Nominations

Westwind:
All feeders are oligarchys. The 100's don't visit the delegate recognized forum, so they don't get any better representation.

Not unusual to criticize such a system, but there is never a real democratic system in feeders. You just have to hope for a responsible delegate, and an active forum community.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue that, I defended NK's system of decision-making in the WA on that very basis, however we've actually eliminated who is eligible to vote or even run, well.. to a select 'group' of individuals -- that's what I meant by an oligarchy. Also as I stated to you via IRC, I do have ideas on how to address the problem of oligarchy with an in-game electoral procedure which would make TNP essentially the first real democracy in NS, by not relying on a select few of forum participants to run a government. The forum would still play a pivotal role for campaigning and vote counting, but votes would be collected by electorate nations. But once again, I don't want to run around this place, waving the 'we want change' banner like the new guy from Hawaii.. I'm just seeing a lot of political irresponsibility due to this constitution and our democratic process, and I hope it is resolved so our people don't go ungoverned. :tb3:
 
I've gone and dug a bit further and found that Moany Old Gits, Roman, and Gracius Maximus are the only RA members to not have a period of 30+ days without a post since either joining the RA or June of 2009. I went 30 days without a post but then I reapplied the the RA immediately and was accepted by default after 2 weeks due to no response.

If Gracius Maximus never gave the speaker notification of a change in TNP nations then he should no longer hold RA membership.
 
I agree Uni, TNP is badly in need of leadership and opportunity.

I might also add, grist for the mill, that Judicial elections are also due to start on October 1st. This also requires the delegate to appoint an Election Commisioner(s).

If Limi's observations are correct, we essentially have no legitimate government accept 3 or 4 remaining RA members.

However....given that applications to the RA are automatically accepted after 15 days if the Speaker fails to respond to them, they you need to add:

The Commonwealth of the Bretwealda
Tokka Is Cannon

and Felasia will become a member again soon in the same manner.
 
Ah yes, you are correct. I was posting those eligible to run for positions and forgot to add in those who could vote but not run for office. Doesn't change things much in the long run though.

For convenience here are the 30+ day periods without posting for each member in question. As far as I can see no one listed below made any posts during that time and following said period ever reapplied for membership to the RA.

axiosrivervalley - Aug 16th 2010 to present
Cakatoa - August 3rd 2010 to present
Chowda Head - August 10th 2010 to present
Daimiaena - August 2nd 2010 to present
Dalimbar - August 2009
Dyr Nasad - July 2010
Eluvatar - November 2009
FALCONKATS - August 2010
flemingovia - November 2009
Govindia - June 2009
Grimalkin - August 7th 2010 to present
Grossesschnauzer - Nov 17th to Dec 18th 2009
HEM - June 14th to Jul 22nd 2010
Jbeil - August 12th 2010 to present
Kor - August 2010
New Kervoskia - August 8th 2010 to present
Pasargad - August 2010
Sedge - August 8th 2010 to present
Southwest Asia - August 24th 2010 to present (accepted by default on the 24th)
unibot - June 1st 2010 to July 25th 2010
Whamabama - August 2010
Winter Vacationers - June 11th to July 23rd 2010
Zoldorstan - August 2010

This information was collected by viewing each members profile, hovering over profile options, and clicking "List Member's Posts" As I only have a RA mask I'm unable to view everything on the forum and as such some people may have posted within the time periods listed above in places I cannot view and may still be RA members provided no other periods exist. As I said earlier this information is only correct within the bounds of what I'm able to view and should not be taken as pure fact.
 
We really needs to clean this up and get the fact straight whether who is eligible for election, who is not, when will it happen, and whether it is possible to have election at all when EC is still not here.

Edit: Or we might as well clear the plate.
 
Ok if all are willing lets take this matter into our own hands. We can accept the people we need are very busy at the moment and cannot help.

I can be EC and can do the following:

1) Start a voting thread that will contain all the nominees for each position as well as a voting start and end date.

2) nations will vote once on all three positions. Personally I'd like to let everyone and anyone vote but to keep the law people happy it will be restricted to people on Limi's RA list that was posted previously.

