Removal

There are several Removal Paths available concerning the Executive Group. Each path serves a specific purpose and each situation must use the appropriate path. Each of these removal methods attempts to utilize those who would best understand the situation or have the most Standing be the effectors of the removal.

Path 1: Office Fitness

Should an Executive Group member's office fitness become a question of mental or physical ability, or an Executive Group member has not been available for a Decision Vote for 15 days due to an unexpected unavailability, then the following process is used to remove that member:

1. The remaining four Executive Group members must be in unanimous agreement and Record their vote for this removal (if 15 days have elapsed due to an unexpected unavailability, then the Justice Branch can move forward without the approval of the Executive Group).
2. The Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch will have five days to investigate the situation to first insure this is the appropriate Removal Path.
   1. Thy may referr to the expertise of other Branches or Departments if needed.
   2. The documentation of this investigation will be deposited into an Informed Vote Archive for review by the the participants in a Global Justice Branch Vote.
3. The Global Justice Branch Vote will be held within five days following the deposit into the Informed Vote Archive to determine the appropriateness of the removal of the Executive Group member using this Removal Path.
4. With a successful Global Justice Branch Vote, the findings of the investigation will then be made available to the Branch Officials of all Intrinsic and Lateral Branches via an Informed Vote Archive.
5. The Branch Officials of every Intrinsic and Lateral Branch will have five days to review the information and then vote using the Aggregate Vote method.
6. All Branch Officials are required to vote, and a simple majority among the Branches using the Aggrege Vote method will results in the removal of the Executive Group member.
   1. A tie does not count as a majority.
   2. If there is a failed vote there cannot be another vote on this matter unless there is a substantive change in condition, which the Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch will be charged with that determination.

Path 2: Negligence, criminal activity, abuse of position, etc.

1. Anyone with knowledge of the abuse of office may refer the matter to the Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch, including personnel within the Justice Branch.
2. The Enforcement Agency of the Justice Branch will investigate the situation in an independent and neutral manner
   1. They will interview the indicted Executive Member(s) and gathering their defense and supporting documentation.
   2. The investigators may also refer to the expertise of other Branches or Departments if needed.
   3. The documentation of this investigation will be deposited into an Informed Vote Archive for review by the Branch Officials of the Justice Branch.
3. The Branch Officials of the Justice Branch will have a vote within 10 days following the deposit of the investigation materials into the Informed Vote Archive to determine if there is a legal basis for the removal. A majority vote in favor will prompt the contents of the investigation in the Informed Vote Archive to become available for all participants of a Global Justice Branch Vote.
4. The Global Justice Branch Vote to decide the fate of the Executive Group member(s) will be held no later than 30 days from the majority vote by the Branch Officials of the Justice Branch, and will be based on the investigation materials.
5. If there is more than one Executive Group member indicted, then each will be individually evaluated and voted upon. A majority vote in favor of removal will result in the immediate loss of seat for that Executive Group member.

Path 3: Impeachment

Unlike the current messy process in the United States where the voters have no say and instead must hope a couple hundred partisan political elites, half of which belong to the same party as the president, will actually do their job and remove a corrupt president, the following process is used by the Liminal State to change this power dynamic and give the power of impeachment back to the people.

As it is the Eligible Voters that are responsible for picking effective leaders, it is entirely up the the Eligible Voters to judge the performance of the Executive Group, and they have that opportunity every four years with the General Election.

The General Election is not only used to elect a new member to the Executive Group, but also an opportunity to grade all the existing members on their performance over the previous four years, and impeach if necessary. All existing Executive Group members are graded in this way, including the outgoing senior member.

While it may seem counterintuitive to potentially impeach the outgoing senior Executive Group member, as there is a year or more prior to the newly elected candidate actual filling the seat it may be in the best interest of the Eligible Voters to still remove them early. Additionally, this means there is no place for a lame duck official in the Liminal State, and this system encourages all officials to finish the final years in their seats just as actively as their first.

To calculate the grade that each Executive Group member receives every four years, divide the the number of votes of disapproval by the number of votes in approval. The greater the result, the better that member's grade.

Example 1: 1000 votes are in approval and 250 are in disapproval. That means 1000 / 250 = 4

Example 2: 250 votes are in approval and 1000 are in disapproval That means 250 / 1000 = 0.25

This grade plays a direct role in the impeachment of a member. If 40% of the voters in that election opt to give a grade to an Executive Group member, and if that member receive a grade below 1, then that member has been successfully impeached and removed from their seat.

Example 3: If there are 5000 total votes cast, with 250 votes are in approval and 1000 are in disapproval, the percentage of voters giving a grade to this member is 25% [(250 + 1000) / 5000 = 25%]. This is below the 40% threshold, so while the grade remains 0.25, this member would keep their seat.

Example 4: If there are 3000 total votes cast, with 1000 votes are in approval and 250 are in disapproval, the percentage of voters giving a grade to this member is 41.67% [(1000 + 250) / 3000 = 41.67%]. This is above the 40% threshold, but with a grade of 4.0, this member would keep their seat.

Example 5: If there are 3000 total votes cast, with 250 votes are in approval and 1000 are in disapproval, the percentage of voters giving a grade to this member is 41.67% [(250 + 1000) / 3000 = 41.67%]. This is above the 40% threshold, so with a grade of 0.25, this member would be officially impeached and lose their seat.

This method gives the Eligible Voters the direct ability to remove ineffective or corrupt leaders. But it also shouldn't be easy for a handful of disaffected Citizens to remove Executive Group members every Election Cycle out of spite. This equation ensures our leaders know exactly where they stand with the Citizens through the periodic grades they receive, and with this knowledge adjust course if necessary. Yet if enough Eligible Voters have an opinion and give an Executive Group member a bad grade, it results in their immediate removal.

Site Navigation

Continue Reading:

← Rational | Removal | Replacement →

Site Map:

Forward

LS Framework

Other