Omnibus Recall Fix

SillyString

SillyString

TNPer
-
-
I propose the following two changes to fix some of the complaints people have raised over the procedure for recalls.

Omnibus Recall Fix

Section 6.1, Clause 11 of the Legal Code shall be amended to read,
11. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members who fail to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days; or who have not voted for 20 consecutive days and have missed four consecutive Regional Assembly votes to enact, amend or repeal laws, as determined by the time they closed.
Click to expand...
Section 2.1 of the Rules of the Regional Assembly shall be amended to read:
1. No more than two votes to enact, amend or repeal laws may take place simultaneously at any time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

These changes remove specific mention of "election" votes from the RA rules, and instead differentiate between legislation and non-legislation - that is, recall votes, as they are non-legislative, will now not be restricted to the same two-at-a-time as legislative votes are, and it becomes up to the Speaker's office or the RA to establish a separate procedure for recalls - I believe COE has something in the works for that.

The amendment to the Legal Code is necessary as without exempting recall votes from the 4-consecutive rule, we would see people beginning to be removed when really they should not have been.

I have received the speaker's permission to pass this as an omnibus amendment to both the RA rules and the Legal Code.
 
I really like this bill. It is a very neat solution to the issues we have had with vote scheduling. It has my support.
 
I have made a minor tweak - "votes on legislation" has in both cases been changed to "votes to enact, amend or repeal laws", in order to maintain that thing which TNP most prizes - consistency with the rest of the constibillocode! :)
 
Before we spend too much time debating this, it is worth enquiring whether massah Speaker will be permitting a vote on this?
 
I know it has been discussed elsewhere, but I don't think anything beyond "we arbitrarily think this is best" has been stated, so why only two votes at a time?
 
Because voting is part of activity requirements. People who miss four consecutive votes are removed from the RA. So, as SillyString has stated multiple times, the two vote limit is a measure to prevent folks from being removed unfairly, because they were gone for a week or so when four votes were going on. All in all, it keeps the pace of the RA down to the point where one doesn't have to be a zealot to avoid being removed for "inactivity."
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Because voting is part of activity requirements. People who miss four consecutive votes are removed from the RA. So, as SillyString has stated multiple times, the two vote limit is a measure to prevent folks from being removed unfairly, because they were gone for a week or so when four votes were going on. All in all, it keeps the pace of the RA down to the point where one doesn't have to be a zealot to avoid being removed for "inactivity."
Click to expand...
Then why not three?

Why two?

It seems that if preventing people from being ejected from the RA for missing 4 consecutive votes is the reason then why not set the upper limit to the maximum amount below that? Since votes are open for 7 days this would still solve the same dilemma (although in practice I would see this as trivial at best) and provide for 50% more legislative activity.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Not all votes are open for seven days. Votes can be anywhere from 3 to 7 days, and recalls have to be 5 days. Do try to keep up.
Click to expand...
You still haven't answered the question. And I keep up just fine.

Theoretically then you could have four 3 day votes within a week anyway so your entire point is moot and erroneous, your arbitrary selection of "two" is just as flawed as any other.

Regardless, the likelihood of this occurring is just as small as the likelihood of having 3 recalls and a legislative vote at once.

There is no sound reasoning behind your decision or the comments made elsewhere that do not fall into the "we arbitrarily think this is best" umbrella.

The simple fact is that if a nation is gone and happens to miss four votes (which, again, is highly unlikely) then they would simply need to repost in the RA application thread for re-admittance.

You just get your panties in a wad anytime someone questions your precious rules.
 
Conversely, Mr. Speaker, since you set the length of time for a vote to take place then it seems like your entire point becomes a non sequitur since you could set the limit to three and set all votes to a minimum of seven days.

Also, as a courtesy, could you point me to where the recall votes have been codified? I did miss that post. As recently as 21 July your Deputy was stating that you would be formalizing that procedure. Thanks so much.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Not all votes are open for seven days. Votes can be anywhere from 3 to 7 days, and recalls have to be 5 days. Do try to keep up.
Click to expand...
Theoretically then you could have four 3 day votes within a week anyway so your entire point is moot and erroneous, your arbitrary selection of "two" is just as flawed as any other.
Click to expand...
If we had three votes at once, someone who missed the last vote could be forced out of the RA after missing a long weekend.

