Support NeoGAF

[kess]

Information Telegraph Agency of Russia:

"The data we have indicates that more than 50% of Crimean Tatars living in Sevastopol came to the polling stations Sunday," he said. "We also have the information that most of them voted in favor of reunification with Russia."

 

[Fat Old Sun]

Percentage of posts made outside this thread by account:

Fat Old Sun - 0%
TarNaru33 - 16.7%

What are you trying to imply here Sir?

 

[Midnight Phoenix]

Well then there will be war. Do you think Crimeans would stand being annexed against their will? If WW2 has taught us anything I'd bet it's not going to be the case. But of course it's not going to happen.

It is baffling how you can ignore the MASSIVE support for reunification with Russia within Crimea. You can't just wish it into not being true.

Massive? Population of Crimea near 2 million. How many supporters you see? Under word massive I want to see at least half of population.

 

[Piecake]

If the news linked below is true and the group who took over Ukraine have a Neo nazi faction and actually were openly neo nazis before 2005 but changed their logo to a more friendly looking symbol but still sort of the same...I could probably see how people living there wouldn't want that group to lead but I don't live there or know anybody there I can trust so I don't know, there's been so much "news" from both sides its difficult to tell whats really going on and who's a shill everyone a shill shill.

The big news networks don't seem to be covering the below stories so it makes me suspicious as its pretty glaring and something people should be talking about how this all started and why these uprisings continue to happen in Ukraine and are funded by the same groups.

As for the below stories, I think they are misleading. I don't know which groups participated in the revolts, so I will take your word for it that some US funded groups did. There is, however, nothing inherently evil about funding pro-democratic and pro-civil engagement groups. At least I would hope no one would think so.

I think its a quite misleading to suggest that the United states funded these revolts because it implies that the purpose of funding those organizations was to have them revolt against their government. That is a very hard claim to make. I think a much more plausible explanation is that these groups protested against a corrupt government that instituted increasingly autocratic measures because they believed in democratic and civil-engagement principles. They didnt do it because they were told to do it by the American government. I don't see anything wrong in that.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Percentage of posts made outside this thread by account:

Fat Old Sun - 0%
TarNaru33 - 16.7%

That's actually a useful stat when looking for trolls/plants on certain controversial topics.

 

[Loxley]

Looking back on the last few weeks, I still can't fathom how shit like this still happens in the 21st century. Russia essentially just invaded a country and took a chunk of it for itself. It's just baffling.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

That's actually a useful stat when looking for trolls/plants on certain controversial topics.

Do you suggest I shut up?

 

[Fat Old Sun]

Massive? Population of Crimea near 2 million. How many supporters you see? Under word massive I want to see at least half of population.

I see over 95%. Have you cast your vote yesterday? I'd love if you told us how the voting went.

 

[kess]

And all that time, no one talks about separation or connection to Russia.

Under Russia, does Crimea have the ability to appoint its own premiers anymore?

 

[Justin]

We talk about whole 20 years of Crimea as part of Ukraine. I lived in Crimea past 16 years, then 6 years in Kharkiv and now I am back to Crimea to my family to rest several month as I am graduated and leaved Gameloft for better, but if this will go in that way, I will be forced to leave my homeland and move to Ukraine or Canada.

And all that time, no one talks about separation or connection to Russia.

Wow sorry this is happening to you. My best friend moved to the US from Kerch five years ago and she is pretty crushed about potentially losing her homeland. I cant even imagine what it must feel like.

 

[Midnight Phoenix]

I see over 95%. Have you cast your vote yesterday? I'd love if you told us how the voting went.

I am boycotting it with my family

Under Russia, does Crimea have the ability to appoint its own premiers anymore?

This will depend how Russia will annex it.

 

[Midnight Phoenix]

Wow sorry this is happening to you. My best friend moved to the US from Kerch five years ago and she is pretty crushed about potentially losing her homeland. I cant even imagine what it must feel like.

I still have a hope, that this all will end well. I was proud to be a part of the oldest town in Europe, but now it just feels like I am not belong to this land anymore.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

I am boycotting it with my family

I indeed do not mean to discard your opinion on the matter of the magnitude of waking up in a different country overnight. It had happened to a lot of us back in 1992. I hope Ukraine will get it together.

