Discussion: Extending Voting and Candidacy Rights

Greater Peterstan

Greater Peterstan

TNPer
So, we've had a little confusion about voting and candidacy rights, and keeping track of who is RA eligible, and all of that.

Here is a potential solution. Extend voting and candidacy rights to all citizens. We already have a Citizen-level badge. They have all registered with the forum, and then some. Why shouldn't all of those nations be able to vote?

No democracy that I know of demands a minimum level of participation in order to be eligible for voting - being a citizen is almost always good enough. Who cares if voters haven't visited the forum in 30 days?

In RL, voters don't have to visit Parliament, or Congress every month to maintain their democratic right to vote. (Thank God!) In fact, it is a defining characteristic of most democracies that the average citizen tunes out for most of the time, and then tunes in during election time.

To be clear, I support restrictions on RA membership. I understand monitoring activity levels for government officials, once they've been elected or put on the RA - being present is a necessary function of their job. But why so rigorous to be eligible for voting?

This would have a spin-off effect of forcing candidates to look beyond the ten or fifteen nations who are active participants in the forums already - perhaps even requiring a proper campaign. Contacting nations, actively encouraging them to become citizens in advance of the election - all good things, in my humble opinion.

This would also have the spin-off effect of encouraging nations to register and visit the forum, if only a few times a year. We should be encouraging citizen participation, even if that means something a little different than what is expected of RA members.

I would be in favor of extending the privilege of candidacy to a wider circle also. (although I can appreciate the security concerns - we could require candidates to go through a similar security check as RA members).

Thoughts?
 
This sounds interesting and I support the idea of voting right on election being extend to all citizens and not just the RA member.

As for extending candidacy to wider circle, I think we could do that by allowing all RA to be candidates instead of only a group of them who have been member for at least 30 days, but at the same time we would also increase the screening process for RA membership to include tougher demand for activity, tougher demand for participation in government, and minimum time as citizen before application.
 
Something else that can now be added to the endless checklist of planned edits to TNP's legal code.

Don't let my tone mislead you; this is a very good idea and a seemingly obvious solution to a glaring problem which would likely have been overlooked by many who can't see the forest for the trees. Good work. Though as Fel said, the screening process also has its value. It might be best if all RA members could run for offices, rather than all citizens.

Along the lines of RA members proving their worth and devotion, I like the idea of citizens voting in elections of RA members, but that's an entirely different ballpark and I don't even know if TNP is, overall, active enough for that yet.
 
Quick noob question about NS mechanics, related to election proposals. We elect our Delegate, and Vice Delegate already - but in the game itself, Regional Representation is based on a endorsement count, right? How are our votes on forum reconciled with game mechanics?

Is that the purpose of the high levels of influence that are required to sit on security council - so that the Delegate can be removed by the Council if necessary?
 
Greater Peterstan:
Quick noob question about NS mechanics, related to election proposals. We elect our Delegate, and Vice Delegate already - but in the game itself, Regional Representation is based on a endorsement count, right? How are our votes on forum reconciled with game mechanics?

Is that the purpose of the high levels of influence that are required to sit on security council - so that the Delegate can be removed by the Council if necessary?
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct.
VD is mainly an administrative role, however if the delegate steps down or disappears, I believe the VD would take his/her place in-game.

Since this governmental administration has control of the region's WFE, it can publicly announce the election and ultimate choice of the next "official" candidate and take measures to place the next candidate in the position of delegate. It's generally accepted that this government is the official government of TNP as it has been among the longest lasting and most successful in promoting the interests of the "people" of TNP (those who wish to be involved in its government), though not particularly successful in keeping the region entirely secure.

The Security Council exists mainly as a defensive measure against both exterior (such as an invader threat) and internal (such as a rogue delegate) threats (or both, sometimes), I believe. I don't really know if it works all that well, though.
 
A mean old man:
Greater Peterstan:
Quick noob question about NS mechanics, related to election proposals. We elect our Delegate, and Vice Delegate already - but in the game itself, Regional Representation is based on a endorsement count, right? How are our votes on forum reconciled with game mechanics?

Is that the purpose of the high levels of influence that are required to sit on security council - so that the Delegate can be removed by the Council if necessary?
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct.
VD is mainly an administrative role, however if the delegate steps down or disappears, I believe the VD would take his/her place in-game.