Gracius Maximus:
Regardless, the likelihood of this occurring is just as small as the likelihood of having 3 recalls and a legislative vote at once.
Click to expand...
I would like to point out that the two votes at once policy is the only reason we didn't have three recalls and a legislative vote at once like, two months ago.

Gracius Maximus:
There is no sound reasoning behind your decision or the comments made elsewhere that do not fall into the "we arbitrarily think this is best" umbrella.
Click to expand...
What interest do I have in writing arbitrary policy? I don't get off on making people conform to stupid policies, nor am I here to frustrate the will of the RA. The policy is to protect members from undo removal. There's nothing arbitrary about that.

Gracius Maximus:
The simple fact is that if a nation is gone and happens to miss four votes (which, again, is highly unlikely) then they would simply need to repost in the RA application thread for re-admittance.
Click to expand...
Tenure in the RA determines who presides as Speaker when the office is vacant and no deputy has been appointed, so not getting unduly removed is important to that. For the same reason, Leaves of Absence are allowed.

Gracius Maximus:
You just get your panties in a wad anytime someone questions your precious rules.
Click to expand...
Most changes I've made to the rules are in response to problems that other members of the RA have perceived. For example, the current Formal Debate/Queue process was in response to the practice of moving one's proposal to vote for the purpose of getting more comments, and then withdrawing it to work on it more. For another example, I support the change suggested in the OP of this thread because it will make the RA more effective. So no, my panties are freshly ironed and quite smoothed out at the moment. More details upon request.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Conversely, Mr. Speaker, since you set the length of time for a vote to take place then it seems like your entire point becomes a non sequitur since you could set the limit to three and set all votes to a minimum of seven days.

Also, as a courtesy, could you point me to where the recall votes have been codified? I did miss that post. As recently as 21 July your Deputy was stating that you would be formalizing that procedure. Thanks so much.
Click to expand...
Just quoting this so that it isn't missed. My request regarding the recall procedure is sincere.

That said, your reply above is still unsubstantiated in light of you being the one setting the timeframe for the votes. Three votes could work and pointing to what ifs as the reason it possibly can't is a fallacy.

What may be, may be. What is, must be.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Conversely, Mr. Speaker, since you set the length of time for a vote to take place then it seems like your entire point becomes a non sequitur since you could set the limit to three and set all votes to a minimum of seven days.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not serving a lifetime term. I can promise that if the policy was changed, I would not abuse it, but I can't promise that none of my successors wouldn't.

Gracius Maximus:
Also, as a courtesy, could you point me to where the recall votes have been codified? I did miss that post. As recently as 21 July your Deputy was stating that you would be formalizing that procedure. Thanks so much.
Click to expand...
I've only been off leave a couple days. I'll get to it sometime soon. Likely, it will be a simple matter of allowing recall votes to skip Formal Debate and go straight to the queue when they are moved to vote.

EDIT: Also, the changes to the procedure for recall votes will be packaged with a general update to the language of my discretionary policies to make them more consistent with the new RA Rules, which is why it's not done yet.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Gracius Maximus:
Conversely, Mr. Speaker, since you set the length of time for a vote to take place then it seems like your entire point becomes a non sequitur since you could set the limit to three and set all votes to a minimum of seven days.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not serving a lifetime term. I can promise that if the policy was changed, I would not abuse it, but I can't promise that none of my successors wouldn't.

Gracius Maximus:
Also, as a courtesy, could you point me to where the recall votes have been codified? I did miss that post. As recently as 21 July your Deputy was stating that you would be formalizing that procedure. Thanks so much.
Click to expand...
I've only been off leave a couple days. I'll get to it sometime soon. Likely, it will be a simple matter of allowing recall votes to skip Formal Debate and go straight to the queue when they are moved to vote.

EDIT: Also, the changes to the procedure for recall votes will be packaged with a general update to the language of my discretionary policies to make them more consistent with the new RA Rules, which is why it's not done yet.
Click to expand...
Your successors will be able to set their own policy, as you have.

So you utilize a non-existant recall vote timeframe as support of your argument against my simple request that three votes be considered instead of two and end that with an insult to my ability to "keep up" with legislative reality? Poor form, sir.
 
Your successors will be able to set their own policy, as you have.
Click to expand...
Eh, not exactly - there's two levels of policy in play.

The Speaker has the discretion to set rules which are not otherwise set out by law, and those encompass the current approach of formal debate followed by seconding. The two-votes-at-a-time rule used to be enshrined there (and technically, still is).

