Should Puppets Be Voting for Delegate?

Grosseschnauzer:
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.
Click to expand...
Autocratic is an extremely strong word to use. I mean oligarchy is more suiting but oligarchy is what? Rule by the few and in this case rule by the pure and true natives. And coming from GBM, the stalwart of having the TNP being a place for anyone, anywhere. I believe this deserves serious consideration.
 
Autocratic isn't the wrong term. Given the Delegate's total authority over the executive branch and the limited means to review or reverse the Delegate's actions (some of which have yet to even be tested) there is no assurance that an oligarchy would actually exist.

But the choice of words is not the real issue, the failure to recognize the clearly adverse consequences of this proposal to the values that have long sustained TNP is what is at issue, and the second paragraph of my previous post still stands as a sound basis to oppose this proposal.
 
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...

We did, as long as you have College of Equilism membership which doesn't require WA nation in the region.

Anyway, I'm aganist this because it's restrict the right of a certain group of population in the region just because they have other priority besides TNP.

Instead of WA status, maybe we should worry more about level of activity. I think that a certain level of activity in RA and in the government should be maintain in order for you to have a right to vote.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Autocratic isn't the wrong term. Given the Delegate's total authority over the executive branch and the limited means to review or reverse the Delegate's actions (some of which have yet to even be tested) there is no assurance that an oligarchy would actually exist.
Click to expand...
And how would a foreign group of CLO's be any different in holding back a Native Del?
 
You know, my WA nation has been sitting around in TNP for quite some time now but I certainly don't feel like I'm any absolute insider of the North right now.
 
Meh, if this gets passed, I'll just move my WA into the region a week or two before elections, inform everyone that its mine, then endorse the winner and move back out once they actually become delegate.
 
Outer Kharkistania:
Meh, if this gets passed, I'll just move my WA into the region a week or two before elections, inform everyone that its mine, then endorse the winner and move back out once they actually become delegate.
Click to expand...
That would be acceptable.

One more consideration in favor of this proposal: it has to do with balance. The trend toward fewer WA members in the RA makes for a shrinking pool of viable candidates for the Delegacy. Unless you all like having Elu and I swap seats every few months...

As this moves to a formal vote, I would like to thank everyone who weighed in with his opinion. I do appreciate hearing differing perspectives on the issue.
 
Mum has not indicated any willingness to accomodate long-standing residents of TNP with this proposal, and until and unless there is a clear accomodation, I will oppose this proposal.
 
I do not support this. Having a WA nation to vote on WA resolutions is fine, but being forced to have a WA nation here to vote on Delegate elections and be in the WA, is something I do not support. That wasn't the requirement in the elections we had last, and I don't see why it should be changed.

I do not support :ADN:
 
Govinia, I assume you are referring to GBM's proposal, and not my just=floated alternative.

I had thought Mr Sniffles was going to spilt the topic per his post but he didn't. I'll go ahead and spilt it per his comment. It seems like the GBM proposal is not likely to reach the 3/4 majority threshhold, so it makes sense to me to raise my proposal for a more intensive discussion.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Govinia, I assume you are referring to GBM's proposal, and not my just=floated alternative.

I had thought Mr Sniffles was going to spilt the topic per his post but he didn't. I'll go ahead and spilt it per his comment. It seems like the GBM proposal is not likely to reach the 3/4 majority threshhold, so it makes sense to me to raise my proposal for a more intensive discussion.
Click to expand...
Sorry yes I was referring to GBM's proposal :ADN:
 
First, Isn't the Delegate determined solely by highest number of endorsements by WA members who currently reside in the region. This ensures that the Delegate is a WA meber elected by WA members. Second, Isn't this a nonnegotiable rule of the game with the stated intention of promoting raids and or coups etc. Third, doesn't this render the delegate all powerful by granting the power to exclude or ban individuals and outvote all other WA members in the region at the WA. The only in-game check on a Delegate would be the original Founder of the region

Thus isn't the RA a non-binding consultative assembly to a very precarious dictator regardless of any constitution or bill of rights: past and present or future. Shouldn't such talk-shops include everyone and their pets as well as potted plants. There is nothing wrong with pet and plant nations being admitted after a suitable minimal time in residence. In other words, I don't think that it is useful to limit RA membership To WA members

Doesn't this limit constitutions to large regions like the TNP where one individual needs to delegate his authority :lol: so that enough pain and pleasure can be dolled out in his name to maintain his position and authority

This limits realist constitutional reform to ensuring that the RA is not immediately useful to any usurper and, by necessity, any and every new Delegate. This is why TNP delegates go "rogue" or discard the RA. Thus, the choice is between limited external security with unlimited internal instability; Or, external weakness where constant raiding precludes internal stability entirely.

