That the PNC still maintain this farce as mathematically sound in counting people is would be hilarious if it was not serious. I await the judges decision. They most likely will lose on this argument but may win on the dual citizenship side. The judged would be laughed at for the rest of her life if she accept this magical thinking as mathematics.

D2 posted:

That the PNC still maintain this farce as mathematically sound in counting people is would be hilarious if it was not serious. I await the judges decision. They most likely will lose on this argument but may win on the dual citizenship side. The judged would be laughed at for the rest of her life if she accept this magical thinking as mathematics.

This Judge's decision on Thursday or before will go down as one of the most significant one in Guyana's political history. It will create a legal precedent for how votes are tallied and concluded but it will also pave the way for many Guyanese politicians to decide if they will give up their citizenship elsewhere or if they will abandon Guyana's politics.

ksazma posted:

D2 posted:

That the PNC still maintain this farce as mathematically sound in counting people is would be hilarious if it was not serious. I await the judges decision. They most likely will lose on this argument but may win on the dual citizenship side. The judged would be laughed at for the rest of her life if she accept this magical thinking as mathematics.

This Judge's decision on Thursday or before will go down as one of the most significant one in Guyana's political history. It will create a legal precedent for how votes are tallied and concluded but it will also pave the way for many Guyanese politicians to decide if they will give up their citizenship elsewhere or if they will abandon Guyana's politics.

The citizenship clause is the PPP's doing. If they fall on the sword on that account as I expect they will,  it is good karma and I wont advise anyone to shed a tear. If they lose, Ifart is toast.  He will be indicted and convicted in the next two years.

The PPP will certainly lose in 2020  since all third parties will get time to build and the PNC will get time to pad their rolls  through granting access to oil lucre to buy patronage from armies of new contract class and the old  financial class. The Old financial class always survive whomever is in office. 

The ruling on dual citizens  will be overturned in the next legislature since both parties  need dual citizens in every area.

D2 posted:

ksazma posted:

D2 posted:

That the PNC still maintain this farce as mathematically sound in counting people is would be hilarious if it was not serious. I await the judges decision. They most likely will lose on this argument but may win on the dual citizenship side. The judged would be laughed at for the rest of her life if she accept this magical thinking as mathematics.

This Judge's decision on Thursday or before will go down as one of the most significant one in Guyana's political history. It will create a legal precedent for how votes are tallied and concluded but it will also pave the way for many Guyanese politicians to decide if they will give up their citizenship elsewhere or if they will abandon Guyana's politics.

The citizenship clause is the PPP's doing. If they fall on the sword on that account as I expect they will,  it is good karma and I wont advise anyone to shed a tear. If they lose, Ifart is toast.  He will be indicted and convicted in the next two years.

The PPP will certainly lose in 2020  since all third parties will get time to build and the PNC will get time to pad their rolls  through granting access to oil lucre to buy patronage from armies of new contract class and the old  financial class. The Old financial class always survive whomever is in office. 

The ruling on dual citizens  will be overturned in the next legislature since both parties  need dual citizens in every area.

I don't know what to make of third parties as they spring up overnight and then die out in similar fashion. Guyana just don't have the resources to finance political parties that have no activity. The AFC was able to survive because it drew political and financial support from members of the two major and long standing parties. If there are no elections this year, all the non-PPP Guyanese will lean toward the PNC and that could very well supply the PNC with sufficient votes to ward off the PPP. Secondly, if Irfaan is guilty of malfeasance, he should be held responsible so I too wouldn't shed any tears over that. Nevertheless, I am curious of the judge's pronouncements next week. 

ksazma posted:

D2 posted:

ksazma posted:

D2 posted:

That the PNC still maintain this farce as mathematically sound in counting people is would be hilarious if it was not serious. I await the judges decision. They most likely will lose on this argument but may win on the dual citizenship side. The judged would be laughed at for the rest of her life if she accept this magical thinking as mathematics.

This Judge's decision on Thursday or before will go down as one of the most significant one in Guyana's political history. It will create a legal precedent for how votes are tallied and concluded but it will also pave the way for many Guyanese politicians to decide if they will give up their citizenship elsewhere or if they will abandon Guyana's politics.

