Legal Code Amendment

falapatorius

falapatorius

TNPer
Section 4.5 of The Codified Law of The North Pacific shall be amended as follows:

The Codified Law of The North Pacific:
Section 4.5: Special Elections

20. A special election will be held in the event of a vacancy in any elected office or position, unless the election would be unable to conclude prior to the beginning of the scheduled election cycle for that office.
21. The Delegate and the Vice Delegate will serve as Election Commissioners for the special election. If any of the Delegate and the Vice Delegate are not available, the Speaker and, if necessary, the Attorney General will serve as Election Commissioners.
22. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials serving at the time a constitutionally-mandated elected office is vacated, thereby triggering a special election, shall be deemed ineligible to declare candidacy and/or accept nominations in the special election.
Click to expand...
(Numbering, coloring, and bolding is mine)

The rationale for this proposed amendment is that it intends to prevent a potential vulnerability in TNP governance. A special election could be called an emergency situation. If a currently serving constitutionally-mandated elected official runs, and wins, in a special election they would be obliged to resign their previous office (provided they take the oath of their newly elected office of course). This would also trigger another special election. In my opinion, this circumstance could jeopardize TNP security in some situations.

Edit: OP language updated.
 
What differentiates these situations (that you think jeopardize TNP security) from ones where a CMEO runs in a standard election (the VD, D, or Speaker in judicial elections, or AG or a justice in general ones) and thereby triggers a special election by winning and accepting?

More concisely, I'm wondering why you want to ban CMEOs from running in special elections but not scheduled ones.

Edit: I see an easy avoidance for this law, which would be to resign the office one is serving in before declaring candidacy in a special election (or scheduled, if you end up expanding the proposal to include those). While the benefit to that would be ensuring people commit to an office if they're running for it, I think it would fail to resolve the security issues you're seeing (I'm not sure what those security issues are, or I would comment further on them).

A potential workaround for this could be to say that you can't run in a (special/scheduled) election if you were a CMEO within five (or whatever) days before it started, but that feels... kludgey?
 
Silly String:
More concisely, I'm wondering why you want to ban CMEOs from running in special elections but not scheduled ones.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't really want to take the resignation option away from a CMEO. At least if the CMEO does resign, there is no uncertainty about which position they would accept.

Silly String:
A potential workaround for this could be to say that you can't run in a (special/scheduled) election if you were a CMEO within five (or whatever) days before it started, but that feels... kludgey?
Click to expand...
Hmm.. you have a point. Perhaps this edit?:

22. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials serving at the time a constitutionally-mandated elected office is vacated, thereby triggering a special election, shall be deemed ineligible to declare candidacy and/or accept nominations in the special election.

I'm not sure if 'constitutionally-mandated elected office' is necessary ('elected office' could suffice I suppose, but I'd like to be precise as possible).

Silly String:
I think it would fail to resolve the security issues you're seeing (I'm not sure what those security issues are, or I would comment further on them).
Click to expand...
Governmental stability might be a better description. Suppose the Delegate (for whatever reason) decides to run for AG, wins, and posts the Oath. The Vice Delegate would assume the Delegacy, and the first in line of succession would assume the VD's role (iirc). I'm not saying there's reason to worry about the people assuming these roles, but it does throw the Executive into chaos, imo. This is a hypothetical of course, but strange things do happen here in TNP.
 
If the voters in the RA don't want a currently tenured elected officeholder to be elected to a vacant office in a special election, they simply don't have to vote for that candidate.

This is yet another example of an unnecessary proposed law. I'd much rather see a law or a rule that prohibits an RA member from nominating everyone in the RA for each office being elected in a regular or special election. That's far more of a nuisance than a current officeholder running in a special election.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
This is yet another example of an unnecessary proposed law. I'd much rather see a law or a rule that prohibits an RA member from nominating everyone in the RA for each office being elected in a regular or special election. That's far more of a nuisance than a current officeholder running in a special election.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I've no problem with mass nominating. People can ignore the nomination if they want to. Instead of saying you'd rather see a certain Law proposed (which isn't germane to this discussion), perhaps you should take the time to do it yourself. I've heard you are familiar with that process.
 
I agree with Grosse. I would rather have the best candidates running for a position - whether they are serving in another position or not. If the voters do not want to trigger another special election then they should not vote for that person.

