Citizenship Bill

I think that we should keep citizenship as an applied-for masking as the citizenship oath is insanely simple. However, I like the idea of calling all people with a TNP nation Residents.

Residents- All people with a TNP nation.

Citizens- People who are committed mainly to TNP, and who take the quick citizenship oath.

Thoughts on my compromise?
 
Syrixia:
I think that we should keep citizenship as an applied-for masking as the citizenship oath is insanely simple. However, I like the idea of calling all people with a TNP nation Residents.

Residents- All people with a TNP nation.

Citizens- People who are committed mainly to TNP, and who take the quick citizenship oath.

Thoughts on my compromise?
Click to expand...
That is fine for people who are wholly / obviously mainly involved in TNP, like myself, DD, GBM etc.

But some of the more ... cosmopolitan members of our community might struggle with the phrase "committed mainly to TNP".
 
I realize this must sound pretty rich coming from me, but I think the RA has a bad case of elitism. We, the active legislators of TNP, have the power to decide who gets to participate in the government, and we have decided so far that those people should be.... well, us. It smacks of hubris for the RA to assert through our law that RA activity is a prerequisite to being a good government official, as if our interests and talents as legislators are the only valuable skills necessary for government service.

What the hell does a lawmaker know about how the culture ministry ought to run? Or WA affairs? Or the military? By requiring legislative activity, we are shutting out dozens and hundreds of potentially game-changing officials. I have come to see this as probably the most masochistic policy in TNP history. We are injuring the effectiveness and potential of our executive government for the sake of feeling special. We alone, the law-makers, have the power in this region. If you really think about it, it's kind of fucked up. We ought to be ashamed of this policy.

Now, that being said, we need to be careful about the exact form this legislation takes. If we take it too far too quickly, it will be hard to turn back the clock, because there will be new voices and faces in any future conversations on the topic. I will be reading over this bill very carefully, and may have some changes to suggest. In the meantime, however, I think everyone needs to give their high horse a rest and realize that this region has almost 5,000 nations in it, and many of them don't give a crap about making laws, but could be assets to our government in other ways.
 
Thats why I am okay with conveying right to vote and office holding to citizens. But the RA should remain an addition to citizenship like the NPA Exec staff etc. If you want to legislate join - if not no biggie you dont have to - and you can still vote and hold office.

I think my compromise is fair. Maybe needs worked on more with RA collaboration...but thats if its wanted...if not..oh well I tried to propose a counter suggestion
 
What the hell does a lawmaker know about how the culture ministry ought to run? Or WA affairs? Or the military? By requiring legislative activity, we are shutting out dozens and hundreds of potentially game-changing officials. I have come to see this as probably the most masochistic policy in TNP history. We are injuring the effectiveness and potential of our executive government for the sake of feeling special. We alone, the law-makers, have the power in this region. If you really think about it, it's kind of fucked up. We ought to be ashamed of this policy.
Click to expand...

And yet, somehow, for most of our history we have probably been the most inclusive, active and vibrant region in NS, including in those areas mentioned above.

Curious that. All those regions we are now urged to ape have not found this to be the golden ticket to activity.
 
I don't think we're being encouraged to ape any regions. This bill goes further down the path of inclusivity and openness that we should be justly proud of, and is, I believe, a step in the direction of direct democracy unprecedented by any region of a large size and activity level.

Past successes are not evidence that we are not limiting ourselves with this self-serving and exclusive policy. Greater success can still be achieved.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I don't think we're being encouraged to ape any regions. This bill goes further down the path of inclusivity and openness that we should be justly proud of, and is, I believe, a step in the direction of direct democracy unprecedented by any region of a large size and activity level.

Past successes are not evidence that we are not limiting ourselves with this self-serving and exclusive policy. Greater success can still be achieved.
Click to expand...
I am in agreement with Crushing Our Enemies, and have supported previous attempts to include more nations in our democracy. I will be supporting r3n's bill.

We are elitist, and I do feel it excludes people who could do really positive things for the region. If it doesn't happen to work out as intended then there is nothing wrong with amending the laws, as we always have. I think this bill could stimulate participation in the offsite forum, which bolsters the in game presence and legitimacy of the government. Let's all be stakeholders in a more democratic and robust TNP.
 
flemingovia:
Frankly, if people are so disinterested or disorganised that they cannot vote "abstain" every now and again, i am not sure I would want them as a minister.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this.

Gladio has increased the size of the NPA to numbers unheard of in most other active gameplay regions, has ensured it sees regular use in order to stay on top of its game, and has been instrumental in bringing new nations to the forum through membership in the army. He is, quite frankly, the best minister of defense that TNP has seen in quite some time.