The citizenship clause is the PPP's doing. If they fall on the sword on that account as I expect they will,  it is good karma and I wont advise anyone to shed a tear. If they lose, Ifart is toast.  He will be indicted and convicted in the next two years.

The PPP will certainly lose in 2020  since all third parties will get time to build and the PNC will get time to pad their rolls  through granting access to oil lucre to buy patronage from armies of new contract class and the old  financial class. The Old financial class always survive whomever is in office. 

The ruling on dual citizens  will be overturned in the next legislature since both parties  need dual citizens in every area.

I don't know what to make of third parties as they spring up overnight and then die out in similar fashion. Guyana just don't have the resources to finance political parties that have no activity. The AFC was able to survive because it drew political and financial support from members of the two major and long standing parties. If there are no elections this year, all the non-PPP Guyanese will lean toward the PNC and that could very well supply the PNC with sufficient votes to ward off the PPP. Secondly, if Irfaan is guilty of malfeasance, he should be held responsible so I too wouldn't shed any tears over that. Nevertheless, I am curious of the judge's pronouncements next week. 

PR allows for third parties. It is the state of affairs where ever the system is used from Israel to India to england to France to Belgium. We did not grow any given we had ethnic bifurcation and distrust. That has changed with population demographic shifts

Presently, there is a growing influential middle ( a fifth of the voting pool) that is of  mixed races live and they are not motivated by black or indian. They are fluid in both cultures and, whether each side like it or not, are the "pretty" people.  Then there are the Amerindians who also make up another fifth and do not trust either parties having been stiffed by them for 3 generations.

These and other factors will generate third party numbers sufficiently so to hold the center. We have already had that over two elections cycle. The AFC was a trial run. In the future it will be not to make friends but to influence decisions. Third parties, even ones with just one seat can control any of the other two who win the plurality. They may even demand ministerial roles as elsewhere just to vote with the government.  

ksazma posted:

D2 posted:

ksazma posted:

D2 posted:

That the PNC still maintain this farce as mathematically sound in counting people is would be hilarious if it was not serious. I await the judges decision. They most likely will lose on this argument but may win on the dual citizenship side. The judged would be laughed at for the rest of her life if she accept this magical thinking as mathematics.

This Judge's decision on Thursday or before will go down as one of the most significant one in Guyana's political history. It will create a legal precedent for how votes are tallied and concluded but it will also pave the way for many Guyanese politicians to decide if they will give up their citizenship elsewhere or if they will abandon Guyana's politics.

The citizenship clause is the PPP's doing. If they fall on the sword on that account as I expect they will,  it is good karma and I wont advise anyone to shed a tear. If they lose, Ifart is toast.  He will be indicted and convicted in the next two years.

The PPP will certainly lose in 2020  since all third parties will get time to build and the PNC will get time to pad their rolls  through granting access to oil lucre to buy patronage from armies of new contract class and the old  financial class. The Old financial class always survive whomever is in office. 

The ruling on dual citizens  will be overturned in the next legislature since both parties  need dual citizens in every area.

I don't know what to make of third parties as they spring up overnight and then die out in similar fashion. Guyana just don't have the resources to finance political parties that have no activity. The AFC was able to survive because it drew political and financial support from members of the two major and long standing parties. If there are no elections this year, all the non-PPP Guyanese will lean toward the PNC and that could very well supply the PNC with sufficient votes to ward off the PPP. Secondly, if Irfaan is guilty of malfeasance, he should be held responsible so I too wouldn't shed any tears over that. Nevertheless, I am curious of the judge's pronouncements next week. 

On the other challenge  of the NCV by Reed, Neil Boston presentation to the Judge, members from a close list  Electoral System  [Constitutionally] cant vote for the opposition.

Django posted:

On the other challenge by Reed, Neil Boston presentation to the Judge, members from a close list  Electoral System  [Constitutionally] cant vote for the opposition.

That is complete crap. The idea that we are hiring drones and not a creatively active legislature is nonsense.  In the western democratic tradition parliamentarians are seen as constituent members of a voting block but also as representing the people not the President even if he selected them from the list. The President himself represent the people as does the list. They vote for both. The list is deemed closed because Parliamentarians do not have direct constituencies.

