Democracy for Citizens Omnibus Bill

[Alunya]

In order to provide a broader legitimacy of the Government of The North Pacific; to encourage registration for citizenship; to expand the potential pool of candidates; to further the separation of powers; to remove the onerous gate-keeping function which restricts a more general participation in governance by means of the requirements of membership in the Regional Assembly; to encourage a more expansive participation in The North Pacific of our Citizens; and to uphold our Democratic Principles to which every Officer of the The North Pacific affirms:

Article 1 of the Constitution of The North Pacific shall be amended as follows:

Article 1. Citizenship and the Bill of Rights

1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.
2. Requirements for Citizenship will be determined by law.

Article 2 of the Constitution of The North Pacific shall have the following Clause 2 inserted and subsequent clauses incremented by one (1) accordingly:

2. Members of the Regional Assembly will, by definition, be considered as Citizens of The North Pacific.

Article 3, Clause 12 of the Constitution of The North Pacific shall be amended and Clause 13 added as follows:

12. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Citizens by a majority vote every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
13. Citizens may stand for the offices of Delegate and Vice Delegate.

Article 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution of The North Pacific shall be amended and Clause 2 inserted and subsequent clauses incremented by one (1) accordingly:

1. The Citizens will elect an Attorney General by plurality vote every four months.
2. Citizens may stand for the office of the Attorney General.

Article 5, Clause 5 of the Constitution of The North Pacific shall be amended and Clause 6 added as follows:

5. Justices will be elected by the Citizens by a plurality vote every four months.
6. Citizens may stand for the office of Justice.

---

Chapter 6 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific shall have the following section 6.1 added and all subsequent sections and clauses renumbered accordingly:

2. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply for Citizenship, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific and affirming as follows:

I'm a TNPer and my TNP nation is [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION].

 

[St George]

This should be good. Watch as the Oligarchy/Cabal/Old Guard/whatever vested interest is the flavour of the week shoots this down.

 

[Andrew]

Do you mean, by this bill, that the Assembly/Legislature would be comprised by all citizens like in The South Pacific

 

[Alunya]

Do you mean, by this bill, that the Assembly/Legislature would be comprised by all citizens like in The South Pacific?

Not at all. What the proposed clause 2 of Article 2 does is ensure that all members of the Regional Assembly are defined automatically as members of the Citizen class. In other words, Regional Assembly members are a subset of the set of Citizens. But not all Citizens are members of the set of Regional Assembly members.

Citizens (which includes Regional Assembly members) would be entitled to stand for, and vote for, the offices of Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General and Justices.

Regional Assembly members would retain their exclusive rights to introduce and vote upon legislation, to recall officers, to uphold (or refute) the Vice Delegate's security rejection of Regional Assembly applicants, to stand for and vote for Speaker, and whatever else the Regional Assembly may exclusively do. Any citizen that wishes to avail themselves of those functions would have to successfully apply for membership in the Regional Assembly. That process remains unchanged.

>^,,^<
Alunya

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

What is the difference between this and the system we had coming out of the Constitution Convention with registered voters and an opt in Regional Assembly membership?

I would have concerns about having someone move into TNP and register on the forums on day one, and stand for office on day two. It would invite all sorts of foreign interference in TNP's internal affairs and could easily invite coups and rogue Delegates. The post Constitution Convention framework had durational residency requirements to reduce that risk to regional stability and security.

Hence, the very serious problem with this bill as written.

 

[Romanoffia]

This should be good. Watch as the Oligarchy/Cabal/Old Guard/whatever vested interest is the flavour of the week shoots this down.

Unfortunately, politics as a general art form always consists of vested interests of individuals and various collectives. This is exactly why political parties are formed and only last as long as is necessary for those parties to get their people elected. And then the parties go away.

But that is unfortunately the whole purpose of any political system: to protect the interests of individuals and special interest groups. I, personally would like to see a government that is only interested in preserving the rights of individuals alone. But, as my grandmother used to say, sh*t in one hand and wish in the other.

Man is a political animal. Even the best of systems become corrupt either by design, by accident or by simple decadence and complacency. In any of those instances, it's always the special interests who have enough collective power to get what they want as a matter of being part and parcel of the way the world works.

Oh, wait, we're talking about TNP! Woopsies.