Since this governmental administration has control of the region's WFE, it can publicly announce the election and ultimate choice of the next "official" candidate and take measures to place the next candidate in the position of delegate. It's generally accepted that this government is the official government of TNP as it has been among the longest lasting and most successful in promoting the interests of the "people" of TNP (those who wish to be involved in its government), though not particularly successful in keeping the region entirely secure.

The Security Council exists mainly as a defensive measure against both exterior (such as an invader threat) and internal (such as a rogue delegate) threats (or both, sometimes), I believe. I don't really know if it works all that well, though.
Click to expand...
It's the reason why Durkaranistan II's reign of terror was rather brief.
 
That all makes pretty good sense. 'Cept, what do you mean by "take measures to place the next candidate in the position of delegate" ?

Does Blackshear simply sign things over to the next guy - or is it necessary fiddle with the endorsements so that the current elected Delegate always has the most, thus kicking in the game mechanics which dictate that the guy with the most endorsements is the Delegate.

Bit of a chicken - egg question, I guess.
 
What generally happens is that the incumbent delegate stops gathering endorsements and puts the delegate-elect in the WFE, asking people to endorse them. After a period of time between a few days and a couple weeks, the delegate-elect overtakes the incumbent in endorsements and becomes delegate de facto.

It's not possible to do this transfer instantly.
 
In RL, voters don't have to visit Parliament, or Congress every month to maintain their democratic right to vote. (Thank God!) In fact, it is a defining characteristic of most democracies that the average citizen tunes out for most of the time, and then tunes in during election time
Click to expand...

IRL, in some democracies, including Australia, voting is compulsory, and in some cases you get removed from the voter eligibility list if you haven't voted in a certain # of elections.

As for the activity thing, I would actually want the 30 day period because it encourages people to stay active as opposed to simply getting citizenship right before an election and then voting.
 
This is a good idea, the point about how RL citizens are not disenfranchised if they're too 'new' of citizens, is a very convincing point.
 
I've never really understood why citizens weren't allowed to vote. Not allowing them to run for office: that mostly makes sense, but the voting thing struck me as being far too excluding for what it is.
 
considering the long history of coups and rouge delegates in TNP i strongly object to idea of relaxing RA membership and voting eligibility .i purpose that for RA membership the TNP nation applying need to be a resident of the TNP region for the minimum of 3 month continuously before applying for RA membership. and have a minimum of 500 million population in addition of only posting an oath in the forum. and delegate and vice delegate candidates have to have minimum 50 endorsements to be eligible as a candidate
 
One can attack the RA problem from two possible directions. Try to secure the RA, which means becoming an oligarchy or dictatorship, or trying to make more natives involved in elections.

I would like to figure out a way to solve it the second way.

I would prefer leaving the problem unsolved to becoming an oligarchy or dictatorship.
 
i would like to see more relationship between this forum elections and the Main bulk of Nations residing in the actual TNP site so just forum member ship and an Oath here does not qualify you to be RA member . we have to link activity here with activity in actual TNP site which will lead to more participation and democracy here but at the same time we should have safe guards also
 
That is certainly something I'd like to pursue. I'm doing some thinking on the subject, and some simulations of some possibilities I have in mind.
 
Me too. I actually have the bones of a proposal mostly written, just to give us a basis for debate. As soon as RL slows down a hair, I'll polish and post.
 
TNP Citizenship Enfranchishment Omnibus Bill Version 0.5
​

This is a collection of proposed amendments to various parts of the existing Legal Code & Constitution with the overall purpose of bringing the TNP closer to a one-member, one-vote system of electing the Executive and Judicial Bodies. In this model the Regional Assembly would continue as the primary legislative body, unelected but open to all willing participants.

Functionally, I have attempted to accomplish this by adding a legal definition for the role of Citizen, which currently exists only a forum badge, with no legal status that I could find in law.

I would like to suggest that Forum membership lists be used as the official list of registered voters, which may require a little initial clean-up, but afterwards would absolve TNP officials of actively compiling and publishing lists at the start of the election cycle, since they would already be accessible to all Citizens, at all times. In any event, I have included a provision to allow the Electoral Commissioner to take reasonable steps to ensure that Nations listed as Citizens on the forum list are residents of TNP at the time of elections. My suggestion in this regard would be to request that voters include a link to their active TNP nation with their vote.

Further amendments expand voting and candidacy rights to Citizens, while requiring an equivalent security check for candidates as is presently required of RA members.

In addition, I have included amendments to the proxy server laws to include any electoral fraud by citizens and candidates.

This bill ought to be considered extremely rough, and open for suggestions, refinement and debate before it is ready to be put to a vote. Be kind. This is my first legislative attempt for TNP.

