Regional Assembly Membership Integrity Act

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
I propose the adoption of the following amendment(s) in order to reduce the risk of tampering in the integrity of the voting process within the RA, and with voting in TNP elections. This is actually what these practices had been, although unwritten, since the current constitution was adopted, and it had been the practice under prior constitutions. It is a practice to also reduce the risk of "ballot stuffing." In recent periods, we seem to have gotten away from this, and rather than argue about whether an unwritten practice is binding, it is easier just to make it part of Law 28.

An Law on Regional Assembly Membership Integrity
Amending Section 1 of Article II of Law 28
I.
Said section 1 is amended by adding a new clause 5, as follows:
"5. No one shall be admitted or re-admitted to the Assembly when a vote is in progress on any legislative matter within the Assembly. Admission shall be effective at the conclusion of such voting."
II.
Said section 1 is further amended by adding a new clause 6, as follows:
"6. No one shall be admitted or re-admitted to the Assembly when an election or special election is in progress. Admission shall be effective once the election results are announced."
Click to expand...
 
I agree with this, I think it would be a good way to help keep voting and elections smooth and error-free.
 
I was thinking about this subject as I was touring the forum tonight. Makes sense. We're especially vulnerable to this sort of thing with our current low activity levels.
 
Topid suggests not saying the phrase 'low activity level' in any forum Sedge can see... :P

Anyway, the elections bit is completely reasonable, and I'm sure there are some very important votes that we don't want tampering with... But delaying RA membership for Legislative Correction Act would have been silly I think because it was so straight forward.

My suggestion would be no new RA members during elections, and give the Speaker the ability to delay admission until after a vote ends (but allow him to admit people during more procedural votes.)

:2c:
 
Topid, what I proposed is to essentially codify what the long standing practice of the region has been concerning admission into the R.A. Under the last Constitution, it was in fact written into the Constitution. When this constitution was adopted, while not written, Speakers generally agreed to follow that practice as sound discretionary policy.

We really haven't had "procedural votes" in the R.A. and to even make that work as an exception, we'd have to come up with a clear-line definition. I think it is simpler to simply "hold" up remasking for new RA members for a few days when we're dealing with R.A. votes.

As to elections, the last few Speakers have uniformly observed a "recess" on legislation during general elections when the Speaker's office is up for election, and we've generally have discussed and prepared legislation in discussions during those periods.
 
Alright, thanks for the information Gro. :)

I suppose I don't really care which way. I still think the odds of anyone wanting to distort the results of most of what we do in this assembly (like the legislation correction act) is very low. (That's what I meant by procedural, the bills that just change how we do things, not a big policy change.) Therefore it didn't make sense to me to pause a new member a couple days in those cases.

But if we've been doing it already then I suppose there is no reason to oppose doing it now.
 
Sometimes what you consider "procedural changes" can have a very big impact on regional and community stability.

I've been on a campaign for more than two years now to find and root out little things in our governing documents that can lead to an impossible-to-fix bottleneck in procedure. We, as a community, shouldn't be held hostage to such things. And believe me, we have been held hostage to such things in the past. One of the weaknesses in the current constitution, compared to the previous one, was that it sacrificed efficiency and security for brevity. We still have some issues to look at as an R.A. and as a community, such as the organization of the Executive Branch, but we're a lot closer to sanity now than we were when the current constitution came into force.
 
Hhhm, funky question, I missed voting on this vote, would it be retroactive for the rule to apply to itself too? In others words, can I legally miss one or two votes in the immediate future? -- just curious. XD
 
I don't think the change in inactivity requirements can be made retroactive, and the bill didn't call for it to be. So, the two-vote requirement would have to be for future voting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top