Reopen Nominations Fix Bill

Grosseschnauzer:
I will not support the removal of that provision. I think you are inviting a disaster that has occurred in the past which promoted it to be adopted in the first place.
Click to expand...
I found the debate on the original adoption of the restriction on running for more than one office! It's right here. Voted on nearly seven years ago, under a different constitution, it was added to the legal code in reaction to some sort of legal crisis involving convoluted laws about term limits and succession which have long since been abolished. Color me unconcerned about the repercussions of removing it.

Also, I believe five days have passed since we ended formal debate, and a vote on the proposal as it currently stands will be scheduled soon.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
String, I have no issue with you personally I am just using this as an example, youre a court justice yet youre weighing in on proposed legisative matters. That is what I mean. Youre judiciary. Interpret law not engage in helping shape it. Thats like taking Chief Justice Roberts and electing him to to senate. Thats what I meant. And im not using you personally. It is just an convient example to point out. Like I said maybe I just dont understand the structure.
Click to expand...
As I said, there already exist restrictions on serving concurrently in certain positions. If you wish to familiarize yourself with the existing law on the matter, you can find it in Article 7 of the Constitution.

Comparisons to RL political structures make little sense - this is not RL, and we do not use the US political structure.
 
Holy fish I forgot to keep track of the bills!

Formal debate has ended almost least half a day ago, the bill (as it stands on the OP) is now scheduled to be put to vote in two days.
 
I would prefer that the provision regarding running for multiple offices be amended slightly rather than removed entirely.

Something like: "Candidates may not run for more than one office at once."

My reasoning is mainly based on the fact that I find it irritating when people try to run for more than one office. When I was Vice Delegate I was constantly lobbied to run for Vice Delegate as well as Delegate at the same time. Ultimately I think that people who run for more than one office will be damaging their own chances, but we have people in this region who do not care about that and simply enjoy trolling the election for the sake of it.
 
Well, those people don't generally get elected, and there's always a way to troll the election. Annoyances don't need to be outlawed, in my opinion.
 
I think if you have the ability to it should be. It is not possible to do it for all situations, but in this case it is a relatively minor edit that will not undermine or weaken the overall bill. I'm sure I am not the only RA member who would rather that section be kept in some form.
 
I think if someone is interrested in more then one position they should be able to try thier hand at it. Just because someone is a troll candidate doesnt mean people will vote for them.

For example if your interested in the judiciary the court comes up you run and lose. I feel you should still be free to pursue sn opening in another department youre interested in.

Now if you win a seat then no i dont think you should run for another one.

I dont like the idea personally of someone being a justice and in the RA or a delegate and in the RA or on the cabinet and in the RA. But I was told this is NS and TNP as much ad id like seperations of powers and people to focus on one position at a time and conflicts of intrests in writing and passing law and then interpeting said law...i guess it just is what it is. If it works and people are okay with it fine.

I do not know if there are any more positions available in this current cycle. But me for example I was nominated as a lulz/troll AG candidate and 2nd and 3rded..despite the pretense I am actually going to take it kind of serious. If I dont win and no one votes for me or I get a few joke votes..yet I see an opptunity to take any momentium and jump onto the next thing that intrests me I feel I should be free to do that.
 
Mcm, if you or anyone else feels *that* strongly about it, don't vote for the bill. I think it's an important piece of making RON work correctly, and the most elegant solution available.

PaulWall, RA membership is *required* to serve in any government office. We are a region of legislators.
 
I understand the part that you have to be in RA to run for elected position. Fair.

My point or opinion is a mechinism should then be sit up to avoid conflict of intrest that might arise *To my knowledge that hasnt happened yet. But I.E. for example you help write/vote/pass a law in RA then youre also on the court and a case comes up in which you have to interpret the law you just helped write*

Be in the RA run for office. Once elected your focus should be on the elected office. Still be in the RA as requried but have a special designation on leave/office holder member in absentia your a member but with no voting power. Then once your term is filled or you lose your incumbancy or cant re run for term limits you shall come back in the RA with full standing.

