Amend Article 3 Clause 9 of the Constitution

Chasmanthe

Chasmanthe

TNPer
Constitutional Amendment Proposal:
The Constitution of The North Pacific, article 3 of which currently reads
Constitution Article 3:
9. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...
be amended, changing clause 9 of article 3 to read as follows
Proposed Article 3 of the Constitution:
9. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional AssemblyRegistered Citizens of The North Pacific by a majority vote every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I propose we amend this clause from Regional Assembly to Registered Citizens of The North Pacific. This will allow TNPers outside of the RA to have a vote in the election of delegate and vice delegate who will be making executive decisions on behalf of them for a term of four months.

What do you think?

Thanks to Funkadelia for co-writing this. Whether you agree or disagree, we would be interested to hear your thoughts on it.

edit: the rationale for placing this in the private halls is that if RA members oppose it in debate, their comments are not visible to the citizens they are withholding enfranchizement from; thus, in theory, protecting them from negative impression that could damage their TNP activity level. A compromise on transparency to protect the citizens from perceived disenfranchisement.

edit2: quote box

edit3: spoiler
 
Not in favour of it.

With RA membership comes the activity requirements, and I'm not sure who maintains the list of citizens at the moment. I think it's fairly straightforward that if you want to vote you join the Regional Assembly in order to do so, it simply requires you to post an oath.
 
mcmasterdonia:
I'm not sure who maintains the list of citizens at the moment.
Click to expand...
I think the list is supposed to be under the spoiler in this post. Hard to tell, but I don't think it's been updated in some time...Elu would know better.

Regardless, logistical concerns like that shouldn't be a factor in legislation. Make the law - let the rest of the government worry about enforcing it. They have plenty of advance warning for when new legislation like this will come into effect (I personally ensure it), and if it's actually impossible to enforce, the delegate will veto. Base your support or lack thereof on whether it's good policy. (McM, obviously that's not directed at you - plenty of substantive policy argument in your post. Just a general thought for the whole assembly.)
 
Chasmanthe:
edit: the rationale for placing this in the private halls is that if RA members oppose it in debate, their comments are not visible to the citizens they are withholding enfranchizement from; thus, in theory, protecting them from negative impression that could damage their TNP activity level. A compromise on transparency to protect the citizens from perceived disenfranchisement.
Click to expand...
I will, however, entertain counter-rationales to move it to the public halls of the RA.
 
I said counter-rationales, not motions. In other words, give me a better reason to move it than Chas gave to put it here and I'll consider it.
 
I believe that as this proposal would seriously affect those of our Citizens who are not in the Regional Assembly, it should be visible to them.
 
I have previously proposed this myself.

In retrospect, I think it may be good that I dropped it: Citizens don't have to swear an oath to be Citizens, so there isn't even an honor system obligation for Citizens to not be jerks to the region.

At the time I proposed this, the RA was difficult to avoid being removed from, but today's version of the activity rule is much less severe. It is perhaps better, now, to keep the franchise to those who've been voting at least somewhat consistently outside of elections.

The counterargument is that some people are not interested in legislative minutia but would like to be involved in TNP. To that one can point out that RA members can abstain if they don't wish to get involved in a legislative proposal. If however one can develop a sensible manner to have Citizens promise to be good as well, and have to be active besides just voting in elections, then I'd be quite interested.
 
Lord Byron has clearly misinterpreted my position. I think taking the RA oath, attesting to one's commitment to the well-being of TNP, is an important step in being part of this community.
 
I believe this is a good choice for the region. In a region that advocates such "inclusion" why should only the electors have the votes for the head executive? Sounds a bit oligarchical to me.
 
Funkadelia:
I believe this is a good choice for the region. In a region that advocates such "inclusion" why should only the electors have the votes for the head executive? Sounds a bit oligarchical to me.
Click to expand...
There are other requirements of being a regional assembly member that do not apply to citizens. Activity requirements for example, meaning that people that hang around and contribute to the forum stay in the RA and those that do not after a period of time are removed. There is also the WA disclosure requirement for being in the Regional Assembly.

My concern primarily is that people will only show up to vote and then disappear once more. The only requirement for citizenship being maintenance of a nation, nothing else.

We do advocate inclusion and have an open process for joining the regional assembly.

As such I agree with GBM.
 
I understand and kinda like what McM said, I know you want the best for the region... But in the end, a WAD is elected by endorsements in-game, that meaning mantaining of a WA nation in TNP and nothing else.

The other government positions and cabinet and all that stuff can be different, but I find moraly wrong telling citizens with a WA nation they have to endorse a Delegate chosen by the RA, and not by themselves. Of course they can choose not to do it, I won't complain if things keep being as they are today, but I think I may vote for this motion.
 
While under game mechanics the delegate is based on endorsement counts, endorsements have no bearing on how we as a community select our leaders. There is also no requirement to endorse the chosen delegate, or to not endorse someone else - merely to not engage in attempts to overthrow the legal government, much as in Real Life (tm), you cannot seek to remove an elected official from office merely because they aren't the one you voted for.

