8 ms·

This news shows exactly that the constitutional court was not asleep. They took a bold decision.

cedws 2y ago
But as comments have said, even acknowledging interference after the fact and rejecting the result is a failure in democracy, because it's ripe for abuse. Thus, the Russian interference has still succeeded.
- throw_pm23 2y ago
  This is a bit like a football referee looking at the videos after a goal and deciding that it was a handball, thus invalidating the goal. It is not an easy decision to make but better to do it quickly.
- creer 2y ago
  We'll have to see the replacement election to decide that. Will the population change their vote in response or not.
  - throw_pm23 2y ago
    At least everyone has some time to cool down and think and absorb all the information that came out in the last few days.
    - ossobuco 2y ago
      Wait, you voted the wrong way! Here, take a few days to think about it, and then let's try again, ok?
  - tomp 2y ago
    Unlikely. The leading candidate is already being investigated by the police. Chances are he’ll be jailed or otherwise prevented from running.
    - creer 2y ago
      I did not mean to imply that the population should vote again for the same candidate to demonstrate their independence. New evidence was presented to and by a high court and it's fair to expect it to be considered (for example for how convincing it is, and for what all the candidates have to say about it, and even for who presented it and for what reason). If the evidence was serious it also would not make sense to let the election continue. Finally I don't know about Romania, but in a few other countries in Europe, no matter what happens to that sullied candidate, these votes are not too likely to shift to the incumbent party. See for example the circumstances that enabled Macron to be elected the first time in France.
- tremon 2y ago
  acknowledging interference after the fact and rejecting the result is a failure in democracy Citation very much needed. It seems you're desperately arguing towards a pre-determined conclusion. Especially if you're then equating this with a foreign government successfully installing a puppet regime.
- ocschwar 2y ago
  Okay, so the interference has succeeded. So what? If the success is limited to repeating the first round of voting, that's a lot of Ukrainians who will still be alive next year.
  - cedws 2y ago
    It damages confidence in democracy itself.
    - ocschwar 2y ago
      What damages it more? The court playing "calvinball" or a Putin puppet wrecking Romania?
tsimionescu 2y ago
Far from some bold decision in defense of democracy, this is almost a coup by our constitutional court. First, there is no process or even mention in any Romanian law about annuling an election. The Constitutional Court of Romania has two specified roles in an election: it validates candidates (or rejects them, as it did with another far right candidate in this very election), and it validates the election results (or invalidates them if there is a significant suspicion of fraud in the vote counts, after a recount). They issued a recount order for this same election as well, and then decided based on the results that the first round was valid. If they had decided it wasn't valid, there are laws for when it would have been repeated. However, they later came back to this decision, and quoting a vague article in the Constitution that says that they assure the electoral procedures are followed, they invented this concept of annuling the entire electoral process, from the very beginning (so even the candidate registrations have to be re-done). Secondly, they did this based on evidence that was public knowledge for two weeks, including the last few times they met and validated the counts. Thirdly, the evidence in question is vague accusations of Russian interference with no specifics. There are no names, no identified groups, no sums of money except for one lump payment by a businessman. The only clear accusation is campaign finance violations (which the authorities had already blatantly ignored, as the candidate in question had registered his campaign costing 0 RON, which was known to the relevant authorities since last month and to the public for two weeks).
- nottorp 2y ago
  The two ruling parties that are governing in a coalition right now aren't known for either competence or honesty either. Incidentally, their presidential candidates did not make it to the second round of elections. So one can legitimately ask if this is because of the russian interference, or because they want another chance at the presidency?
- sebastianz 2y ago
  OK, but what could they have done instead? There is a very surprising, out-of-nowhere win by an independent, that declared he spent 0eur on his campaign, as a result of what looks to be a large scale (presumably expensive to run) campaign on TikTok, that nobody knows who financed, which will await trial, commissions and investigations to figure out. What could the court have said when they were prompted? Ignore this? I'm not really a 'Constitutional Court' apologist :). I am genuinely curious... what would have been the alternative here?