Right or wrong that is just my opinion. But like i said if everyone is ok how it is and generally likes it. Then it is what it is. Im okay with it. Was merely a suggestion abeit a failed one.
 
The suggestion I gave you would work with RON. I don't see why it would have any effect on RON as I suggested it be worded. I am open to being convinced otherwise.
 
Do to the more recent ruling of the Justices, this is needed more than ever. The law as currently written creates a distinction between Judicial and General elections, but the "Reopen Nominations" section only refers to General(and special) Elections.

This fix will correct that problem.
 
Fixing the (theoretical) distinction between judicial and general elections made by the Court (a finding with which I do not agree and the history of TNP elections support me on that) is not the problem with this bill. Removing the limit of running for one office is.

As to the reopening nominations feature vis-a-vis the election cycle issue, the simpliest fix is to define an election where nominations are reopening, as a separate special election, which will eliminate the perceived problem as to the candidacy limit for an election cycle. And if more than one office has to reopen nominations, then the limit will make sense because if one candidate were to win more than one office, it would create a vacancy and yet another election.
That is why the approach I just outlined would be a better fix than a repeal of the current provision.
As it stands, we may have to defeat this bill in order to get a proper fix bill before the R.A. for a vote.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Fixing the (theoretical) distinction between judicial and general elections made by the Court (a finding with which I do not agree and the history of TNP elections support me on that) is not the problem with this bill. Removing the limit of running for one office is.
Click to expand...
I agree.. and I will vote against if the proposal is left in it's current form.
 
Since there appears to be some displeasure amongst some members regarding the content of the bill as it stands, I would just like to remind everyone that the bill as it stands right now would be put to vote tomorrow. As of now, 3 people are needed to motion to stop the scheduling of such a vote, and postpone the vote to a later timing.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Fixing the (theoretical) distinction between judicial and general elections made by the Court (a finding with which I do not agree and the history of TNP elections support me on that) is not the problem with this bill. Removing the limit of running for one office is.
Click to expand...
Previous iterations of Law here did not make as many distinctions between 'general' and 'judicial' elections. 4.4 of the Legal Code does currently name them as separate and distinct products. The Court made a correct decision based on bad law.
 
Lord Nwahs:
Since there appears to be some displeasure amongst some members regarding the content of the bill as it stands, I would just like to remind everyone that the bill as it stands right now would be put to vote tomorrow. As of now, 3 people are needed to motion to stop the scheduling of such a vote, and postpone the vote to a later timing.
Click to expand...
I would like to motion to stop the vote then.
 
I like the general bill - the removal of restrictions on running for multiple offices deserves its own debate though. Second the motion to stop the vote.
 
I'll spare the pain and third the motion to stop the vote.

The scheduled vote has been stopped. Voting will commence once at least one-tenth of the members of the RA, including the member who proposed the proposal itself, motion that a vote should be held.
 
Just in case this gets hidden:

The scheduled vote has been stopped. Voting will commence once at least one-tenth of the members of the RA, including the member who proposed the proposal itself, motion that a vote should be held.
Click to expand...
 
Just to clarify, the removal of this line: "3. The restriction on running for multiple offices in a single election cycle shall be struck." would do away with most of the problems with this... but barring another change would open ourselves up to a similar court case as we had this time around.

I have to ask, because no one so far has been clear... is the opposition to running for more than one office on the same ballot(which I agree with), or for running for more than one office during a particular "election cycle" as the previous election administrators eventually defined it(and for which I filed a review)?

Because what we have here are two options, replacing three with either

"3. An election cycle shall be considered concluded when all elections begun during that cycle have a final winner,"

or

"3. Declarations of candidacy for reopened nominations shall not be restricted based on candidacy in any concluded election,"

The second of those two options should allow for candidates in a previously concluded election(like the justice/attorney general election) to run in a reopened ballot, while still preserving the bits about people not being able to run in multiple elections on the same ballot. If both elections are reopened, they're also still disallowed from running on both ballots.
 
admin note: Somehow this thread found itself in the voting archives. No idea how. I have moved it back to the floor of the RA. If there was good reason for it to be archived, my apologies.
 
