7 ms·

I don't know a lot about this specific situation, but this seems to set a dangerous precedent where governments can just claim "election interference" or "misin

I don't know a lot about this specific situation, but this seems to set a dangerous precedent where governments can just claim "election interference" or "misinformation" any time their candidate loses to get a do-over.

tokai 2y ago
Its not the government doing it. Its the constitutional court on the basis of some kind of evidence. That's how its supposed to work. It would be way more dangerous to let other states meddle in your elections. If the results was true the first time around it'll be the same next time. So in many ways there is no good reason to not have a redo if there is anykind of evidence of foul play.
- anon291 2y ago
  The court is the government. > If the results was true the first time around it'll be the same next time. Not necessarily. Given that the opposition party now knows what the people seem to want, they can do all sorts of things, especially given the knowledge that the court will strike it down should the election not go in their favor.
  - simion314 2y ago
    >Not necessarily. Given that the opposition party now knows what the people seem to want, they can do all sorts of things, especially given the knowledge that the court will strike it down should the election not go in their favor. Like what? they will make the opponents praise Putin and make China and Ruzzia send them funds to cancel the election again?
    - anon291 2y ago
      A country is actually allowed to vote for a pro-Putin politician. You may not like it, but that's not what this is about. Also, it's actually okay to be against democracy. You should just say it instead of dancing around it though.
      - ImHereToVote 2y ago
        People are simply lacking in empathy. Imagine you living so close to a proxy war. Imagine you have children. Which way would you vote?
        simion314 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - simion314 2y ago
        [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- sfjailbird 2y ago
  I think it's the "some kind of evidence" that's the important part.
- stefantalpalaru 2y ago
  [dead]
- idunnoman1222 2y ago
  The right wing party literally made TikTok’s that the governing part(ies?) didn’t like, but which apparently resonated with the people they labelled them as misinformation. Have you heard that one before?
  - tzs 2y ago
    What do you mean by "the" right wing party? Romania has several right wing parties, none of which supported Georgescu. He ran as an independent.
    - IceHegel 2y ago
      Looking like that was the correct choice.
- IceHegel 2y ago
  Under your theory, could the Supreme Court have canceled the 2016 election result because of Russian interference?
  - dataflow 2y ago
    What does the US constitution say about the court's role in elections? What does the Romanian constitution say? (Though to be honest they could still make whatever ruling they want in the US. It's probably cause chaos as people try to figure out if they're bound by it.)
piva00 2y ago
You can read about it, the decision just came out and it's public. Georgescu declared spending zero euros in funding while investigations found about 50m€ spent. The Constitutional Court has determined election interference based on what they got, it's better to do a do-over rather than allow Russia interference in the democratic process. You can claim the slippery slope fallacy but given the potential catastrophe of allowing Russian interference I'll side with the CCR on this case.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  But we are wary of giving up fundamental democratic protections of our votes for the boogeyman of Russia. There will always be a Boogeyman. There won't always be free and fair elections. Campaign finance violations are serious. Why is the vote allowed to continue if they happen? Why is this not probed well before the election?
- mariusor 2y ago
  In fairness he can't declare funds that haven't passed directly through his campaign accounts. It's a transparent loop hole, but it needs to be patched, not used as post-factum evidence supporting wrong doing.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  That would have been a good argument sometime while the campaign was still in progress. Once the votes were cast, any court would recognize this is a fait accompli. It's crazy to annull elections (a procedure which no law whatsoever, nor the Constitution, even mentions, it was invented wholesale by the CCR during their meeting today) based on campaign finance violations, even ones involving outside interference. What would have happened if the interference were discovered only next year? Would you have been ok with annuling the elections after the new president was already in office? This is no different whatsoever, after the first round was finished. I hated and feared CG as much as anyone, but this court decision is obviously crazy and undemocratic (as pointed out by the other candidate in the second round as well).
  - throw_pm23 2y ago
simion314 2y ago
[flagged]
gred 2y ago
Agreed. You do your best to counter and mitigate this type of foreign influence, but once people have voted, they have voted. Once you start to rationalize "but they only voted this way because X", it will be tempting to expand X in a way that disenfranchises and disempowers citizens.
- simion314 2y ago
  >Agreed. You do your best to counter and mitigate this type of foreign influence, but once people have voted, they have voted. Once you start to rationalize "but they only voted this way because X", it will be tempting to expand X in a way that disenfranchises and disempowers citizens. And you ignore the laws? You discover that the candidate do illegal stuff?
  - LudwigNagasena 2y ago
    Is there a law that calls for election annulment if a candidate does illegal stuff? I doubt. In fact, usually there are specifically no such laws to avoid initiatives for political prosecution.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Over in Japan, the newly re-elected Hyogo Prefecture Governor is being sued for violating electoral laws concerning his use of social media, with the penalties including voiding of the election and the stripping of his electoral rights. Incidentally, the Governor was re-elected in an upset victory after being ousted by the Hyogo Prefecture Legislature over alleged power harrassment scandals. Yes, the Japanese establishment hates him and are doing anything possible to get rid of him.
      - rbanffy 2y ago
        > and are doing anything possible to get rid of him. As long as it's legal, there is nothing very wrong with it. If he committed crimes that influenced the election, then the election is void and he should be banned from politics.
KaiserPro 2y ago
First it's not the government its the supreme court second a democracy needs to follow laws. If the candidate broke a law, then that can, if the law stipulates, invalidate an election result.

