FD - Term Lengths

As proposed by Haor Chall:

Art 3, Sec 2
B - Elections and referendums shall take place on The North Pacific Regional off-site forum. Elections for the UN Delegate, the UN Vice Delegate, the Prime Minister, the other elected Cabinet Ministers, the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, and the Security Council, shall be held every threefour calendar months in the months of February, June, and October. Voting shall commence at 12:00 am GMT on the first day of the designated month and end at 11:59 pm GMT on the seventh day of the designated month. Voting in any necessary runoff election shall commence at 12:00 am GMT on the tenth day of the designated month and end at 11:59 pm GMT on the sixteenth day of the designated month. Nations take office when a certificate of results of an election are published.

Basically we're extending term periods by a month and taking out an election. Ready, aim, FIRE!
 
We also need to look at term lengths for the Court and for the Security Council.

We also need to decide when the proposed changeover would take effect.
 
we're extending term periods by a month and taking out an election.

I'm confused as to what you mean by this, do you mean that we would be taking out a general election period with this proposal? If so, then who has the power to vote? I agree that The Regional Assembly should have quite a big influence in policy and who is representing us. It is important for us to have a policy of "checks and balances" (not that the American government is anywhere near perfect,) but the idea behind it should be carried out in our legislation. Striking a general election would be devastating to our democracy. The Ministers and members of the General Assembly should not have sole power in deciding elections.

La Duchess
 
The effect of this legislation just extends the terms from three months to four months. Frankly, I think three month terms are just fine (leave it the way it is now, that is).

What should be done (IMHO) is to simplify the election process in terms of voter registration verification. Things would be a lot easier and elections a lot less of a hassle if we required RA members to periodically (that is about one month before elections are called) verify their voter information in a unique thread in the election forums before the elections occur. This way, you know whose votes are valid before the elections open. Verifying this after an election takes up too much time and slows down the transfer of power.

But I diverge.......


I think the 3 month terms as we have them now are sufficient.
 
What should be done (IMHO) is to simplify the election process in terms of voter registration verification. Things would be a lot easier and elections a lot less of a hassle if we required RA members to periodically (that is about one month before elections are called) verify their voter information in a unique thread in the election forums before the elections occur. This way, you know whose votes are valid before the elections open. Verifying this after an election takes up too much time and slows down the transfer of power.
Definently with Roman on this.

My opinion on term extension however perhaps may be hypothetical, but I'll share it anyways. It is my understanding that to extend term lengths will allow for increased flexibility and time permitted for the government of the day to implement it's desired policies that they promised in election time. Say, for example, the Ministry of Defence desired to implement a new recruiting strategy, in order to bring up troop levels. Depending on those involved, this process may take days, weeks or longer, eating away at the time that could be used for other policies, such as training and actual military work. Then there is the actual training of new recruits, getting them up to speed on what the Ministry of Defence requires of them, techniques used in the battlefield, ect ect. I commend any MoD who is able to do all that, plus keep the NPA active and a recognizable force through out the game. I know through my experience as Minister of Defence a year ago that such a feat is straining under a three (well, 2 and a half after the the government pretty much is closed for the last week of term and first week of the new term) month period. This can be applied to most of the Ministries, in my opinion. Hypothetical, yes, but I believe it is realistic.

The Delegate is another area that, in my opinion, will benefit from a lengthened term. Although I have worked my arse off to attain the Delegacy after finally being elected your Delegate (and I am pleased to inform the Regional Assembly that I am only 2 endorsements from the honourable Great Bights Mum, and as such I expect to gain the Delegacy tonight), already I have lost 19 days of a term that is supposed to go (in this case) 89. Although I do find myself at a fairly reasonable level of endorsements (356 currently), I do feel that it is somewhat of a stretch to expect a Delegate to even attempt to try to include as many UN endorsements as possible for security sake and UN Voting in a 89 day period, especially when you already lost 19 and you need to lower your endos down incase you lose the next election. Some may claim that I have no idea what I'm talking about, as I have never been Delegate of a feeder region before. However, under my Delegacy, I wish to have the endorsement of as many UN nations possible, to maximize our voice in the United Nations and to protect our region from potentially hostile forces, be they inside or outside the region. An additional 31 days can and will help.
 
i regret that the Speaker choose to move this proposal to formal discussion so quickly.

There are positive and negative ramnifications to changing from three to four month terms of office; and it is not limited to the offices that comprimse the Cabinet. We have to look at the terms of the Court Justices, the Security Council, and possible even the terms of the University Board of Regents and Chancellor (since their terms were designed to avoid the times of elections and judicial confirmations.)

We also need to discuss clearly whether the cycle should be February, June, October, or March, July, November, or April, August, December, or May, September, January. We need to agree which cycle has the best chance of avoiding the slower parts of the NS activity cycle.

Then there are considerations such as Dalimbar's. We already have at least two sets proposals that are need to fix oversignts made in prior legislation that were adopted, and I think it is reasonable to put out the caution flag before we make this change.
 