3) Will announce winners of positions and then hopefully our delegate will be able to make a transistion.

Its a bit vague - has anyone anything to add or am I going wildly off the rails?
 
If we are being strict/formal, we have a problem - because, as Limi said, the only people who can vote OR run are those few that he named. If we're letting people run, you should probably let them vote
 
when there is nothing going on why should anyone post, anyways we have very little participation from members now if we start removing RA members for just not posting in the forum i am totally against that. for RA members there is usually Roll call procedure and i think that is enough,we need to get more people involved instead of finding excuses for stopping members participation
 
As a point of information:

As Deputy Speaker, I intend to address the update of the list of current RA membership in the next few days.
 
The problem with that is keeping track of nations moving in and out of the region, to respect the 'residents' rights vs. those moving into the region simply to effect the vote.
 
Westwind:
The problem with that is keeping track of nations moving in and out of the region, to respect the 'residents' rights vs. those moving into the region simply to effect the vote.
Click to expand...
Conversely, we're a feeder, maybe we should stop being so native-oriented, and open our politics to everyone (within reason and self-interest)? I mean, who the delegate is in a feeder affects every region. Because a feeder delegate is someone's first delegate, it's their first impression of how things are run on NationStates. Userites are dependent on that first impression being something that is worth keeping players in the game, so they have a stake in the politics of feeders. It is in the interests of any region in NationStates to have strong, powerful and appealing communities for feeders.. because otherwise the game looks bleak, small and unappealing to those new members who see the feeders, first. Not to mention, regulation on recruitment is an interest of userites. What I'm saying is maybe TNP should be a little different in terms of policy and scope, and instead of trying to run a userite government in a feeder we should be more open to influence from other userites. While, it is true that we're not userites' rag-doll, our policies affect them gravely, which begs to question if we should invest in a social contract with not just our native members like userites do, but expand that contract to all of NationStates that takes the initiative to do their duty to the North Pacific, regardless of nativity.

I understand that's seemingly in contrdiction to years and years of gameplay philosophy, so please correct me if I'm not seeing something.
 
It would be next to impossible to handle votes using the NS.net site. We've developed the process over an extremely long period of time, trying to balance fairness and sanity in the process.
While all RA members have at least one TNP nation(s), the opposite doesn't work. That's where many of the concerns come into play, including ballot stuffing of one form or another. By requiring admission through this off-site forum, and by requiring a declaration of that player's TNP nation, we are able to achieve a fair, balanced system of lawmaking and elections.

In addition, two points. Naominations are also required for Speaker, as the term for that office is the same as the Delgate, Vice Delegate, and CLO.
Second, due to impending eye surgery in the next two months, I will not be a candidate for any office in any election until after the New Year.
 
For security purposes we could restrict the voting pool to those WA nations that have either been in the region for 30 days, or that were born in the region. Obviously it would still be theoretically possible to hijack the elections that way, but it'd be difficult enough that I doubt anyone would bother.

It is perfectly possible for an outside group to take control of the current election process as well.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
By requiring admission through this off-site forum, and by requiring a declaration of that player's TNP nation, we are able to achieve a fair, balanced system of lawmaking and elections.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call this system, fair or balanced.. just undemocratic and limiting. Seeing as how a small oligarchy is in power and is the only one in power.

1. Has the in-game election system been tried? It certainly hasn't been in my small era of play.
2. Are there mistakes that we can learn from these experiences?
3. Why is it so insane?
4. Is the following questions' answers not self-evident, purely because they've been fabricated to serve the interests of those who wish to concentrate power to a small distinct group of people who think that they own this feeder more than any other nation?
 
Knowing who is voting seems to be a useful thing. Voting on nationstates.net would probably increase voter turnout - I know I'd vote at least five times.

As to your complaints of oligarchy, my years of observation of this region, and my recent participation in the forum suggest that TNP is actually freer than many, if not all of the other Pacifics, and it has been at least a few elections since anybody I'd consider to be part of the "old guard" has been elected delegate. If it were a real oligarchy, I doubt either JAL or NK could have been elected.

