Informal Poll: Elected Legislature

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
Should we have an elected legislature?

A proportional one?

Please don't vote for bloc voting :cry:

Voting on these options is by approval voting. Vote for the choices you approve of, the one with the most votes 'wins'.

No you can't vote for all of them.
 
The vote counts as I see them at this time affirm what JAL says. (Only my votes and his so far) I'll edit delete and recreate the poll so it works out.
 
I think that four people have voted so far. Two of the options have 50% support: Forum STV (one voter, one preferential ballot) and Forum SNTV (one voter, one vote).
 
I have a totally different idea. (Can we get an explanation of what the poll choices actually mean?) I'd like to get rid of the regional assembly and have registered voters chaired by a speaker (similar to the town assembly system used in New England). I'm not convinced that any sort of representative system or proportional system would even work, and I see much room for abuse and misuse of those other options pending a clearer explanation of the options. So I'm not able to act a vote at this time.
 
You should vote for the final option, "direct democracy is the only way," then.

Within each option there is room for further tuning.
 
Direct democracy, "dictatorship of the active" is greatly misleading; an elected representative democracy is more of a "dictatorship" than an assembly where one can just represent themselves instead of having to go through some elected stooge to have their voice heard and enfranchised.

Any elected representative democracy is going to diminish the range of thought and opinion in our assembly by squeezing our electorate into an "electable" category of figures, like the harvesting of the "cream" of the crop if one is so inclined to make such judgment of people.

To combat inactivity we shouldn't limit our democracy, we should rebuild our communication infrastructure: inform people about votes and discussions. It should be a constitutionally reinforced duty of the Speaker, in my opinion. If you keep people informed, they attend.
 
Elected stooge?

The main intention of mine here is to create an organization wherein the members feel an obligation to do their duty as council members. Also, an organization which may create new Security Council members in time.

I will note that the proposed constitution adds Referenda, wherein citizens may freely vote. This allows for direct democracy as well, it just separately also has a group who have the responsibility for legislation.
 
Referenda are political tools for electorate manipulation, they undermine democracy. One uses a referendum in two situations, (1) when one is dahm sure that the people are going to vote one's way, but one wants to reaffirm their position regionally and interregional or (2) when an issue is so contentious one wants to escape responsibility by just deferring to majoritarianism.

What makes people feel like they don't have civil obligations now? Because they don't have any more power than everyone else? A fancy title? Is this the sort of pseudo-narcissism we want to encourage for our government?
 
The bit about referenda is absurd. The referenda in the draft constitution are triggered in one of two ways:

1. The General Council wants to amend the constitution. It can't do it without a referendum.
2. Sufficiently many citizens petition for a referendum, leading to it taking place.

How is this remotely like the scenarios you're talking about? Just a moment you were in favor of the people deciding to pass laws and then passing them?

Secondly, if the legislative vote is a necessary acquisition to participate in politics at all, then you will have people getting it who have little interest in legislation. For that matter, it will not be seen as a voluntary obligation to legislate: it will be seen as a regional membership card.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I have a totally different idea. (Can we get an explanation of what the poll choices actually mean?) I'd like to get rid of the regional assembly and have registered voters chaired by a speaker (similar to the town assembly system used in New England). I'm not convinced that any sort of representative system or proportional system would even work, and I see much room for abuse and misuse of those other options pending a clearer explanation of the options. So I'm not able to act a vote at this time.
Click to expand...
good point
 
what will be the eligibility rules for TNP nations to vote . i think that should be known before one can vote for the options in this poll.
in any democratic nation some people can not vote for e.g. people who are under 18 years or 21 years or you have to register to be eligible to vote. i support a system that involves a registration of nations before they can actually vote for a delegate or other government posts.
 
That's a separate question.

Whether the voters elect a committee or they always directly vote on law, one can have differing voter registration rules.
 
