Fix the region

H

Heft

TNPer
Executive

We have too many ministries and not enough candidates. We are, each election, having more and more unopposed elections, and barely ever have three people running for one position (only in the MoCE race this time). We also have positions that don't really have much practical purpose. We also are a Feeder region that is focused very tunnely-like on the limited functions of the government, yet has a government that never actually does anything. What in the feck?

Merge your Ministries! We do not need all this excess baggage, it is only pulling us down and creating for very, well, poor elections, which we have seen over and over. And it's only getting worse, so, get on with it!

Gracius Maximus made a reasonable proposal a few months back that ended up being shot down. While that exact thing is not needed, something along those lines is. We need a more compact government, which will encourage more competition in elections, and thus help make sure that only the most qualified get the job, and should lead to more opportunities outside of just being in the cabinet.

The Ministries should also consist of more people than just the Minister and Deputy Ministers. Get people involved in other ways, encourage people to do things and show that there is more to do than just spam or run for office and then sit around for three months.

Delegacy

The delegacy is not safe as it is, and the terms should be extended to six months in order to ensure that the delegate can actually maintain a high endo count. The delegate should also have the power to ban when necessary and not worry about legalistic bullshit. But, primarily, we need longer terms, as the current system is simply asking for a disaster.

Judiciary

Our courts are useless when it comes to trials. How long has the fulhead thing been going on? We can't even put Limi (or anyone else) on trial because, hell, we can't run a decent trial. Juries are not the only part of the problem, though they are an unnecessary and, for practical purposes, useless weight on the judiciary and serve no actual benefit.

Talking about rights and democracy is all great, but completely worthless when people are deprived of their right to appeal things or request a trial (for themselves or another). The priority needs to be making the thing work, and then making it work in a way that respects people's rights, as the second can only be accomplished after the first has.
 
I agree with pretty much everything that's been said.

As far as trials go, I'd like to see both sides make an argument in front of the RA and just let the RA vote on it. Quick and easy, with little to no technicalities. Yes, it's a popularity contest, but NS judicial systems have a tendency to be far more corrupt than legislatures, anyway.

Might post more tomorrow when I'm awake.
 
I disagree with John Ashcroft Land on that point. There is a reason why people like the Framers of the United States feared mobocracy and wanted an independent judiciary. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

The whole point of a judicial system is to protect the rights of the minority, not to represent the people's will.

Finally, are you saying that our judges are corrupt? Nothing could be further from the truth!! Despite heavy popular pressure to rubber stamp approval of executive actions, the judiciary of our great region has followed the principles of innocent until proven guilty, due process, and so forth. I hold great respect for each and every one of our justices. While the judiciary may need to be streamlined and simplified, I strongly believe that the basic structure of our current system is necessary and proper.
 
Oh, I respect our justices as well. But in other regions, there has been more corruption.

But the largest problem is that defendants exploit loopholes to win cases. It requires a lot more skill to prosecute than to defend for this reason, and unless there are any RL lawyers who happen to play the game, I don't think we'll ever see a successful prosecution.

Again, tired. Ugh
 
There's a difference between shot down and voted down, if you can't respect the outcome of the majority (not just 50% but 60% of all citizens, or in your case sometimes 80%) then I suggest not looking at the North Pacific but the dictatorship of Heft-opia.

Edit - you are more than open to state your case but don't blame anyone in the NP for the failures your reform packages, they were voted upon and they were defeated. Not by half the majority but by near two-thirds (or more), until you're ready to comprise you'll be the Thomas Paine of TNP; full of good ideas but too obstinate to make to make them work.
 
Heft, it's hard to take your complaints about the candidate turnout seriously when you decided not to come forward as a candidate. You can't blame term limits either, with the change that was approved during this term.

The issue about the jurisdiction and number of the Ministries is already being discussed in this subforum of the RA. There are different ideas of what is and isn't necessary, but what is needed is input from those who have served as Ministers in the Ministries under discussion. And we need to re-consider the theory that was prevalent that certain tasks related to forum administration need to use specific Cabinet Ministers.

As to the Courts, some of us trying to pin down the specific points that need adjustment. I've already suggested several ways the jury process can be seeded** up. I haven't had a chance to verify my recollection yet, but I can see changes that would not require a statute or a constitutional amendment, but would have the Court make some changes in its rules. What I haven't figured out is why the Court hasn't followed the procedure outlined in the interim cur** rules as they were drafted before I retired from the Court. If they were being used (especially the part about having all evidence and testimony ready for posting before trial), no trial should take more than three weeks from the time a criminal indictment was issued. The Court is going to have to explain what rules or procedures they are following, since they don't appear to be following the draft rules as posted. JAL, the region rejected elimination of juries by a wide margin, including using the RA as a body in the process, so the realistic answer does not lie in that direction.

As to the Delegacy, I am strongly concerned about your insistence that the region open itself up to nefarious outcomes by weakening the protections that are in place. In my experience, the Security Council has always given authorization to the Delegate when asked, and on a very prompt basis. But you have to remember that all the SC does is verify that the circumstances may in fact require the delegate to act, The SC cannot force the Delegate to act. The final decision remains that of the Delegate. For a system you say doesn't work, there is always a contest for seats on the Security Council.

Finally Heft the primary thing about your rant that concerns me is the strong resemblance it has to the platform that GM and Polts have tried to impose on the region in one form or other by one means or another for a long time. It's a old tune that isn't playing well in Peoria. Maybe it is time to try something new?
 
As far as trials go, I'd like to see both sides make an argument in front of the RA and just let the RA vote on it. Quick and easy, with little to no technicalities. Yes, it's a popularity contest, but NS judicial systems have a tendency to be far more corrupt than legislatures, anyway.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd trust sending it to the Court justices themselves or somesuch. Having the entire RA vote on it could get messy and ugly.

There's a difference between shot down and voted down, if you can't respect the outcome of the majority (not just 50% but 60% of all citizens, or in your case sometimes 80%) then I suggest not looking at the North Pacific but the dictatorship of Heft-opia.
Click to expand...

Yea, picking apart the word choice of a very select part of my post is really relevant and productive. And about compromise (don't feel like quoting more than I have to, for the sake of post length), that is an accusation that rather ignores the facts of what I have tried to do. My judicial reform proposal changed drastically between the time I proposed it and it went to vote. I took all the comments that were made and made a genuine attempt to revise the proposal into something that would be acceptable to the voters and still a worthwhile reform.

Heft, it's hard to take your complaints about the candidate turnout seriously when you decided not to come forward as a candidate. You can't blame term limits either, with the change that was approved during this term.
Click to expand...

I didn't run because I was about ready to simply leave, for these reasons and others (also the same reason I haven't bothered to comment on the proposals in here). I'll leave that at that.

As to the Delegacy -snip-
Click to expand...

To be honest, I'm not really concerned with the security council anymore. It is more important that the Delegacy terms be extended.

As to the Courts -snip-
Click to expand...

The entire system needs to be reworked. I have never seen a decent or effective system of having prolonged trials (especially with juries). While it may be that the proper procedure is not being followed, the entire concept is flawed. Even in a democratic region, we need to be able to have quick trials, whether that be by RA vote or by both sides presenting their side to the court justices and the court justices making a decision or something else, I don't really care.

the region rejected elimination of juries by a wide margin, including using the RA as a body in the process, so the realistic answer does not lie in that direction.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I can quite confidently say that the "region" was wrong, and I am of the opinion that, given the debacle we have been witnessing since that proposal was voted down, it is entirely reasonable to think that a different outcome may be possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top