Vote: Security Council Applications

mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
This will determine how best the application process for the Security Council should change, if it should change at all. You may vote for up to 4 options

Option 1

SC vote; override possible: Applicants may be admitted to the SC by a majority vote of the body, but the RA may force the acceptance of a rejected member by a 2/3's majority vote

Option 2

SC and RA vote: override possible; Applicants may be approved by a majority vote of the SC, and then admitted by a subsequent majority vote of the RA. The RA may force the acceptance of an rejected applicant by the SC by a 2/3's majority vote

Option 3

SC and RA super-majority vote, with override. Applicants may be approved by a majority vote of the SC, and then admitted by a subsequent super-majority vote of the RA. RA can still override SC's rejection of applicants by 2/3rd majority vote.

Option 4

RA super-majority vote. Applicants may be admitted to the Security Council by a 2/3rd majority vote of the regional assembly

Option 5

Other, please specify
 
In the spirit of compromise, although I otherwise favor the current system:

SC and RA vote on admission and exemption fro any one or more requirements by majority; if SC rejects applicant or exemption request from applicant, then RA override is possible by 2/3rds. If RA rejects applicant packaged with exemptions, then on reconsideration SC then RA can vote to approve by majority vote without exemptions.
 
Why would you ever want to remove people from the Security Council for serving it well?

Sorry, you're too good at being a fortification, we'll go ahead and demolish you and replace you with a less effective rampart. Good day! Next week, we'll be opening the gates to all comers, so long as they solemnly swear they aren't invading us.
 
I say either option two or three, because I find it borderline scary that the SC can just pick whoever it pleases because, "Well, it's the SC for god's sake, we can do what we want!" We, the RA, should have a significant say in who enters the SC, because the thought of an SC oligarchy, which it is already turning into, is a horrid one.
 
Eluvatar:
Why would you ever want to remove people from the Security Council for serving it well?

Sorry, you're too good at being a fortification, we'll go ahead and demolish you and replace you with a less effective rampart. Good day! Next week, we'll be opening the gates to all comers, so long as they solemnly swear they aren't invading us.
Click to expand...
Prevents it from becoming an image of an Old Boy's Club, shakes up the numbers a little, and gives nations an opportunity to take a break from the council.
 
Funkadelia:
I say either option two or three, because I find it borderline scary that the SC can just pick whoever it pleases because, "Well, it's the SC for god's sake, we can do what we want!" We, the RA, should have a significant say in who enters the SC, because the thought of an SC oligarchy, which it is already turning into, is a horrid one.
Click to expand...
The RA can remove any SC member, or add any eligible member to the SC, by a two thirds majority vote. That is the current law.
 
And any SC members who hold RA membership are also allowed to vote. There are currently five members of the SC with RA membership, do the math as to what percentage that is of the RA vote.
 
I choose Option 1 or 3, preferably the former. I'm not keen on Option 2 due to it just requiring a majority vote. Option 4 would just have a negative effect in the long run in my opinion.
 
Option 2 or 4. The SC must be answerable and accountable to the RA, so the RA needs final say in approving an SC applicant.
 
Other:

SC admits applicants by a simple majority.

RA can appoint applicants or over-ride an SC declined applicant by a 2/3rds majority vote.

SC must provide a report in detail to the RA, containing legitimate reasons for an applicant being declined; and the same report to the AG because should an applicant be deemed a 'Security Threat' by the SC, that would imply criminal activity on the part of the applicant. Then it would be incumbent upon the AG to prosecute the applicant for such. Should there be no legal or legitimate reason for denial of an applicant, and should the applicant appeal to the court in the case of SC determinations that the applicant is a 'Security Threat' and no security threat is legally determined, then the applicant is automatically appointed to the SC by the Court. (Note: This puts a damper on politically motivated denials of applicants for political, personal or other reasons not permitted in the Constitution or Legal Code and forces the SC to defend negative and positive decisions).

Members may be admitted to the SC in a voting advisory role should they be unsuitable in terms of influence or wishing to be excluded from the order of succession.

SC members, with the exception of the Delegate and Vice Delegate, should hold no constitutionally elected positions.

The Court, SC or the RA can suspend an SC member by a simple 2/3rds majority vote, or impeach on a 2/3rds + 1 vote for legal reasons (such as criminal acts or acts with criminal intent).
 
if a nation does not have high Regional Influence their presence in SC will not be useful and will not contribute to regional security and will make SC just another version of RA .
 
Too few nations would make it easier for the Security Council to conspire with the Delegate and amongst themselves to stage a coup. It would also exacerbate the main criticism people have against it of being a closed group.
 
That fact that the SC can decided who it does and doesn't want as a member means they can conspire amongst themselves, delegate be damned.

If even half the SC decided to takeover the region, we'd be quite screwed and have no means to defend ourselves. This is partly my motivation for reviving the NPA.
 
The larger a group, the harder to keep any conspiracy quiet. Also, the Security Council is a group of people who have been deliberately selected to be people who would not conspire to pull a coup d'etat and overthrow the democratic constitutional government, so I would expect that quotient to go up even faster.
 
And who did the selection? The Security Council. If the SC wants to, they can choose who they let in to their little plot and expel anyone they no longer desire. It does not help that the SC also operates in absolute secrecy and does not release its documents unless they pertain specifically to me, as history has so far shown.
 
I'm just trying to figure out why there are differences both in procedure and outside sentiments between your SC and TEP's viziers, which I believe were designed to be the same things. I'll call them both "endoguards" for clarity's sake. Only over here do we have endoguards accused of conspiring with each other and acting as an old boy's club. Only over here do we have a separate forum for the endoguard. Only over here is really the endoguard a big deal.