The culture of ethnic patterns kept parliamentarians in line. That is the custom not the law. They law said any parliamentarian is an independent voter representing a constituency. 

Django posted:

ksazma posted:

D2 posted:

 

I don't know what to make of third parties as they spring up overnight and then die out in similar fashion. Guyana just don't have the resources to finance political parties that have no activity. The AFC was able to survive because it drew political and financial support from members of the two major and long standing parties. If there are no elections this year, all the non-PPP Guyanese will lean toward the PNC and that could very well supply the PNC with sufficient votes to ward off the PPP. Secondly, if Irfaan is guilty of malfeasance, he should be held responsible so I too wouldn't shed any tears over that. Nevertheless, I am curious of the judge's pronouncements next week. 

On the other challenge by Reed, Neil Boston presentation to the Judge, members from a close list  Electoral System  [Constitutionally] cant vote for the opposition.

All kinds of constitutional jhanjat now. A closed list, an open list...what difference does it make? It was legal before the NCV. Nobody complained about "lists". Only when you are thrown out on your ass, you bring in all dis ginkak bring ramgoat story? I am not talking about you Django, I am referring to the PNC and their bullying tactics.

skeldon_man posted:

Django posted:

ksazma posted:

D2 posted:

 

I don't know what to make of third parties as they spring up overnight and then die out in similar fashion. Guyana just don't have the resources to finance political parties that have no activity. The AFC was able to survive because it drew political and financial support from members of the two major and long standing parties. If there are no elections this year, all the non-PPP Guyanese will lean toward the PNC and that could very well supply the PNC with sufficient votes to ward off the PPP. Secondly, if Irfaan is guilty of malfeasance, he should be held responsible so I too wouldn't shed any tears over that. Nevertheless, I am curious of the judge's pronouncements next week. 

On the other challenge by Reed, Neil Boston presentation to the Judge, members from a close list  Electoral System  [Constitutionally] cant vote for the opposition.

All kinds of constitutional jhanjat now. A closed list, an open list...what difference does it make? It was legal before the NCV. Nobody complained about "lists". Only when you are thrown out on your ass, you bring in all dis ginkak bring ramgoat story? I am not talking about you Django, I am referring to the PNC and their bullying tactics.

In one constituency systems as ours the electors elect a president and legislative members on a list. It is deemed closed because the list is seen as a unit for which the one constituency of electors vote for or against.  It is an open list if the electors had a choice of parliamentarians to vote for and t hat would mean ( in our case) 65 constituencies. 

D2 posted:

 

PR allows for third parties. It is the state of affairs where ever the system is used from Israel to India to england to France to Belgium. We did not grow any given we had ethnic bifurcation and distrust. That has changed with population demographic shifts

Presently, there is a growing influential middle ( a fifth of the voting pool) that is of  mixed races live and they are not motivated by black or indian. They are fluid in both cultures and, whether each side like it or not, are the "pretty" people.  Then there are the Amerindians who also make up another fifth and do not trust either parties having been stiffed by them for 3 generations.

These and other factors will generate third party numbers sufficiently so to hold the center. We have already had that over two elections cycle. The AFC was a trial run. In the future it will be not to make friends but to influence decisions. Third parties, even ones with just one seat can control any of the other two who win the plurality. They may even demand ministerial roles as elsewhere just to vote with the government.  

Third party is essential as a neutralizer especially in a country so evenly divided between the two major political parties. The AFC had that coveted role but squandered it when they became an arm of one of the two original parties. Had they merged with the PPP, they would be in the same "yes man" position as they are with the PNC. There is also the possibility that third cannot be relied on to provide that police role as earlier envisioned. But time will tell where the political winds in Guyana will blow.

D2 posted:

Django posted:

On the other challenge by Reed, Neil Boston presentation to the Judge, members from a close list  Electoral System  [Constitutionally] cant vote for the opposition.