 

[falapatorius]

While a larger pool of voters would be more representative of TNP with regard to elections, I'd be reluctant to support someone running for office without some kind of security risk assessment. Granted, that process has been abused in the past, but I think it is a necessary evil. I am only guessing that's what was meant by:

to remove the onerous gate-keeping function which restricts a more general participation in governance by means of the requirements of membership in the Regional Assembly;

I've observed some RMB discussion with regard to privacy, vis a vis access to user IP's. Privacy is a legitimate concern, but just joining an online community like this will yield some basic information about the user. If you do any online gaming, joining any game server gives the owner (and admins) access to IP information. That's just the way it is. Unfortunately, it's the few troublemakers that ruin it for everyone else. Of course, admins are entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the personal privacy of users. It is very rare that trust is broken, but we all take that risk.

Anyway.. I could support giving citizens voting privileges, but some kind of admin check needs to be in place to discourage voting fraud, as Grosse outlined above. Even RL elections require you provide proof of identity (here in Canada anyway). As for any citizen running for office.. I wouldn't vote for anyone who just joined, but allowing that could leave the Delegacy vulnerable to coups. I do see the positives this bill could provide, but there are security concerns to consider. Not to mention the ECs having fun counting the ballots and verifying them. As the bill is currently written, I'd have to abstain.

 

[Flemingovia]

I believe firmly in one man one vote. I am the man, and I should have the vote.

 

[Sanctaria]

I don't agree with this bill. It leaves us open to foreign interference and increases the possibility of rogue delegates. Cannot and will not ever support a bill like this.

 

[Andrew]

Right!- know I understand the context and effects of this bill

 

[Flemingovia]

Not too keen on this. All it seems to do is increase risk. It does not "enfranchise" anybody since anyone can, absurdly easily, post an oath and become a member of the Regional Assembly.

 

[punk d]

I'm honestly having a hard time understanding this bill and what problem it seeks to solve. I will withhold judgment until I understand it better.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

It seems like the thrust is to remove the RA requirements for voting and running for office. So far I haven't seen a solid rationale for doing so.

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

Not too keen on this. All it seems to do is increase risk. It does not "enfranchise" anybody since anyone can, absurdly easily, post an oath and become a member of the Regional Assembly.

Really Flem? Really?!

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Actually, allowing people who haven't been security checked to vote and run for office is a rather large point against this bill.

 

[Romanoffia]

True, but all someone needs to do to be 'enfranchised' is to join the forum and then join the RA.

I firmly believe in encouraging as many people to vote as possible in the context of joining the RA on the forum. I mean, if someone really wants to get involved in the government of the region, is it too much to ask them to join the forum and become a member of the RA?

Or better yet, we can not only have the RA for legislative purposes but also go back to the registered voter process as we need to have some kind of control over people just joining the forum to vote and then leaving. The Bill proposed in this thread will open us up to all manner of interference from other regions and make us a target for conquest, just as it has happened in the past.

And actually, 'citizens' of the region have the ultimate form of enfranchisement through the WA endorsement process. They can either extend their endorsements, not extend them or withdraw them at will.

Point being is that the system we have in place has been the most stable system for electoral purposes and securing the region that we have ever had. In the past three or four years our ability under the present voting/electoral system has provided for smooth transitions from one Delegate to another that is unprecedented for TNP.

I mean, why change it so that our system is more vulnerable to be used as a tool to dismantle our system more than it already is?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I agree with the points against the bill that have been raised so far.

The requirements for citizenship are considerably lower. There is no ongoing activity requirement other than logging into your nation. There is no activity requirement and there is no requirement that they maintain any interest in the region other than keeping their nation alive. This will mean that any number of people can show up just to vote at a particular time without having had any major involvement in the region for the rest of the time. This is a concern for me and puts us at risk of foreign interference.

I would vote against this. We have a very open government and open border policy already, all that is required is posting an oath and maintaining a minimum activity level. I think this is enough.

I see no reason at all why this proposal is a good idea. The Home Affairs program is seeking to engage more with the regional community and as a region (in comparison to other GCRs in particular), TNP has a very strong link between RMB/region and the regional forum.

---

Another option, would be to have a quota amount that is allocated to elections held using the in-game poll feature. A certain percentage is given to the total number of votes each candidate receives in that poll and the rest is determined through a forum vote. A discussion for another day though.

 

[Flemingovia]

Not too keen on this. All it seems to do is increase risk. It does not "enfranchise" anybody since anyone can, absurdly easily, post an oath and become a member of the Regional Assembly.

Really Flem? Really?!

The illegally-admitted Regional Assembly member has a point. Even with our notoriously lax standards there are just a few people who are beyond the pale.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Another option, would be to have a quota amount that is allocated to elections held using the in-game poll feature. A certain percentage is given to the total number of votes each candidate receives in that poll and the rest is determined through a forum vote. A discussion for another day though.