It also seems logical though that it would be dominated by WA members. Thus WA members could induce the RA to give the cabinet a non-binding vote of confidence. The RA could also be used to train future oligarchs and induce WA membership Think meaningless titles etc. based on individual Support within the RA or individual support for the cabinet This more consensual approach should guide constitutional reform.

Orderly transitions and external security, resulting in internal stability are only possible in a state of oligarchy where all possible Delegates are included and losing Delegates are compensated by the Delegate in exchange for support.

To that end, the constitution should be amended so that election to the Cabinet including the Vice Delegate should be based on WA endorsements received-- say 3/5ths of the serving Delegate's count. From there, appointments can be made by the Delegate to staggered terms--of say, six months. This could be done according to open positions, new positions, purely ceremonial positions, loyalty, talent etc. This will prevent the cabinet and it's enforcement mechanisms from being immediately useful to a usurper while giving new delegates an incentive to work within the system as their influence will steadily grow. :bat:
 
That was a brilliant assessment of the nature of the delegacy, but your idea to prevent the Cabinet from being useful to a usurper doesn't work.

Our last usurper simply threw out the entire forums and appointed a new cabinet of his own personal loyalists.
 
This is where the idea of oligopoly becomes tricky. how does one determine who the next Lewis and Clark is, and then buy him off.

By composing the cabinet solely of nations with the highest endorsement counts every new Delegate has at least one vice delegate nipping at his heels and a bunch of officers who by concerted action could lower his endorsement count enough to end his term immediately. For an additional punch the RA members who were also WA members could also withdraw their endorsement of the Delegate at once.

Maybe we could put that in the RA oath.

This could also eliminate elections and replace them with direct democracy-- albeit a direct democracy that was heavily corrupted by a popularity contest. :evil:
 
If one were to take that to the extreme, it could be required that in order to be a member of the RA you are required to have a certain amount of endorsements. Now that would be a frightening proposition.
 
Issue 1
But we aren't taking this to an extreme. We are ASSUMING that WA embers will dominate the RA. :pinch:

Non-WA members of the RA could only have a binding agreement to de-endorse a rogue Delegate when they join the RA. Thus any conflict with the bill of rights is avoided by more careful wording. That is if we don't amend the bill of rights

The RA is basically powerless owing to the game's design anyway. This turns the WA members of the RA into a defensive militia. Something much bigger than the NPA which will never rise to the level of the Gatesvile Guard.

Issue 2
Turning the executive and Judicial branches into an agreement between high delegate counts dilutes the power of the serving Delegate by providing that the cabinet and Judiciary have their own power base within the game.

The end of elections as they have occurred will require constitutional change.
Elections could be replaced by votes of confidence in the RA after a selection by the Delegate.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
No, that would run afoul of the Bill of Rights which preserve the voluntary nature of participation in the WA.
Click to expand...
True, but what's the point of voting for a Delegate when you have no possibility actually endorsing the Delegate?

It would certainly cut down on the possibility of multiple accounts by by NS nations or 'shadow accounts' used to conceal the actual identity of a candidate for Delegate. It also shoves the onus of nailing multis onto game mechanics.

Point being that if on were required to have a WA nation in order to vote or be in the RA it would preclude them having multiple accounts on this board (and it would subject them to being banned from the game for multi-ing and solve the potential problem altogether).

Frankly, it's not very hard to spoof an IP address that would deceive the IP logging of an invision board. Then again, the same thing could be done to NationStates itself and almost just as easily. The unethical types can invisibly IP spoof NationStates and create as many multies as they want - as long as they don't make a mistake and get caught. As per InvisionFree boards, un-detectible multiple accounts can be created to give one person numerous votes in the RA. But, even if you get away with multi-ing in NationStates to back up those multiple accounts (were WA membership required) would be detected by NationStates in about a week.

Face it, the WA is a tool for the control of a region. It's time to use game mechanics as a tool to secure the government of this region more so than it already is (or isn't as the case may be).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top