 

[Brandson]

For people saying that the overwhelming vote to join Russia should be respected, here are a few details for you:

(1) Far and away the most important problem is that the ballot presented a choice of two options which were to join Russia or to leave Ukraine. There was no option presented to stay in Ukraine. So how exactly are people supposed to vote when presented with this choice?

(2) The vote was rushed in a very short time frame without any type of review of the question to be asked. Even a child could point out the flaws in the choices presented.

(3) There were no attempts made to educate the public regarding the pros and cons of each choice. There was no discussion of monetary policy upon leaving Ukraine, Crimean share of Ukrainian debt, compensation to Ukraine for joining Russia, or other issues prior to the vote. Having a vote so quickly makes any type of considered approach to the vote impossible.

(4) Many people voted who weren't Ukrainian citizens, holding only Russian passports. I don't think many people in the USA would be too happy if Canadians and Mexicans were allowed to come to vote in their presidential elections, severely skewing the result in one direction.

(5) A massive army for the country you are voting to or not to join is occupying your country and preventing the military of the occupied country from receiving supplies, including food. Voting under threat of force couldn't possibly pressure someone to vote or not vote a certain way...

(6) Ukrainians who are flying the flag of Ukraine at their homes in Ukraine are getting bricks thrown at them by Russian mobs.

Does a 90% vote to join Russia under these conditions sound like a fair way to split up a country? The government of Ukraine has lots of problems, but you're fooling yourself if you think this vote is in any way legitimate.

 

[Midnight Phoenix]

I indeed do not mean to discard your opinion on the matter of the magnitude of waking up in a different country overnight. It had happened to a lot of us back in 1992. I hope Ukraine will get it together.

I am not slipping right now, so no worry. I hope so, but reading Crimea forums, especially Sevastopol, is little disturbing and in some way disgusting. Thanks for support.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

The Verkhovna Rada was never disbanded. The Same Verkhovna Rada is in effect now as was under Yanukovych. In fact Yanukovychs own party voted him out

The same cannot be said for Crimea. When Russia Invaded they went to the Crimean Verkhovna Rada and overthrew the Leadership and installed a new leader. The new leader in the previous elections only had 4% of the Crimean vote.

Rather odd the prior leadership was ousted since they were appointed by Yanukovych and were relatively pro Russian. Perhaps the fact they weren't in favor of the referendum is why they were overthrown by outside military forces.

It's amazing how you choose to ignore the bullying that went in Rada as militants took it over. The majority parties that got disbanded immediately, what a shining example of democracy. There's absolutely nothing constitutional about the way the new government was installed and the fact that it falls within your opinion of what is better for Ukraine doesn't actually make it legal. We already went discussed earlier in this thread that in no way or form the impeachment procedure was followed. They didn't even bother to get the number of votes right, let alone follow the rest of the procedures. And Right Sector is an outside military force, which is heavily involved in decision making in today's Ukraine.

As for 4%. Turchinov got 18% as a candidate for mayor of Kiev in 2008. Not a stellar performance either for a president appointee, wouldn't you say?

 

[TarNaru33]

There's a huge contradiction. If one is willing to accept the vote of Verkhovna Rada after 2 majority parties are basically disbanded by militants, one should also accept the message it sends to other parts of Ukraine.

I was under the impression, he was referring to the referendum and how everyone is calling bull on it and comparing it to how people would react if he stated U.S elections were being rigged.

Percentage of posts made outside this thread by account:

Fat Old Sun - 0%
TarNaru33 - 16.7%

Is there a rule about how many post one can make in a thread? My account just became active tonight (as far as I am aware), and this is the 2nd thread I ever posted in, so yes it is a high percentage of my post history.