This is vulnerable to puppet-flooding, since in-game nations are not and cannot be security checked. Even a poll restricted to WA nations would be more vulnerable to foreign interference than the current proposal, since anyone can move a WA nation into the region at any time, and also forum members would have the opportunity to expand their own franchise, which sort of defeats the whole point.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Yeah, I know it isn't without issue. However you can limit who can vote - WA membership, high population etc. Of course puppets could still be used to vote. We'd have to consider how much of an effect this would have. If the quota was low enough - say 25-30% of the total vote it might be a very minor issue.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I think the TNP electorate is small enough that even rare instances of fraud from a game-side poll could upset an election.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Yeah, I know it isn't without issue. However you can limit who can vote - WA membership, high population etc. Of course puppets could still be used to vote. We'd have to consider how much of an effect this would have. If the quota was low enough - say 25-30% of the total vote it might be a very minor issue.

I really appreciate your trying to come to some sort of compromise instead of rejecting this proposal outright.

Is it at all possible to include a provision for security checking of citizens that would alleviate some of the concern raised by Assembly members?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

When the "registered citizen" group was introduced by admin, those were security checked in the same manner as RA members; the reason for the group was to have a mask of those who had been security checked and were not then in the R.A., which gave us a place to put RA members who were inactive and still in the region.

We don'r have that now, except for the NPA, and the current citizen group and former citizen group do not appear to undergo security checks.

 

[Mall]

This should be good. Watch as the Oligarchy/Cabal/Old Guard/whatever vested interest is the flavour of the week shoots this down.

I've always preferred Elugarchy.

 

[Romanoffia]

Not too keen on this. All it seems to do is increase risk. It does not "enfranchise" anybody since anyone can, absurdly easily, post an oath and become a member of the Regional Assembly.

Really Flem? Really?!

The illegally-admitted Regional Assembly member has a point. Even with our notoriously lax standards there are just a few people who are beyond the pale.

Oh, still sore about that Flemmy Boy?

Funny, you complain about lax standards and then you bemoan enforcing strict standards, and then complain that the strict standards are in fact lax standards because it was something you didn't like.

Tsk, tsk.

This should be good. Watch as the Oligarchy/Cabal/Old Guard/whatever vested interest is the flavour of the week shoots this down.

I've always preferred Elugarchy.

Yes, it was always more strictly enforced than it is now.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

This should be good. Watch as the Oligarchy/Cabal/Old Guard/whatever vested interest is the flavour of the week shoots this down.

I've always preferred Elugarchy.

That hurts me deeply Mall. I thought we had something special?

Yeah, I know it isn't without issue. However you can limit who can vote - WA membership, high population etc. Of course puppets could still be used to vote. We'd have to consider how much of an effect this would have. If the quota was low enough - say 25-30% of the total vote it might be a very minor issue.

I really appreciate your trying to come to some sort of compromise instead of rejecting this proposal outright.

Is it at all possible to include a provision for security checking of citizens that would alleviate some of the concern raised by Assembly members?

The issue here is that citizenship does not require an oath, no activity requirements etc. If the proposal could address all of these issues then it would be more likely to pass.

 

[Alunya]

The issue here is that citizenship does not require an oath, no activity requirements etc. If the proposal could address all of these issues then it would be more likely to pass.

That will be forthcoming soon. It was necessary to stake out the more radical position first so that those with venom in their teeth could strike (and also to have some negotiating room). Now that those that feel threatened by any alternate paths to office that bypass the legislative branch, or who simply abhor any foreign ideas (even from Regional Assembly members) have self-exposed, there still needs a bit more time for cooler heads to suggest alternatives.

The next draft will have some clauses within the codified law that will appear unnecessary. When it is introduced I will still refrain from comment. It will make more sense by the third draft. I'm not rushing into this.

>^,,^<
Alunya

 

[SillyString]

I'm not sure why you think this is a foreign idea, Alunya. It's been proposed before - it's even been done before. It was also abandoned in favor of the system we have now.

From what I can tell, most of the objection has been based on prior experience with this model, and not on any feeling of being threatened or a dislike of new members. Lots of new members propose things, and some of those things pass (and in full fairness, lots of RA members propose things and some of those things pass, so this isn't any special case). Things generally fail on their merits.

In terms of merits, I don't really see any to this proposal at this point, because I don't think it improves on what we have already. Since you have indicated that upcoming drafts will be of a more serious nature, I will naturally withhold judgement on them until they are posted.

 

[Romanoffia]

I'm not sure why you think this is a foreign idea, Alunya. It's been proposed before - it's even been done before. It was also abandoned in favor of the system we have now.

From what I can tell, most of the objection has been based on prior experience with this model, and not on any feeling of being threatened or a dislike of new members. Lots of new members propose things, and some of those things pass (and in full fairness, lots of RA members propose things and some of those things pass, so this isn't any special case). Things generally fail on their merits.

