5 ms·

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

by 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.
- gred 2y ago
  No, I'm taking a step back and saying that if the law provides for nullifying the election, it's a bad law. It's an even worse law if no due process is involved (i.e. "nothing has been proven against this candidate in court as of yet, but we're going to go ahead and nullify the election because he benefited from foreign interference, as far as we can tell based on what our intelligence services are telling us"). For what it's worth, it sounds like the runner-up candidate agrees: > Lasconi condemned the court's ruling as "illegal" and "immoral", saying "today is the moment when the Romanian state has trampled on democracy".
  - simion314 2y ago
    >No, I'm taking a step back and saying that if the law provides for nullifying the election, it's a bad law. It's an even worse law if no due process is involved (i.e. "nothing has been proven against this candidate in court as of yet, but we're going to go ahead and nullify the election because he benefited from foreign interference, as far as we can tell based on what our intelligence services are telling us"). Sorry, this is the constitution, it does not allow for years of appeals and dragging your feat. Are you really believing that the guy used zero funds and you need a court and 3 appeals to prove to you that he used more then ZERO funds ?
    - gred 2y ago
      I'm not familiar with the Romanian constitution, but due process is fundamental to the US constitution: > No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The US constitution does not just "allow" for years of appeals, it guarantees your right to defend yourself through that process.
      - simion314 2y ago
        >The US constitution does not just "allow" for years of appeals, it guarantees your right to defend yourself through that process. Don't worry, the pro Ruzzian traitor will have his appeals and lawyers to defend him from fraud and the other accusations, the elections were cancelled and will be repeated so we do not let Ruzzia influence them. What does the US constitution say if it is discovered that there is credible evidence for : 1 a foreign power was involved in election and it affected the results (illegal in Romania) 2 the candidate that commuted fraud by not declaring the money he used (this is illegal in Romania) 3 the guy was unknown for the media and public before election so nobody checked him, now that Tic Tok made him popular it was also discovered a lot of bullshit he done, one of them is glorifying Iron Guard a fascist party in Romania's past (it is illegal to do that here) In USA you let Ruzzia to chose your president because you are only 99% sure? Then won't the president pardon himself? Create some civil war? As I said the constitutional Court decided to repeat the election, they did not decided to jail the guy, or execute him, or even block him to run in Ruzzia.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  No, you prosecute and send for trial the people that committed the illegal acts. If that means deposing the acting president, the you do that - but you do it when you have the proof and a legitimate trial. Not the Constitutional Court inventing a power for itself that it doesn't have, based on vague wording in the Constitution (specifically, they based this decision on an article of the Romanian Constitution that says that "[the Constitutional Court] ensures that the procedures for the election of the Romanian President are followed, and confirms the results of the vote", with no further stipulations - article 146, paragraph f).
  - dataflow 2y ago
    > Not the Constitutional Court inventing a power for itself that it doesn't have, based on vague wording in the Constitution (specifically, they based this decision on an article of the Romanian Constitution that says that "[the Constitutional Court] ensures that the procedures for the election of the Romanian President are followed, and confirms the results of the vote", with no further stipulations - article 146, paragraph f). What powers do you believe this grants, that would make logical sense in a situation like this?
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      None essentially. It just enables other specific laws that organize the functioning of the court in this area, and perhaps it enables the court to settle questions on whether electoral processes have been followed. For example, there is a specific law that specifies how the CCR can verify the results of the election (that certain institutions send the vote counts to it, in some specific format, within X days etc). The same law also specified what happens if the CCR finds that the vote counts are suspect - who can raise such concerns, within what dates, and most importantly, what happens next, when the elections are re-done and by whose decisions. This is how the court is supposed to function. In contrast, the court has trampled on its own jurisprudence, where it only yesterday night (local time) declared that it can't hear any new claims about the elections until the end of the next round.
      - 2y ago
Dalewyn 2y ago
I have long since come to the conclusion that democracy as a power system is merely an excuse for the Powers That Be to obtain and maintain power, it just has better plausible deniability than other means like monarchies, dictatorships, etc. at the cost of not having fine-grained control. Occasionally there are aberrations like Trump, which subsequently lead to the Powers That Be doing everything they can to make sure the vote is made "right".
- avmich 2y ago
  How this theory would explain the changeability of Powers That Be, the fact that they regularly also lose the power?
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    They're all just different heads of the same hydra. "Uniparty" might be a term you're familiar with. All the political catfighting is just kabuki theatre to give the notion power is changing hands.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure that the Powers That Be didn't want the Fair Labor Act, or the Clean Air Act, or the Pure Food and Drug Act, or a number of other things. They may not care who is president, but on issues that they do care about, they still take some losses.
      - bombcar 2y ago
        Large companies always fight against laws regulating them that didn't exist before; but once they exist they always fight for extending them so that new competitors can't arise. "Democracy doesn't effect much" is not the same as "it does nothing at all".
    - oneshtein 2y ago
      > They're all just different heads of the same hydra. s/hydra/nation/
kranke155 2y ago
He took aid from Russia which is against Romanian law.
- mariusor 2y ago
  There's quite a large difference between us all knowing something and it being proven to a degree to make a national level decision on it.
  - throw_pm23 2y ago
    They had to make a quick call, in my book they acted boldly, the risks of the alternative were greater. Everyone has time to cool down and think about it, and the candidate can win if he is good. In the last few days all new information has pointed in the opposite direction.
    - mariusor 2y ago
      > quick call They sat on this info for almost three weeks. Doing it now discards so much money and effort invested by people working the election stations, the people in other countries that already voted, etc. Not to mention that it communicates to the everyone that their vote doesn't count if it's not for the right candidate. A vote made under wrong assumptions is still a vote cast democratically. In my opinion this late decision makes a mocking of a real democratic process. It's also very likely to have the side-effect of destroying Mrs. Lasconi's chances at the presidency. Who do you think that the Georgescu voters will vote for now? Not her for sure. I bet there will be a Simion vs. Ciolacu battle next time, and there we'll go again with choosing the "lesser of the two evils".
      - throw_pm23 2y ago
        On the second point I completely agree with you. She appears to be collateral damage at this point. Perhaps that will raise sympathy and she can get into the second round again.
  - kranke155 2y ago

