4 ms·
This is a very weird take. The candidate in question broke electoral law and gained an unfair advantage in the election process. The constitutional court is obl
by cbg0 2y ago
This is a very weird take. The candidate in question broke electoral law and gained an unfair advantage in the election process. The constitutional court is obligated to step in and cancel the election, as per the constitution. The decision was unanimous.
I agree that he should have lost at the voting booth, but the law is pretty clear on this subject.
- greenavocado 2y ago"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" "Let them bring me prisoners, and I will find them law"
- saint_fiasco 2y agoCouldn't the constitutional court have acted before the election took place? Forbid that candidate from running in the first place? The reason this looks sketchy in the first place is that it happened after they saw the election results, and one gets the feeling that if another candidate won they would not have annulled it.
- cbg0 2y agoHe wasn't exactly super popular before the race, polling below 5% so nobody was really concerned about him, plus the court needs to be called upon to act, as they can't intervene without a complaint being lodged.
- Svoka 2y agoeven weirder take. Let me rephrase it like "What if crime discovered after the fact it was committed?" Or elections is somehow different?
- I-M-S 2y agoWhat about the unfair advantage the incumbents have? Speaking as an outside observer, this seems like a clear case of election interference - but from the big parties, not from whoever this no-name guy happens to be.
- cbg0 2y agoThe fact that the incumbents performed poorly during the past 4 years has led to them having a lot fewer %s in the parliamentary elections, and I think it was the first time that one of the establishment parties' candidates didn't manage to pass the first leg of the presidential elections.