Greater Peterstan

Goals:​

Primary: Expansion of Democratic Rights
1. Expand voting rights to all citizens of TNP.
2. Expand candidacy rights beyond RA Members, while still performing a similar security check.

Secondary Concerns
1. Maintain a clean, easy-to-follow, process.
2. Minimize the amount of clerical duties required of TNP officials.
3. Encouraging more active participation generally in TNP political affairs

Proposed Amendments - LEGAL CODE​

TNP LAW 26: Election Dates and Procedures: Preamble
CHANGE: ADD DEFINITION OF CITIZEN

"Citizens" are those individual nations, residing in TNP, which have registered on the official forums, have provided their resident TNP nation to Officials in the Registration and Membership forum, and have been designated with the Citizen badge. Nations bearing Cabinet, WA Delegate, Vice Delegate, Court Justices, Regional Assembly, Security Council or Diplomat badges are also considered citizens for the purposes of establishing voting rights.

TNP LAW 26: Election Dates and Procedures: Preamble
CHANGE: ADJUST EXISTING DEFINITION OF CANDIDATES TO INCLUDE CITIZENS

EXISTING:

"Candidates" are those individual members of the Assembly who either declare themselves, or who have accepted a nomination by another Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office or position to be chosen at that election. Candidates may only stand for one office or position during a given Election Cycle.

REPLACE WITH:

"Candidates" are those individual Citizens who either declare themselves, or who have accepted a nomination by another Citizen preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office or position to be chosen at that election. Candidates may only stand for one office or position during a given Election Cycle.

TNP LAW 26: Election Dates and Procedures: Section 3, Special Elections:
CHANGE: Amend 5. to specify/clarify that only RA Members are to vote in Special Elections

EXISTING

5. In all instances, a plurality shall determine who is elected to fill a vacancy. In the event of a tie, the Delegate, or if the Delegate is not available, the Speaker, or if the Delegate and Speaker are not available, any Court Justice, shall cast a tie-breaking vote.

REPLACE WITH

5. In all instances, a plurality of Regional Assembly members shall determine who is elected to fill a vacancy. In the event of a tie, the Delegate, or if the Delegate is not available, the Speaker, or if the Delegate and Speaker are not available, any Court Justice, shall cast a tie-breaking vote.

TNP LAW 26: Election Dates and Procedures:
CHANGE: ADD A NEW SECTION (Section 4) TO COVER VOTERS AND CANDIDATES

Section 4: VOTERS AND CANDIDATES

a) Voters:

1. Voting in all TNP elections, except Special Elections, is open to all Citizens registered before the beginning of the Election Cycle.
2. Officials may set a reasonable deadline in advance of an upcoming Election Cycle, not exceeding 7 days, for new citizenship applications.
3. The Election Commissioner may require confirmation of current TNP residency for existing Citizens at the time of voting.

4. No changes to the list of Citizens will be made during the election cycle.

b) Candidates:

1. Candidates are subject to security screening equivalent to that required of Regional Assembly members, including confirmation of their TNP residency, and a check for proxy server usage. This requirement may be waived, at the discretion of the Election Commissioner, for Citizens who have already completed an equivalent security check
in the course of serving TNP in other roles.


TNP LAW 27: Proxy Server Usage Law
CHANGE: EXTEND PROXY SERVER LAW TO CANDIDATES AND CITIZEN VOTERS

EXISTING

2. Use of a proxy server by a member Nation that applies for Regional Assembly membership is prohibited, and constitutes a criminal offense that may subject the violator to a permanent ban from the regional forum, ejection from the region by the UN Delegate, or both. This provision may be enforced prior to, or subsequent to, a trial in the manner provided by law.

REPLACE WITH

2. Use of a proxy server by a member Nation that applies for Regional Assembly membership, stands as a Candidate in an election, or registers as a Citizen for voting purposes is prohibited, and constitutes a criminal offense that may subject the violator to a permanent ban from the regional forum, ejection from the region by the WA Delegate, or both. This provision may be enforced prior to, or subsequent to, a trial in the manner provided by law.

Proposed Amendments - Constitution​

TNP Constitution: Section 3: Miscellany
CHANGE: REPLACE ITEMS 7-9 WITH A REFERENCE TO THE NEW ELECTION PROCEDURE. RENUMBER ITEM 10.

