Michel Manen's noisy withdrawal from the RA has presented several new questions of Constitutional import. I think we need to discuss these on this forum -- and eventually the SC will have to rule on the issue.
First, Michel Manen is the RA representative from CARE and is the "Executive Council" of CARE. CARE has an elaborate Faction Constitution, giving the Executive Council (that is Michel) extreme control over the party, its positions, and its members (with regard to the members political actions). I believe that this Faction Constitution gives Michel the right to expel anyt member from CARE who acts in a way of which he disapproves.
Leaving aside the propriety and wisdom of such a Politburo form of party governance, which is antithetical to the liberal and democratic principles the CDS in general, and (if we believe its rhetoric) CARE in particular, are committed to, this strong-arm party power presents us with a serious problem.
Under CDS rules, if an RA member resigns from the RA, the next highest vote-getter from the Party of the resigning member takes the seat. The principle here is to have an RA that represents the parties, not the people -- making people, at least in theory, fungible. The problem presented by Michel is that any person who steps into fill his seat will be expelled from CARE -- meaning that if the seat is filled by a CARE vote-getter, it will be filled by someone who represents no party, contrary to the principle of CDS representation.
What I would propose as the simplest and most elegant solution to this problem is to recalculate the outcome of the last election as if CARE had not participated. Michel's seat would then be filled by a member of whichever party would have filled a sixth seat.
This has the tendency to disenfranchise CARE members, whose principal votes in the last election would cease to count. However, I think this disenfranchisemnt is juistified for two reasons. First, given that each citizen casts weighted votes, no CARE voter would be fully disenfranchised. Second, CARE is choosing to disenfranchise itself and its members -- and there seems no particular reason to protect CARE members from their own Party.
Beathan
