple majority for the bill to be passed.

She told Government MPs that they should vote according to conscience.

"I cannot sit here and allow the next generation's interest to be compromised by the politics of today," Dookeran said.

“I also have an obligation to ensure that the young people of this country will have a political and electoral system in which they can in fact have free and independent choice in exercising their democratic rights.”

Dookeran’s statements were met with loud thumping from the opposition side and silence from Government benches.

"If I were to vote in support of this run-off mechanism I would be voting against the principle of proportional mechanism and that is my major concern at this point and I cannot have spent an entire life in search of a mechanism to bring about a wider participation of all the different groups in this society and adopted that we should move toward proportional representation in some form and fashion and now have to simply accept that a run-off mechanism will be a substitute and in fact it is a contradiction," he said.

“I was disappointed that such a mechanism was not accepted or any other mechanism of that nature.”

The former Congress of the People (COP) leader said he had raised his concerns in Cabinet and believed it was somewhat in recognition of that, as well as the fact that the COP took a strong position on the issue, that Persad-Bissessar had indicated she was withdrawing the obligation of collective responsibility.

“I appreciate that, but for me, if conscience matters and indeed it matters and we must exercise our conscience in an issue like this, it is also important to exercise consience in the concept of collective responsibility.”

“So I am not prepared here to simply accept that conscience matters in the vote before us. I am also here to accept the obligation of that vote in context of collective responsibility.”

Adding that he would seek a meeting with Persad-Bissessar to further discuss the matter, he said he had an obligation to himself and to his own conscience, to support the aspirations of the 140,000 people who voted for the COP ion 2007 and perhaps beyond that.

“Because I have to listen to my inner voice, I have to indicate to this honourable house that I will be unable to support this bill in its presence form. I will therefore have no choice but to vote against it.”

[pete]

Damn that was like a Jimmy Kimmel apple trolling video

[De Dragon]

Where is the amendment to recall non-elected members?

Where is the amendment to remove the A.G ?

Where is the logic if someone is elected by 50-60% of the people to have a recall initiated by 10% who can be opposition cronies?

Where is the fairness if it took one week from last week to now to bring this legislation in the 4th year to use it in the future but not last year when the public could have used it

Did you attend any of the Constitutional Reform Committee hearings?

Were you? if so then point out in the link i provided where in the amendments are the above.

I'll take your indignant reply at what was a perfectly innocent question as a no.

[Crackpot]

Where is the amendment to recall non-elected members?

Where is the amendment to remove the A.G ?

Where is the logic if someone is elected by 50-60% of the people to have a recall initiated by 10% who can be opposition cronies?

Where is the fairness if it took one week from last week to now to bring this legislation in the 4th year to use it in the future but not last year when the public could have used it

Did you attend any of the Constitutional Reform Committee hearings?

Were you? if so then point out in the link i provided where in the amendments are the above.

I'll take your indignant reply at what was a perfectly innocent question as a no.

No intention to disrepect bro but I was not there

[UML]

ESC: Debate runoff bill after election

By SEAN DOUGLAS Tuesday, August 12 2014

THE Emancipation Support Committee (ECS) has urged Government to withdraw the controversial Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014 and delay any debate on changing the electoral system until after the next general election.

In a statement signed by leader Khafra Kambon, the ESC yesterday called on Government to heed the many voices raising fundamental objections to the bill.

“Provisions in the bill have far reaching implications for the future of governance in our society,” the ESC warned.

“The most controversial ‘runoff’ clause poses risks for the society, both from its possible outcomes in an electoral contest and from the atmosphere it has already generated which will only get worse in an election environment.”

The ESC said elections can exacerbate social divisions and heighten racial tensions, and all political stakeholders must act responsibly so as not to compromise the country’s relative harmony.

“Many of the justifiably passionate commentaries so far on this section of the bill should alert us to the dangers in an environment where each major party’s core support is ethnically based,” advised the ESC.

“The danger lies not only in the possibility of an outcome that postpones the final result of an election but in the additional fuel the controversial clause will add to the heat of the election campaign.”