I prefer leaving it to the voter to decide which candidate is best for office. This type of regulation seems unnecessary.
 
I'm with Grosse on this one too. If people don't want a candidate elected they are capable of voting accordingly. Most of us are grown ups here.
 
I'm inclined to agree with Grosse as well. Besides, what are the odds of this vulnerability triggering some kind of chain of special elections? Slim to none I'd say.
 
There have definitely been cases of chains in the past - not terribly long ones, but things like the VD switching to justice or vice versa. And we are at least looking at the possibility now, if DD wins the VD race, though it's a little more noticeable given the proximity to the original judicial election.

While I agree that we generally want the best candidates running for office, I think we also reasonably want candidates who want to do the job they're seeking, rather than just running for what's available because they're out of a position.
 
The problem with this proposal that hasn't been mentioned yet is that an indirect "resign to run" provision, which this is, could easily lead to overlapping special elections for several offices (i.e., dates would not be synchronized into one period for nominations or voting). Which would be even more chaotic that the cure this proposal supposedly is offering.

As I said before, essentially, best to leave well enough alone, and let the voters handle it.
 
silly:
There have definitely been cases of chains in the past - not terribly long ones, but things like the VD switching to justice or vice versa. And we are at least looking at the possibility now, if DD wins the VD race, though it's a little more noticeable given the proximity to the original judicial election.

While I agree that we generally want the best candidates running for office, I think we also reasonably want candidates who want to do the job they're seeking, rather than just running for what's available because they're out of a position.
Click to expand...
I think that's better left to the electorate to judge, than hard-coded in the constitution. I'm inclined to agree with those thinking that this is unnecessary.
 
Flemingovia:
Most of us are grown ups here.
Click to expand...
If you say so. What I see is a "lemming effect" in most elections. But that's just my opinion.

Silly String:
I think we also reasonably want candidates who want to do the job they're seeking, rather than just running for what's available because they're out of a position.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Or just switching positions for the fun of it, effectively thumbing their noses at the electorate. Not to mention running in an election because some of the declared candidates are considered 'undesirable' for reasons other than their abilities. :eyebrow:

Grosseschnauzer:
an indirect "resign to run" provision
Click to expand...
As I stated earlier, if a candidate resigns to run for another office, there would be no uncertainty about which office they would assume (if they won). Furthermore, the provision applies to the moment an office is vacated. If they resigned prior to that, it would be a resignation in the normal sense.

So, (as an example) if DD resigned as Justice and declared his candidacy after the VD's office was vacated, this amendment would prohibit his candidacy in the special election for VD. Yes, his actions would precipitate another special election for Justice, but that would happen anyway if he successfully gained/accepted the office he declared his candidacy in (VD). Some of you have said the electorate would/should act accordingly, but that's no guarantee (not by a long shot), particularly with 'favored' candidates. Anyway, I don't think multiple special elections running concurrently is necessarily the end of the world. At least they would be decided forthwith, with no uncertainty.

r3naissanc3r:
I think that's better left to the electorate to judge, than hard-coded in the constitution
Click to expand...
I think that's better left to the RA to judge.
 
TEAM GROSSE FTW!

But yeah. Don't make people not vote for somebody. They have the right to vote for somebody.
 
r3naissanc3r:
The RA is the electorate.
Click to expand...
Of course, but we don't 'elect' amendments do we? Btw, this is a Legal Code Amendment, so "hard coded into the Constibillicode" would be a more accurate statement.
 
Syrixia:
But yeah. Don't make people not vote for somebody. They have the right to vote for somebody.
Click to expand...
So, can I assume that you think elected office is a hat you can change whenever it suits you? Consequences be damned?

Edit: @Syrixia: As a follow-up to 'consequences be damned'. You are new here and may/may not understand what that could mean.