He was also recently removed from the RA for missing votes, and needed to reapply in order to go on as defense minister.

By any objective measure that relates to the duties of his job, Gladio is an amazing, fantastic Minister. I'm not prepared to accept the validity of any metric that declares him unfit to hold office because of something unrelated to his actual performance.
 
So this is all so that Gladio can be a minister on his terms (not getting involved in the RA) and perhaps so that Anumia can be involved on their terms too?

Seems a bit like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

What happens when an amazing fantastic brilliant minister comes along who finds the whole citizenship thing a bit of a drag, or who on principle will not dishonour their real life citizenship by taking on a Nationstates one? Do we move the goalposts again to accomodate them?

If not, what makes this line in the sand better than the one we have at present? Other than the fact it is a bit further back.
 
I'm sorry. I do not see the difference. What we have now is clearly thought out. You may not agree with it, but that does not make it arbitrary.

My point is, both systems set boundaries. You prefer this new one, I prefer the current one. I could see an argument allowing the delegate to appoint ministers who are not RA members, subject to RA confirmation (the "Gaspo exclusion", we could call it), but I cannot see the reason to change our whole system just to move the boundary line.
 
flemingovia:
So this is all so that Gladio can be a minister on his terms (not getting involved in the RA) and perhaps so that Anumia can be involved on their terms too?

Seems a bit like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

What happens when an amazing fantastic brilliant minister comes along who finds the whole citizenship thing a bit of a drag, or who on principle will not dishonour their real life citizenship by taking on a Nationstates one? Do we move the goalposts again to accomodate them?

If not, what makes this line in the sand better than the one we have at present? Other than the fact it is a bit further back.
Click to expand...
Who mentioned Anumia? I don't think we should be encouraging foreigners from joining our region with this legislation and I don't think we are doing that in this case. Our home affairs ministry has been working hard to recruit and develop the native community of tnp.

Perhaps instead of 30 days we could reduce the citizenship activity requirement to two weeks, three at most. 30 days is a full month and seems a little long to me. I would personally prefer that this be reduced.
 
flemingovia:
So this is all so that Gladio can be a minister on his terms (not getting involved in the RA) and perhaps so that Anumia can be involved on their terms too?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Gladio is an example of a fantastic minister who cares not one whit about participating in the RA. There might be others, and there are certainly others who would be fantastic ministers, but who get frustrated at the legislative requirements and give up.

The idea that this is a slippery slope is flawed. Legislative participation is an arbitrary requirement; basic citizenship is not. To draw some RL parallels, extending the right to vote and stand for office to minorities and women did not, does not, and will not lead to extending it to residents of other countries/states/provinces/districts/cities/your jurisdiction of choice.

Additionally, the differences between Gladio and Alunya are stark. Gladio is happy and willing to take his oaths to protect TNP and uphold her laws (repeatedly :P ), but struggles with the legislative requirement because it's not an area he finds enjoyable. Alunya is unwilling to take the oath to uphold TNP's laws, but given their activity over their time here, seems to enjoy legislating and would probably have no trouble maintaining membership. The two aren't comparable.
 
Eluvatar:
flemingovia is silly and SillyString is right.

What has the world come to.
Click to expand...
I am going to bookmark this post, and when in the future people say "how the hell did that happen?" I am just going to link to it with a little smile.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I realize this must sound pretty rich coming from me, but I think the RA has a bad case of elitism. We, the active legislators of TNP, have the power to decide who gets to participate in the government, and we have decided so far that those people should be.... well, us. It smacks of hubris for the RA to assert through our law that RA activity is a prerequisite to being a good government official, as if our interests and talents as legislators are the only valuable skills necessary for government service.

What the hell does a lawmaker know about how the culture ministry ought to run? Or WA affairs? Or the military? By requiring legislative activity, we are shutting out dozens and hundreds of potentially game-changing officials. I have come to see this as probably the most masochistic policy in TNP history. We are injuring the effectiveness and potential of our executive government for the sake of feeling special. We alone, the law-makers, have the power in this region. If you really think about it, it's kind of fucked up. We ought to be ashamed of this policy.

Now, that being said, we need to be careful about the exact form this legislation takes. If we take it too far too quickly, it will be hard to turn back the clock, because there will be new voices and faces in any future conversations on the topic. I will be reading over this bill very carefully, and may have some changes to suggest. In the meantime, however, I think everyone needs to give their high horse a rest and realize that this region has almost 5,000 nations in it, and many of them don't give a crap about making laws, but could be assets to our government in other ways.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, especially in making changed in incremental ways rather than a wholesale change that may result (because of radical change) in unforeseen and undesirable consequences.

