An alternative idea

This is mainly a repost from my campaign thread, with a few more thoughts added, for discussion. I have been thinking over the position the Delegate should have within the system, what powers exactly the Delegate should have. The main argument for combining the Delegate and Prime Ministerial positions into one (a "presidential" delegate if you will) is that the Delegate's de facto power in the region should be recognised in the role accorded to them in the Constitution. The only flaw in this argument is that, taken to its logical conclusion, the Constitution would basically state that the Delegate can do whatever he (or she) wants- since this is effectively the power open to them in the region. Anything less than that will be a restriction on the Delegate and the Delegates ability to act and therefore is still open to the chances of a 'rogue' Delegate.

The idea here, then, is to give the Delegate a greater role- power and responsibility- within the region but not as a political leader. In essence the Delegate becomes responsible for more of the 'community' side of things, rather than anything 'political' in nature. By making the Delegate an apolitical figure it should hopefully differentiate the role from that of the Prime Minister whilst also making the Delegacy a more attractive proposition to others.

I will admit the suggestion is that by redefining what we expect from the Delegate this way, the sort of people who might be elected to the Delegacy are less likely to be a rogue- in the sense that they would tend to be those who have not been heavily involved in the political side of the region and more involved in the other aspects of the community so they might be the sort of person who really wouldn't be interested in being a rogue and would enjoy the job of Delegate as defined. I do not suggest that this is a way to prevent a rogue Delegate because essentially there is no way to stop a rogue Delegate from taking power for themselves. Because, of course, whatever measures you take you cannot stop someone with malign intentions from taking the Delegacy.

So the idea is then; the Delegate is Head of State. The Delegate is charged with the areas currently covered by the MoAE, MoCE and possibly the MoC. Also, I think, welcoming new people to the forum/community would be put under this bracket (added to the MoCE/AE brief rather than the MoIIA). Underneath the Delegate would be a group of Commissioners who would head up the various Commissions (the Ministries mentioned above renamed to Commissions to differentiate them from the cabinet offices), in something similar to MO's CLO. The Commissioners could be directly elected or they could be appointed by the Delegate.

The Prime Minister (or Chancellor if you prefer, as this is sort of inspired by the German system) would be the Head of Government. The Prime Minister heads the executive, consisting of his appointed cabinet. The PM and the Cabinet run the “political” side of things, so would consist of the current MoIIA, MoEA, MoD and perhaps some sort of Intel/Security Minister.

Thoughts? Comments?

I would be adverse to the Delegate having control over the University, and something would have to be done to re-define where the connection to the government would come with respect to the University. If the MoCE is changed in the way you suggest, then the MoCE should not be the chair of the board of Regents. It's one thing if the MoCE is elected since that was the conduit to the Cabinet and the RA, if and when the University needs something of the government. We'd have to make a change as to who would chair the Board of Regents. (It cannot be the Chancellor of the University since he is the administrative head, and is already a member of the Board of Regents.

*Bumps this*

I actually quite like this idea, and think it is quite different, but what if the Delegate and Prime Minister clash, disagree etc?

I like this idea very much.

I like the idea despite it sounding like a contitutional monarchy.

I find myself liking your proposal. HOWEVER. I think that many Delegates become a bit disgruntled because they are not allowed to partake in the political process. This is conjecture with no supporting evidence. And of course, each Delegate is different. I'm just babbling. It's been a long day.

Want to really give the Delegate a voice in the political process?

Clicky!

If we go by HC's idea of essentially splitting the combined powers in two...

I have a proposal for getting the Delegate more politically involved, albeit indirectly. Give the PM and Del identical access to all forums and areas relevant to the government. Either one can temporarily halt a specific action by the other party, with the Assembly serving as arbiter. This means that if the PM seems to overstep his bounds, the Del can come in and tell him to cool it for a few days. Conversely, if the Del is implementing some harsh policies on the region, the PM can halt such action.