Let's take the current situation where the sitting Chief Justice is running for Vice Delegate:

(Remember, this is hypothetical)

So.. we're in the middle of a criminal trial (Treason) against JAL (John Ashcroft Land.. or Teflon JAL as he's known around here). The Chief Justice is presiding, but decides he'd rather run for VD, wins, and posts the Oath. Ok fine.. we'll need a THO until a new Justice can be elected. Now, what if the AG (prosecutor of the case) then decides to run in the special election for Justice, wins, and posts the Oath? Conflict of interest may come into play and further gum up the works:

Legal Code; Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers:
4. If there is a vacancy on the Court, or any Justice is unavailable or has a conflict of interest the remaining Justices will promptly appoint a hearing officer to participate as temporary Justices.
5. If no Justices are available or all Justices have a conflict of interest, the Delegate will promptly appoint the needed hearing officers with the agreement of the Speaker.
6. In implementing the previous clause, any person who has a conflict of interest will be treated as absent.
Click to expand...
That would then trigger a special election for AG. So the Delegate decides he/she wants that job. Do you see where this is going? JAL's legal team would have a field day with this scenario (delay tactics are their specialty).

My point is that a CMEO shouldn't be able to jump ship just because an opportunity presents itself. They were elected to perform the duties of their office, not bide their time til something they may perceive as 'better' comes along. Yes, this scenario is a big stretch, but the possibility is there. Hell.. I might've inadvertently given somebody an idea. :rofl:
 
Yes it does seem people run for elections just because. And someone winning one election and then deciding to run and possibly win a special election. Then triggers another special election.

Im not opposed to people running for things. But if you run for an elected position...at least be courteous enough to finish your term before going on to something else. I dont know if this should be legislated. But at the very least have ettiquette and common courtesy. (Deputies trying to run for things are one thing) but if you have actually been elected to something see it thru before trying to get elected to something else.
 
Hmm. On the one hand, I generally don't support restricting the RA's choice of candidate. (I would even support a repeal of the 15-day rule.) On the other hand, I also like to encourage dedication to government positions, and penalize indecision or opportunism when it comes to public service.

I am undecided on this bill. I will continue to read the debate.
 
Yeah, agreed. I mean, I personally agree strongly with the ideas behind the bill - I won't run for offices when I know I can't serve a full term, and I won't run in an election (special or otherwise) if I already have a position (deputy roles sometimes excepted).

And while this standard informs my own behavior and my votes, I'm not sure about trying to enforce it on others legislatively.
 
Yeah.. I don't want to be overly ogre-ish about it, but I think there should be some kind of provision to prevent using elections as a playground. :shrug:
 
I don't want to encourage resigning to run. That just creates more problems, I think. If I were to support legislation, it would be to bar anyone elected to a CMEO from running in any election until the next election cycle for that CMEO, whether they resign or not.

That might be a little unfair to people who have to resign for purposes other than "I wanna run for another office" though.
 
If we have resign to run we have a problem every time an incumbent runs for another position.

Currently we only have a problem if they win.
 
I just think we are better off leaving things for the electorate to decide at election time.

We cannot always foresee what will happen in the region - who will be forced to resign, who will be recalled, and which office will require a special election and when.

If we have a special election for Delegate within a manner of weeks after a Special Election for Justice, and the recently elected Justice is the best person to serve as Delegate, then I feel they should be able to run for Delegate and win the election if the electorate agrees with their view/direction for the region. Even if it creates /another/ special election for the judiciary.
 
flemingovia:
If we have resign to run we have a problem every time an incumbent runs for another position.
Click to expand...
Unless we disallow incumbents from running entirely... or if not disallow, strongly socially discourage.
 
SillyString:
flemingovia:
If we have resign to run we have a problem every time an incumbent runs for another position.
Click to expand...
Unless we disallow incumbents from running entirely... or if not disallow, strongly socially discourage.
Click to expand...

I think that should be on a case by case basis. So I would prefer that it be socially discouraged (as necessary) rather than legally prohibited.
 
I am against discouraging incumbants from seeking additional consecutive terms (barring already existing term limits - though I am in favor of raising the current delegate term limit to 3 terms consecutively. I think 3 4 month terms (12 months - 1 year) is reasonable.....ah if only the mcmasterdonia 4 life amendment passed)
 
COE:
I don't want to encourage resigning to run.
Click to expand...
I don't either, but we can't really stop it (I wouldn't try to ban that). But the proposal at least prevents a candidate resigning to run in the special election. If they were to resign prior to a scheduled election, this amendment doesn't apply. One way or another, if a CMEO candidate wins a special election, an office will either be resigned or another special election will be triggered. If the person didn't really want the position, they shouldn't have ran for it. Resigning for legitimate reasons is perfectly fine though.
 
falapatorius:
f they were to resign prior to a scheduled election, this amendment doesn't apply.
Click to expand...
Should it, though? Running in a scheduled election when you already hold elected office will trigger its own special election...
 