The ESC said the current Government has had the opportunity to recognise that there is a “no win” situation for the people of Trinidad and Tobago if this bill is rushed through Parliament before the election, and must immediately withdraw it.

The committee urged that after next year’s general election if any MP elected in the new Parliament then think that the bill’s runoff clause, and or other new major provisions, are good for the country those proposals must be publicly aired and debated before such a bill is introduced into the Lower House.
http://www.newsday.co.tt/politics/0,198973.html

..everybody singing for the PNM supper.


even meh girl merle

Timeline of runoff provision
Published:
Monday, August 11, 2014


March 2, 2013- Cabinet appoints a National Commission on Constitutional Reform to engage in public consultation on constitutional reform. 12 June 2013 - Legal Affairs Minister Prakash Ramadhar says $4 million is spent on consultations.

27 December 2013 - The Report of the Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) is submitted to the Prime Minister.
30 April - A meeting is held and the CRC agrees to some proposals selected from the report, to be taken to Parliament. The runoff is not discussed.
9 July - Another meeting is held to discuss recommendations. Commissioner Merle Hodge says she was absent from this meeting in which the runoff ballot is discussed.
4 August - Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar reveals that second ballot runoff voting, right of recall, fixed election dates and two term limits for Prime Ministers will be part of the new constitutional reform.
6 August - Opposition leader Dr Keith Rowley describes the proposed legislation as “dangerous” saying it had the potential for a defeated party to hold on to power while secondary elections are held.
7 August - Constitutional Reform Commission Member, Dr Merle Hodge says the contentious runoff proposal was not in the People’s Partnership manifesto, the main consultations around the country or in the commission’s final report. She calls for the parliamentary debate to be postponed.
8 August - Attorney General Anand Ramlogan says commissioners were “handsomely paid” and attacks Hodge saying she was upset by the defeat of the Winston Dookeran faction by the Ramadhar faction in the Congress of the People’s (COP) internal election.
8 August - Former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj says the bill will trigger political instability in T&T if it becomes law. He vows to mount a legal fight to stop the bill.
9 August - Former Senator Subhas Panday also predicts dire consequences for T&T if the bill is passed, saying it is an attack on democracy.
9 August - Non-governmental organisation Fixin T&T mounts a protest outside the Prime Minister’s Philippine residence. They are chased off by government supporters led by chairman of the Penal/Debe Regional Corporation Premchand Sookoo.
10 August - Movement for Social Justice also calls for the postponement of the debate and issues a call for COP and TOP parliamentarians to withdraw their support.
10 August - Congress of the People calls for a delay in the vote of the legislation to allow for wider analysis.
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-08- ... -provision

SO SHE WAS ABSENT but quick to jump up and cause bachannal to say it wasnt part of the discussion. I am not surprised!

What I find strange was that she missed the meeting but didn't bother to find out after what was discussed.

She's trying to tell the nation that she signed off on it and didn't know about the addendum.....dereliction of duty perhaps.

...look like she like to sign ting and say "me na no"

[Habit7]

Just heard Carolyn Seepersad Bachan just destroy the entire morning panchayat panel

#newrespect

[UML]

All this set ah beat up from PNM tuners and bill still pass, well its off to the senate now.

I guess those who highfiving eachother over the passing of the bill missing the point. The fact that such a fundamental bill of our democracy passed without widespread popular support is condemning the gov't. Even more so that there were 2-3 dissenting voices on the gov't side is also showing a wide rift in the gov't. This doesn't bode we'll for them in 2015.

Plus although all the gov't needs is one independent vote in the senate, these are the same senators who voted against the solider/police bill. The writing is on the wall for the PP.

SO SHE WAS ABSENT but quick to jump up and cause bachannal to say it wasnt part of the discussion. I am not surprised!

It still wasn't part of the public consultation.

but didnt she say she never hear bout it and it was never discussed?

how could it be part of the consultations when the CRC recommended that something be done whe they SUBMITTED their report?!!!