by gred 2y ago

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.
gred 2y ago
No, I'm taking a step back and saying that if the law provides for nullifying the election, it's a bad law. It's an even worse law if no due process is involved (i.e. "nothing has been proven against this candidate in court as of yet, but we're going to go ahead and nullify the election because he benefited from foreign interference, as far as we can tell based on what our intelligence services are telling us"). For what it's worth, it sounds like the runner-up candidate agrees: > Lasconi condemned the court's ruling as "illegal" and "immoral", saying "today is the moment when the Romanian state has trampled on democracy".
- simion314 2y ago
  >No, I'm taking a step back and saying that if the law provides for nullifying the election, it's a bad law. It's an even worse law if no due process is involved (i.e. "nothing has been proven against this candidate in court as of yet, but we're going to go ahead and nullify the election because he benefited from foreign interference, as far as we can tell based on what our intelligence services are telling us"). Sorry, this is the constitution, it does not allow for years of appeals and dragging your feat. Are you really believing that the guy used zero funds and you need a court and 3 appeals to prove to you that he used more then ZERO funds ?
  - gred 2y ago
    I'm not familiar with the Romanian constitution, but due process is fundamental to the US constitution: > No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The US constitution does not just "allow" for years of appeals, it guarantees your right to defend yourself through that process.
    - simion314 2y ago
      >The US constitution does not just "allow" for years of appeals, it guarantees your right to defend yourself through that process. Don't worry, the pro Ruzzian traitor will have his appeals and lawyers to defend him from fraud and the other accusations, the elections were cancelled and will be repeated so we do not let Ruzzia influence them. What does the US constitution say if it is discovered that there is credible evidence for : 1 a foreign power was involved in election and it affected the results (illegal in Romania) 2 the candidate that commuted fraud by not declaring the money he used (this is illegal in Romania) 3 the guy was unknown for the media and public before election so nobody checked him, now that Tic Tok made him popular it was also discovered a lot of bullshit he done, one of them is glorifying Iron Guard a fascist party in Romania's past (it is illegal to do that here) In USA you let Ruzzia to chose your president because you are only 99% sure? Then won't the president pardon himself? Create some civil war? As I said the constitutional Court decided to repeat the election, they did not decided to jail the guy, or execute him, or even block him to run in Ruzzia.
tsimionescu 2y ago
No, you prosecute and send for trial the people that committed the illegal acts. If that means deposing the acting president, the you do that - but you do it when you have the proof and a legitimate trial. Not the Constitutional Court inventing a power for itself that it doesn't have, based on vague wording in the Constitution (specifically, they based this decision on an article of the Romanian Constitution that says that "[the Constitutional Court] ensures that the procedures for the election of the Romanian President are followed, and confirms the results of the vote", with no further stipulations - article 146, paragraph f).
- dataflow 2y ago
  > Not the Constitutional Court inventing a power for itself that it doesn't have, based on vague wording in the Constitution (specifically, they based this decision on an article of the Romanian Constitution that says that "[the Constitutional Court] ensures that the procedures for the election of the Romanian President are followed, and confirms the results of the vote", with no further stipulations - article 146, paragraph f). What powers do you believe this grants, that would make logical sense in a situation like this?
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    None essentially. It just enables other specific laws that organize the functioning of the court in this area, and perhaps it enables the court to settle questions on whether electoral processes have been followed. For example, there is a specific law that specifies how the CCR can verify the results of the election (that certain institutions send the vote counts to it, in some specific format, within X days etc). The same law also specified what happens if the CCR finds that the vote counts are suspect - who can raise such concerns, within what dates, and most importantly, what happens next, when the elections are re-done and by whose decisions. This is how the court is supposed to function. In contrast, the court has trampled on its own jurisprudence, where it only yesterday night (local time) declared that it can't hear any new claims about the elections until the end of the next round.
    - 2y ago