I am, however somewhat conflicted in my opinion about changing the current system which, while it has its flaws, seems to work quite well for our purposes. The one thing, if changes are to be made, to be considered is whether or not it will result in an obscene expansion of size of the legal code and the amount of bureaucratic rigmarole resulting in a complex and somewhat Byzantine arrangement. Not that we aren't already somewhat Byzantine, but you know what I mean.

flemingovia:
I'm sorry. I do not see the difference. What we have now is clearly thought out. You may not agree with it, but that does not make it arbitrary.

My point is, both systems set boundaries. You prefer this new one, I prefer the current one. I could see an argument allowing the delegate to appoint ministers who are not RA members, subject to RA confirmation (the "Gaspo exclusion", we could call it), but I cannot see the reason to change our whole system just to move the boundary line.
Click to expand...

I also tend to agree with this point of view.

I do like the idea of Delegate appointed ministers for a number of reasons. Any good governmental administrator knows how to delegate authority rather than attempt to tackle everything by himself. Also, any good administrator knows with whom he can and cannot work with and by extension (and presumption) which choices for minister are best suited to accomplish a specific task.
 
flemingovia:
I am unsure what is wrong with the current system that needs radical overhaul. At the moment those who are interested in the governmental side can join the RA, vote on stuff and stand for stuff. Those not interested in the RA don't have to.

Am i missing something here?
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
Procedural question for the Speaker:

This proposed amendment affects both the Constitution and the Legal Code. Which voting threshold applies? 2/3 majority, or simple majority?
 
Both!

Oh, you wanted more detail? :P

Parts of the bill that amend the LC require 1/2, parts that amend the Constitution require 2/3. Because a majority of 2/3 > X > 1/2 can leave the law in a wonky state, the Speaker's Office has generally prohibited Omnibus bills which don't internally link themselves all together. r3n's bill does this in the 13th part by declaring that the LC bits can't become law without the Const bits (and vice versa), so in order to actually take any effect it needs to pass with 2/3 *and* not be vetoed by the delegate.
 
Silly String:
Parts of the bill that amend the LC require 1/2, parts that amend the Constitution require 2/3. Because a majority of 2/3 > X > 1/2 can leave the law in a wonky state, the Speaker's Office has generally prohibited Omnibus bills which don't internally link themselves all together. r3n's bill does this in the 13th part by declaring that the LC bits can't become law without the Const bits (and vice versa), so in order to actually take any effect it needs to pass with 2/3 *and* not be vetoed by the delegate.
Click to expand...
I thought as much. Just needed to be sure. Thank you for your prompt and detailed response Mr. Speaker. :lol: :P
 
falapatorius:
Silly String:
Parts of the bill that amend the LC require 1/2, parts that amend the Constitution require 2/3. Because a majority of 2/3 > X > 1/2 can leave the law in a wonky state, the Speaker's Office has generally prohibited Omnibus bills which don't internally link themselves all together. r3n's bill does this in the 13th part by declaring that the LC bits can't become law without the Const bits (and vice versa), so in order to actually take any effect it needs to pass with 2/3 *and* not be vetoed by the delegate.
Click to expand...
I thought as much. Just needed to be sure. Thank you for your prompt and detailed response Mr. Speaker. :lol: :P
Click to expand...
You're quite welcome, Mme Delegate. :noangel:
 
I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but 30 days does seem too long. Someone only has to post once per month in order to maintain their voting rights. Doesn't sound like much of a commitment at all.

I think it would be more reasonable to lower this to every 14 days unless notice is given.
 
Also what kind of posts? I mean posting in a spam game thread once every 14 days doesnt seem very commitial... but I suppose we cant be too nit picky can we?
 
I'm somewhat confused by the requirements of being a resident.

Apparently a resident is anyone with a nation in The North Pacific who is present on the forum. This doesn't mention any application process to become a resident; you just are, if you have a nation here and are present on the forum.

How then would someone lose status as a resident under Legal Code Chapter 6, Section 6.8, Clauses 50-51? It isn't really a status that is granted or taken away, if I'm understanding this correctly. Am I not understanding it correctly? :P
 
flemingovia:
But some of the more ... cosmopolitan members of our community might struggle with the phrase "committed mainly to TNP".
Click to expand...
If so, they can be remasked as Residents until they are active again.
 
Cormac:
I'm somewhat confused by the requirements of being a resident.

Apparently a resident is anyone with a nation in The North Pacific who is present on the forum. This doesn't mention any application process to become a resident; you just are, if you have a nation here and are present on the forum.