I myself don't know how good this proposal is, but it does give an easy (and rapid) check on PM and Delegatial power. Of course, if the Del and PM hate each other... Regardless, the Assembly would have ultimate say.

When has the PM ever had power enough to need checking?

Damn those Prime Ministers and their one and only power over the NPIA! Except they don't really control that - the director does!

Obviously they need more checks, UK.

*hugs Monte Ozarka in case that turned out too snippy *

Haha, I meant under HC's proposal, where it would be a unified (appointed) Cabinet under the PM. So yes, in that case, the PM would have (greatly) expanded powers.

Monte Ozarka:

I find myself liking your proposal. HOWEVER. I think that many Delegates become a bit disgruntled because they are not allowed to partake in the political process. This is conjecture with no supporting evidence. And of course, each Delegate is different. I'm just babbling. It's been a long day.

Click to expand...

It's a reasonable question considering recent events. However my thinking is that the point of this idea is to directly address that question. If someone wants to partake in the political goings on then, quite simply, the Delegacy is not for them. Simple as. People know (or should know) what they're getting into before they run for the position in an election. Arguably that applies now but the difference being that currently the Delegate does pretty much nothing, hopefully this ideal would make the Delegacy a more attractive proposition (to some) but at the same time not making the Delegacy the political powerhouse of the region as well.

Let me explain some of my thinking. One debate we've had in the past is over the Ministries such as the MoAE and MoCE and, if you like, whether they "deserve" to be in the cabinet. They have a tendency to be seen as "lesser" Ministries perhaps. I'm largely of that view myself to be fair, however, I think those offices are still important, very important, parts of the community. And in a sense this proposal actually fulfils both objectives, it removes those offices from the cabinet (leaving a streamlined purely "political" cabinet if you like) whilst perhaps increasing the prestige of those offices by directly linking them with the Delegacy. I think those offices would also continue to be directly elected (unlike the cabinet offices) which also would make them more open to newcomers which I think is good.
The idea, and it is drawn somewhat on the character of most of our previous Delegates, is that the sort of people who should run for Delegate are those more interested in the community side of things rather than political/legalistic stuff and people of that sort of character. So hopefully Delegates won't be fustrated by their lack of involvement in the political process because they aren't all that interested in political processes. I hope that my thinking makes some sense there, since I've babbled on more than you did... Do you see where I'm coming from with this?

EM:

I actually quite like this idea, and think it is quite different, but what if the Delegate and Prime Minister clash, disagree etc?

Click to expand...

Well, they're dealing with almost completely different branches of the region if you like. So there shouldn't really be a "conflict of juristiction" between the two. I'd lean either way on this one but in the event you'd either flip a coin or go to the RA or something. Conviently it sorta links onto MO's second point (I hope)....

MO:

If we go by HC's idea of essentially splitting the combined powers in two...

I have a proposal for getting the Delegate more politically involved, albeit indirectly. Give the PM and Del identical access to all forums and areas relevant to the government. Either one can temporarily halt a specific action by the other party, with the Assembly serving as arbiter. This means that if the PM seems to overstep his bounds, the Del can come in and tell him to cool it for a few days. Conversely, if the Del is implementing some harsh policies on the region, the PM can halt such action.

I myself don't know how good this proposal is, but it does give an easy (and rapid) check on PM and Delegatial power. Of course, if the Del and PM hate each other... Regardless, the Assembly would have ultimate say.

Click to expand...

It's an interesting idea. I see where you're coming from, not sure what the best way of doing it would be. I'm gonna have to think on it for a bit.

I might see if I can write up some legalese for this idea to help firm it up. It's not really my scene though (I learnt French as my second language), if anyone I catch on IRC wants to lend a hand I wouldn't say no...

Constitution of The North Pacific


Preamble

We, the people of The North Pacific united in our belief in democracy and freedom, and the right to justice and security, look to this Constitution to guide our region into long-lasting peace and prosperity. It is our hope that this Constitution will make The North Pacific a more vibrant and fun region and create a better game play environment for all.