I am in agreement with mcm. I prefer a "social discouragement", which hopefully will be expressed through the electorate's votes.
 
r3naissanc3r:
I am in agreement with mcm. I prefer a "social discouragement", which hopefully will be expressed through the electorate's votes.
Click to expand...
Social Discouragement = Institutional Dog-Piling = Beating up people who don't go along with the majority = killing dissent.
 
One could argue that any attempt to restrict who can be a candidate on the basis on holding a current elective office might be argued as being in violation of Clause 10 of the Bill of Rights.

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
Click to expand...

I hope I don't need to go to the Sesame Street level of explanation as to how that can be the case, but nothing in TNP surprises me any more.
 
Silly String:
Should it, though? Running in a scheduled election when you already hold elected office will trigger its own special election...
Click to expand...
Hmm.. I'd have to give that a think. I was only concerned with Special Elections at the time.

About the only thing I can think of to prevent 'resigning to run' is a provision stipulating that if a CMEO resigns their office, they would be ineligible to run in any election until the constitutionally-mandated length of their term (had they not resigned) has expired. Or something to that effect anyway.

As to 'social discouragement': Depending on what that is a euphemism for, it could lead to trouble. Bullying, smear campaigns, and other kinds of asshattery may come to the fore (well, more so than usual anyway :P ). 'Electoral discouragement' may be a better term, although I still have serious doubts about the efficacy of that. I'd rather put my trust in the Law (even as it is atm), than the whims of the electorate (oh hell.. just for funzies, I'll say it: and/or the Oligarchy :rofl: ).
 
When I say social discouragement or whatever.. I don't mean that we need the legal code to actually say that. Just that we should leave the laws as they are and then if people do not want a special election etc they vote for a different candidate or RON.

@Grosse: I, for one, would love to see you go to Sesame Street level.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
One could argue that any attempt to restrict who can be a candidate on the basis on holding a current elective office might be argued as being in violation of Clause 10 of the Bill of Rights.

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
Click to expand...

I hope I don't need to go to the Sesame Street level of explanation as to how that can be the case, but nothing in TNP surprises me any more.
Click to expand...
Snarky accusations of idiocy notwithstanding, I for one actually don't follow at all where you're going here.

Being able to cast a vote is absolutely not identical to being able to run for office, for one thing. For another, there are already whole swaths of people that RA members cannot vote for - people who choose not to run, for example, or people who are ineligible to run, which is a category defined in the law.

The Bill of Rights has nothing to say about who is eligible to run for office or not, so if you want to say that amending the Legal Code or Constitution to limit it violates the Bill of Rights, you really are going to need to go to the Sesame Street level for those of us you think are too stupid to understand why.
 
If Grosseschnauzer does a Sesame Street explanation, could I request that he uses the character of Ernie, and that he uses his rubber duckie to explain things to us?

(Actually, I have no idea of grosseschnauzer's line of reasoning, so it may help.)
 
Flemingovia:
If Grosseschnauzer does a Sesame Street explanation, could I request that he uses the character of Ernie, and that he uses his rubber duckie to explain things to us?
Click to expand...
I'd prefer either of the Muppets characters Beaker, or the Swedish Chef.

Silly String:
Snarky accusations of idiocy notwithstanding, I for one actually don't follow at all where you're going here.

Being able to cast a vote is absolutely not identical to being able to run for office, for one thing. For another, there are already whole swaths of people that RA members cannot vote for - people who choose not to run, for example, or people who are ineligible to run, which is a category defined in the law.

The Bill of Rights has nothing to say about who is eligible to run for office or not, so if you want to say that amending the Legal Code or Constitution to limit it violates the Bill of Rights, you really are going to need to go to the Sesame Street level for those of us you think are too stupid to understand why.
Click to expand...
^ This.
 
Not wishing to doubt Grosse's talent, but I am not sure he is up to the Swedish chef, who has been cruelly denied an Oscar by those swine at the Academy.

His "putta-da-chicken-in-der-pot" was method acting worthy of de Nero.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top