If I get time to pull it out, I'll try to post a partial text of the proposal I presented to the Constitutional Convention that kept the direct voter approach of the North Pacific Confederation document but placed a Speaker as moderator of the registered voters.
It would help show what I think can work and reduce having the artifice of a Regional Assembly; and it would better convey my view that all those who are verified to be residents of TNP should be able to participate in legislation, confirmation votes or elections of officials.
 
How would the first option work? It's a big region with lots of coming, going, births, deaths, puppets, etc. It's an interesting idea because it could lead to more nations actively participating in regional affairs.
 
I voted: No, direct democracy, dictatorship of the active, is the only way!

Mainly because the other choices basically mean anarchy and defeat the entire purpose of a government.

That, and Democracy is not a spectator sport. If you don't participate, then you abjure your right to complain about what happens.
 
Great Bights Mum:
How would the first option work? It's a big region with lots of coming, going, births, deaths, puppets, etc. It's an interesting idea because it could lead to more nations actively participating in regional affairs.
Click to expand...
I've considered a number of possible ways to do it, from considering endorsements to counting RMB votes on a regular basis (keeping valid votes valid until changed).
 
Is there a way to avoid limiting the voting to WA nations? If the population at large can vote, what's to stop a player from creating oodles of puppets to stack the vote? But TNP residents who have their WA elsewhere shouldn't be disenfranchised either. It's a thorny issue.

If endorsements are used, then how do we handle nations who are highly endorsed, but entirely unconcerned about regional politics? If RMB votes are counted instead, wouldn't it become impractical to track them?

Again, I think it's an interesting notion, so I would like to hear thoughts on its implementation.
 
I know someone has proposed a revision of Law 28, and wondered why we wanted disclosure of any WA nation of that player in the law.
There was a time where only WA nations could vote for Delegate at the off-site forum, but it is necessary for a TNP nation wanting to run for Delegate or Vice Delegate to be a WA nation, and as this term proved, it is not a good idea to wait until the actual election to join the WA and start collecting endorsements.
The other reason why the requirement has been there has been to help enforce the "one player - one vote" system we have here. Relying on promises isn't always enough to prevent ballot stuffing the voting box, although proving a nation has a WA when it had failed to disclose it can also be problematic.
But there has to be a way to help enforce one nation one vote if we are to maintain a wider suffrage for voting. (And yes, this is an accurate usage of the word; thank you for asking. :) )
 
The only elected legislature system I've seen that I actually liked better than a legislature that consists of anyone who wishes to apply to it like TNP's current system and TSP's system, is TEP's. You run for the legislature and either get voted in or out, your success is not limited by others success. Every single candidate can get voted in by getting more "for" votes than against. Or any proportion of them. The only problem with that system is that unless you join just before an election you have to wait a while to get involved in the government.

I'd like to see us keep the RA or move more toward TEP's system one.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
...But there has to be a way to help enforce one nation one vote if we are to maintain a wider suffrage for voting. (And yes, this is an accurate usage of the word; thank you for asking. :) )
Click to expand...
You just gave me an idea. Why not have RA members/forum members put their forum ID# as an indicator of their forum/RA membership?
That way you can connect a nation in the game with a forum name.
 
Topid:
The only elected legislature system I've seen that I actually liked better than a legislature that consists of anyone who wishes to apply to it like TNP's current system and TSP's system, is TEP's. You run for the legislature and either get voted in or out, your success is not limited by others success. Every single candidate can get voted in by getting more "for" votes than against. Or any proportion of them. The only problem with that system is that unless you join just before an election you have to wait a while to get involved in the government.
Click to expand...
The system TEP uses is actually very abusable. The majority faction could entirely deny the opposition any representation by voting against all of their candidates.
 
Except if they are a majority they could do what they want in any democratic system, especially a system like ours. :P
 
You're correct, within a democratic system has the right to rule. But everyone has a right to be represented. The majority should not be able to completely deny the opposition any voice at all in the legislature.
 