Table of Contents

Article I: The Legislature
Article II: The Executive
Article III: Other Government Bodies
Article IV: Amendments



Article I: The Legislature

Section 1: Registration and Membership

The following requirements must be met before a nation may be allowed to vote:
1.Residency in The North Pacific
2. They must also publicly take the following oath:

"I, (Forum Name), as the leader of the (Official Full National Name), pledge to obey the Constitution and Laws of The North Pacific Region, and to act as a responsible member of its society.  I understand that if my Nation leaves The North Pacific region for unapproved reasons, I may be stripped of my right to vote and be required to reapply.  I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific.  I understand that my registration of, or attempt to register, multiple Nations to vote in The North Pacific shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region. I understand that if any nation under my control directly wages war against The North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against the North Pacific, this shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region. In this manner, I petition the Regional Government of The North Pacific region for membership in the Assembly."

Click to expand...

3. Nations must give immediate notice to the proper officials if the nation resident in TNP changes.
4. Membership in the Regional Assembly will be confirmed by the Minister of Internal Affairs.


Section 2: Speaker of the Assembly

1. The Assembly is led by the Speaker, whose task it is to lay out a uniform set of guidelines by which proposed legislation may be considered and voted upon.
2. The Speaker decides the order in which bills will be voted upon. The Speaker also opens and closes each vote.
3. If the Speaker realizes that he/she will be absent when a vote is scheduled to open or close, he/she may authorize a "Speaker Pro Tempore" to open and/or close voting on the legislation.
4. The Speaker is elected via the election protocol laid out in Section 4 of this Article.

Section 3: Legislative Action

1. The Regional Assembly shall have the power to make and pass laws on any matter and make and pass amendments to the Constitution and Judicial Code.
2. The Regional Assembly shall elect the Head of State, Head of Government and other elected officials.
3. Only current Assembly-members are allowed to propose, discuss and vote on legislation.
4. A bill has reached quorum if at least 50% of current Assembly-members has participated in the bill's vote.
5. Assembly-members are not required to vote.
6. The voting period for legislation is a full seven days, unless specified otherwise within this Constitution.
7. A bill is automatically passed into law if it garners 50%+1 approval, with a quorum participating.
8. The Assembly is the jury for all impeachment cases. An official may be impeached by a 75% vote, with a quorum participating.
9. The Assembly may subpoena any member of the Government to give sworn testimony before the Assembly with at least a 50% + 1 approval and a quorum participating.

Section 4: Electoral Processes

1. Only current Assembly-members are allowed to run or nominate other Assembly-members for elected office in the Government. If an Assembly-member declares his/her own candidacy, they are automatically entered into the race. If an Assembly-member is nominated by another Assembly-member, he/she must accept the nomination before he/she is entered into the race.
2. Any Assembly-member may run for any elected office, so long as he/she fills the requirements for that office.
3. Each Assembly-member may only run for one office per election cycle.
4. Only current Assembly-members are allowed to vote in any and all elections.
5. Each Assembly-member may only vote for one Nation per position.
6. A term of office lasts for four months, beginning each year on the first Monday of February, June, and October. Elections will be held for one week, beginning on the Monday two weeks before a new term begins.
7. The Nation that receives the most legitimate votes for a position wins the contest for that position and takes office at the next term.
a. In the event of a tie, a run-off between the tied candidates lasting five full days shall be held immediately.
b. If, after two run-offs, the tie is unable to be broken, the incoming Delegate shall choose the one of the tied candidates to fill the position. If the twice-unbroken tie occurs in the election for the Delegacy, the incoming Speaker shall choose the candidate.
8. These processes are to be enforced in all elections for elected office, except as otherwise indicated within this Constitution.


Article II: The Executive

Section 1: The Delegate

1. The Delegate is the elected Head of State and shall be empowered to hold the Delegacy in The North Pacific for the duration of their term.
2. The Delegate shall be responsible for upholding this Constitution as the legal and legitimate government document of The North Pacific until the Regional Assembly decides otherwise.
3. The Delegate shall head the Directorate.
4. The Delegate shall provide leadership and direction to the policy of the Directorate.
5. The Delegate shall be responsible for ensuring that The North Pacific remains a fun and welcoming place.

