Should Puppets Be Voting for Delegate?

Great Bights Mum

Great Bights Mum

Grande Dame
-
-
-
-
I propose the following be added to the Constitution under Article I, Section 3:
10. To be eligible to vote for Delegate and Vice Delegate, Regional Assembly members must have a WA nation in TNP or on active duty with an officially sanctioned military or intelligence organization.
Click to expand...

I see the current lack of such a safeguard as a huge loophole. TNP could be easily infiltrated with dozens of puppets who are able to select a Delegate here, while keeping their main nation elsewhere. I believe if you can't endorse the Delegate, you shouldn't be able to cast a vote for him on the forum either.

Thoughts? Comments? Large trout? ;)
 
Well, puppets voting for Delegate was never allowed under any previous constitution, and the Bill of Rights is unchanged. I don't see how it could be an issue now.
 
I agree and support this, If anyone has a word for TNP; should be in TNP, with its WA nation...
 
Intel people? for what, themselves or TNP?

They can send their votes in PM as far as I know...
 
Great Bights Mum:
Well, puppets voting for Delegate was never allowed under any previous constitution, and the Bill of Rights is unchanged. I don't see how it could be an issue now.
Click to expand...
Well double voting has always been illegal but forcing people to endorse the Del is another matter. I really hope I'm reading the situation wrong.
 
At different times, the previous Constitution did and did not require UN membership to vote in Delegate and Vice Delegate elections.

But the primary issue here is how the prohibition in the Bill of Rights against requiring a Nation to join the Nationstates (multinatiol organizrion would be applied to adding in such a requirement in order to vote for Delegate and Vice Delegate.
 
Isn't it a region like TNP is a multinational organization already..?
 
@Khark: Intel and rmy personnel whose WA nations are out of the region on oficial business are exempt from the residency requirement.

@snifffles: There is nothing in the proposal requiring nations to endorse the Delegate. It merely restricts voting on the forum to players whose main nation is TNP.

@Schnauzers: You are correct. I don't believe a player who does not join the WA should be able to select the WA Delegate for the region. Nor have I, as Delegate, ever counted their votes on WA or UN resolutions. I view both as privileges of membership in the WA.
 
Mum, maybe I wasn't clear. Under the last Constitution, we assumed that only UN members in TNP could vote for Delegate, but it got pointed out in one election, that wasn't what the Constitution actually said at the time. In that one, everyone was permitted to vote in the Delegate runoff as a result, and as I recall we never changed that back.

Either way, we're stillleft with the question as I previously stated; how do we reconcile such a change with the Bill of Rights.
 
If it is a Constitutional provision, the Bill of Rights does not override it.

Additionally, this does not conflict with the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights states that:

The North Pacific Bill of Rights:
3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the World Assembly shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.
Click to expand...

That does not mean that participation in the World Assembly shall not be a condition for voting for any position.

Where the Bill of Rights mentions voting is here:
The North Pacific Bill of Rights:
10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
Click to expand...

Note, what this says is that everyone who is given a right to vote on something has an equal right to vote. It says nothing about requiring all to have suffrage.

The Bill of Rights does not guarantee suffrage on any particular issue to any particular group.
 
I would support this, but I am keen to close any loopholes - and we know there are players in TNP who just *love* their loopholes.

one row that we might wish to preempt would be the player who moves their WA nation into the region just for the duration of the election - or even just for the few seconds it took them to register their vote. They could then argue that their WA nation was resident at the time of their vote.
 
Eluvatar, isn't voting a form of participating in the governmental authorities of the region? And doesn't this idea call for considering whether or not one can vote for Delegate and Vice Delegate with an additional requirement being the right to the equal treatment of each nation's vote coming into play?

I'm not advocating either side of this debate, but I am trying to bring in all the different considerations into play in discussing this proposal.
 
This would infringe on a nations personal choice to be member nation of the WA or not to be. I personally do not want or have any desire to join the WA. But forcing someone to be a WA member simply to vote, I feel, is unfair and is a breach of their independence as a nation.
 
I just want some clarification, Now IF this law is passed. A person to voted will need to be RA member and have a WA nation, yes?
 
We could have it so that only the elections for the Delegate and Vice Delegate require WA membership and all other governmental positions don't require WA membership to vote for. After all, WA membership is already required for the positions of Delegate and Vice Delegate by the nature of the game, and so unless the Constitution is saying that we should allow someone who doesn't have a WA nation to become Delegate (which I think it does, we should amend it), I think such a limitation on the voters would be justified.
 
The chief problem is reconciling voting for a delegate here and voting for a delegate through the endorsement system of NS.

Also, I do agree with Sniffles, this proposal would create problems. I for example, keep my main nation in TNP, but as an invader, my WA changes sporadically and is only in TNP if the delegacy is in some danger and needs to be bulwarked. If such a law passed, I would regard it as anti-raider and fight it all the way.