 

[Piecake]

It's amazing how you choose to ignore the bullying that went in Rada as militants took it over. The majority parties that got disbanded immediately, what a shining example of democracy. There's absolutely nothing constitutional about the way the new government was installed and the fact that it falls within your opinion of what is better for Ukraine doesn't actually make it legal. We already went discussed earlier in this thread that in no way or form the impeachment procedure was followed. They didn't even bother to get the number of votes right, let alone follow the rest of the procedures. And Right Sector is an outside military force, which is heavily involved in decision making in today's Ukraine.

As for 4%. Turchinov got 18% as a candidate for mayor of Kiev in 2008. Not a stellar performance either for a president appointee, wouldn't you say?

On October 1, 2010, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine overturned the 2004 amendments, considering them unconstitutional.[9][10] The Court had started to consider the case on the political reform in 2004 under a motion from 252 coalition lawmakers regarding the constitutionality of this reform of July 14, 2010.[11][12][13] The 2010 nullification decision was highly controversial. The Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner received several reports alleging that the resignation of four judges in the run-up to the decision occurred as a result of extensive pressure by the executive.[14] On November 18, 2010 The Venice Commission published its report titled The Opinion of the Constitutional Situation in Ukraine in Review of the Judgement of Ukraine's Constitutional Court, in which it stated "It also considers highly unusual that far-reaching constitutional amendments, including the change of the political system of the country - from a parliamentary system to a parliamentary presidential one - are declared unconstitutional by a decision of the Constitutional Court after a period of 6 years. ... As Constitutional Courts are bound by the Constitution and do not stand above it, such decisions raise important questions of democratic legitimacy and the rule of law".[15]

On February 21, 2014 the parliament passed a law that reinstated the December 8, 2004 amendments of the constitution.[16] This was passed under simplified procedure without any decision of the relevant committee and was passed in the first and the second reading in one voting by 386 deputies.[16] The law was approved by 140 MPs of the Party of Regions, 89 MPs of Batkivshchyna, 40 MPs of UDAR, 32 of the Communist Party, and 50 independent lawmakers.[16] According to Radio Free Europe, however, the measure was not signed by the then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who allegedly was subsequently removed from office without the constitutionally required procedures.[17]

The executive pressures to cite the 2004-2010 Constitution unconstitutional, institutes the older one that gives him more powers, the legislature then passes the bill that would revert the constitution back to the 2004-2010 one.

Is it constitutionally dubious? probably, but the rule of law and the constitution was circumvented long before the impeachment, mostly by the executive. And the executive made it incredibly hard for it to be impeached.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

For people saying that the overwhelming vote to join Russia should be respected, here are a few details for you:

(1) Far and away the most important problem is that the ballot presented a choice of two options which were to join Russia or to leave Ukraine. There was no option presented to stay in Ukraine. So how exactly are people supposed to vote when presented with this choice?

Not true. Direct translation of 2 questions on the ballots:

1. Are you for reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of Russian Federation?

2. Are you for restoring constitution of 1992 and for status of Crimean Republic as a part of Ukraine?

 

[Fat Old Sun]

Is it constitutionally dubious? probably, but the rule of law and the constitution was circumvented long before the impeachment, mostly by the executive. And the executive made it incredibly hard for it to be impeached.

You see, it's this kind of lenience in case of Rada that makes it hard to take it seriously when one tries to cast shadows on the legitimacy and "constitutionalism" of choices made by Crimean parliament.

 

[gutter_trash]

the 2014 Scotland Referendum talks started in 2011, and okay go ahead in 2012 to have in September 2014. + a clear question on the ballot box was aporved by the UK

A whopping two years to get it going for Scotland.

Now, you guys behind the Iron Curtain tell me you can organize all this in Crimea within 2 weeks? I smell rigged and bullshit

 

[Piecake]

You see, it's this kind of lenience in case of Rada that makes it hard to take it seriously when one tries to cast shadows on the legitimacy and "constitutionalism" of choices made by Crimean parliament.

So you are perfectly fine with the executive putting pressure on the court to adopt an older constitution that gave the executive more powers and made it virtually impossible for him to get impeached? They should have just sat back while the executive accrued more dictatorial powers to the point where elections might have turned into 'elections'?

What they did was constitutional under the 2004-2010 constitution.