However, given the passage of the new RA rules, the two-at-a-time is now enshrined in law, and not subject for the Speaker to change on a whim - as is the ability to set votes between 3 and 7 days. Any different Speaker may act as they please within the bounds of that law.

To change the two-at-once, or the flexible voting scale, would require an amendment to the RA Rules be passed by the RA.
 
SillyString:
Your successors will be able to set their own policy, as you have.
Click to expand...
Eh, not exactly - there's two levels of policy in play.

The Speaker has the discretion to set rules which are not otherwise set out by law, and those encompass the current approach of formal debate followed by seconding. The two-votes-at-a-time rule used to be enshrined there (and technically, still is).

However, given the passage of the new RA rules, the two-at-a-time is now enshrined in law, and not subject for the Speaker to change on a whim - as is the ability to set votes between 3 and 7 days. Any different Speaker may act as they please within the bounds of that law.

To change the two-at-once, or the flexible voting scale, would require an amendment to the RA Rules be passed by the RA.
Click to expand...
While correct that the law states they must be between 3 and 7 days, the Speaker still determines how long each individual vote lasts under that provision, so he could still set the time to 7 days, as could a successor.

Likewise, the Speaker, having won election for the role and thus provided with some measure of influence within this body, could propose simple legislation to change those specific provisions accordingly, as has occurred before.

Regardless, my initial position still stands as legitimate within the confines of current reality. Three votes could work just as well as two. My opinion is that two was selected arbitrarily and that three would be just as arbitrary but be "more". And who doesn't like more? :P

But, I will give it a rest. The current reality is two votes so since the status quo has always worked so well here in TNP why prolong the effort?
 
The two votes at a time is actually only about two months old, prompted by the slew of recalls all at once. :P

There's a minor functional difference between two and three at a time, but that can have a pretty big effect - being able to hold two votes at once catches people in a purge who have missed two previous votes, but being able to hold three at once catches those who have missed only one. Having kept an eye on the RA rolls over the past few months, it's pretty common for people to miss only one vote (RL business, or somesuch) and then return, but those who miss two tend to go on to miss three and four, even when given ample time between and within votes.

If the Speaker is able to schedule three three-day votes at once, that runs the risk of removing quite a lot of people who happened to miss the previous vote and disappear for, say, a long weekend. One would hope that no speaker would abuse their power in such a manner, but I'm personally a fan of avoiding introducing more abusive potential into the law.
 
SillyString:
The two votes at a time is actually only about two months old, prompted by the slew of recalls all at once. :P

There's a minor functional difference between two and three at a time, but that can have a pretty big effect - being able to hold two votes at once catches people in a purge who have missed two previous votes, but being able to hold three at once catches those who have missed only one. Having kept an eye on the RA rolls over the past few months, it's pretty common for people to miss only one vote (RL business, or somesuch) and then return, but those who miss two tend to go on to miss three and four, even when given ample time between and within votes.

If the Speaker is able to schedule three three-day votes at once, that runs the risk of removing quite a lot of people who happened to miss the previous vote and disappear for, say, a long weekend. One would hope that no speaker would abuse their power in such a manner, but I'm personally a fan of avoiding introducing more abusive potential into the law.
Click to expand...
Now that is a reasonable explanation.

Thank you.
 
That's what I was trying to explain when I said:
Crushing Our Enemies:
If we had three votes at once, someone who missed the last vote could be forced out of the RA after missing a long weekend.
Click to expand...
Thank you, SillyString, put explaining it much better than I could. I hereby triple your pay :P
 
While we've been discussing the rationale behind limiting legislatiive votes to two at a time, I don't think I've read anywhere where the solution would be to make changes to the missed 4 votes rule.

What if we raised it to 5 or 6 or got rid of it entirely?

I just think we should look at the issue in a creative way and not necessarily be bound by what's on the books today. Perhaps giving the Speaker latitude to issue warnings to people who missed 4 votes if those votes occurred within a 14 day timeframe.
 
I've yet to see a reason why we should change the status quo - two votes at a time, and if you miss four over at least 20 days, you're out. It's been working pretty well, really, except for the fact that non-legislative items such as recalls aren't going to vote as quickly as folks would like.

...which is what this proposed legislation would fix! Annnd we're BACK ON TOPIC! :D
 
I think this omnibus is on the right track.

As a sidenote I think we need to learn the distinction between Speaker rules and RA rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top