I think a better approach would be to base voting rights on having a "main nation" in TNP as we have, but with a better (and perhaps official) definition of "Main Nation".

All I know is that this is a tough problem, but I do think we have enough brains between us to come up with some solutions without stripping some members of their rights or creating two classes of TNPers.
 
in fairness, if this is anti-raider it could also be considered to be anti-defender for the same reason.

I agree with the "main nation" idea. I just feel that Game mechanics are pretty clear that main nation = WA nation.
 
For clarification, this proposal only affects voting for the Delegate and Vice Delegate. All other voting by RA members is unaffected.

In NationStates, selecting the WA Delegate and voting on WA resolutions are rights given to WA members only. If you choose not to join the WA, how can claim to be entitled to those rights? It isn't fair to the WA members at large if we allow nations to enjoy the benefits of membership without the responsibilities and consequences which come with it.

In the same way, if a player opts to have his WA nation elsewhere, his puppet should not be accorded the same rights reserved for WA members. It amounts to a back-door method of multi-ing. The game does not allow it, nor should we.

Furthermore, I have noted some opposition to this measure comes from those who will be personally affected by it. It is understandable that those who have been permitted to select a Delegate here, while keeping their WA nation elsewhere, prefer that things stay the same. However, I am asking you to place yor concern for the security of this region over your own personal interests. Without this amendment, a foreign entity can easily stage a coup in TNP with only a couple of dozen puppets. Allowing puppets the right to select our WA Delegate is an enormous security risk. We must close this loophole before some outside entity uses it to their advantage.
 
flemingovia:
in fairness, if this is anti-raider it could also be considered to be anti-defender for the same reason.

I agree with the "main nation" idea. I just feel that Game mechanics are pretty clear that main nation = WA nation.
Click to expand...
There's some question about that. I generally consider Romanar or Winter Vacationers to be my most important nations, and neither is in the WA. Active raiders/defenders switch WAs at the drop of a hat, but usually have one nation that they consider their "main".

I have mixed fellings about this.
 
I've gone over all the arguments in this thread and I would have to agree with Mum's proposal.

We have a very nasty little security loophole in TNP: you can run for Delegate and not even have your WA nation in the region - if you win, you just shift WA status to the nation you have in this region. Ironically, such a loophole could permit and invasion without a shot being fired.

Legitimate requirements for citizenship and naturalization and eligibility to run for office for the purpose of regional security is a logical requirement and in no way violates anyone's rights - if they do not wish to comply with the citizenship requirements and laws, they are free to vote with their feet and move to another region.

That said, unless a citizen is involved in intelligence work that requires their WA nation to be unknown or they are on active military duty, I firmly believe that every citizen of TNP be required to keep their WA nation in TNP at all times. Also, you can't justify your citizens running pell-mell with their WA nations engaging in activities that are purely the delegated authority of the 'state' as per international/regional activities.

The current arrangement tends to promote a lot of freelancing intended or otherwise.
 
You could solve the problem by allowing raiders and defenders to join the NPA, keep doing what they are currently doing in their free time, but get called up whenever the NPA needs them.

I would support the bill if you allowed that.
 
To me this is not an issue of security of the region. I understand where you are coming from but I feel this is a violation of a nations right to be run the way it chooses. And you would be penalizing nations who wish to remain independent from the WA, by giving them no say in who leads their region.
 
Grand Admiral:
To me this is not an issue of security of the region. I understand where you are coming from but I feel this is a violation of a nations right to be run the way it chooses. And you would be penalizing nations who wish to remain independent from the WA, by giving them no say in who leads their region.
Click to expand...
We're not requiring WA membership to vote for ALL positions, only that of Delegate and Vice Delegate. Considering that to run you need a WA nation (hence a natural in-game condition) and that by choosing to not have a WA nation, they've already chosen to not participate in the invader/defender game and the WA voting, so letting them vote for the Delegate would be like letting residents of say, Canada vote for Mexico's president.

Though I would oppose such a change based primarily on impossibility of implementation and instead prefer two other changes, one being an amendment preventing individuals without a WA nation from running for Delegate and Vice Delegate, the other being mandatory registration and up to date information of an individual's WA nation in order to participate in the Delegate and Vice Delegate elections.
 
Southwest Asia:
letting them vote for the Delegate would be like letting residents of say, Canada vote for Mexico's president.
Click to expand...

Whilst, presumably allowing Canadians to vote to amend Mexicos constitution. Doesn't really work as an analogy does it?