 

[Sviatoslav]

I am not slipping right now, so no worry. I hope so, but reading Crimea forums, especially Sevastopol, is little disturbing and in some way disgusting. Thanks for support.

Do you have a link? I'd love to read what the locals think.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Not true. Direct translation of 2 questions on the ballots:

1. Are you for reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of Russian Federation?

2. Are you for restoring constitution of 1992 and for status of Crimean Republic as a part of Ukraine?

Why do they have to revert constitution OR join Russia? Why not neither? Where is the option for status quo? Shouldn't this be a seperate issue handled by a seperate referendum anyway? Why should a referendum be a false dichotomy?

Not that it matters anyway. Even if the question wasn't a bunch of bullshit the results would still be implicitly untrustworthy.

 

[gutter_trash]

the Referendum questions were crap, it should have been strictly a YES or NO option

not a A or B option

why can't all referendums be as clear with a clear cut question as Scotland's 2014 question?

 

[Fat Old Sun]

So you are perfectly fine with the executive putting pressure on the court to adopt an older constitution that gave the executive more powers and made it virtually impossible for him to get impeached? They should have just sat back while the executive accrued more dictatorial powers to the point where elections might have turned into 'elections'?

What they did was constitutional under the 2004-2010 constitution.

You are confused. It's not being argued which constitution should be followed. Rada forced Yanukovich to revert to 2004 constitution and then Rada didn't follow the impeachment procedures of the constitution of their choosing (2004). They didn't follow impeachment procedures of any constitution of Ukraine, past or present.

 

[Tallshortman]

Knowing this vote they probably had their children submit ballots in their place.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

Why do they have to revert constitution OR join Russia? Why not neither? Where is the option for status quo? Shouldn't this be a seperate issue handled by a seperate referendum anyway? Why should a referendum be a false dichotomy?

Not that it matters anyway. Even if the question wasn't a bunch of bullshit the results would still be implicitly untrustworthy.

Status Quo was thrown out of the window along with the constitution of Ukraine. If Kiev can revert back to 2004 constitution on a whim, it's hard to deny this right to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. At least they had the decency to ask the people before doing so.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Status Quo was thrown out of the window along with the constitution of Ukraine. If Kiev can revert back to 2004 constitution on a whim, it's hard to deny this right to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. At least they had the decency to ask the people before doing so.

What are you talking about?

I'm asking you why it's appropriate for a referendum to assume that the status quo is automatically thrown out, and then only give the population the option to change to one of two things. You cannot justify this so you are simply dancing around the issue and engaging in Whataboutism.

 

[antonz]

Status Quo was thrown out of the window along with the constitution of Ukraine. If Kiev can revert back to 2004 constitution on a whim, it's hard to deny this right to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. At least they had the decency to ask the people before doing so.

Reverting to the constitution prior to Yanukovych meant removing all his totalitarian Power grabs which meant more power handed back to the people. In no way was this a negative for Crimea or anyone else.

Why is it the excuse is to protect against Nazis and facists yet Pavel Gubarev self proclaimed Governor of Donetsk is a Neo Nazi Russian and being applauded by the people supposedly in fear of Nazis.

Why did Russia invite known Neo Nazis to oversee the referendum?

 

[demolitio]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FF03oC5zno

Vice video on the new National Guard being built in Ukraine.

Focuses on the youth from the Maidan volunteering and going off for Military training etc.

Lots of respect for them. They started the process to free themselves and now they are ready to defend it

Lots of respect for the volunteers but this is too little too late. They stand for something and send a message, but can't be anywhere near combat ready in that short of time which was evident in that clip where a guy looked through the barrel of his gun after receiving it..lol.

It's useless in this occasion but is definitely needed in case of future issues.

 

[Piecake]

Status Quo was thrown out of the window along with the constitution of Ukraine. If Kiev can revert back to 2004 constitution on a whim, it's hard to deny this right to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. At least they had the decency to ask the people before doing so.