Section 2: The Head of Government

1. The Head of Government is the leader of the Executive.
2. The Head of Government may take a title of their choosing (e.g. Prime Minister) for the duration of their term.
3. The Head of Government is responsible for;
i. Giving leadership and direction to the policy of the Government of The North Pacific.
ii. Leading foreign policy in cooperation with the Cabinet.
iii. Appointing the members of the Cabinet.
iv. Commanding the armed forces of The North Pacific.
3. Immediately upon taking office, the Head of Government is to recommend to the Assembly a candidate for all the Ministerial cabinet offices.
a. Each Minister-candidate must have served in their respective Ministry in the preceding term.
b. After the Head of Government submits the list of nominees, the Assembly must vote on the approval or rejection of each candidate. If a candidate garners 50% + 1 support with a quorum present, the candidate is recognized as a Cabinet Minister.
c. If the candidate fails to garner the above support, the Head of Government must present a new candidate to the Assembly for review and approval.
4. The Head of Government may at any time nominate a Minister for replacement. They must present the Assembly with reasons for replacing a current Minister and offer a candidate to replace the aforementioned Minister. If the proposal garners at least 50%+1 support in the Assembly with a quorum present, the outgoing Minister is removed from office and the replacement sworn in.
5. The Head of Government, and all elected or appointed government offices, must take an Oath of Office before taking up his position.
6. The Head of Government shall be jointly responsible with the Delegate for ensuring that The North Pacific remains a fun and welcoming place.

Section 3: Cabinet

1. Each Player and Nation may only hold one position in the Cabinet per term.
2. Each Minister only has as much executive authority as the Head of Government apportions to them.
3. Each Minister is responsible for the smooth functioning of their Ministry and answers directly to the Head of Government
i. The Ministry of Internal Affairs is responsible for domestic intelligence and counter-intelligence activities conducted by the Government for the purpose of maintaining and expanding regional security. It is also responsible for checking the qualifications of Assembly-members and applicants and maintaining an up-to-date roll of Assembly-members. It is authorized to undertake any intelligence activities pursuant to background checking and security clearance.
ii. The Ministry of Defence is responsible for the recruitment, maintenance, and actions of any and all military forces acting under the jurisdiction of the Government for the purpose of maintaining and expanding regional security and power.
iii. The Ministry of External Affairs is responsible for the recruitment, maintenance, and actions of diplomats acting under the jurisdiction of the Government for the purpose of maintaining and expanding regional security and power.
5. Ministers may appoint Deputies.
6. Deputies may have powers delegated to them by discretion of the Minister.
7. The Cabinet shall have a private discussion area open to them; they will also have access and speaking privileges within the private Directorate discussion area. All conversation in this area is to be considered privileged and are not to be distributed, except with prior approval of the Head of Government or required to by Assembly or judicial subpoena.


Article III: Other Government Bodies

Section 1: The Directorate

1. The Directorate is to be comprised of the Speaker of the Assembly, the Director of Communications, the Director of Regional Life, and the Director of Culture and Education.
2. The primary responsibility of the Directorate is to ensure that The North Pacific remains a fun and vibrant region, welcoming to new nations and true to the ideals and beliefs held by the region.
3. Each Director shall be responsible for the smooth running of their Directorate and answers directly to the Delegate.
i. The Director of Communications is responsible for publicising the actions of the North Pacific Government, the Regional Assembly and other regional bodies both domestically and internationally.
ii. The Director of Regional Life is responsible for maintaining the Out of Character forums, for welcoming new nations to The North Pacific.
iii. The Director of Culture and Education is responsible for the University and for promoting and encouraging activities, primarily related to the culture and heritage of The North Pacific, that are engaging and useful, for new nations in particular.
4. The Directorate is to be given a private discussion area; it will also have access and speaking privileges within the private Cabinet areas but are not allowed to take part in votes of the Cabinet.

