The New President and Vice President of the FSM.

Now that the Congress Election has passed and the result is clear, who among those those that won would be the President and Vice President for the next four years? Anyone care to discuss the potential prospects. Evidently Pohnpei would no longer compete for the President's post. Now with that settled, I strongly think that the decision would be Chuuk for Presidency and Korsrae and Yap compete for the Vice-President's position. How about Pohnpei any thoughts?
«1

Comments

  • Pohnpei, Kosrae, and Yap need to vote Yoshiwo George of KSA in as Pres. Vice goes to Yap, Chuuk keeps Speakership
  • A sensible logic from my Mabuchi brother SakaSaka. Chuuk just finished 8 years. Pohnpei just finished 4 years. I cannot understand why George is not even motioned by reasonably logical people like Oalong. As if Chuuk trying to leave the Federation is not enough. Now we want to take away from Kosrae and Chuuk from the presidency forever and make them want to leave also? Yap has had 12 years aggregate while Kosrae had sloppy seconds in the form of Jacob Nena's leftover from Olter. So Kosrae is really in line now. If we crumble up the so-called gentlemen agreement, what will be next?
  • Chuuk will be too greedy. why Wesley just finished a Speakership term and needs to complete his second term as speaker, why move tot he executive. George deserves his term as elegantly mentioned by microspring.
  • Here's my prediction

    FSM President - Kosrae
    Vice President - Pohnpei
    Speaker - Chuuk
  • Well on the outside looking in, we don't know what will happen but given that Yap (in Urusemal) will not take either President or Vice P, these are the scenarios:

    a) President Simina and Vice P George
    b) President Simina and Vice P Panuelo
    c) President George and Vice P Panuelo
    d) President George and Vice P Simina
    e) President Panuelo and Vice P George
    f) President Panuelo and Vice P Simina

    lol..
  • Green,
    My assumptions was based on the fact that Chuuk will not want to give up the speakership. Yap will not take Vice because this will only mean that they've been demoted as they've been already president, so from looking outside, they will give the VP away to secure speaker for Chuuk while KSA moves up to presidency thus opening up the at large for Pete Christian.
  • PACLANDS,

    Great point. So you're banking on c) President George and Vice P Panuelo. It makes sense. That's good so we can get Pete back into Congress.

  • Green,
    To be honest, Pete is a lot of things but he is also one of the most powerful influences FSM has when comes to international negotiations. I'm not saying that the other congressmen aren't, but I've seen this guy work and speak at the UN.

    Youtube his speaches at the UN and you'll see what I'm talking about. With the compact financial assistance coming to an end, FSM will need him in the framework.
  • Oh hell yeah. It's not up for debate, bar none, the best public speaker we have in politics here in the FSM. I do enjoy hearing his speeches (e.g. broken microphone in Samoa as an indicator for his age, needing to deliver UN speech to justify travel $ to our Government, wanting to be back in Congress due to an underfunded President Office) were all hilarious. His sense of wisdom and grasp of Pohnpeian tradition knowledge systems and customary practices, the tangible connection to the folks he represent and being a very humble person despite being well off are all indicators of a true Pohnpeian to the heart. We need Dauk.

  • Saka Saka I like your Mapuchy idea. But do not leave out Chuuk for voting for George. Its time for George to be the. Wesley can come in next.
  • It is highly likely that George n Panuelo will lead in the next 2 years....yes
  • PACLANDS and greenfin:

    The bribery investigation is still "on-going" and most likely there will be additional indictments forthcoming. The bribery scandal started in 2006 and ended in 2016.

    There are rumors that US Marshall service has "names" on a list and that they are waiting for these "names" to step across the yellow lines at Won Pat International airport or Honolulu airport.

    Federal prison is more secure than State prisons. They have air conditioning but no heaters in some of their camps where inmates sleep on cots and inside tents. Summers are a bit more pleasant compared to winters. It is not uncommon to see inmates cuddle up (naked) in groups during winters to keep warm.

    Typical day in any US Federal prison begins with roll call at 4:00am. After roll call, the inmates fall into formation and are led on a 2 mile morning run. After the run, they do push-ups, sit-ups, and stretches.

    At 5am, breakfast is served. Pancakes, oatmeal, hard boiled (sometimes scrambled) eggs, bacon or pork link sausage, syrup, butter or jam, milk, and a slice of fruit. Soup and sandwich is always served at 12noon. And dinner is served at 5:00pm or 5:30pm. Prison commissary stores sell candies, snacks, approved toiletry items (toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, shampoos, etc) and Preparation-H (also available free in generic form from prison clinics), coffee, tea, and other items.