EXISTING:

7. Candidates for these elected officials must be members of the Assembly for 30 days before nominations begin..
8. Election of the Speaker of the Assembly and Judiciary officials shall require a plurality vote of the Assembly,
9. Election of the Delegate and Vice Delegate shall require a majority of the votes cast by the Assembly.
10. If any elected official should fail to check into their account for two weeks without prior notice, the dual consent of either the Speaker, the Delegate, or the Chief Justice will commence the special election of a replacement. This replacement will fulfill the remainder of the term.

REPLACE WITH:

7. Elections will be conducted as per TNP LAW 26: Election Dates and Procedures.

8. If any elected official should fail to check into their account for two weeks without prior notice, the dual consent of either the Speaker, the Delegate, or the Chief Justice will commence the special election of a replacement. This replacement will fulfill the remainder of the term.
 
I think that removing all constitutional rules on elections may be a step too far, as it could allow the Regional Assembly to make elections very restrictive and unfair should it so choose.
 
Hmmmm .... I hadn't considered that. Admittedly, that was a bit of a lazy way out for the first draft. I allowed myself to take it, since it seemed to duplicate what was written elsewhere.

But rather than simply repeat what is included in the code, maybe we need to add something "rights based", more in keeping with a constitution.

Maybe ...

7. Voting and candidacy rights are protected by the constitution. Elections shall be conducted according to the procedures set out in TNP LAW 26: Election Dates and Procedures. Proposed changes to TNP LAW 26 that attempt remove or otherwise restrict existing voting and candidacy rights shall require the same procedure as outlined for the passage of a constitutional amendment, as per Article 1: Section 2.
 
Making TNP Law 26 have constitutional weight effectively increases the length of the Constitution, rather significantly.

I think we might be better off reorganizing everything entirely.
 
Take a look at how the Constitution directed the adoption of a law on Registration and Membership. Use similar language to direct the adoption of an election law.

That gets specific election procedures out of the Constitution, and avoids mentioning Law 26 in the Constitution, which we need to avoid doing in any event.

As to the current definition of citizen, take a look at the opinion of the Court that defined residency in TNP for the first time, and also stated with role and authority of forum administration, as distinct from the government. Both had been contentious issues in the past, but there's not been a issue since that opinion was issue. Basically, citizens are "residents" of TNP. And the opinion clearly sets out how residency is determined. I believe the original is in the COurt forum, and a copy is pinned in the Registration and Membership forum.
 
Eluvatar:
Making TNP Law 26 have constitutional weight effectively increases the length of the Constitution, rather significantly.

I think we might be better off reorganizing everything entirely.
Click to expand...
agreed
 
Eluvatar:
Making TNP Law 26 have constitutional weight effectively increases the length of the Constitution, rather significantly.

I think we might be better off reorganizing everything entirely.
Click to expand...
NOthing wrong with adding more legal weight to laws, it means they are stronger.

And I'm concerned moreso with the QUALITY of laws than the QUANTITY of their length.
 
Okay ... picking up of Grosses comments, how about

7. The Assembly is tasked with creating and maintaining a uniform procedure for eligibility and election procedures based on the principles of openness and fairness for all citizens.

This removes reference to TNP 26, but still would make it unconstitutional for the RA gerry-rig the election process.

And I'll go and try and hunt down the court opinion Gross was talking about.
 
I was just reading it. This proposal is consistent with that ruling. The reason I prefer specifying "Citizen" is simply the way the forum works, people are already tagged, sorted, and listed that way. We have an automatically generated list which we should use the streamline the process.

Anyone with a citizen badge must have a resident country, and by logging on and registering for the forum, and going through the process of applying for the Citizenship - this easily constitutes the "intention" specified by the court opinion. The only issue, as I can see it, are citizens that subsequently leave TNP, but maintain their forum account. That's why I included the bit about having the EC check your residency (with a simple link) at the time of voting.
 
I definitely like the idea of expanding voting and candidate rights. In fact I'd go so far as to, at least for voting rights, if the opportunity presented itself I'd propose we find some way that even some of our average off forum members who of the region can have some say and an incentive to get more deeply involved. That said, I am concerned by the proposals call for the use of plurality voting. If we're going to be bold and expand our democratic institutions like this, we should do our utmost to do it properly and shouldn't use a system that can result in a majority voting against the winner when their are perfectly functional and tried and tested alternatives like instant run-off voting or Condorcet voting which can ensure that the winner has to obtain some sort of simple majority in a single round of voting. And I definitely agree that giving the RA vast power to decide election methods and procedures is ripe with potential for abuse. I also dislike handing tie-breaking powers to certain officials rather than to some impersonal standard, though that's less of an issue. I also think the language in general could use some streamlining and could be shortened without reducing it's functionality. I'll have to take a bit of time to read it over in more depth to do that so, so let me get my first two cents in edgewise here for the moment.
 
