Search results

Nation in The North Pacific: ABC Ministry you are interested in joining: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Radio (Optional) Previous experience in this area of government: Former Ambassador, none in Radio

Looking forward to the term ahead!

Congratulations everyone!

Delegate: 1. < mcmasterdonia > Would you like to reopen nominations? < No > Vice Delegate: < Artemis > Would you like to reopen nominations? < Yes > Attorney General: 1. < Goyanes > Would you like to reopen nominations? < No > Speaker: < Dreadton > Would you like to reopen nominations? < No >

@Yalkan official government conversations; eg. the cabinet discord channel Section 7.5 already specifies what that is and the Court Ruling goes into more detail about it.

If this bot isn't able to currently, I know of a cog that can be added to it which will enable such things; here is a demonstration of my own bot (which has it installed) retrieving a channel log: @Praetor Yes, I'll include that for you.

Yup and I've been informed by someone who manages or has knowledge of the bot, Sil, that it's entirely possible with this one as well.

Something being hard to retrieve does not justify its non-disclosure, as long as at least someone in government still has access to it. As for actual Discord channels; logs of those chats can easily be retrieved by a bot and there is no reason those can't immediately be disclosed after 1 year...

Oh god, @Syrixia and @Dinoium, somehow thinking I'm literally evil just because of their personal biases against me. Give me a break. This is a bill and you're free to propose changes if you see them necessary. I'll be completely honest with you; I am not sure if including the Speaker's Office...

Of course. The office previously was something that acted more like a bureaucratic position where candidates only mentioned their experience and no ideas to really change the office. Now it has become politicized, because of an influx of new ideas about how the office should function has created...

Following the decision of the Court this past March that Discord is included in 'private government records', Discord logs from a year ago in government channels should have been posted in the Declassified Archive by now. As of yet, that hasn't happened. This act intends to make it a necessity...

Same

5

False. M true leader.

All others are of the fake smh I am true leader All hail

Good to hear!

It's a shame this thread kind of died, but it looks like there is definitely a fair deal of support for this bill. As others have stated above, I am in support of just keeping RON as a separate ballot option. Since elections are currently being held, I'd suggest the OP doesn't motion for a...

2459 cans of spam on the wall, 2459 cans of spam! Take one down, pass it around, 2458 cans of spam on the wall!

I support this bill and thank you for taking the time to write it up. I do, however, think that one change should be made to this bill. It should specify that if there are only two candidates (or less) for a certain position, then voting will occur as usual for that position.

First, sorry for taking so long to respond. Second, I have looked through this thread at the arguments of others and the general consensus and have came to the conclusion that the ranked-choice voting system as proposed by Praetor is the best option. Thus, I would like to proceed forward with...

Only one thing I want to address in the above post: a voter would have to assign a ranking to at least 3 candidates, so no, no voter would ever have more voting power than another voter. That being said, I will review everything stated in this thread tomorrow. If I look back at it and realize I...

1. My bad, that is true. 2. I was going by the common definition; I had no way of knowing which definition you were going by however. 3. Except that it only counts the second choices of the segment of voters who happen to vote for the least popular candidate. 4. Okay. 5. This is arguably less...

I see where you're coming from, but the point of this system is to eliminate runoff elections, not create more of them. The lack of a system in use does not make that system inherently bad. Perhaps a compromise could be reached where only the top 3 candidates were ranked. Furthermore, perhaps...

I don't think it's fair to call these arbitrary numbers. Each citizen still gets the exact same number of votes; the main difference is that they get to distribute those votes to multiple candidates. Certainly, some people could take advantage of the math, but at the end of the day it's still...

Ah, I see. Perhaps allowing voters not to rank unfavorable candidates is a bad idea.

I just want to ask, how would someone go about strategically voting in this system? (This is not to criticize your point; I'm just genuinely curious)

Okay, so looking at the comments thus far, I've decided to make the following change to my proposal: You do not have to rank every candidate. I'm also going to wait a little longer for more public input before I decide whether or not to draft a bill.

Happy birthday!

I understand, I am just trying to get a general consensus of how popular/good this bill would be and I would prefer not to write a bill as lengthy as this one would have to be before actually knowing if that bill had any chance of passing.

I would like to propose that The North Pacific, like some real-life nations, turn to ranked-choice voting. Unlike real-life nations though, I would like to propose a different take on how this system would work. Essentially, depending on the number of candidates for a given position, voters...