Tried to comment in that thread but it is marked "closed".

Id like to make a motion pursuant to the bill proposer and 1/10th of RA agreement to place voting on the proposal BACK IN QUE.

Edit* the reasoning over stopping the vote stems from arguments about provisions against running for multiple offices, I feel if someone is interrested in multiple positions and wants to hedge thier bets let them run for multiple offices. If they win multiple offices let them pick the office they primarily desire then A. Either grant the contest to the 2nd place finisher or B. Hold a special election with the remaining candidates (Oooh an extra 3 dayd of voting such a horrible thing!) I'm okay with either option. Though Option B. Sounds most fair as if the original person wasnt in that particular election the vote count could have reasonably split differently and the runner up may have not finished in or around the spot the votes to the original winner could have easily went to one of the other candidates futher down the list.
 
I am the one who proposed the original legislation, and I second this motion. Perhaps once the thread is unlocked, this could be merged with it.

I don't see allowing people to run for multiple offices in the same election cycle as a major problem - the worst case scenario is that they would win both, and have to pick one to take the oath for, prompting a special election for the other. That possibility is so remote that I don't think there is any need to outlaw the entire practice of running for multiple offices. It also provides an elegant solution to the RON problem of extending the election cycle, without adding regulations to make it a separate election cycle every time nominations are reopened - that would be inelegant and unnecessary.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I am the one who proposed the original legislation, and I second this motion. Perhaps once the thread is unlocked, this could be merged with it.

I don't see allowing people to run for multiple offices in the same election cycle as a major problem - the worst case scenario is that they would win both, and have to pick one to take the oath for, prompting a special election for the other. That possibility is so remote that I don't think there is any need to outlaw the entire practice of running for multiple offices. It also provides an elegant solution to the RON problem of extending the election cycle, without adding regulations to make it a separate election cycle every time nominations are reopened - that would be inelegant and unnecessary.
Click to expand...
It is not remote, it has happened in the past, and we have enough special elections as it is without inviting even more of them.

There is clearly sustained opposition to that provision of the bill, and it is better to remove it from this bill, and deal with that separately rather than bring the whole bill to a defeat.
 
as far as I can tell the other thread was automatically locked when the thread was accidentally archived. I have unlocked it.

I'll leave this thread open for a little while so people can see what has happened, but then I will merge the two topics. Could you please debate the original motion in the original thread?

Thanks

Peace and love, man.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Fixing the (theoretical) distinction between judicial and general elections made by the Court (a finding with which I do not agree and the history of TNP elections support me on that)
Click to expand...
Hate to burst your bubble, but... (all extra bolding is mine)

Legal Code: Chapter 3:
2. The Attorney General will be elected during Judicial Elections.
Click to expand...
Legal Code: Section 4.3:
Section 4.3: Overall Election Law
9. In General and Judicial elections, Election Commissioners will be appointed by the Delegate to oversee the nomination and election processes at least one week before the month in which the election begins. If an appointment of Election Commissioners has not been made by that time, the Chief Justice shall promptly make the appointment within 48 hours.
Click to expand...
Legal Code: Section 4.4:
Section 4.4: General Elections
13. The election cycle for the terms of the Delegate and Vice Delegate, and of the Speaker, will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
Click to expand...

Legal Code: Section 4.5:
Section 4.5: Judicial Elections
15. The election cycle for the terms of Justices, and the Attorney General will begin on the first days of the months of March, July, and November.
16. Whenever the position is vacant, the Justices shall select a Chief Justice from among themselves by a majority vote. Justices may remove the Chief Justice by a majority vote.
17. In the event that seven days after the conclusion of a Judicial election, including the conclusion of any required run-off votes, a Chief Justice has not been elected, the Justice that received the highest number of votes in said election, and in the event of a tie for highest number of votes the Justice among those tied with the largest amount of elapsed time since that Justice's most recent admission to the Regional Assembly without an interruption, shall become Chief Justice.
Click to expand...