Generally speaking, I agree with the sentiments of the OP. Excessive requirements for voting, especially in regions without large populations of active people, tend to do more harm than good.
 
Greater Peterstan:
7. The Assembly is tasked with creating and maintaining a uniform procedure for eligibility and election procedures based on the principles of openness and fairness for all citizens.

This removes reference to TNP 26, but still would make it unconstitutional for the RA Gerry-rig the election process.
Click to expand...
In the next draft I will include the change, above, as per the suggestions of Grosseschnauzer and others. Any other serious concerns, or is it time to move this into formal debate? I'm in no particular hurry, I'd rather take it slow and do it right - we're in an election cycle anyways, so this would be a change for next time.
 
Gulliver:
That said, I am concerned by the proposals call for the use of plurality voting. If we're going to be bold and expand our democratic institutions like this, we should do our utmost to do it properly and shouldn't use a system that can result in a majority voting against the winner when their are perfectly functional and tried and tested alternatives like instant run-off voting or Condorcet voting which can ensure that the winner has to obtain some sort of simple majority in a single round of voting.
Click to expand...
This was mostly motivated by my desire to keep it simple.

As a rule, I agree with you, a system of majority voting would be better. However, I'm not 100% convinced that the added administration that this would impose on a volunteer election official would make much practical difference. Depending on how successful we were in attracting Citizens to vote, I am concerned about making the counting and calculations too onerous.

It would make it more pure from a philosophical-"electoral system nerd" position (a position that I certainly sympathize with).

If there is an appetite among the RA to go down this road, and some good suggestions on how to manage it, I'm not against it entirely.

Let's discuss it some more. and hold off moving this to a formal debate for now.
 
Greater Peterstan:
As a rule, I agree with you, a system of majority voting would be better. However, I'm not 100% convinced that the added administration that this would impose on a volunteer election official would make much practical difference. Depending on how successful we were in attracting Citizens to vote, I am concerned about making the counting and calculations too onerous.

It would make it more pure from a philosophical-"electoral system nerd" position (a position that I certainly sympathize with).
Click to expand...
I can see the argument for Condorcet, but counting an IRV vote can be boiled down to 4 steps which any person qualified to should be able to understand:

1. Count each ballot for the uneliminated candidate ranked highest on it.
2. If a candidate has a majority, they win.
3. If no one has a majority, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated.
4. Repeat until someone wins.

Similarly, the instructions for voters "rank as many of the candidates you want in order of preference" are quite easy to follow. The added complexity compared to plurality is not particularly high, and well worth the pay off of ensuring majority rule. Things certainly should be kept as simple as possible, but making things simple just for the sake of being simple to the point that they no longer function properly is just as bad as making things more complicated than necessary.

And majority rule is not an electoral system nerd position, the idea is one of the most fundamental principles of democracy as understood by everyone. It will really hurt the legitimacy of an elected official if people can rightfully point out that a majority voted against them.
 
Mahaj:
That is a *long* draft. Must everything be long?

well, i will look it over this weekend.
Click to expand...
I agree ... But I was attempting to work within the existing legal code, so I had to cover all of the relevant parts that required changes for a consistent amendment.

Putting the whole code into the shredder and starting from scratch is tempting, but a few steps beyond what I willing to take on myself.

I tried to provide a summary of what I was trying to do, and why, so it could be scanned over quickly.
 
Okay, here are some things. First of all, this bill tries to accomplish too many things. You probably should focus just on a single thing and write about that. There's nothing wrong with multiple bills, but a bill encompassing a lot of things just doesn't make much sense.

so you might write something as follows:

The North Pacific Regional Assembly;

AMENDS the Constitution to allow for all citizens to vote or run in all elections, excepting special elections;

INFORMS that all relevant parts to this should be interpreted to include the above.
Click to expand...


yes, wa-esque, thats how i've written stuff, sorry. Thoughts?
 
You're right. Much better as a debatable resolution - although that doesn't do the work of cleaning up the text to make it internally consistent, which is more what I was trying to attempt. (foolishly, perhaps.)

It looks like we should hold off on this stuff a little bit anyways- looks like there is an appetite for some ambitious changes. Hopefully we will include these changes in the broader Constituent Assembly process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top