    Inmates commonly keep the mayonnaise packs which are served with lunch (soup and sandwich) to use as improvised lubrication during sex or masterbation. Some also keep the peanut butter, jelly, and relish to use as flavoring agents during analingus.

    Despite being more secure than State run prisons in the USA, rape and sodomy inside US Federal prison system has sky rocketed during the past decade (2008-2018) due to the camp like conditions which do not restrict inmate contact after lights-out (bedtime).

    Same sex marriage is also up by 13.7% in US Federal prisons compared to only 3.8% across State prisons in the past decade (2008-2018). Every time new inmates arrive and are processed into the US Federal prisons, it is customary for the toughest inmates and their gangs to argue or deliberate over who gets the new prettiest virgins to bunk with them in their areas.

    The most common illnesses and injuries reported in US Federal prisons (2008-2018) during the past few years range from pneumonia, chlamydia, hemorrhoids, herpes, and anal prolapse. Some more severe injuries usually occur during gang rapes in the shower areas. It is customary for prison guards to turn a blind eye to these extra-curricular activities. Frost bite is also common throughout the brutally cold and harsh fall and winter months.

    Dating among inmates is also common and inmate couples can usually be seen during movie nights which are usually on Friday nights. Bathrooms and showers in the US Federal prison tent camps are communal. This is where most of the rapes occur and it is usually done on the first night to "break" the new inmates into the system and internal culture.

    The most common inmate recommended relief or treatment for the "morning after" ass-aches is of course Preparation-H ointment which is available in all the US Federal and State prison clinics and commissaries.

    Inmates have access to payphones during daytime and relatives of inmates can deposit money into inmates accounts which are used to purchase items at commissaries and also make phone calls.

    I have a relative who is currently serving a 12 year US Federal prison sentence for racketeering and extortion. He is housed at a facility in Arizona and most of the information above came from him with the exception of the figures on rape and same sex marriages. He still has 5 years left on his sentence and confirm that all inmates get raped during their first night in US Federal prisons. He says it is customary and part of the prison culture.
  • Yes, President Trump shares your concern about conditions in these federal prison "camps."

    WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a sudden departure from his previous views on incarceration, Donald J. Trump said on Monday that he was “very, very concerned” about conditions in the nation’s prisons.

    “These are very, very bad places,” Trump told reporters. “These are not places you would want to be.”

    Trump criticized the “total lack of amenities” in the country’s federal penitentiaries, calling those prisons “a disgrace.”

    “If you are locked up in one of those places, there is no TV in your cell,” he said. “And good luck getting a Diet Coke. You can yell and yell and no one will go get you one. It’s a very sad, very sick situation.”

    In addition to blasting the conditions inside the nation’s prisons, Trump also questioned whether “putting someone in jail for one or two felonies serves any purpose.”

    “I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately,” he said. “Prison solves nothing.”
  • lol, ahahahhh............hilarious!!!!!
  • @FactsMatters, here you go again dragging Trump into another discussion. Whats up with libs? Do you guys see Trump everywhere?
  • Coconuts,
    Thank you for the virtual tour of the US Federal Prison. No one is convicted until proven so whoever you are referring to with the tour, can still be seated.

    Kalahngan
  • What is this about rumors of possible "recount"--given that some margins are rather small?

    Microspring2014, what does FSM law say about the "recount" at the national election level? Is it clear or is this based on each state's decision or by the candidates?
  • SECTIONS
    § 801. Petitions for recount, revote or challenging acceptability of votes.
    § 802. Filing time frames.
    § 803. Standard of proof.
    § 804. Denial of petition; Appeal to Supreme Court.
    § 805. Approval of petition; Notice of recount or revote.

    Editor’s note: Chapter 8 of this title on Procedure for Petitions and Appeals was enacted by section 66 of PL 14-76.