To go even further back...

TNP LAW 26
Election Dates and Procedures

This law provides for the election schedule and procedure for the offices and elections prescribed in Article I, Section Three of the Constitution of The North Pacific, or other elected offices created by law.

"Absentions" are not votes for or against any candidate, and may not be used to determine the results of any election. They may be used to signify a voter's presence for quorum, activity, or other purposes.

“Candidates” are those individual members of the Assembly who either declare themselves, or who have accepted a nomination by another Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office or position to be chosen at that election. Candidates may only stand for one office or position during a given Election Cycle.

“Election Commissioner” is the individual designated under this Law to oversee and supervise a given general or judicial election. No one who may be a candidate in an election may serve as an Election Commissioner during that election. More than one Commissioner may be designated.

“Election Cycle” is defined as the period of time that begins on the first day on which nominations, or a declaration, of candidacy are made, includes all voting periods, and concludes with the final declaration of results for an election. The exact dates for the Election Cycle shall not include any legal holidays provided in Law 23, and those dates shall be designated at least 30 days in advance by The Delegate so as to encourage the greatest level of participation by eligible voters during the designated month.

"Vacancy" in an office or position occurs when the holder of an elected office or position resigns, is removed, abandons, or is recalled. Vacancies are filled through a special election unless an special election cannot be completed prior to the beginning of the general or judicial election cycle; or in all cases pending an election, however, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, the Legal Code, or by rule adopted by the appropriate body.

SECTION ONE. General Elections.

1. The election cycle for the 4-month terms of The Delegate, The Vice Delegate, and The Speaker of the Assembly, shall begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
2. The Delegate must select one or more Election Commissioners to oversee the nomination and election processes, at least one week before the month in which the Election Cycle begins. If an appointment of Election Commissioners has not been made by that time, the Chief Justice shall promptly make the appointment within 48 hours.
3. The period for nominations or declarations of candidacy shall last for seven days.
4. Voting shall begin three days after the period for nominations or declarations has closed. Voting shall last for seven days.
5. Non-incumbent candidates for Delegate and Vice Delegate may not obtain an endorsement level during the election cycle greater than the level authorized for members of the Security Council under Law 30.

SECTION TWO. Judicial Elections.

1. The election cycle for the 6-month terms of The Judiciary, including the Chief Justice, and the Attorney General, shall begin on the first day of the months of April and October.
2. The Delegate must select one or more Election Commissioners to oversee the nomination and election processes, at least one week before the month in which the Election Cycle begins. If an appointment of Election Commissioners has not been made by that time, the Speaker shall promptly make the appointment within 48 hours.
3. The period for nominations or declarations of candidacy shall last for seven days.
4. Voting shall begin three days after the period for nominations or declarations has closed. Voting shall last for seven days.

SECTION THREE, Special Elections

1. A special election shall be held in the event of a vacancy in any elected office or position in accordance with this Law. A special election cycle shall last for no more than fourteen days, which must be completed prior to the beginning of the next election cycle for the vacated office or position.
2. The Delegate, or if the Delegate is not available, the Speaker, or if the Delegate and Speaker are not available, any Court Justice, shall serve as Election Commissioner for the special election.
3. The period for nominations or declarations of candidacy in the special election shall last for five days, beginning within two days after the vacancy occurs or is noticed.
4. Voting shall begin one day after the period for nominations or declarations has closed. Voting shall last for five days.
5. In all instances, a plurality shall determine who is elected to fill a vacancy. In the event of a tie, the Delegate, or if the Delegate is not available, the Speaker, or if the Delegate and Speaker are not available, any Court Justice, shall cast a tie-breaking vote.

The distinction between judicial and general elections is not an innovation, it is reliance on well-established history. While I have no complaints with removing the distinction, it would be a clear change from the past.