The RA is not an elected, exclusive legislature. It is open to basically anybody who is interested in joining, simply by posting in the correct thread. Keeping membership in the RA is contingent upon meeting certain requirements, including activity and WA disclosure, which are not required of basic citizens but attempt to demonstrate that those who seek to rise in TNP also place value on the region for itself, not only its importance to outside interests. I believe that full citizenship in a region should mean something, that one is not entitled to the full spectrum of rights afforded to those who make efforts to improve the region merely by logging in once in a while. Because of this, I am not in favor of this proposal, as it would remove the few ways that we have for people who want to vote in TNP to demonstrate that TNP matters to them.

If this were not the case - if the RA were a closed body not available to (nearly) all interested parties - I would feel differently. But changing that would require a much more fundamental constitutional amendment, and seems therefore unlikely.
 
I think maybe Lennart isn't understanding a couple of things. First, the proposal has nothing to do with the general population of TNP, just the Registered Citizens on the forum. They, like the RA members, can have their WA nation anywhere.

Second, allowing game mechanics to determine the delegate would be foolhardy and regressive. There is more to being a good delegate than the talent for garnering endorsements.
 
I'm not saying game mechanics should determine the delegate, but an endo is a vote; that's a fact. We don't play the game entirely off-site.

The RA also gives power to those people who chose not to have a WA nation in TNP, and that part is great. But morally, and regarding only Delegacy, I think their vote should count as much any other WA nation who comes here and... Well, vote.

And I repeat, Cabinet and stuff should be only a RA matter. And citizens without a WA nation... I'm not sure about them.

I guess we could make it citizens with a WA nation >_>
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know if you were talking seriously, but I kinda like it. If this makes things a lot more complex, than I prefer to keep things as they are, but a step in that direction I think makes things fairer.
 
An endorsement is not a vote. If a WA nation only had one of them then it would be a vote. Because in TNP, where you have hundreds of endorsements, people don't treat them like votes. I am certain that not everyone I endorse would make a fine delegate.
 
Well, neither do I. But even though we don't treat them as such, they are votes, because the nation with more endos is WAD (Captain Obvious to the rescue). We can treat votes as shields or weapons if we want, there have been people who used their own candidacy (not even saying twas this region) to weaken other candidacies and not to get elected, so we can use candidacies as something else too, that's what politics are all about.

I understand your point GBM, and maybe things would be better as you say. But I keep thinking a player mantaining a WA nation in TNP has the same right the RA has to vote off-site for a Delegate, as a recognision of their WA status in-game.
 
The RA also gives power to those people who chose not to have a WA nation in TNP, and that part is great. But morally, and regarding only Delegacy, I think their vote should count as much any other WA nation who comes here and... Well, vote.
Click to expand...

It does count the same if both members join the Regional Assembly.

Regarding my earlier comment, it was serious. But I'm not entirely sure how constitutional it would be and if it would violate the bill of rights. It would also two separate types of citizenship.

Again my main concern is non-wa puppets of people who are primarily active elsewhere only contributing when it comes to voting in elections.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Again my main concern is non-wa puppets of people who are primarily active elsewhere only contributing when it comes to voting in elections.
Click to expand...
You're right about that. Since the proposal reads "registered citizens" as a whole, I would vote against it, as it is.
 
I feel I should be able to vote for the leaders of the region without having to disclose and keep tabs on my WA nation. I should be able to move it as I please without telling you guys. I get the requirement if I'm going to run for an office, but voting is a different situation.
 
mcmasterdonia:
The RA also gives power to those people who chose not to have a WA nation in TNP, and that part is great. But morally, and regarding only Delegacy, I think their vote should count as much any other WA nation who comes here and... Well, vote.
Click to expand...

It does count the same if both members join the Regional Assembly.

Regarding my earlier comment, it was serious. But I'm not entirely sure how constitutional it would be and if it would violate the bill of rights. It would also two separate types of citizenship.

Again my main concern is non-wa puppets of people who are primarily active elsewhere only contributing when it comes to voting in elections.
Click to expand...
Two types of citizenship? We already have at least two types of citizenship.

We have Former Citizens, Registered Citizens, and RA members.

Just cos the executive council hasn't made a statement on it does not mean that these three categories do not exist.
 
We have the fourth kind too. The ones who don't care so much about TNP, but take advantage of our openness to push whomever or whatever is in the best interest of wherever their real home is. I personally feel that the right to select the Delegate should be in the hands of WA nations. I know it's an unpopular position in today's cosmopolitan community, which is why I wouldn't push the issue. We are so much above and beyond game mechanics now, woo-woo. But I'm waiting for someone to propose voting rights for nations who don't reside in TNP - or maybe for people who have no NS nation at all. <_<
 
Great Bights Mum:
We have the fourth kind too. The ones who don't care so much about TNP, but take advantage of our openness to push whomever or whatever is in the best interest of wherever their real home is. I personally feel that the right to select the Delegate should be in the hands of WA nations. I know it's an unpopular position in today's cosmopolitan community, which is why I wouldn't push the issue. We are so much above and beyond game mechanics now, woo-woo. But I'm waiting for somerights for nations who don't reside in TNP - or maybe for people who have no NS nation at all. <_<
Click to expand...

TWP has (or had) that. It's called Tweedy's law.
 
Great Bights Mum:
But I'm waiting for someone to propose voting rights for nations who don't reside in TNP - or maybe for people who have no NS nation at all. <_<
Click to expand...
On it!
salute.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top