tokai 2y ago

Its not the government doing it. Its the constitutional court on the basis of some kind of evidence. That's how its supposed to work. It would be way more dangerous to let other states meddle in your elections. If the results was true the first time around it'll be the same next time. So in many ways there is no good reason to not have a redo if there is anykind of evidence of foul play.

anon291 2y ago
The court is the government. > If the results was true the first time around it'll be the same next time. Not necessarily. Given that the opposition party now knows what the people seem to want, they can do all sorts of things, especially given the knowledge that the court will strike it down should the election not go in their favor.
- simion314 2y ago
  >Not necessarily. Given that the opposition party now knows what the people seem to want, they can do all sorts of things, especially given the knowledge that the court will strike it down should the election not go in their favor. Like what? they will make the opponents praise Putin and make China and Ruzzia send them funds to cancel the election again?
  - anon291 2y ago
    A country is actually allowed to vote for a pro-Putin politician. You may not like it, but that's not what this is about. Also, it's actually okay to be against democracy. You should just say it instead of dancing around it though.
    - ImHereToVote 2y ago
      People are simply lacking in empathy. Imagine you living so close to a proxy war. Imagine you have children. Which way would you vote?
      - simion314 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - simion314 2y ago
      [flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
sfjailbird 2y ago
I think it's the "some kind of evidence" that's the important part.
stefantalpalaru 2y ago
[dead]
idunnoman1222 2y ago
The right wing party literally made TikTok’s that the governing part(ies?) didn’t like, but which apparently resonated with the people they labelled them as misinformation. Have you heard that one before?
- tzs 2y ago
  What do you mean by "the" right wing party? Romania has several right wing parties, none of which supported Georgescu. He ran as an independent.
  - IceHegel 2y ago
    Looking like that was the correct choice.
IceHegel 2y ago
Under your theory, could the Supreme Court have canceled the 2016 election result because of Russian interference?
- dataflow 2y ago
  What does the US constitution say about the court's role in elections? What does the Romanian constitution say? (Though to be honest they could still make whatever ruling they want in the US. It's probably cause chaos as people try to figure out if they're bound by it.)

piva00 2y ago

You can read about it, the decision just came out and it's public. Georgescu declared spending zero euros in funding while investigations found about 50m€ spent. The Constitutional Court has determined election interference based on what they got, it's better to do a do-over rather than allow Russia interference in the democratic process. You can claim the slippery slope fallacy but given the potential catastrophe of allowing Russian interference I'll side with the CCR on this case.

aprilthird2021 2y ago
But we are wary of giving up fundamental democratic protections of our votes for the boogeyman of Russia. There will always be a Boogeyman. There won't always be free and fair elections. Campaign finance violations are serious. Why is the vote allowed to continue if they happen? Why is this not probed well before the election?
mariusor 2y ago
In fairness he can't declare funds that haven't passed directly through his campaign accounts. It's a transparent loop hole, but it needs to be patched, not used as post-factum evidence supporting wrong doing.
tsimionescu 2y ago
That would have been a good argument sometime while the campaign was still in progress. Once the votes were cast, any court would recognize this is a fait accompli. It's crazy to annull elections (a procedure which no law whatsoever, nor the Constitution, even mentions, it was invented wholesale by the CCR during their meeting today) based on campaign finance violations, even ones involving outside interference. What would have happened if the interference were discovered only next year? Would you have been ok with annuling the elections after the new president was already in office? This is no different whatsoever, after the first round was finished. I hated and feared CG as much as anyone, but this court decision is obviously crazy and undemocratic (as pointed out by the other candidate in the second round as well).
- throw_pm23 2y ago

simion314 2y ago

[flagged]

gred 2y ago

Agreed. You do your best to counter and mitigate this type of foreign influence, but once people have voted, they have voted. Once you start to rationalize "but they only voted this way because X", it will be tempting to expand X in a way that disenfranchises and disempowers citizens.

simion314 2y ago
>Agreed. You do your best to counter and mitigate this type of foreign influence, but once people have voted, they have voted. Once you start to rationalize "but they only voted this way because X", it will be tempting to expand X in a way that disenfranchises and disempowers citizens. And you ignore the laws? You discover that the candidate do illegal stuff?
- LudwigNagasena 2y ago
  Is there a law that calls for election annulment if a candidate does illegal stuff? I doubt. In fact, usually there are specifically no such laws to avoid initiatives for political prosecution.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Over in Japan, the newly re-elected Hyogo Prefecture Governor is being sued for violating electoral laws concerning his use of social media, with the penalties including voiding of the election and the stripping of his electoral rights. Incidentally, the Governor was re-elected in an upset victory after being ousted by the Hyogo Prefecture Legislature over alleged power harrassment scandals. Yes, the Japanese establishment hates him and are doing anything possible to get rid of him.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      > and are doing anything possible to get rid of him. As long as it's legal, there is nothing very wrong with it. If he committed crimes that influenced the election, then the election is void and he should be banned from politics.

KaiserPro 2y ago

First it's not the government its the supreme court second a democracy needs to follow laws. If the candidate broke a law, then that can, if the law stipulates, invalidate an election result.