    § 801. Petitions for recount, revote or challenging acceptability of votes.
    (1) A petition for a recount may be filed by any candidate who believes that there was fraud or error committed in the canvassing, casting or return of votes in a National Election.
    (2) If a candidate believes that there was fraud or error committed in the canvassing, casting or return of votes in a National Election which cannot be corrected by recount, a candidate may petition for a revote, either in a Congressional Election District as a whole, or in the portion thereof where the fraud or error took place.
    (3) Any other petition challenging the acceptability of a vote or votes may be filed by any Registered Voter who believes that there was fraud or error committed in the canvassing, casting or return of votes in a National Election. A petition under this subsection shall include a petition by a candidate challenging a decision of the National Election Director made under subsection 303(10) of this title.
    (4) A petition under subsections (1), (2) or (3) of this section shall be filed with the National Election Director. Such petition shall contain:
    (a) a statement of the nature, location and extent of the election fraud or error that forms the basis of the petition;
    (b) a statement of the form of relief the petitioner seeks;
    (c) a list of election records and witnesses that will establish the existence of election error or fraud, specifying how each record or official listed is relevant to allegations contained in the petition; and
    (d) affidavits, documents and any other evidence in support of the petition.
    Source: PL 14-76 § 67.
    § 802. Filing time frames.
    (1) A petition for a recount or revote must be filed within one week after the National Election Director certifies the results of the National Election in the Congressional Election District or State concerned.
    (2) Any other petition challenging the acceptability of a vote or votes must be filed before the National Election Director certifies the results of the National Election in the Congressional Election District or State concerned, or within one week of Election Day, whichever occurs first, provided that if a petition could not have been filed within one week of Election Day as a result of a delayed action or decision of the National Election Director or a national election commissioner, then the petition shall be filed prior to certification of the election result for the relevant National Election District or State.
    (3) The winning candidate shall have one week to respond to the petition.
    (4) The National Election Director shall have 14 days to decide whether to approve the petition.
    Source: PL 14-76 § 68.

    § 803. Standard of proof.
    (1) The National Election Director shall grant a petition for a recount where he or she determines that the petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a substantial question of fraud or error and that there is a substantial possibility that the outcome of the election would be affected by a recount.
    (2) The National Election Director shall grant a petition for a revote where he or she determines that the petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than not that the fraud or error complained of could have resulted in the election of a candidate who would not have won had the fraud or error not occurred.
    (3) The National Election Director shall grant any other petition challenging the acceptability of a vote or votes where he or she determines that the petitioner has shown by preponderance of the evidence that fraud or error occurred in the canvassing, casting or return of votes in a National Election, and that the relief sought is a reasonable and equitable means of remedying such fraud or error.
    (4) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a petition for a recount must be granted if the difference between the number of votes cast for the winning candidate and the next highest candidate is one-half of one percent or less of the total votes cast for all of the candidates for that particular seat.
    Source: PL 14-76 § 69.

    § 804. Denial of petition; Appeal to Supreme Court.
    (1) If the National Election Director decides to grant or deny a petition, he or she shall record the reasons for such decision in writing and provide a copy to the petitioner, and where the petitioner is a losing candidate, to the winning candidate, by the most expeditious means practicable.
    (2) Except with regard to a decision to provide a recount, a petitioner, or where the petitioner is a losing candidate, the winning candidate, may, within five days after receipt of the decision of the National Election Director granting or denying the petition, appeal the decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court shall review the appeal to determine if the decision by the National Election Director was:
    (a) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
    (b) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or a denial of legal right;
    (c) without substantial compliance with the procedures required by law; or
    (d) unwarranted by the facts.
    (3) If the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court decides in favor of a recount or a revote, the National Election Director shall be so notified and shall proceed as provided in section 805 of this title.
    (4) A decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court may have the effect of disallowing challenged votes but shall not halt or delay balloting or counting and tabulating.
    Source: PL 14-76 § 70.


  • § 805. Approval of petition; Notice of recount or revote.
    (1) If the National Election Director grants a recount or a revote, or if so ordered by the Supreme Court pursuant to section 804 of this title, he or she shall cause notice of the recount or revote to be given in an appropriate manner.
    (2) A recount shall be held by the counting and tabulating committee within ten days after the decision of the National Election Director or order by the Supreme Court. The counting and tabulating committee shall make certificates of such determination under oath showing the result of the election and what persons were declared elected to fill office, one of which shall be filed with the National Election Director, one with each election board concerned, and one with the person filing the petition for recount.
    (3) A revote shall occur as soon as practicable but in no event more than 30 days after a decision by the National Election Director or order by the Supreme Court. The national election commissioner shall report the results of the revote to the National Election Director and the candidates.
    (4) The person receiving the greatest number of votes shall be deemed to have been elected, but if two or more candidates shall receive an equal number of votes for the office, the tie vote shall be resolved in accordance with section 712 of this title.
    Source: PL 14-76 § 71.
  • "Where election irregularities cannot be corrected by a recount, the election, in whole or in part, can be set aside and done over only if it is more likely than not that the irregularities complained of could have, not necessarily would have, resulted in the election of a candidate who would not have won had the irregularities not occurred." Aten v. National Election Comm’r (II), 6 FSM R. 74, 82 (App. 1993).
  • Congrats Senator Panuelo. No more recount. Its the right thing for President Christian to finally respect the will of PNI voters n move on.
  • Saka, I kind of agree with you--just so peace can be maintained, etc. On the other hand, the difference is only 57 votes out of over 13,000 plus that were casted. Wouldn't it be fair for his voters/supporters to just ask for a recount; not to redo the election but recount to ensure that all the ballots were counted right. It looks like there is no requirement for an automatic recount if the margin is less than, say, 1%. So maybe the issue is mute--as far as constitutional requirements or election law requirements. Just thinking out loud.
  • Microspring2014, where it says "one-half of one percent or less"--does it apply in this case? 59/13,491 is .00437. My thinking and my calculation maybe wrong but I am just wondering. Let some math person do the calculation; so we can see if the 59 vote different could trigger the recount.
  • That was the original law. It got replaced in 2006 with the one I posted.