Yes, the Russians were so decent that they invaded the Crimea, set up a new government that wanted to join Russia, and then quickly called a vote that asked the people to choose between Russia and Ukraine with thousands of Russian troops in the Crimea. That totally sounds legitimate. I am not even mentioning the fact that it got 95% of the vote, which should be a pretty clear indication to any rationale person that the vote was rigged. You arent going to get a 95% approval rating on ANYTHING, let alone something as serious and confrontational as a region seceding from a country and being assimilated into another.

 

[CitizenVectron]

the Referendum questions were crap, it should have been strictly a YES or NO option

not a A or B option

why can't all referendums be as clear with a clear cut question as Scotland's 2014 question?

Some are bad. Taken Quebec's 1995 question on separation from Canada:

"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

Many people assumed it meant a vote for total separation, and others assumed it meant a vote for negotiation over more autonomy and power to the province. It turns out that the Premier at the time planned to immediately declare independence if the vote passed, but it failed 50.58% against to 49.42% for. After the results, the federal government passed a law that stipulated all future referendum questions must be clear and concise and agreed upon in advance to avoid this confusion. And while the Canadian constitution does not allow for unilateral secession or referendums proposing it, (much like Ukraine), the Canadian Supreme Court eventually ruled that if Quebec did vote to secede, the Canadian federal government would be legally bound to enter negotiations in good faith based on the spirit of right to self governance, fair treatment of the will of the people, etc. It hasn't come up again, and current polls put support at only around 40%. Partly this is due to Quebec's economy not doing so well. I also hope it has to do with better education about the massive damage it would do to Quebec's economy due to capital flight by Canadian and American businesses, along with other monetary concerns.

Interestingly, records from the USA in 1995 were released this week showing what the US would have done had Quebec won. They would not have recognized Quebec as a sovereign nation until Canada had agreed to the secession, and the US would not have accepted Quebec into NAFTA or other trade agreements automatically. Basically, the USA would have sided with Canada over Quebec, which is not surprising based solely on economic factors.

Anyway I trailed off there, but it's vitally important to have a clear question, because Canada almost broke up because of vagueness!

 

[CitizenVectron]

Status Quo was thrown out of the window along with the constitution of Ukraine. If Kiev can revert back to 2004 constitution on a whim, it's hard to deny this right to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. At least they had the decency to ask the people before doing so.

You are obviously trolling now (along with the post statistics). The difference is that Ukraine is having a national election in May which will allow voters to decide if they want to keep Yanukovych's party in power, or move in a different direction. And unlike Crimea's referendum, it will be internationally monitored and verified. Do you have a response to that? Most likely you will ignore it.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Quebec's economy is doing pretty well, it is full of natural resources, and is the world leader in hydro electricity know-how and resources. Bodes well for the future when all cars will be electric and large surpluses of electricity will be sold to the US (there are already big surpluses sold at a loss).

ETF tracking growth of companies headquartered in Quebec.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

What are you talking about?

I'm asking you why it's appropriate for a referendum to assume that the status quo is automatically thrown out, and then only give the population the option to change to one of two things. You cannot justify this so you are simply dancing around the issue and engaging in Whataboutism.

I have hard time understanding the fixation on 1992 constitution. It is more favorable for Crimean Republic as in widening their rights as an Autonomy within Ukraine. Within Ukraine as remaining part of Ukraine. Which was suggested was not a choice. Which as i've shown is not true. The choice was simple: join Russia or stay with Ukraine with more rights.

 

[CitizenVectron]

I have hard time understanding the fixation on 1992 constitution. It is more favorable for Crimean Republic as in widening their rights as an Autonomy within Ukraine. Within Ukraine as remaining part of Ukraine. Which was suggested was not a choice. Which as i've shown is not true. The choice was simple: join Russia or stay with Ukraine with more rights.

And what of the people who wanted no change at all? Do they not have a say? Also, you haven't responded to my question:

The difference is that Ukraine is having a national election in May which will allow voters to decide if they want to keep Yanukovych's party in power, or move in a different direction. And unlike Crimea's referendum, it will be internationally monitored and verified. Do you have a response to that? Most likely you will ignore it.