I am not sure about this proposal. I like that it allows the gathering of further endorsements and greater achievements, but I dislike the fact that it decreases the number of elections. I'm going to have to think about this.
 
we're extending term periods by a month and taking out an election.

I'm confused as to what you mean by this, do you mean that we would be taking out a general election period with this proposal? If so, then who has the power to vote? I agree that The Regional Assembly should have quite a big influence in policy and who is representing us. It is important for us to have a policy of "checks and balances" (not that the American government is anywhere near perfect,) but the idea behind it should be carried out in our legislation. Striking a general election would be devastating to our democracy. The Ministers and members of the General Assembly should not have sole power in deciding elections.

La Duchess
The Regional Assembly is the only decision making power within the North Pacific, we use a Parliamentary type system where members of Cabinet and even the Delegate must originally be a member of the RA. What we are discussing is extending the terms for cabinet level positions by a month (to four months), thereby cancelling a general election as there are only 12 months in a year.

Are we losing a bit of freedom for the sake of convenience? Yes, but only because turn out's been kind of low on both the voting and candidate sides.

i regret that the Speaker choose to move this proposal to formal discussion so quickly.

Oh please, you make it sound like little furry kittens were harmed in the moving of this to FD.

An updated wording will be coming soon, I'm ready to wait a week or more to give it a solid chance but if reception continues at this pace then we'll give it a proper rest.
 
Are we losing a bit of freedom for the sake of convenience? Yes, but only because turn out's been kind of low on both the voting and candidate sides.

I must voice my opposition with this policy (however over-looked it may go,) I cannot find justice in this. If I'm not mistaken, general elections were general when I was around, meaning that everyone could participate. I believe that we should allow all registered members of this forum to vote, especially since it takes quite some time to actually be recognized as a Regional Assembly member, which is no one's fault. Had I returned two weeks earlier than I did, I would have been shut out of voting in the elections because I missed the February deadline. I would have liked to vote, especially since I have political experience in this region.

If Democracy takes time, then it should be given that time, if being fair takes time, then we owe it to the citizens of the North Pacific to be given that time. If time is that big of an issue, I'd rather have voting shortened to three days instead of a week. Three days is plenty of time for the citizens to vote and that would make certifying the votes take less time.

I'm not sure when this new policy was added into The North Pacific's legislation, but I am against it.

La Duchess
 
Are we losing a bit of freedom for the sake of convenience? Yes, but only because turn out's been kind of low on both the voting and candidate sides.

Don't be ridiculous. Increasing the length of a term doesn't reduce peoples freedom in any way. Elections are still held, there are mechanisms (hopefully better ones soon as well) for removing Ministers from office if they are inactive, etc and judging by turnout at election time for people running for positions, we struggle to fill all the positions we have. Not only that, but a number of people-who have been in office have remarked how 4 months would make it much easier to be able to implement the policies that they were elected to fulfill.

I think the idea that lengthening terms reduces freedom is, quite frankly, nonsense.

I must voice my opposition with this policy (however over-looked it may go,) I cannot find justice in this. If I'm not mistaken, general elections were general when I was around, meaning that everyone could participate. I believe that we should allow all registered members of this forum to vote, especially since it takes quite some time to actually be recognized as a Regional Assembly member, which is no one's fault. Had I returned two weeks earlier than I did, I would have been shut out of voting in the elections because I missed the February deadline. I would have liked to vote, especially since I have political experience in this region.

And if I may just correct you slightly on this Duchess, originally we had "registered voters" which I presume must be what you are thinking of, the procedure to become a member of the Regional Assembly (despite what some people think) is exactly the same as it was to become an RV. So, the name has changed, but the process is the same as it was before.
 
There are some aspects that still have not been discussed or addressed to this proposal, assuming it would be approved.

First we need to address what to do for the terms of the Justices (which are currently six month terms) and to a lesser extent the terms of the University Board of Regents and the Chancellor.

The intent of the six-month judicial terms was to have it be twice the length of the terms of the elected offices; which reduces the risk of politicization in appointments and serves a check and balance. To maintain that policy, thi proposal would require an amendment to extend the terms of the Justices to eight month, and to adjust the language on the months of selecting Justices to reflect that extension.

The six month terms for the regents and the chancellor were set on a cycle that would avoid the months in which general and delegate elections are held. Again, in order to maintain this design, a provision would be needed to amend that Law so that the terms can be set on an eight month cycle that avoids an overlap with general and delegate elections.

Finally, the proposal does not address how terms of the elected officeholder who are currently in office will be affected. Will terms of current officeholders be shortened, or lengthened? Or will the terms of their successors be shortened or lengthened in order to set up the planned four month terms this proposal would introduce?

That is why this proposal still needs work. These concerns have not been discussed or addressed, and until they are, I do not believe this proposal is ready for formal discussion or a vote.
 
Back
Top