That is complete crap. The idea that we are hiring drones and not a creatively active legislature is nonsense.  In the western democratic tradition parliamentarians are seen as constituent members of a voting block but also as representing the people not the President even if he selected them from the list. The President himself represent the people as does the list. They vote for both. The list is deemed closed because Parliamentarians do not have direct constituencies.

The culture of ethnic patterns kept parliamentarians in line. That is the custom not the law. They law said any parliamentarian is an independent voter representing a constituency. 

Bhai, the 1980 Constitution of Guyana is a confusing Document. Nothing written are clear, one can hop from one clause to another to verify the meaning when there is a challenge.

D2 posted:

skeldon_man posted:

Django posted:

ksazma posted:

D2 posted:

 

I don't know what to make of third parties as they spring up overnight and then die out in similar fashion. Guyana just don't have the resources to finance political parties that have no activity. The AFC was able to survive because it drew political and financial support from members of the two major and long standing parties. If there are no elections this year, all the non-PPP Guyanese will lean toward the PNC and that could very well supply the PNC with sufficient votes to ward off the PPP. Secondly, if Irfaan is guilty of malfeasance, he should be held responsible so I too wouldn't shed any tears over that. Nevertheless, I am curious of the judge's pronouncements next week. 

On the other challenge by Reed, Neil Boston presentation to the Judge, members from a close list  Electoral System  [Constitutionally] cant vote for the opposition.

All kinds of constitutional jhanjat now. A closed list, an open list...what difference does it make? It was legal before the NCV. Nobody complained about "lists". Only when you are thrown out on your ass, you bring in all dis ginkak bring ramgoat story? I am not talking about you Django, I am referring to the PNC and their bullying tactics.

In one constituency systems as ours the electors elect a president and legislative members on a list. It is deemed closed because the list is seen as a unit for which the one constituency of electors vote for or against.  It is an open list if the electors had a choice of parliamentarians to vote for and t hat would mean ( in our case) 65 constituencies. 

Well that is what is needed, no one seems to push for the changes from closed list to open list system.

Django posted:

D2 posted:

Django posted:

On the other challenge by Reed, Neil Boston presentation to the Judge, members from a close list  Electoral System  [Constitutionally] cant vote for the opposition.

That is complete crap. The idea that we are hiring drones and not a creatively active legislature is nonsense.  In the western democratic tradition parliamentarians are seen as constituent members of a voting block but also as representing the people not the President even if he selected them from the list. The President himself represent the people as does the list. They vote for both. The list is deemed closed because Parliamentarians do not have direct constituencies.

The culture of ethnic patterns kept parliamentarians in line. That is the custom not the law. They law said any parliamentarian is an independent voter representing a constituency. 

Bhai, the 1980 Constitution of Guyana is a confusing Document. Nothing written are clear, one can hop from one clause to another to verify the meaning when there is a challenge.

Sahabudeen was an untrained constitutional scholar so cut and paste from other constitutions. By himself he could not cover all exigent circumstance or resolve all inconsistencies. There was no body of scholars aiding him argumentatively on each section hence we have no literature supporting intent. Our Constitution is  as any bright student would concoct for a research project.

However, the list system is clear. We are not supposed to be electing dictators. After 92, the interpretation of the value of this document is that ( though not explicated stated) all powers not enumerated is reserved by the people because that is how liberal democracy is supposed to work.Such reserves include no reference that the legislator is bound to the President's decision hence the interpretation leans to the legislator being free to make independent decision.

If we are electing a dictator then the list is a static voting instrument and all such exercise in parliament mere pomp and circumstance. However, we never took it that way. A vote taken in parliament follow all parliamentary rules per quorum etc meaning t he individual legislator is autonomous. 

D2 posted:

A vote taken in parliament follow all parliamentary rules per quorum etc meaning t he individual legislator is autonomous. 

Not under Guyana Electoral System, a Gov't MP can't vote against the government, if he disagrees with the gov't he have to resign.

Guyana need a new Constitution one that's clearly defined, sanitizing the 1980 Constitution will be an exercise in futility.

Django posted:

D2 posted:

A vote taken in parliament follow all parliamentary rules per quorum etc meaning t he individual legislator is autonomous. 

