MoD election procedures

Just wondering what people think, but do we really need the NPA endorsement of MoD candiates? It essentially means you have a pre-election election, and in the past has prevented people from running, which has resulted in uncontested elections or no elections as happened recently.

I fully agree that the provision that the MoD must be a member of the NPA, that is logical and sensible for security reasons. But I don't see any need for the NPA endorsement system on top of that, IMO, if someone is a member of the NPA they shouldn't be any issues with them running for MoD if they want to.

Thoughts, comments?

The NPA endorsement was introduced by Tresville during his two terms as Prime Minister.
My understanding was that he felt strongly that the MoD (and the DMoD) should d have the confidence of the NPA ranks, and that the best way to assure it was an endorsement system. It was intended to permit the NPA to endorse as many candidates for MoD as they wished.
Only in recent months have the number of NPA members begun to grow significantly, which increases the likelihood of contested elections. The problem in this most recent election was that the NPA did not start the endorsement process on time -- they should have begun the process about October 15th. The NPA didn't start until the 27th, IIRC, and that was the cause of the problem. I would note that this requirement has not presented a problem in the past.

Actually I remember problems with the nomination thread in the past, just never this serious. ie- Azazel, and another time.

Alternatively, we could make the MoD an unelected position.

I'd either like to see either the endorsement system removed and simply let the RA vote, or have the NPA elect a leader without confirmation from the RA. Maybe instead, the PM could confirm. In that case, the MoD could hold a non-voting position in the cabinet, perhaps.

But I'd probably prefer just letting the RA vote; the endorsement process is too complicated for people like me

Heft, I'll remove your double post there.

Maybe it would be best to do the endorsements along with the election - take note of who is and who isn't an NPA member, and count their votes twice. Once as an RA member, and once as an NPA member. The winning candidate would have to hold a majority in both the RA and NPA in order to win. If that didn't happen, a runoff would be held as though they failed to get a majority.

This way we wouldn't have to worry about getting the endorsements done before the elections, but it still gets done.

Hersfold:

Heft, I'll remove your double post there.

Click to expand...

Heh, that was some intense lag right there.

Anyway, I really wouldn't mind seeing the MoD become unelected (at least, unelected by the RA). Allow the NPA to become semi-autonomous (with oversight fro the cabinet and Prime Minister). That would make more sense to me, and resolve the problem of endorsements altogether. The RA really doesn't need to vote on what is essentially an internal NPA system of command matter. It makes the entire thing a popularity contest when those of us not in it are largely voting based off of what little we know of the person's activities within the NPA. We usually don't know much about how active they are or what they are doing.

The problem would not even exist if the NPA simply looked at the calendar. They have to start the endorsement process 17 days before voting starts, which is always on the 1st of the month. That would be either the 13th/14th of the month prior to the voting.

Maybe that date has to be spelled out, who knows?

The MoD has to have the confidence of the NPA, but the MoD has to have direct accountability and transparency in their responsibilities to the Regional Asssembly. Just saying "well, making it unelected is easier," is not a viable solution; but then I suspect there are some who would not be happy unless everything was unelected. But then it would no longer be a democratic government.

I pointed out when I announce my candidacy that democracy is not easy. It takes work for it to woek right, and it can be messy at times. To me, changing this pre-election endorsement process for MoD is another example of using a sledgehammer when a tweak is all that is required, if that much. More likely it just requires a little bit more attention to the calendar.

The MoD nomination process could be made easier if we just modified it to fielding a minimum of two candidates from the top to NPA endorsement getters - and do away with the 50%+1 quota if a substantial number of NPA members do not respond to the endorsement thread in the NPA forum.

I like Hersfold's and Roman's suggestions.

Instead of requiring the endorsements of the majority of the NPA, could it not just be like RA votes, a quorum is required, but only endorsements from the majority of responding NPA members is needed?

Hersfold:

Heft, I'll remove your double post there.

Maybe it would be best to do the endorsements along with the election - take note of who is and who isn't an NPA member, and count their votes twice. Once as an RA member, and once as an NPA member. The winning candidate would have to hold a majority in both the RA and NPA in order to win. If that didn't happen, a runoff would be held as though they failed to get a majority.

This way we wouldn't have to worry about getting the endorsements done before the elections, but it still gets done.

Click to expand...

So far this makes the most sense....And is workable....

I don't like heft's idea at all...MoD is a ministry position and therefore has to be democratically elected by the RA....

Sorry Gross....I do see your point that we should just observe the date.....but in the NPA we are usually so busy hiphopping in and out of regions that things like election endorsements are a bit second priority....

The other option I can think of is anyone from NPA can stand for elction as MoD and instead of endorsements-the objections of NPA members are counted....badly worded...sorry....

Dai.....

Shifting to that sort of double voting is still going to present problems.

While the MIIA is supposedly notified which NPA members have UN nations temporarily out of the region, the Election Commissioners do not, and that presents several other issues including the increased security concerns that could present since additional people would have to have access to that information in order to double count the NPA member's vote in the MoD race.

That helps show why the endorsement system was left to the NPA to implement. If you are saying that the NPA is not capable of handling that task, then the only efficient options would be to remove it, which would create the risk that a moD would not have the confidence of the majority of those on active service in the NPA, or to replace the endo process completely with some sort of continuous durational participation requirement for MoD candidates, such as a year's active service immediatelt prior to becoming a candidate.

But that would also require more recordkeeping than the current process does.

Either way, the current method,done timely, is more advantageous in that confidential information is disclosed to fewer people, and the RA can vote with the knowledge that the candidates would have support from the NPA if elected.

All that is really required is a ticker file so that the NPA is reminded early enough so the endorsement process is done in time. (If the NPA feels they need two weeks, then just start a week earlier, and we can look at changing one week to two weeks in that part of the Constitution. In fact, reach a consensus quickly enough, and I can change a pending bill as its sponsor to reflect it.

Okay Gross....when you put it like that I have to agree with you.....

I'd like two weeks....it's more realistic....


Dai....

Perhaps a slightly more radical solution would be to define the role of the General of the NPA in the Legal Code proper. At current it exists as a position which the MoD may choose to hold themselves or not. Why not give it defined powers as the military head of the NPA whilst the MoD (who would still have a military role in authorising missions, etc) focus is then on defense/military planning and policy, recruitment, etc.

That way the General could be internally elected by the NPA, whilst the MoD could be elected by the RA (the MoD would still have to be in the NPA).

As far as I know, there is nothing in TNP law requiring the top military official to be the MoD. But that would involve changes in the current TNP Law concerning the Ministry of Defense.

As expanding the endo period to two weeks, I can do that, but that bill is in formal discussion, so I would need to know that if I make that change, there isn't any objection to expanding the endorsement period to 14 days prior to the general nomination period before the election. (which would make the starting date around the 7th of January for the February elections, 6th of April for the May elections, 7th of July for the August elections, and the 7th of October for the November elections. If there is no opposition to that, then I will make that change before the bill goes to a vote on the RA....which will be very soon.

No objection to 14 days.....

Dai...

I rather like the double vote idea as well

Since the Speaker is moving the proposal to transfer provisions on the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers, which transfers the MoD election procedure into the TNP Legal Code to a RA vote, I have incorporated the 14 day change as part of that proposal.

In the meantime, if that change is not considered sufficient, then we can discuss how to amend that provision further after the vote passes, since it would then require an amendment to the TNP Legal Code rather than the Constitution. (Easier to adopt and pass.)