Proposal: Amendment to the Democratic Union Charter

Scandigrad

Scandigrad

TNPer
Current Charter:
One of the main roles of the Chairman is to recruit new members. However, the Chairman must do so under certain guidelines. These guidelines are;

The nation must have a rank of forty on the Diebold Scale
The nation must have forty Martin, Jr. Units
The nation must reside in the North Pacific
Sign the necessary application
Sign the needed “Oath of Membership”

If a nation that does reside in the North Pacific does not meet any of these requirements, the Chairman may temporarily admit the nation into the D.U. if they chose to. The nation will have a two month period for them to gain the necessary requirements needed to officially join the D.U.. If the requirements are not met by this time, the nation will be ejected.
Click to expand...

The Commonwealth is pleased to see how the Democratic Union has grown exponentially as of late, and would like to continue to see great nations joining the DU. We are concerned, however, that under these guidelines alone, that a nation can be admitted that while it may meet the statistical requirements to join the DU, actions taken by a nation gaining admittance may be contrary to the best interests or the mission of this union. Therefore, we propose the following to be added to the current Charter:

Amendment:
One of the main roles of the Chairman is to recruit new members. However, the Chairman must do so under certain guidelines. These guidelines are;

The nation must have a rank of forty on the Diebold Scale
The nation must have forty Martin, Jr. Units
The nation must reside in the North Pacific
Sign the necessary application
Sign the needed “Oath of Membership”

To be admitted into the Democratic Union, a simple majority of member nations must vote aye on their membership. After a two day debate period, followed by a three day vote period in which a majority is reached, the Chairman may approve membership, or choose to veto the membership request. Nations may reapply in three months time from their previous request.

If a nation that does reside in the North Pacific does not meet any of these requirements, the Chairman may temporarily admit the nation into the D.U. on probationary membership if they chose to following typical membership protocols. The nation will have a two month period for them to gain the necessary requirements needed to officially join the D.U.. If the requirements are not met by this time, the nation will be ejected.
Click to expand...

We firmly believe that this amendment will help facilitate the mission of the Democratic Union, and uphold the image that it is striving to achieve.
 
coat_of_arms.png

-A MESSAGE FROM THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF SYRIXIA-​

Syrixia supports this measure, however we believe that states shouldn't have to wait three months to reapply if denied. That's way too long. Don't set a limit; let the state government legitimately ponder if their state is democratic or not themselves and decide if they should reapply or not.

As Nessuno's government said: "No one should be left behind."​

Sincerely,
John Sirus, Prime Minister, Syrixia​
 
Malvad agrees with Syrixia. Probation is two months so the waiting period to reapply should not be longer than that. If it is longer the nation may lose interest in applying or remaining involved.
 
Egalotir would also like the echo that a 3 month waiting period is a bit long wait to reapply. I would suggest a 2 month period similiar to that of the probation would be enough to show the DU they are worthy of being admitted. Other than that, we are in full support of this measure being passed.
 
Amendment:
One of the main roles of the Chairman is to recruit new members. However, the Chairman must do so under certain guidelines. These guidelines are;

The nation must have a rank of forty on the Diebold Scale
The nation must have forty Martin, Jr. Units
The nation must reside in the North Pacific
Sign the necessary application
Sign the needed “Oath of Membership”

To be admitted into the Democratic Union, a simple majority of member nations must vote aye on their membership. After a two day debate period, followed by a three day vote period in which a majority is reached, the Chairman may approve membership, or choose to veto the membership request. Nations may reapply in three two months time from their previous request.

If a nation that does reside in the North Pacific does not meet any of these requirements, the Chairman may temporarily admit the nation into the D.U. on probationary membership if they chose to following typical membership protocols. The nation will have a two month period for them to gain the necessary requirements needed to officially join the D.U.. If the requirements are not met by this time, the nation will be ejected.
Click to expand...

Amended to reflect change from three month waiting period to two month waiting period.
 
Maybe the debate could be extended to three days to give enough time for member states to respond properly. I also do not like the idea of the chairman vetoing the membership after the union votes.

OOC: Sorry for another suggested change so fast.
 
I do think the chair should have the power to veto, but naturally the council should have the ability to overrule. Perhaps writing in that the Chairman cannot veto in the case of a 2/3rds majority, so that we can skip the revote? I am also not a huge fan of extending the process, perhaps a voting day should be removed in lieu of a debate day? What is the benefit of adding another day to debate in addition to the current parameters set forth in the bill?