If you want to complain about a few people in power, you could complain about the admin team, but that's pretty much been done to death already.


On an older point (I was just readmitted to the RA, and thus just gained posting rights in this thread), I believe that many people probably should have been removed from the RA. However, since they were not, they are obviously still members, and as such would be eligible to run for office this term. Looking at the law, there seems to be no reason to remove members ex post facto.
 
Voting on nationstates.net would probably increase voter turnout - I know I'd vote at least five times.
Click to expand...

You're WA multing now? I see.

The Palindromic Land:
On an older point (I was just readmitted to the RA, and thus just gained posting rights in this thread), I believe that many people probably should have been removed from the RA. However, since they were not, they are obviously still members, and as such would be eligible to run for office this term. Looking at the law, there seems to be no reason to remove members ex post facto.
Click to expand...
I don't actually think it would be ex-post-facto, it would just be enforcing the constitution which was always in place and reducing our member basis to a handful of people, as I said, oligarchy.
 
Well, if you're doing it based on WA nations, you're unfairly discriminating against those who will not or cannot join the WA.

Perhaps I did use ex post facto a bit differently than is usual, but the point is that only one person wanted everybody removed from the RA, and I believe he is wrong. The laws call for the Speaker to remove members for inactivity. If he or she does not, and the members in question return to activity, there should be no problem, either by the spirit or letter of the law.
 
I have found there to be 25 current RA members. I reach this conclusion by acknowledging the list provided by Speaker Dalimbar on September 1st as being lawfully accurate.

May I remind those who are or may be running for office, that TNP Law 26, Section One states:

5. Non-incumbent candidates for Delegate and Vice Delegate may not obtain an endorsement level during the election cycle greater than the level authorized for members of the Security Council under Law 30.
Click to expand...

The refered to authorization level for members of the Security Council under Law 30:

2. Members of the Council shall maintain an endorsement level of at least fifty per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count and no more than eighty-five percent of said count. Where the computation results in fractions, the count shall be rounded down.
Click to expand...

I interpret this to mean that non-incumbant candidates may not exceed fifty percent of the serving Delegates endorsement count.

Ermarian is currently at 105 endorsements. No candidate should exceed 52 endorsements.
 
The Palindromic Land:
Well, if you're doing it based on WA nations, you're unfairly discriminating against those who will not or cannot join the WA.
Click to expand...
Which is why I would combine the RA and the WA members in our election as the electorate unless there are duplicates. For example, if I am in the region as a WA (which I am) and I am a RA member, I wouldn't get two votes... however if I didn't have a WA nation in TNP, but I joined the RA, I'd have a vote.
 
It's not unfair to exclude non-WA nations.

How many non-WA puppets does any single player have in the region ? One...Two...fifty ? There are some players with dozens of puppets out there. I won't support the risk of a single player stacking the election with non-WA puppets voting.
 
Westwind:
It's not unfair to exclude non-WA nations.

How many non-WA puppets does any single player have in the region ? One...Two...fifty ? There are some players with dozens of puppets out there. I won't support the risk of a single player stacking the election with non-WA puppets voting.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
The xurrent system actually does permit non-WA in TNP players to become RA and eligible to vote, along with those who have a WA and also join the RA.
There are various ways to detect duplicates, and having a duplicate is resolved by an automatic boot from the RA.
We also try to screen duplicate forum accounts, unless we've have notice and know which user accounts are involved. In those few instances, related to gameplay, the player still may not have more than one RA vote.

Registration to have a vote is a necessity whether there's an RA or a direct voting system, We've done both here, so the existence of an RA is a preference of those in TNP and not an automatic requirement for off-site governance.
 
As I understand it, persons not voting in a 30 day period may be eligible for removal from the RA by the speaker. That does not mean that they are automatically removed.

That is certainly always been the way that this rule has been interpreted, and there is plenty of case law that shows that automatic disqualification has not been applied.

To disqualify someone from running in this election because of a period of inactivity a year ago is ridiculous.
 