How then would someone lose status as a resident under Legal Code Chapter 6, Section 6.8, Clauses 50-51? It isn't really a status that is granted or taken away, if I'm understanding this correctly. Am I not understanding it correctly? :P
Click to expand...

I believe the proposal is referring to resident forum masking, which would be maintained by forum administration the way citizen masking is today.
 
I still think this bill is a sledgehammer where the necessity for it has not been shown. I also believe that there are simpler and less complicated ways of making adjustments.

If the real issue is allowing non-RA members to serve as members of the Delegate's Cabinet, then let's focus on that and not this monstrosity of a change.

If we want to revive the definition of a resident, then let's enact the definition originally provided by the Court in an opinion in 2010. Again, unnecessary to reinvent the wheel when it's already been done.

And if we want to restore the system we had coming out of the Constitutional Convention (registered voters who basically are residents in TNP with an optional right to join the RA to participate in lawmaking) then again, we don't need to reinvent the wheel, it's already been done.

As it stands now, I cannot support this proposal in this current form.
 
So what was flawed with the registered voters law that it was disbanded? And if office holding was not included could we not confir a right to hold office to registered voters as well?
 
The reason was because some people didn't like having two user groups on the forums. Simple as that.

The system itself was never a problem.
 
Except that the current citizen mask is a matter of forum administrative expediency in order to make maskings and permissions easier. Nothing has been enacted about "citizen" in the law. Which is why I suggested reviving the definition the Court put forth back in 2010, it worked as a term of art that made sense to most people.
 
Eluvatar:
I believe the proposal is referring to resident forum masking, which would be maintained by forum administration the way citizen masking is today.
Click to expand...
That makes more sense. It could perhaps be made clearer though.

Otherwise, I support this legislation.
 
First of all, my apologies for the lack of comments from me - this past week has been very hectic both in NS and in RL.

A few members have commented that this is somehow a very "complex" bill, some even calling it a "monstrosity". The bill may be long, but it is very simple in what it does. Here it is:

  1. It renames "Regional Assembly membership" or similar terms into "citizenship" or similar.
  2. It changes the activity requirement for maintaining RA membership (or citizenship, as it will be renamed) from a voting requirement to a forum posting requirement.
  3. It introduces the term "resident" to refer to those nations in the region who choose not to apply for citizenship.
And that's all, three very simple changes. Everything else remains the same. I think the reasons for these changes have by now been adequately discussed, both by me and others, but I can elaborate once more if you want.

The only reason the bill is long, and therefore seems complex to those who do not take the time to read it before commenting, is because I was thorough enough to go through the entire Constitution and Legal Code and replace one by one all occurences of "Regional Assembly member" or similar with "citizen" or similar.

To avoid this false impression, I have edited the bill in the OP. Rather than going through all clauses that need changing one by one, I've changed the bill to include a number of blanket replacement clauses (I will be providing the Speaker with a list of all changes that need to be made once the bill passes). The only two clauses that are exclicitly amended are the constitutional definition of citizenship and the RA, and the legal code clauses about the granting and the removal of citizenship. This has significantly shortened and simplified the bill, so I hope those who call it "complex" will now review it more carefully.

I have also made three more changes. I added a new implementation clause, to make sure that everyone who was previously blocked from the RA will remain blocked from citizenship. I renamed "legislatively-active citizens" into "Regional Assembly participants". And finally, I renamed the bill into something more appropriate. (I have not yet edited the title of the thread, to avoid confusion; I'll leave it to the Speaker to decide whether to rename the thread).
 
r3naissanc3r:
First of all, my apologies for the lack of comments from me - this past week has been very hectic both in NS and in RL.

A few members have commented that this is somehow a very "complex" bill, some even calling it a "monstrosity". The bill may be long, but it is very simple in what it does. Here it is:

  1. It renames "Regional Assembly membership" or similar terms into "citizenship" or similar.
  2. It changes the activity requirement for maintaining RA membership (or citizenship, as it will be renamed) from a voting requirement to a forum posting requirement.
  3. It introduces the term "resident" to refer to those nations in the region who choose not to apply for citizenship.
And that's all, three very simple changes. Everything else remains the same. I think the reasons for these changes have by now been adequately discussed, both by me and others, but I can elaborate once more if you want.

The only reason the bill is long, and therefore seems complex to those who do not take the time to read it before commenting, is because I was thorough enough to go through the entire Constitution and Legal Code and replace one by one all occurences of "Regional Assembly member" or similar with "citizen" or similar.

To avoid this false impression, I have edited the bill in the OP. Rather than going through all clauses that need changing one by one, I've changed the bill to include a number of blanket replacement clauses (I will be providing the Speaker with a list of all changes that need to be made once the bill passes). The only two clauses that are exclicitly amended are the constitutional definition of citizenship and the RA, and the legal code clauses about the granting and the removal of citizenship. This has significantly shortened and simplified the bill, so I hope those who call it "complex" will now review it more carefully.