Topid:
Except if they are a majority they could do what they want in any democratic system, especially a system like ours. :P
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Yes, if it's a true democracy - no, if you have self-governing bodies like the Security Council which essentially can veto the RA and the Delegate with impunity given the 2/3rds rule for an RA over-ruling of the SC.

Now, if you really wanted to have an interesting system, you could replace the SC with an 'upper house'. The scheme for this would be quite simple. You take all the RA nations and the top 50% (up to a number of half of the total RA members) of those nations in terms of regional influence becomes the upper house. Then the upper house, which replaces the SC then becomes an advise and consent body like Senate or House of Lords.

Then you run the RA and Senate/Lords on a monthly terms at the end of which the re-apportionment of members is conducted, all new RA members being nominally admitted to the RA automatically in the interim.
 
I just can't see how having an elected legislature would change anything. We would still essentially have the same active members on the forums, just possibly less people involved in the making of the legislation. That would reduce democracy.
 
Eluvatar:
Except the Security Council has no legislative power. What you're proposing would reduce democracy.
Click to expand...
Actually, it wouldn't because if an RA member meets certain requirements for the 'upper house', they automatically move to the upper house (Senate/Lords) and vote there instead of in the lower house (RA/Commons).

The advise and consent practice in a bicameral legislature would permit a more orderly construction of bills (each house representing certain elements in a democracy - that being influential vs. non-influential nations).

It allows for and encourages nations to remain active and gives them a competitive incentive to move to the upper house. This, in turn would also cause the lower end of 'influential' nations to slip back into the RA if they cannot compete in terms of influence in comparison to other nations in the legislature. The ultimate result would be an increase in the influence and security of the region because it would produce a larger general population of nations, more influential and hence more difficult for a rogue or invader to expel from the region (and hence paralyze the government). It also produces a merit based system in which people can actively improve their position and level of merit.

I've thought about this carefully for the past few days. If we want activity and activity that is consistent and lasting, we need to bring competition into play and eliminate static blocs of power that remains in the hands of just a few people.

Essentially, reward activity and accomplishment and encourage others to be active and encourage them to accomplish something by attaching merit to their actions. If people have no hope of participating because the same people always maneuver themselves to the to and stay there by excluding others from that 'elite', people give up and leave.

IOW, any form of 'power elite' should be replaced with a competitive system in which people can climb the 'social ladder' and power structure without being excluded permanently by a self-regulating, self-appointing and self-governing small group of nations because the existing structure only squanders the talent available here by not taking advantage of it.

See where I am going with this?
 
Topid:
The only elected legislature system I've seen that I actually liked better than a legislature that consists of anyone who wishes to apply to it like TNP's current system and TSP's system, is TEP's. You run for the legislature and either get voted in or out, your success is not limited by others success. Every single candidate can get voted in by getting more "for" votes than against. Or any proportion of them. The only problem with that system is that unless you join just before an election you have to wait a while to get involved in the government.

I'd like to see us keep the RA or move more toward TEP's system one.
Click to expand...
When we have such a comparably small community compared to a RL government and naturally most of us are politically involved; direct democracy can and has worked. I don't need a representative and shouldn't need a representative on the legislature, I should be able to say what I think for myself in my region's assembly without having to win some election to be free from subservience.
 
Romanoffia:
I've thought about this carefully for the past few days. If we want activity and activity that is consistent and lasting, we need to bring competition into play and eliminate static blocs of power that remains in the hands of just a few people.
Click to expand...
"Static blocs of power that remains [sic] in the hands of just a few people" reads like an encyclopedia article on influence. Which is what you are using to elect people in this proposal.
 
I voted for: Yes, a legislature with proportional representation elected on the forum

I really think in the modern age there should not be this morbid fear of holding elections, we can come up with hundreds of technical excuses why this cant work, But for this Region to truly be Democratic, Elections of some type should take place for the Regional Assembly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top