Comments on King's decision to allow speakers to vote in motions

[Flemingovia]

I feel that past policy on the rights of the Speaker are crippling to the Speaker and deny him or her the right to express their opinion, nor do they serve any functional purpose or have any legal standpoint (and in fact in some ways may be interpreted as violating the bill of rights, restricting a member from exercising their vote). Therefore I am repealing the previous traditions of the Speaker's to only vote "abstain" on matters in the Regional Assembly, and I feel it is best to inform the RA of this change.

From here on ought the Speaker shall vote as follows;

The Speaker shall vote however he or she wishes too just as any other member of the Regional Assembly.

What you have just done is politicised the office of speaker, and done it right now in order to make sure the recall of Eluvatar passes.

in almost every political system I know of, the office of Speaker is a-political, and those who take on the office do so recognising that by doing so they are removing themselves from the cut and thrust of political life.

This is a very poor move, done from the most cynical and base of motives.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

What you have just done is politicised the office of speaker, and done it right now in order to make sure the recall of Eluvatar passes.

in almost every political system I know of, the office of Speaker is a-political, and those who take on the office do so recognising that by doing so they are removing themselves from the cut and thrust of political life.

This is a very poor move, done from the most cynical and base of motives.

I'm sorry Kingborough - but I think this decision is contrary to what you were elected to do.

 

[Kingborough]

I am actually not voting in the recall of Eluvatar, even though I'd be perfectly in my right to I feel it wouldn't be morally right to do so.

Additionally I will argue that allowing the Speaker to vote is not making it anymore political than before - they can already propose legislation, debate legislation, campaign for legislation - letting the speaker actually vote makes very little difference.

 

[Alvino Castillon]

I feel that past policy on the rights of the Speaker are crippling to the Speaker and deny him or her the right to express their opinion, nor do they serve any functional purpose or have any legal standpoint (and in fact in some ways may be interpreted as violating the bill of rights, restricting a member from exercising their vote). Therefore I am repealing the previous traditions of the Speaker's to only vote "abstain" on matters in the Regional Assembly, and I feel it is best to inform the RA of this change.

From here on ought the Speaker shall vote as follows;

The Speaker shall vote however he or she wishes too just as any other member of the Regional Assembly.

What you have just done is politicised the office of speaker, and done it right now in order to make sure the recall of Eluvatar passes.

in almost every political system I know of, the office of Speaker is a-political, and those who take on the office do so recognising that by doing so they are removing themselves from the cut and thrust of political life.

This is a very poor move, done from the most cynical and base of motives.

I heavily disagree.

Being Speaker sucks from what I can see. It's a thankless job, people get angry at you, and then apparently you lose your right to vote. In legislative bodies, Speakers are still allowed to vote as they see fit... I don't see why the North Pacific should be different.

With the current Speaker ensuring he continues to abstain for the current matters at vote, I believe that we can not accuse him of attempting to "game the system." He's trying to regain his right to vote and last I checked, that is protected in the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific. We shouldn't chastise him for attempting to regain his right to vote freely in such matters, and I believe in a region where there are more than ten active voting members (50 currently in the Delegate Recall), it should not be an issue.

 

[punk d]

I am actually not voting in the recall of Eluvatar, even though I'd be perfectly in my right to I feel it wouldn't be morally right to do so.

Additionally I will argue that allowing the Speaker to vote is not making it anymore political than before - they can already propose legislation, debate legislation, campaign for legislation - letting the speaker actually vote makes very little difference.

How is your statement above consistent with what you say here:

I feel that past policy on the rights of the Speaker are crippling to the Speaker and deny him or her the right to express their opinion

Not having the ability to vote cannot be both crippling and making little difference at the same time?

Still, my opinion on the Speaker voting is that I don't have a problem with it at all. Tradition may hold that the office abstains but to me if a Speaker wishes to vote I see no reason why he or she should not do so. When we elect speakers if we want them to follow this tradition we should ask them during the campaign and then we can vote on those speakers who will be apolitical.

But I see no legal issue with the Speaker voting, I don't really see a moral issue with it either.

 

[Kingborough]

How is your statement above consistent with what you say here:

I feel that past policy on the rights of the Speaker are crippling to the Speaker and deny him or her the right to express their opinion

Not having the ability to vote cannot be both crippling and making little difference at the same time?

Apologies for not properly defining things, I mean that it is rather crippling to the formal legal way which a person can express their final opinion, yet it makes little difference to legislation as a whole so why is it required?

 

[Flemingovia]

Well, come what may I will be abstaining in the speaker recall vote that I am overseeing. My personal feeling on that vote is N.A.Y. with giant purple text and flashing lights around my vote.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

While I have always understood the Speaker has a right to vote, in practice he has not exercised that right. The overarching rationale for this protocol is a demonstration of the clean image of the Speaker's position taking precedence over the individual's right. It has to do with setting aside one's own desires out of respect for the office.