- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
That's it, I'm accepting that I'm not getting a Constituent Assembly, or an expiration date. This is not the way I would have preferred to go about this, but it'll have to do.
Let's hold a discussion right here, right now.
Since we don't have a proportionally elected council who's opinions actually reflect the region, this is going to by my proposal. If I don't like suggested changes, I won't accept them. If you think they're to die for, make your own proposal. It's a free region.
Proposed Constitution Draft
Legal Code Reorganized and Revised
Some questions I'd like to discuss with my fellow members of the Regional Assembly, preferably in the form of polls:
1. Do we want an elected legislature at all? I think it would be helpful to activity and to fairness, particularly if we could get the less forum-active nations involved in selecting our legislators. (poll!)
2. If the answer to (1) is yes, how many should it be? Currently I've specified it to be 7 at the current Delegate endorsement level, but it could drop to 5 pretty easily. Is it important the Council have an odd number of members? Should the requirements be adjusted down, to perhaps 1 councilor every 30 instead of every 40 endorsements on the Delegate? (poll!)
3. In the current draft, the Vice Delegate is elected by the Security Council, trying to make them less of a political position and more of an administrative position. Is this stupid? (poll!)
4. In the current draft, it is a semipresidential system, with a more easily replaceable Prime Minister who is head of government, but appointed and removable by the Delegate. Good? Bad? (poll!)
5. This draft reintroduces jury trials, but makes jury selection *after* deliberations to avoid jury disappearance problems. I think this improves the quality of judicial decision-making without slowing things down. Yes? No? (poll!)
6. In my reorganization of the Legal Code I tried to avoid changing substantive things except where the constitutional changes I'm proposing require them. I also didn't bother to revise the language of the Rules of Evidence. Is that the right way to go about it? (poll!)
In addition, feel free to comment on the docs or here.
Edit: added polls
Let's hold a discussion right here, right now.
Since we don't have a proportionally elected council who's opinions actually reflect the region, this is going to by my proposal. If I don't like suggested changes, I won't accept them. If you think they're to die for, make your own proposal. It's a free region.
Proposed Constitution Draft
Legal Code Reorganized and Revised
Some questions I'd like to discuss with my fellow members of the Regional Assembly, preferably in the form of polls:
1. Do we want an elected legislature at all? I think it would be helpful to activity and to fairness, particularly if we could get the less forum-active nations involved in selecting our legislators. (poll!)
2. If the answer to (1) is yes, how many should it be? Currently I've specified it to be 7 at the current Delegate endorsement level, but it could drop to 5 pretty easily. Is it important the Council have an odd number of members? Should the requirements be adjusted down, to perhaps 1 councilor every 30 instead of every 40 endorsements on the Delegate? (poll!)
3. In the current draft, the Vice Delegate is elected by the Security Council, trying to make them less of a political position and more of an administrative position. Is this stupid? (poll!)
4. In the current draft, it is a semipresidential system, with a more easily replaceable Prime Minister who is head of government, but appointed and removable by the Delegate. Good? Bad? (poll!)
5. This draft reintroduces jury trials, but makes jury selection *after* deliberations to avoid jury disappearance problems. I think this improves the quality of judicial decision-making without slowing things down. Yes? No? (poll!)
6. In my reorganization of the Legal Code I tried to avoid changing substantive things except where the constitutional changes I'm proposing require them. I also didn't bother to revise the language of the Rules of Evidence. Is that the right way to go about it? (poll!)
In addition, feel free to comment on the docs or here.
Edit: added polls