Dalewyn 2y ago

I have long since come to the conclusion that democracy as a power system is merely an excuse for the Powers That Be to obtain and maintain power, it just has better plausible deniability than other means like monarchies, dictatorships, etc. at the cost of not having fine-grained control. Occasionally there are aberrations like Trump, which subsequently lead to the Powers That Be doing everything they can to make sure the vote is made "right".

avmich 2y ago
How this theory would explain the changeability of Powers That Be, the fact that they regularly also lose the power?
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  They're all just different heads of the same hydra. "Uniparty" might be a term you're familiar with. All the political catfighting is just kabuki theatre to give the notion power is changing hands.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure that the Powers That Be didn't want the Fair Labor Act, or the Clean Air Act, or the Pure Food and Drug Act, or a number of other things. They may not care who is president, but on issues that they do care about, they still take some losses.
    - bombcar 2y ago
      Large companies always fight against laws regulating them that didn't exist before; but once they exist they always fight for extending them so that new competitors can't arise. "Democracy doesn't effect much" is not the same as "it does nothing at all".
  - oneshtein 2y ago
    > They're all just different heads of the same hydra. s/hydra/nation/

kranke155 2y ago

He took aid from Russia which is against Romanian law.

mariusor 2y ago
There's quite a large difference between us all knowing something and it being proven to a degree to make a national level decision on it.
- throw_pm23 2y ago
  They had to make a quick call, in my book they acted boldly, the risks of the alternative were greater. Everyone has time to cool down and think about it, and the candidate can win if he is good. In the last few days all new information has pointed in the opposite direction.
  - mariusor 2y ago
    > quick call They sat on this info for almost three weeks. Doing it now discards so much money and effort invested by people working the election stations, the people in other countries that already voted, etc. Not to mention that it communicates to the everyone that their vote doesn't count if it's not for the right candidate. A vote made under wrong assumptions is still a vote cast democratically. In my opinion this late decision makes a mocking of a real democratic process. It's also very likely to have the side-effect of destroying Mrs. Lasconi's chances at the presidency. Who do you think that the Georgescu voters will vote for now? Not her for sure. I bet there will be a Simion vs. Ciolacu battle next time, and there we'll go again with choosing the "lesser of the two evils".
    - throw_pm23 2y ago
      On the second point I completely agree with you. She appears to be collateral damage at this point. Perhaps that will raise sympathy and she can get into the second round again.
- kranke155 2y ago