I’ve mentioned until now two flaws in our system:
A) Destruction of ballots (LOREG 5/1985 97.3), turning any check of any results, at the Congress, Senate, the town councils, Provincial Diputations, Eurpean Parliament … impossible to audit:
1. Once the recount has been completed, the total number of envelopes shall be compared with the number of voters recorded in accordance with the terms of Article 86.4 of this Law.
2. Thereafter, the President shall ask if there are any protests to be made against the count and, there being none, or after the Table has resolved by majority vote any protests that may have been presented, shall announce aloud the result, specifying the number of voters registered, the number of census certificates provided, the number of voters, the number of invalid ballots, the number of blank ballots and the number of votes obtained by each candidacy.
3. The ballots taken from the ballot boxes shall be destroyed in the presence of those present, with the exception of those which have been denied validity or which have been the subject of a complaint, which shall be attached to the minutes and filed with them, once they have been initialed by the members of the Presiding Table.
- Hide Notes of Modification
** Paragraph 1 amended by art. 29 of LO 8/1991 (See text).** Paragraph 2 modified by art. 29 of LO 8/1991 ( See text )Go to the previous version of the article. SURE, BUT 97.3 was never amended, funny …
Changes everyone deemed needed on LOREG 5/1985 97, LOREG 5/1985 97.1, 2
B) A flawed conception of bicameralism, that doesn’t match at all with art 90.2 in the 1978 Constitution, which states:
“The Senate, within two months from the date of receipt of the text, may, by means of a reasoned message, veto it or introduce amendments thereto. The veto must be approved by an absolute majority. The bill may not be submitted to the King for approval unless the Congress ratifies the initial text by absolute majority, in the case of a veto, or by simple majority, after two months have elapsed since the veto was introduced, or decides on the amendments, accepting them or not by simple majority.”
…
I might be adding doubts the whole day. A couple of them:
- How the statute of the autonomous community of Galicia was forged …
- Why, in the June 15th 1977, the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party claimed as a motto, “Cien años de honradez”, “One hundred years of honesty”, if at the 1972 Congress in Toulusse, or, if not then, two years later, at the 1974 Congress in Suresness, the socialists of the interior, fed up with the inertia, the lethargy of the party in exile, abandoned the party on which they based their legitimacy.
- How can we be certain about numbers in Regional Financial Laws?
I will dwell on these 3 aspects in the following days.
It’s no doubt a biased opinion, but in my view the problem is not the 1978 Constitution, it’s not our legacy, it’s not anything in our DNA as a nation … The problemas is el Partido Popular, withou any other view than … mimicking their administration in the NW corner.