In response to:

Originally Posted by Fat Old Sun

Status Quo was thrown out of the window along with the constitution of Ukraine. If Kiev can revert back to 2004 constitution on a whim, it's hard to deny this right to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. At least they had the decency to ask the people before doing so.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

You are obviously trolling now (along with the post statistics). The difference is that Ukraine is having a national election in May which will allow voters to decide if they want to keep Yanukovych's party in power, or move in a different direction. And unlike Crimea's referendum, it will be internationally monitored and verified. Do you have a response to that? Most likely you will ignore it.

Response to what? I don't get your point. Yanukovich party has been disbanded. Unconstitutionally. Future votes are not going to change that. And i doubt that elections in may would be legitimate, what with the like of these guys roaming the country:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phGE_aLRFz4

 

[Fat Old Sun]

And what of the people who wanted no change at all? Do they not have a say?

Now you are trolling. What of people who didn't want to choose between Obama and Romney last election. What about them huh?

 

[Piecake]

Response to what? I don't get your point. Yanukovich party has been disbanded. Unconstitutionally. Future votes are not going to change that. And i doubt that elections in may would be legitimate, what with the like of these guys roaming the country:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phGE_aLRFz4

But the elections in Crimea are? And Elections if Yanukovich was still president would have been legitimate even though he jailed his political opponent and was conducting criminal investigations into other political opponents?

Now you are trolling. What of people who didn't want to choose between Obama and Romney last election. What about them huh?

Is this a joke? They could have voted for a number of other candidates who were on the ballot. Granted, they had no chance, but they still had the option to vote for the green party candidate, etc.

And its just common sense to have a status quo option. It boggles the mind how you can't see that.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

But the elections in Crimea are? And Elections if Yanukovich was still president would have been legitimate even though he jailed his political opponent and was conducting criminal investigations into other political opponents?



Is this a joke? They could have voted for a number of other candidates who were on the ballot. Granted, they had no chance, but they still had the option to vote for the green party candidate, etc.

And its just common sense to have a status quo option. It boggles the mind how you can't see that.

Elections in Crimea are what? And to answer your question about elections with Yanukovich still in power. Those elections would be constitutional and legal. Whether you like his persona or not.

What one hates every candidate on the ballot? What are they to do?
Once again. It was suggested there was no option on the ballots for Crimea to remain part of Ukraine. I showed that to be untrue.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Now you are trolling. What of people who didn't want to choose between Obama and Romney last election. What about them huh?

Then they voted for a 3rd party candidate, who are on most ballots as well. The media only talks about the Democratic and Republican parties because they get 90+% of the vote (except in 1992 when they caused an upset victory for Clinton). Get your facts straight. As well, people have control over who is on the ballot in the US through democratic primaries. In this case, the only people who had control over the ballot and election were people not elected. That would be fine if there were neutral observers, but they were not allowed.

So again, please answer instead of using whataboutisms (which aren't even accurate, as I have shown). Otherwise you're just trolling and should be banned.

What one hates every candidate on the ballot? What are they to do?

They can take part in democratic primaries where they can register to elect the people who will then run in the actual elections. Is this news to you? Or are you that uninformed about how democracies work? Could it be because you don't live in one and have an ulterior motive for being here?

 

[Piecake]

Elections in Crimea are what? And to answer your question about elections with Yanukovich still in power. Those elections would be constitutional and legal. Whether you like his persona or not.

What one hates every candidate on the ballot? What are they to do?
Once again. It was suggested there was no option on the ballots for Crimea to remain part of Ukraine. I showed that to be untrue.

Since I was responding to your post, I obviously meant legitimate. I didnt ask if they were constitutional and legal, I asked if they would be legitimate. You obviously think that future Ukrainian elections will not be legitimate because of parliament banning certain parties, but Jailing all of your political opponents doesnt sound like a way to ensure fair and democratic elections either. Moreover, invading a territory and keeping a huge military prescence there while the vote gets 95% of the vote doesnt sound legitimate, fair and democratic either.

What one hates every candidate on the ballot? What are they to do?

You are just getting absurd...

They can write themselves in as a candidate or anyone else if they hate all of the choices available to them.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Fat Old Sun is giving me a Fat Old Headache trying to follow his mental gymnastics.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Now you are trolling. What of people who didn't want to choose between Obama and Romney last election. What about them huh?