In terms of merits, I don't really see any to this proposal at this point, because I don't think it improves on what we have already. Since you have indicated that upcoming drafts will be of a more serious nature, I will naturally withhold judgement on them until they are posted.

I wouldn't discount this on terms of merits - the idea she proposes is laudable but flawed in practical terms.

I have always viewed citizenship as something earned and not handed out like candy to Hallow'een trick-or-treaters as a door prize for simply walking up to the door. If you open the door to everyone to vote for officials, everyone will most assuredly arrive, especially those who are arriving just to vote and vanish in hopes of taking and usurping the region.

I am also a firm believer that the uninformed voter is a very dangerous thing. Most people vote the way others vote or the way they are told to vote, or even vote a certain way in order to gain acceptance.

Under the system you are proposing, someone could run in a bunch of nations and totally game the region. History tends to support that fact.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

The issue here is that citizenship does not require an oath, no activity requirements etc. If the proposal could address all of these issues then it would be more likely to pass.

That will be forthcoming soon. It was necessary to stake out the more radical position first so that those with venom in their teeth could strike (and also to have some negotiating room). Now that those that feel threatened by any alternate paths to office that bypass the legislative branch, or who simply abhor any foreign ideas (even from Regional Assembly members) have self-exposed, there still needs a bit more time for cooler heads to suggest alternatives.

The next draft will have some clauses within the codified law that will appear unnecessary. When it is introduced I will still refrain from comment. It will make more sense by the third draft. I'm not rushing into this.

>^,,^<
Alunya

As the proponent of this change, the onus is on you to convince as many people as possible that this idea is a good one. That it is necessary to improve the region and that it will be an improvement on the way things are currently run. Those who disagree are entitled to do so. This doesn't strike me as a foreign idea and I do not think that anyone has been particularly venomous towards you.

I'm glad you have agreed to not rush into this. Rushing a proposal like this would only lead to failure. Some people view taking your time and approaching things with compromise as a weakness, I think that is a silly view and I am glad that you are open to compromising on this proposal.

Many people in the region have supported stricter requirements on admission to the RA and other areas of government. Flemingovia in particular has been critical of the open borders policy that we tend to maintain.

TNP has long been viewed as one of the most open GCR's, we allow people who have couped and banned us to roam free here. We trust in the voting public to not elect them to public office. One of the reasons I introduced the Membership Administration Amendment bill, was to allow the RA to have more oversight and to restrict people from being able to walk in the door to run for office, to prevent them from having access to our private halls and to prevent foreign interference in our regional assembly.

If the changes to the law are so significant that it undoes our protections or opens us up to even more foreign interference or security issues, then it will likely be voted down.

As SillyString said - new citizens can and do introduce legislation. But it is up to them to prove that the legislation is necessary. I was elected Vice Delegate within months and Delegate within 9 months of joining the region (As Unibot once said - before people could say WHO ARE YOU).

 

[Romanoffia]

Citizenship is one thing, membership in the RA due to security reasons (and to belay anyone trying to use the Constitution to overthrow the Constitution) is another thing.

The fact that we have certain restrictions on RA membership is good because that means we are essentially a Republic and not a direct and total democracy.

Total democracies are a very bad thing because of the mob rule effect:

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
------- Winston Churchill

To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.
------- Louis L'Amour

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.
------- Plato

Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
------- John Adams

 

[St George]

-snip-

I don't care about this bill all that much. I do however care about erroneous use of quotations.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
------- Winston Churchill

No evidence he ever said this.

To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.
------- Louis L'Amour

Took me ages to find a source on this one, but Louis did in fact say this.

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.
------- Plato

Doesn't actually say this, or his original works have been mistranslated. He does however say the much catchier "Democracy passes into despotism." in Book VIII of The Republic.

Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
------- John Adams

Oh hey, an accurate quote. Kind of. This quote originates from a letter sent by Adams to John Taylor in 1814. This 'quote' is actually a compilation and then rearrangement of two passages in the letter, firstly:

"Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either."

and then a page later:

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide"

Given that this letter was written 200 years ago, and that America's democracy exists still today, this quote isn't erroneous, it's just a case of Mr Adams being wrong.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

To be clear, though I have been minding the gates for most of the past decade, nothing is more important to me than freedom. I would like to see as many nations as possible participating in TNP. In an ideal world, the Delegate would be elected by the entirety of WA members in TNP. Kind of like how Max intended it. We have yet to find a way to make that sane and practical.

Regarding the origins of the bill, have the citizens expressed a desire to participate in this fashion?