But as comments have said, even acknowledging interference after the fact and rejecting the result is a failure in democracy, because it's ripe for abuse. Thus, the Russian interference has still succeeded.

throw_pm23 2y ago
This is a bit like a football referee looking at the videos after a goal and deciding that it was a handball, thus invalidating the goal. It is not an easy decision to make but better to do it quickly.
creer 2y ago
We'll have to see the replacement election to decide that. Will the population change their vote in response or not.
- throw_pm23 2y ago
  At least everyone has some time to cool down and think and absorb all the information that came out in the last few days.
  - ossobuco 2y ago
    Wait, you voted the wrong way! Here, take a few days to think about it, and then let's try again, ok?
- tomp 2y ago
  Unlikely. The leading candidate is already being investigated by the police. Chances are he’ll be jailed or otherwise prevented from running.
  - creer 2y ago
    I did not mean to imply that the population should vote again for the same candidate to demonstrate their independence. New evidence was presented to and by a high court and it's fair to expect it to be considered (for example for how convincing it is, and for what all the candidates have to say about it, and even for who presented it and for what reason). If the evidence was serious it also would not make sense to let the election continue. Finally I don't know about Romania, but in a few other countries in Europe, no matter what happens to that sullied candidate, these votes are not too likely to shift to the incumbent party. See for example the circumstances that enabled Macron to be elected the first time in France.
tremon 2y ago
acknowledging interference after the fact and rejecting the result is a failure in democracy Citation very much needed. It seems you're desperately arguing towards a pre-determined conclusion. Especially if you're then equating this with a foreign government successfully installing a puppet regime.
ocschwar 2y ago
Okay, so the interference has succeeded. So what? If the success is limited to repeating the first round of voting, that's a lot of Ukrainians who will still be alive next year.
- cedws 2y ago
  It damages confidence in democracy itself.
  - ocschwar 2y ago
    What damages it more? The court playing "calvinball" or a Putin puppet wrecking Romania?

tsimionescu 2y ago

Far from some bold decision in defense of democracy, this is almost a coup by our constitutional court. First, there is no process or even mention in any Romanian law about annuling an election. The Constitutional Court of Romania has two specified roles in an election: it validates candidates (or rejects them, as it did with another far right candidate in this very election), and it validates the election results (or invalidates them if there is a significant suspicion of fraud in the vote counts, after a recount). They issued a recount order for this same election as well, and then decided based on the results that the first round was valid. If they had decided it wasn't valid, there are laws for when it would have been repeated. However, they later came back to this decision, and quoting a vague article in the Constitution that says that they assure the electoral procedures are followed, they invented this concept of annuling the entire electoral process, from the very beginning (so even the candidate registrations have to be re-done). Secondly, they did this based on evidence that was public knowledge for two weeks, including the last few times they met and validated the counts. Thirdly, the evidence in question is vague accusations of Russian interference with no specifics. There are no names, no identified groups, no sums of money except for one lump payment by a businessman. The only clear accusation is campaign finance violations (which the authorities had already blatantly ignored, as the candidate in question had registered his campaign costing 0 RON, which was known to the relevant authorities since last month and to the public for two weeks).

nottorp 2y ago
The two ruling parties that are governing in a coalition right now aren't known for either competence or honesty either. Incidentally, their presidential candidates did not make it to the second round of elections. So one can legitimately ask if this is because of the russian interference, or because they want another chance at the presidency?
sebastianz 2y ago
OK, but what could they have done instead? There is a very surprising, out-of-nowhere win by an independent, that declared he spent 0eur on his campaign, as a result of what looks to be a large scale (presumably expensive to run) campaign on TikTok, that nobody knows who financed, which will await trial, commissions and investigations to figure out. What could the court have said when they were prompted? Ignore this? I'm not really a 'Constitutional Court' apologist :). I am genuinely curious... what would have been the alternative here?