I think to disallow WA’s from voting would disenfranchise a large part of the electorate from the most important of the elections we hold. Particularly, bare in mind, that we no longer elect a PM as well as a Delegate or all the Ministerial positions directly. Fundementally, it is question about what kind of region TNP is. TNP has always been a region that has attempted to have as open and participative a community and democracy as possible (in theory if not always in practice) and that’s why WA membership is not required to join the RA. I believe that attempting to restrict voting in Delegate elections runs counter to the ideals professed in the Constitution and the ideals on which this legislative body is built.
 
Haor Chall:
I think to disallow WA’s from voting would disenfranchise a large part of the electorate from the most important of the elections we hold.
Click to expand...
I think you meant non-WA's. If so, you are correct. More than half of the RA has their WA nation elsewhere. If we allow the trend to continue, soon 90% of the players will be playing elsewhere, because they can. I have to wonder what that will mean for future activity levels here. And frankly, at that point, when TNP's Delegate is selected by a group of nations whose primary interests lie elsewhere, the disenfranchised ones will be the WA nations in TNP.

Let me ask the 60% of you who are involved in other regions, do they permit non-WA members to select the Delegate? Will Equilism, Taijitu, TWP, IDU, LWU, CLT, TITO, etc. let me join up and pick their Delegate?
 
Taijitu will permit people with WAs outside Taijitu to vote for Delegate, although I think I remember a law requiring one to have a WA.
 
The IDU has an unusual posture. It's not into Defender/Invaider activity, and never has been. Most of the non-WA nations in the IDU are actually puppets of current WA members in the IDU (or past WA members who have moved on but left a puppet in place. So the IDU's limitation to having only the WA members vote for Delegate is quite difference in practice....as there's only a small minority of members who can't vopte.

My primary concern is the point H.C. raised:
I think to disallow WA’s from voting would disenfranchise a large part of the electorate from the most important of the elections we hold. Particularly, bare in mind, that we no longer elect a PM as well as a Delegate or all the Ministerial positions directly.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that we're also a feeder region, and as a consequence we need to be seensitive to the concerns of those who reside here and who choose not to get involved in the WA. That is an underpinning of one of the concepts enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and I'm not inclined to disregard that concept.
 
If in the Start RA membership needed to have a WA nation, you will never have this discussion. I think it's the basic of stable region, people who are really active and staying in the region must be the only person who has something to say about the future of TNP.

BUT I think exception must be made, Like Honorary membership or citizenship and military service can be use to make this exception.
 
I would support a requirement to have WA in TNP or on NPA duty to vote in Delegate elections. It simply makes sense.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I think you meant non-WA's. If so, you are correct. More than half of the RA has their WA nation elsewhere. If we allow the trend to continue, soon 90% of the players will be playing elsewhere, because they can. I have to wonder what that will mean for future activity levels here. And frankly, at that point, when TNP's Delegate is selected by a group of nations whose primary interests lie elsewhere, the disenfranchised ones will be the WA nations in TNP.

Let me ask the 60% of you who are involved in other regions, do they permit non-WA members to select the Delegate? Will Equilism, Taijitu, TWP, IDU, LWU, CLT, TITO, etc. let me join up and pick their Delegate?
Click to expand...

Oops, yes. I think the problem is you are addressing is a different issue however. My point is that I don’t believe you can have a system where people can join the RA and vote on everything except the Delegate election. I think that’s an untenable franchise- especially now the Delegate is the executive. If the decision- to ensure primary loyalties and involvement – is to make the RA as a whole more exclusive and restrict membership to WA’s only than so be it.

I must say that I would not favour that arrangement- from a personal perspective I’m not a fan of the WA for one thing and as someone who has been a loyal member of the region for a long time- including a fair amount of time within government- I don’t believe that I fall in that category of someone here from “outside” to influence the government- I would be disappointed to be disenfranchised (even if others wouldn’t be…) because I’ve decided to move my WA elsewhere. At the end of the day, the argument is about what kind of region TNP is and I think you need to consider this within that context.
 
This proposal, had it been put in place under the last COnstitution would have only affected the selection of the Delegate and Vice Delegate , both of whom had limited powers outside of "the game."

Under the current system, however, it effective creates an elitist autocraytic system that would deny participation or respect to many long term members of this forum and active residents of the region who have maintaibed their long-term presence in the region through puppets. This would include past delegates, pcurrent and past officials and ministers in those governments we've had that were selected and organize democraticly.

The only way I could support this proposals would be to restore the Prime Minister-elected Cabinet system to which long-term residents of TNP would bve able to vote and participate. Short of that, I have to view this idea and insidious and anti-democratic to its core.
 
GBM:
Let me ask the 60% of you who are involved in other regions, do they permit non-WA members to select the Delegate? Will Equilism, Taijitu, TWP, IDU, LWU, CLT, TITO, etc. let me join up and pick their Delegate?
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure, go ahead, TWP has been doing it for years and LWU doesn't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top