Not under Guyana Electral System, a Gov't MP can't vote against the government, if he disagrees with the gov't he have to resign.

As I said, no direct reference state such and if it did it would be inconsistent with a sitting parliament since the heads of each party can decide by themselves with no need for votes.  A parliament would be redundant. A reading of the document with this interpretation is as absurd as 34 being the majority. We have a parliament because a deliberative process is encouraged and entertained and the arguments are to explain to voting legislature empowered to vote the merit of the case argued. 

Attorney for Reid, Neil Boston argued in court yesterday that Charrandas is expected to only vote alongside the government from which he sits. Is he suggesting that these MPs are mere rubberstamps?

D2 posted:

Django posted:

D2 posted:

A vote taken in parliament follow all parliamentary rules per quorum etc meaning t he individual legislator is autonomous. 

Not under Guyana Electral System, a Gov't MP can't vote against the government, if he disagrees with the gov't he have to resign.

As I said, no direct reference state such and if it did it would be inconsistent with a sitting parliament since the heads of each party can decide by themselves with no need for votes.  A parliament would be redundant. 

We understand what a Parliament should be Democratically. Guyana's Constitution stated other wise.

ksazma posted:

Attorney for Reid, Neil Boston argued in court yesterday that Charrandas is expected to only vote alongside the government from which he sits. Is he suggesting that these MPs are mere rubberstamps?

Taken to its full extension they are saying we only have one authoritative entity the president. In its extremity he would also be empowered to over rule the judiciary since absent a legislature who needs a judiciary? The president can merely post edicts!

ksazma posted:

Attorney for Reid, Neil Boston argued in court yesterday that Charrandas is expected to only vote alongside the government from which he sits. Is he suggesting that these MPs are mere rubberstamps?

Yes, it means you can't vote against your government, you have to resign if there is a dislike.

Check my discourse with D2

The attorney should question himself of why the speaker has asked the government side to vote individually by name. 

Django posted:

We understand what a Parliament should be Democratically. Guyana's Constitution stated other wise.

If that is true then I will wake up each day like the Queen of hearts and decide to believe 5 or 6 impossible things before breakfast.

The suggestion of such an absurdity is mind boggling and the reason we need to dump the constitution and build it from the ground up.

The US constitution is 17 pages and has been used as a living document meaning nothing is changed but amended to increase scope these 200 years .

Ours is in the hundreds of pages and any two bit lawyer can argue the absurd as real ie 34  is the absolute majority in evaluating 65 votes or now...the president is king and parliament a farce. 

Prince posted:

The attorney should question himself of why the speaker has asked the government side to vote individually by name. 

After "Yes and Nays"  in voting and a division is called, MP Names are called out for the entire house.

That was done at the recent NCV.

ksazma posted:

Attorney for Reid, Neil Boston argued in court yesterday that Charrandas is expected to only vote alongside the government from which he sits. Is he suggesting that these MPs are mere rubberstamps?

Neil Boston contended that Persaud’s vote has to be deemed invalid. In such a case, he said there were only 32 valid votes in favour of the motion and 32 votes against. Once there is an equal number of votes in the House, any action is not carried, by virtue of Charandass having alliance to Canada. 

The judge should asked him if he agree all previous vote were invalid and as a result the government is illegal and new election is due. 

Django posted:

ksazma posted:

Attorney for Reid, Neil Boston argued in court yesterday that Charrandas is expected to only vote alongside the government from which he sits. Is he suggesting that these MPs are mere rubberstamps?

Yes, it means you can't vote against your government, you have to resign if there is a dislike.

Check my discourse with D2

Therefore, all National Assembly activities in Guyana is mere theatre. The government MPs voting of the government motions and the Opposition against them and vice-versa. This then present a new problem which is a complete waste of taxpayers resources since the president can just decree it and it is law.

Django posted:

ksazma posted:

Attorney for Reid, Neil Boston argued in court yesterday that Charrandas is expected to only vote alongside the government from which he sits. Is he suggesting that these MPs are mere rubberstamps?

Yes, it means you can't vote against your government, you have to resign if there is a dislike.