An election must produce a winner, they are a choice between all eligable candidates to form a government. Referendums are where you present a proposal, then give people the chance to accept or reject it. They are NOT the choice between two different proposals without the option to reject both. Even having multiple proposals on one ballot paper is highly unconventional, but not having a "reject all" is simply farce.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

Then they voted for a 3rd party candidate, who are on most ballots as well. The media only talks about the Democratic and Republican parties because they get 90+% of the vote (except in 1992 when they caused an upset victory for Clinton). Get your facts straight. As well, people have control over who is on the ballot in the US through democratic primaries. In this case, the only people who had control over the ballot and election were people not elected. That would be fine if there were neutral observers, but they were not allowed.

So again, please answer instead of using whataboutisms (which aren't even accurate, as I have shown). Otherwise you're just trolling and should be banned.

Does anyone have to vote for 3rd party candidate? What if my candidate is not on the ballot? You haven't shown anything, you just keep circling the issue. The answer to your question is the same as what happens when your candidate/choice is not on the ballot. My answer that It doesn't invalidate the elections/referendum.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Does anyone have to vote for 3rd party candidate? What if my candidate is not on the ballot? You haven't shown anything, you just keep circling the issue. The answer to your question is the same as what happens when your candidate/choice is not on the ballot. My answer that It doesn't invalidate the elections/referendum.

What? I just gave the answer to your previous question. Can someone ban this guy, he is clearly being intentionally obtuse. He asked what other choice do people have than Obama or Romney, and I said they could vote 3rd party. Then he says I haven't answered the question. I mean come on.

Besides, as TDM just answered eloquently above, an election and referendum are different. An election is to choose a new leader after the previous term is complete. A referendum is to accept or reject a proposal, and nothing more. An example would be if some wanted to have a referendum on whether or not to legalize gay marriage, and the choices were "Allow gay marriage," and "allow polygamy." In a referendum, the choice is between the status quo and a new option (or possible multiple new options). But the status quo must be represented.

So anyway, I vote to just ban this guy since he clearly is trolling, only having made posts in this one thread, and clearly refusing to actually take part in conversation in good faith (which I think is a must), and instead is using this platform to spew contradictory views for the sake of contradiction.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

An election must produce a winner, they are a choice between all eligable candidates to form a government. Referendums are where you present a proposal, then give people the chance to accept or reject it. They are NOT the choice between two different proposals without the option to reject both. Even having multiple proposals on one ballot paper is highly unconventional, but not having a "reject all" is simply farce.

I understand that it'd be your preferable method of handling the referendum. But let's agree not to let our personal preferences blind ourselves. People were given a choice to join Russia or stay with Ukraine. Constitution - not a big deal. Look again at Rada in Kiev. They don't seem to hang up on following law or stick with constitution. And it'd be much easier for me to agree with you if you'd shown similar disdain for such disregard for constitution shown in Kiev.

 

[Piecake]

I understand that it'd be your preferable method of handling the referendum. But let's agree not to let our personal preferences blind ourselves. People were given a choice to join Russia or stay with Ukraine. Constitution - not a big deal. Look again at Rada in Kiev. They don't seem to hang up on following law or stick with constitution. And it'd be much easier for me to agree with you if you'd shown similar disdain for such disregard for constitution shown in Kiev.

Thats the definition of referendum though. You either accept the proposal or reject it. Its not his definition. Its the definition.

I'd take your position more seriously if you showed similar disdain for the previous executives disregard for the law and constitution and disdain for Russia invading the sovereign territory of Ukraine, establishing a government favorable to them, and then holding a plebiscite.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

But the status quo must be represented.

I disagree.

So anyway, I vote to just ban this guy since he clearly is trolling, only having made posts in this one thread, and clearly refusing to actually take part in conversation in good faith (which I think is a must), and instead is using this platform to spew contradictory views for the sake of contradiction.

Your righteousness is misplaced here. I care about this topic and i post on it. Your input here is no more appreciated here then mine.