Another thought: As Syrixia is quickly finding out, observer status is a joke. It means nothing, and I don't think nations should be admitted on it, since it only serves as a tease. That status is what should be given to nations that have fallen out of compliance with the requirements to maintain membership. Thoughts?
 
Observer status is in the constitution but we could easily remove it. I no longer see much benefit from it.

I suggested another debate day because I want to make sure each nation has enough time to give their input. We could still keep three days for voting. I do not see an issue with adding a day.
 
I think we want the DU to be as efficient as possible. So having the chairmen ability to veto is very imporant, but i think i a 2/3rds majority votes for, it cannot be over turned. I also gotta agree observer status is doing much. Not until our membership numbers increase tenfold and we have a lot more traction. I would be for getting rid of it for now, and only allowing either voted in or not.
 
I would support what the chairman originally proposed regarding admittance, given the debate thread is not closed after the two day period. This way the process will still be efficient (5 days), and there is still adequate time to debate and vote.
 
Malvad:
Observer status is in the constitution but we could easily remove it. I no longer see much benefit from it.

I suggested another debate day because I want to make sure each nation has enough time to give their input. We could still keep three days for voting. I do not see an issue with adding a day.
Click to expand...
So does that mean I can get full membership? I meet all the criteria, is just that no one likes me because of da ixelonia role-play dat i of wanna put behinds mee
 
Sauceistan:
I would support what the chairman originally proposed regarding admittance, given the debate thread is not closed after the two day period. This way the process will still be efficient (5 days), and there is still adequate time to debate and vote.
Click to expand...
This is the intent, but perhaps it should be put into the bill in order to avoid different chairs interpreting it in different ways?

Syrixia:
So does that mean I can get full membership? I meet all the criteria, is just that no one likes me because of da ixelonia role-play dat i of wanna put behinds mee
Click to expand...

I will not be retroactively considering requests for admittance made before my Chairmanship. You will remain at observer status until the end of the two month period regardless if it is struck from the law.
 
I think we should move Syrixia up to full membership if we strike out observer status. Otherwise he will no longer have a status in the union and will therefore not be a member. He does meet all the requirements and we could just hold another vote.
 
Syrixia:
As Nessuno's government said: "No one should be left behind."[/font][/big][/center]

Sincerely,
John Sirus, Prime Minister, Syrixia​
Click to expand...
"NOBODY WILL be left behind" Syrixia.

And concerning amendments no, the new procedure required to much time and seems rather unfair to those who want to partecipate than those who were admitted before.
 
I find it an interesting but all the same important topic. I say that the chairman has the right to veto anything that deals with the membership of DU nations and legislation. That may seem very lenient toward the chairman, but the general assembly can override the veto with the 2/3rds majority.

On the topic of Syrixia's membership and the observer status, I will not hide the fact that Syrixia and I have been allies inside and out of these chambers. I say the observer status shall be done with and the only reason a nation should get less than full membership is on probationary measures. This would mean Syrixia will be admitted into the Union as a full member.

I understand that the chairman has made his final word on the topic of Syrixia, but I still let my words bury within the representative's ears. I respect the chairman's decision whatever the case is.
 
I have been discussing a new method for induction, changing the standards as well as method of induction. For this reason, I encourage everyone to vote nay on the proposal at vote, so that we can just jump to building this new legislation. The vote at hand is meant to only formalize the current induction process; one that is unregulated besides the induction standards.
 
The new plan is as follows (I have yet to write legislation for it, so stick with me):

It is clear that Gameplay stats are not an accurate representation of a nation's roleplay characteristics. This has long been an issue. I also do not like how these standards are basically like a wet paper bag, and we have been half assing inductions. So, in lieu of formal definition of standards, I would like to propose softer standards, which I feel will actually allow us to be more selective in who we induct, strengthen our member base, and encourage activity. It will also be far less procedural than our current system.

I would like to suggest a sponsorship system for induction. A nation seeking membership must obtain a certain level of sponsorship from full members, and the Chairman can choose whether or not to induct the applicant nation. I feel that this policy will feel a lot less procedural than our current process, and can expedite the process without useless "debate" periods or extended "voting" periods. The end result will remain the same. We would need to determine at what level the nation can be considered for membership by the chairman. I was thinking a 50% sponsorship rate, but a specific number (like seven) could be set as well.
 
I quite like this idea. Particularly the idea of nations sponsoring other nations to join the Democratic Union.

I'm unsure about the Chairman being the sole arbiter of who to admit though, perhaps we should still have a vote?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top