Check my discourse with D2

the reality of anyone making that argument with a straight face should not only raise the ire of the people to ask for his head but they should be in the street because they do not have a democracy and are duped to vote for a king.

D2 posted:

Django posted:

We understand what a Parliament should be Democratically. Guyana's Constitution stated other wise.

If that is true then I will wake up each day like the Queen of hearts and decide to believe 5 or 6 impossible things before breakfast.

The suggestion of such an absurdity is mind boggling and the reason we need to dump the constitution and build it from the ground up.

The US constitution is 17 pages and has been used as a living document meaning nothing is changed but amended to increase scope these 200 years .

Ours is in the hundreds of pages and any two bit lawyer can argue the absurd as real ie 34  is the absolute majority in evaluating 65 votes or now...the president is king and parliament a farce. 

Mentioned in an earlier post.

Prior to the 1980 Constitution, MP's used to cross floor.

Dave posted:

ksazma posted:

Attorney for Reid, Neil Boston argued in court yesterday that Charrandas is expected to only vote alongside the government from which he sits. Is he suggesting that these MPs are mere rubberstamps?

Neil Boston contended that Persaud’s vote has to be deemed invalid. In such a case, he said there were only 32 valid votes in favour of the motion and 32 votes against. Once there is an equal number of votes in the House, any action is not carried, by virtue of Charandass having alliance to Canada. 

The judge should asked him if he agree all previous vote were invalid and as a result the government is illegal and new election is due. 

 

The Coalition government is valid based on the 5k contested votes advantage. Ordinary laws and budgets passed only require a majority of votes from MPs voting in for that proposal. NCV requires a majority of all MPs which is currently 65. To that point, everything is valid with the Coalition government. Where they are stepping in their own shit in by arguing that 33 persons in a absolute total of 65 does not constitute a majority. Even me who is a school dropout knows that they are just bullshitting. 

Django posted:

D2 posted:

A vote taken in parliament follow all parliamentary rules per quorum etc meaning t he individual legislator is autonomous. 

Not under Guyana Electoral System, a Gov't MP can't vote against the government, if he disagrees with the gov't he have to resign.

Guyana need a new Constitution one that's clearly defined, sanitizing the 1980 Constitution will be an exercise in futility.

Was it ok for Naga and Ramjattan to bring down the PPP? Should they have resigned? Look how things have changed heh! Dis ting like dry goat shit. Which way breeze ah blow dese days?

Prince posted:

The attorney should question himself of why the speaker has asked the government side to vote individually by name. 

The Speaker is a nice guy so he was interested in holding the peace. He didn't want to arouse the ire of the PNC bullies. 

Django posted:

D2 posted:

Django posted:

We understand what a Parliament should be Democratically. Guyana's Constitution stated other wise.

If that is true then I will wake up each day like the Queen of hearts and decide to believe 5 or 6 impossible things before breakfast.

The suggestion of such an absurdity is mind boggling and the reason we need to dump the constitution and build it from the ground up.

The US constitution is 17 pages and has been used as a living document meaning nothing is changed but amended to increase scope these 200 years .

Ours is in the hundreds of pages and any two bit lawyer can argue the absurd as real ie 34  is the absolute majority in evaluating 65 votes or now...the president is king and parliament a farce. 

Mentioned in an earlier post.

Prior to the 1980 Constitution, MP's used to cross floor.

Let me reiterate, a democracy is about individual sovereignty. They are the primary sociopolitical monad for whom the social compact was fabricated. They cannot give up any right not explicitly decreed.

Legislators are sovereign representations of the people's choice. No means test is mentioned for their capacity to sit in the legislative body except citizenship. No rules say that because the join a party, are included on a party list, that they give up their sovereign right in and to the state.

It is pure stretching of  credibility to its elastic limit that these nits for attorneys use sophistry to decree we are serfs to a suzerain lord by constitutional decree. The absurdity is enough for people not to accept a constitutional government ask for a strongman or military dictatorship if the document say rule is by decree.

My arguments are philosophical but they are the underpinning of any democracy, I will go back and read this document but if any two bit lawyer can deconstruct democracy using it then it is useless to us.