Edit to correct minor errors
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Fixing the (theoretical) distinction between judicial and general elections made by the Court (a finding with which I do not agree and the history of TNP elections support me on that) is not the problem with this bill.
Click to expand...
Not sure how it can be "theoretical", given that the law is crystal clear about it. Anyway.

I'll support the motion to vote, and I believe that's four.

EDIT: I had accidentally misattributed the quote.
 
As voting has been delayed I would like to ask COE to reconsider returning the no running for multiple offices rule. I believe that if worded as I suggested that this would have no impact on RON. The vote was delayed for questions and further scrutiny to be given to the removal of that section and I would ask RA members to not rush it back to the floor until this has been considered fully with more members giving their input.

The word elegant is being thrown around. I am not seeing it. How is removing that clause entirely instead of simply editing it appropriately any more elegant?

I think there is the tendency to make slight changes that in actuality widen the scope of the bill, more than what was the original intent. RA members then vote without being fully aware of all of the slight changes that were added in the debate process.
 
r3naissanc3r:
Gracius Maximus:
Fixing the (theoretical) distinction between judicial and general elections made by the Court (a finding with which I do not agree and the history of TNP elections support me on that) is not the problem with this bill.
Click to expand...
Not sure how it can be "theoretical", given that the law is crystal clear about it. Anyway.

I'll support the motion to vote, and I believe that's four.
Click to expand...
How did you possibly attribute this horrible statement to me?
 
There doesn't need to be a compelling reason to *allow* behavior. Everything is allowed by default, since we are a freedom-loving society.

If something is going to be outlawed, there needs to be a compelling reason. So far, I have not been compelled by any of the reasoning in favor of outlawing running for multiple offices.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
There doesn't need to be a compelling reason to *allow* behavior. Everything is allowed by default, since we are a freedom-loving society.

If something is going to be outlawed, there needs to be a compelling reason. So far, I have not been compelled by any of the reasoning in favor of outlawing running for multiple offices.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I haven't seen a compelling reason in favor of allowing running for multiple offices.

Let's say Candidates A and B are running for Office 1 and Office 2. In both elections, each receives 14 votes apiece. No clear winner, a runoff is necessary. In both cases, re-opening nominations received enough votes. Granted, this situation would be rare, but I would characterize it as disastrous.

I do support the RON fix, but not removing the multiple offices clause.
 
The only compelling reason Should be desire, and if someone is interrested they should be allowed to run for multiple offices. Like if two popular candidates are in a race and a less popular person is as well, that unpopular person probably knows they have a snowballs chance in hades of pulling off an upset. So they decide to run for office with weaker candidate pull to hedge thier bets. If by some random act of TNP gods they pull off both..then let them pick the one they most want and then hold a special election for the other one with the remaining candidates or award it to the runner up. Whatever.

Just my take on it. And why I support RON as COE has it.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
The only compelling reason Should be desire, and if someone is interrested they should be allowed to run for multiple offices. Like if two popular candidates are in a race and a less popular person is as well, that unpopular person probably knows they have a snowballs chance in hades of pulling off an upset. So they decide to run for office with weaker candidate pull to hedge thier bets. If by some random act of TNP gods they pull off both..then let them pick the one they most want and then hold a special election for the other one with the remaining candidates or award it to the runner up. Whatever.
Click to expand...
I think that that would leave the electoral process open to manipulation and fraud. Akin to vote splitting imo. If, as you say, a *popular* person were to win both elections (and got to choose who gets what post), they would be the controlling factor in who gets the other office. Not very democratic. It would have to at least trigger another election to be seen as fair.
 
Then hold the seperate election. That is my leaning anyway i just through the runner up out there as just another option as pisspoor it sounds. But i think if the restriction was lifted. Then if someone won two spots picked one then that would leave a vancancy triggering a special election.

Has the restriction been in place the whole history of TNP? Or was there every history to justify having this provision?
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Has the restriction been in place the whole history of TNP? Or was there every history to justify having this provision?
Click to expand...
Not sure how long it's been in effect, but the provision is there. I would think there was justification for having it. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top