    I disagree with my Mabuchi brother Saka on this one. Although Christian already called it, the stakeholders are more numerous - the people that voted. The system (recount, re-vote, etc.) is made so mistakes don't govern. But then again, laws are made by people and mistakes are bound to happen. In fact mistakes happen all the time and that is why we have such institutions as appellate courts to review and determine mistakes of trial judges. I have filed and won appeals many times (and have lost a some also) but I know that mistakes do happen. There are many examples in society of institutions to check for mistakes. The recount/re-vote section of this law is one of those. Just like an appeal matter that some people wish not to pursue, Christian had decided not to pursue this one. Mistakes and all - we will never know. I did not vote for Christian or Panuelo and I have my reasons for both. I exercised my right to do write-in vote. I have no candidate in this fight. I am simply making a point.
  • microspring2014, thanks for your clarification. Me too, either Christian or Panuelo would be fine with me. But I feel that we need to look out to ensure that laws and the constitution are adhered to--to the letters. If not, then, laws and the constitutions--whether state or national-- could be construed depending on the whim of the moment.

    I still don't know what it means but if a recount is prescribed for by the constitution based on certain trigger such as certain percentage threshold, then, if we want a strict interpretation and adherence to the FSM Constitution, then, that is what should happen. It does not matter what Christian or Panuelo say; that's what the Constitution says. Just my thoughts.
  • I think it does matter. It is called standing. Because Pete is the aggrieved party (party that lost and could have won but/for a recount), therefore he definitely has standing to seek recount. I am not sure if the voters have standing so someone may not seek standing if Christian does not wish for it. Statutes and actions by people of society generally convey standing (private cause of action) or they don't (means only AG can bring on behalf of the people and I do not mean criminal matters) and those statutes if it does not convey standing, courts usually say that there are no private cause of action/standing for voters, tax payer, etc. to file a court case.

    Some standing are available through the constitutions like tax or environmental statutes. This means a person can bring a private case. On the other hand, theft by government employees only allow criminal charges by the sovereign or conversion case in a civil action. But the voter, tax payer will have no private cause of action or right to bring a case. When permitted and one brings a successful private action that is beneficial to the entire public (court determining that there is private cause of action or if the statute specifies such), then he/she is deemed a "private attorney general" and is given attorney's fees. This is different than class actions permitted under rules of civil procedure that are only good for certain members from the public and class actions. Examples of private statutes with no specific causes of action but are permitted private action are the famous Sierra Club cases in the U.S. and the current case filed by Mwoalen Wahu for the sea cucumber case.

    Caveat: These are my general knowledge of the law and are done without research and they're for this discussion only. If one needs full consultation of the law on constitutional law (standing, private cause of action), civil procedure (class action), torts (conversion) and general questions in law, find a lawyer (and pay her/him serious money) for in-depth research and proper opinion.
  • microspring2014, thanks. This is a good teaching moment for those of us not versed with legal matters particularly constitutional matters. In regards to the issue of "standing", what if an "agent" of Christian such as his campaign manager were to request for a recount based on the provision of the constitution, does he (agent or campaign manager) have standing--even if Christian himself does not publicly says so? This would be my last question. I don't want to drag this out; so this is just for my understanding of the laws regarding election procedures. Thanks for sharing.
  • Under the law of agency, generally, a principal' s wishes, instructions are paramount. If she/he wants something done, the agent will carry out the wishes of the principal. Some agency situations (i.e. guardian at litem situations, conservator relationship, etc.), the agent alone determines for such incapacitated minor or adult. Going back to our scenario, if a campaign manager is deemed an agent, then she/he needs to follow the person running for office and her/his wishes. If she/he is not determined by law to be an agent, then we're back to standing discussed above.

    Caveat: see above
  • So now it's reported that Aren Palik is asking for a recount. What if the recount gives him the majority votes? In that case, I think the current Speaker will become President; Panuelo becomes Vice; and Urusumal becomes the new Speaker. If not, then, it'll be Pres George, VP Panuelo; and same Speaker. A lot of what ifs.
  • Let the losers leak their wounds and the winners celebrate. The people had already made their choice and lets move on.
Sign In or Register to comment.