Westwind:
I have found there to be 25 current RA members. I reach this conclusion by acknowledging the list provided by Speaker Dalimbar on September 1st as being lawfully accurate.

May I remind those who are or may be running for office, that TNP Law 26, Section One states:

5. Non-incumbent candidates for Delegate and Vice Delegate may not obtain an endorsement level during the election cycle greater than the level authorized for members of the Security Council under Law 30.
Click to expand...

The refered to authorization level for members of the Security Council under Law 30:

2. Members of the Council shall maintain an endorsement level of at least fifty per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count and no more than eighty-five percent of said count. Where the computation results in fractions, the count shall be rounded down.
Click to expand...

I interpret this to mean that non-incumbant candidates may not exceed fifty percent of the serving Delegates endorsement count.

Ermarian is currently at 105 endorsements. No candidate should exceed 52 endorsements.
Click to expand...
One question here (I hope it doesnt go to the court :P )

It says that candidates cannot exceed what is allowed for SC members - it doesnt say that candidates must have less than what is allowed for SC members - and SC members are allowed up to 85% of the current count.

----

And on-site voting isnt going to turn out well, and anyone who has really spent any length of time playing probably knows that...most dont play NS for its intense graphics and riveting action scenes...you either play it as a nation sim, RP, etc, or you play it for the community..and the government is really for that community
 
Ok if Flemingovia could give me the voting booth I will start a new thread for all those wishing to run for a position to state their intent.

Currently on my list are:

Delegate. John Ashcroft Land, Ermarian, Limi

Vice Delegate. Blue Wolf II, Unibot, Dry Nasad

Speaker. Dalimbar

CLO. Falkonkats
 
Dyr Nasad:
And on-site voting isnt going to turn out well, and anyone who has really spent any length of time playing probably knows that...most dont play NS for its intense graphics and riveting action scenes...you either play it as a nation sim, RP, etc, or you play it for the community..and the government is really for that community
Click to expand...
I'd be curious on the truth in this statement, I think part of being a strong community is to be a bit like a salesman, and good salesmen go to their customers first. However, I'm not in a position to question these policies of TNP -- I'm here to run in an election, not criticize how the election is being run.. I'm glad that we've apparently got some things straighten out and are ready to rock n' roll. :clap:
 
It says that candidates cannot exceed what is allowed for SC members - it doesnt say that candidates must have less than what is allowed for SC members - and SC members are allowed up to 85% of the current count.
Click to expand...

Yes, it could be interpreted that way as well. IMO, the wording is unclear, so I opted for an interpretation that best ensures regional security.

As I understand it, persons not voting in a 30 day period may be eligible for removal from the RA by the speaker. That does not mean that they are automatically removed.

That is certainly always been the way that this rule has been interpreted, and there is plenty of case law that shows that automatic disqualification has not been applied.

To disqualify someone from running in this election because of a period of inactivity a year ago is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The Speaker is charged with maintaining the list, so I consider that to be the basis we should go by. The law states that 30-days inactivity on the forum (not just lack of voting) is cause for removal.

I do agree that disqualifying someone for previous periods of inactivity is mearly trying to disrupt the potential process. The list maintained by the Speaker is what's valid.

However...

Currently on my list are:

Delegate. John Ashcroft Land, Ermarian, Limi

Vice Delegate. Blue Wolf II, Unibot, Dry Nasad

Speaker. Dalimbar

CLO. Falkonkats
Click to expand...

Some of these are not elibile to run for office, as they have not all been currently RA members for 30-days, as the law requires.

JAL was just reaccepted into the RA, so does not have the required 30 days.

Ermarian is not a member of the RA at all, so is not eligible.

Limi however, is eligible.

Blue Wolf is not a member of the RA, and is therefore ineligible.

Both Unibot and Dyr Nassad are eligible.

Dalimbar's RA membership expired since his TNP nation CTE'd, so he is no longer eligible.

FALCONKATS is eligible.

If anyone can show cause that this is incorrect, I'll happily reconsider. And I'd also happily entertain legislation that would open the process to allow more members to be eligible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top