Over in TEP, viziers are generally lax, not really involved in the government (outside of being a vizier), and basically don't really convene at all except in the case of an emergency (which has happened in the past to be fair). It's not perfect, but I think it's a system people here would like, where there isn't this heavy atmosphere anymore.

I could be wrong. I'm just trying to think of solutions applied from other places.
 
Blue Wolf II:
And who did the selection? The Security Council. If the SC wants to, they can choose who they let in to their little plot and expel anyone they no longer desire. It does not help that the SC also operates in absolute secrecy and does not release its documents unless they pertain specifically to me, as history has so far shown.
Click to expand...
Now I do believe the SC should not have the power to remove or approve of new members, in all honesty. Why not have the RA approve and remove SC members only?
 
Why?

Because the RA can very easily be influenced by new members (through players whose real loyalty is not to TNP) to open up the region to invasion and coup d'etats.
 
Blue Wolf II:
And who did the selection? The Security Council. If the SC wants to, they can choose who they let in to their little plot and expel anyone they no longer desire. It does not help that the SC also operates in absolute secrecy and does not release its documents unless they pertain specifically to me, as history has so far shown.
Click to expand...
The admissions issue could easily be remedied simply by requiring a confirmation vote by the RA. As for kicking people out of the Security Council, the RA already has the exclusive power to do that. The SC has no power to expel its own members.
 
Gulliver:
Blue Wolf II:
And who did the selection? The Security Council. If the SC wants to, they can choose who they let in to their little plot and expel anyone they no longer desire. It does not help that the SC also operates in absolute secrecy and does not release its documents unless they pertain specifically to me, as history has so far shown.
Click to expand...
The admissions issue could easily be remedied simply by requiring a confirmation vote by the RA. As for kicking people out of the Security Council, the RA already has the exclusive power to do that. The SC has no power to expel its own members.
Click to expand...
It's true. It can only ask the RA nicely to please remove this SC member, by advising the RA that they may present a security issue.
 
Dog:
Why?

Because the RA can very easily be influenced by new members (through players whose real loyalty is not to TNP) to open up the region to invasion and coup d'etats.
Click to expand...

Clearly the RA can not be trusted and the SC are the only ones that can really be counted on to rule watch the region
 
Blue Wolf II:
Dog:
Why?

Because the RA can very easily be influenced by new members (through players whose real loyalty is not to TNP) to open up the region to invasion and coup d'etats.
Click to expand...

Clearly the RA can not be trusted and the SC are the only ones that can really be counted on to rule watch the region
Click to expand...
Its like saying US senate or supreme court was created because us house of representative members can not be trusted
 
I don't think the intent of the SC is to watch the region and stop the RA if it does something stupid.

The intent of the SC is to save the region if somehow the Delegacy ends up in the hands of someone the RA definitely does not want to have it.

It's not a political body; it has no political powers. It is however directly answerable to the RA, unlike the NPA.
 
For all this talk of the SC as some sort of oligarchic ruling body, I know of exactly zero instances in which they ever overturned a vote of the RA or election because they didn't like it. Probably because they have absolutely no power to do things like that.
 
Pasargad:
if a nation does not have high Regional Influence their presence in SC will not be useful and will not contribute to regional security and will make SC just another version of RA .
Click to expand...
Well, maybe not another version of the RA, but I get your point.
 
Gulliver:
For all this talk of the SC as some sort of oligarchic ruling body, I know of exactly zero instances in which they ever overturned a vote of the RA or election because they didn't like it. Probably because they have absolutely no power to do things like that.
Click to expand...
They are a group of People that are required by law to have more endorsements than any other member outside the SC (RA members, cabinet members, Justices of the court etc)are allowed to have, They get to decide who is a "threat" to the region, which in all honesty could be used for very self serving purposes not out of any real concern for Regional security,And the SC (A self electing body) with its few members (most of whom have been in there a while) having this much a influence over the affairs of the region is at the very least undemocratic. The security of the region must be preserved but not by the same group of people forever.
 
peoples empire:
Gulliver:
For all this talk of the SC as some sort of oligarchic ruling body, I know of exactly zero instances in which they ever overturned a vote of the RA or election because they didn't like it. Probably because they have absolutely no power to do things like that.
Click to expand...
They are a group of People that are required by law to have more endorsements than any other member outside the SC (RA members, cabinet members, Justices of the court etc)are allowed to have, They get to decide who is a "threat" to the region, which in all honesty could be used for very self serving purposes not out of any real concern for Regional security,And the SC (A self electing body) with its few members (most of whom have been in there a while) having this much a influence over the affairs of the region is at the very least undemocratic. The security of the region must be preserved but not by the same group of people forever.
Click to expand...
A few misconceptions.

1. Security Council members are required by law to have between 50 and ah 304 (as of this writing) endorsements. They are not required to have more endorsements than everyone else. That's the (regularly elected) Vice Delegate. Certainly TNP has No endocap; the SC endorsement limitations apply to SC members only.
2. The SC can report on a threat, but they can't force anybody to act on their report; not the Delegate, not the Regional Assembly. I fail to see how the duty to advise is some kind of dangerous power.
3. The SC is not the same group of people forever, in practice. Tresville is long gone from it, and my presence in it has been intermittent. Moany Old Gits hasn't been a member in months (though I'd love to see him back), and Ermarian is long gone.
4. Again, what influence? Any argument claiming an overwhelming influence of the Security Council today would have to focus on the responsibilities its members carry and the contacts they have made outside the institution. If your problem is the region even having long-standing members with experience, friendships, and responsibilities... then I must ask you to get a sense of perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top