Section 2: The Judiciary

1. The Judicial Code and the Decleration of Rights hold Constitutional authority.
2. The Judiciary, its procedures and organisation and the details of criminal and other proceedings are to be laid down in the Judicial Code.


Article VII: Amendments

Section 1: Amendment Procedure

1. The Constitution may only be changed via constitutional amendment.
2. The procedure for passing a constitutional amendment follows the structure laid out in Art. I, Sect.3.
3. An amendment to this Constitution requires 75% of the vote, with a quorum participating.
4. Amendments to the Judicial Code requires 75% of the vote, with a quorum participating.
5. Amendments may not be made to the Declaration of Rights.

Any constitution w/o a guaranteed declaration of rights is a recipe for disaster.

Any suggestion that our latest crisis calls for less checks and balances is ludicrous.

mr_sniffles:

Any constitution w/o a guaranteed declaration of rights is a recipe for disaster.

Click to expand...

The Decleration of Rights would be a seperate document, as has been suggested elsewhere, as would the Judicial Code if you care to read it. I only posted the "Constitution" part as that is the part that really is under discussion.

Any suggestion that our latest crisis calls for less checks and balances is ludicrous.

Click to expand...

I did not think you held the view that words in the constitution prevented a rogue delegate.

This is a sseriously flawed proposal.

The absence of a defined judiciary is a clear impairment. And I again must object to placing the University within the government and destroying its autonomy.

This proposal also fails to address some sort of fail safe mechanism in the event of future rogue head officials.

Why even mention a quorum? If an absolute majority of all RA members fail to vote for a law, it would die anyhow. And an an abolute supermajority would work just as well for a constitutional amendment and for a forum move (say 75 %).

Grosseschnauzer:

This is a sseriously flawed proposal.

Click to expand...

That is why we have this, you know, preliminary/draft stage... Constructive criticism would always be welcome, though I suppose I shall have to make do.

The absence of a defined judiciary is a clear impairment.

Click to expand...

1. The Judicial Code and the Decleration of Rights hold Constitutional authority.
2. The Judiciary, its procedures and organisation and the details of criminal and other proceedings are to be laid down in the Judicial Code.

Secondly, there were two reasons for seperating out the judicial stuff. Firstly, I do not believe clarity comes from stuffing as much as possible into one gigantic document. 'Bitesize' chunks is better, it makes it easier to digest and easier to find what you are looking for (because you can look in the relevant document rather than have to trawl through the haystack of the current Constitution). Less sometimes really is more.

I do not think that it is necessary to detail every little what-if that we can possibly think of in the Constitution to ensure everything is covered. I believe that the past year has shown that that approach does not work. Sometimes I think you need to remember what we are here for, this is a game, maybe- just maybe- it might be nice to leave room for things to evolve, to allow the RA to react to events when (if!) they happen rather than having some archaic solution in the Constitution which might not work anyhow.

And finally, because I am not especially fluent in Legalese and it really isn't my expertise so I thought it better to leave the specifically legal aspects for somebody else.

And I again must object to placing the University within the government and destroying its autonomy.

Click to expand...

Where is the university even mentioned? It is not. I suppose you could infer that this proposal has an MoCE equivilent so that the current setup would remain the same but other than that I don't see where you are coming from.

This proposal also fails to address some sort of fail safe mechanism in the event of future rogue head officials.

Click to expand...

Ah! A point on which you are possibly correct. I would be open to suggestions on this.

Why even mention a quorum? If an absolute majority of all RA members fail to vote for a law, it would die anyhow. And an an abolute supermajority would work just as well for a constitutional amendment and for a forum move (say 75 %).

Click to expand...

*shrugs* As I said, I'm not a legalese speaker. If that is wrong or technically unnecessary I'd be willing to have someone help make the amendments to sort that out and put the correct language in.