I have also made three more changes. I added a new implementation clause, to make sure that everyone who was previously blocked from the RA will remain blocked from citizenship. I renamed "legislatively-active citizens" into "Regional Assembly participants". And finally, I renamed the bill into something more appropriate. (I have not yet edited the title of the thread, to avoid confusion; I'll leave it to the Speaker to decide whether to rename the thread).
Click to expand...
Some say it may be long but I think its pretty easy to understand the end results of this Bill. However, I do think what concerns some who may call this bill a 'monstrosity' or those in oppositions is the fact that it opens up the Regional Assembly to all the Citizens in the Region. I too have abit of an uneasy feeling of completely opening up the Regional Assembly to all Citizens.

This Bill is a solution to what happened to Gladio when he missed RA votes, but I think that some have said they would prefer removing the requirement of being a member of the RA to hold/run for office; just being a citizen, however keeping the RA how it currently is. Doesn't that alternative provide a solution to avoid the situation with Gladio?
 
I may be dumb, or just heavily worked out, but:

- The Speaker's office will promptly remove any citizens who fail to post in The North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days.
- Regional Assembly participants will be those citizens who have voted at least once in the last 20 consecutive days or have not missed more than three consecutive Regional Assembly votes to enact, amend or repeal laws, as determined by the time they closed.
Click to expand...

While I understand that voting also means having posted, what happens if a given citizen hasn't voted in the last 20 consecutive days and/or missed 3 consecutive votes, but has been actively participating on the debate? Should both clauses coexist? is there a reason for both? or am I misundertanding it?

Honest question.
 
I made a further edit to the bill in the OP. This change eliminates the need for a term such as "legislatively-active citizens", "Regional Assembly participant", or other alternative. Instead, the constitution defers the specifics of quorum to the Legal Code, then the Legal Code clause is edited to avoid the need for a specific term. Any references to numbers of RA members and such formulae in the RA procedures can now be replaced by referring to percentages of quorum requirements.

Here are the changes the bill makes to the RA constitutional clause and the RA membership legal code clause.

1. Article 2 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
Article 2. Citizenship and The Regional Assembly

1. Resident means any person with a nation in the region of The North Pacific.
2. Registered resident means any resident who is present on the Regional Forum.
3. Requirements for membership in the Regional Assembly citizenship will be determined by law.
2. The Regional Assembly will consist of all citizens.
4. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.
5. The Regional Assembly may remove a government official from office by a two-thirds majority vote.
6. The number of votes required to achieve quorum for any vote of the Regional Assembly except elections will be a third of its membership determined by law.
7. The Regional Assembly will elect a Speaker every four months by a plurality vote.
8. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
9. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes.
10. The Speaker may appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. Appointment of deputies may be regulated by law and the rules of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
5. Chapter 6, Section 6.1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,
Section 6.1: Regional Assembly Membership Act Citizenship
  • Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific registered resident may apply for Regional Assembly membership citizenship, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:
I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for citizenship in The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
  • A copy of the laws applicants are pledging to obey must be available to them at all times.
  • An application for Regional Assembly membership citizenship ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared nation in The North Pacific nation is not located in The North Pacific.
  • Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly citizenship applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific.
  • The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
  • If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly will immediately hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection.
  • The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
  • The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
  • The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been accepted or rejected within that time, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly granted citizenship.
  • A Regional Assembly member citizen's vote will not be valid unless they maintain Regional Assembly membership citizenship for the entire duration of the vote.
  • The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of Regional Assembly members citizens.
  • The Speaker will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
  • The Speaker's office will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members citizens who fail to fail to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days; or who have not voted for 20 consecutive days and have missed four consecutive Regional Assembly votes to enact, amend or repeal laws, as determined by the time they closed. post in The North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days.
  • Regional Assembly members Citizens that have submitted a notice of absence, in accordance with any regulations set by the Speaker, shall be exempt from the provisions of the above clause for the stated duration of their absence.
  • The number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote is equal to one third the number of those citizens who have voted in a legislative vote at least once in the last 20 consecutive days or have not missed more than three consecutive legislative votes, as determined by the time the votes closed. A legislative vote is a vote of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal laws.
Click to expand...
 
Elegarth, the bill differentiates between "citizens" (the term used in the first part you quoted) and "Regional Assembly participants" (the term used in the second part you quoted.) The first clause you quoted deals with removal from the RA (which will be called citizenship after this bill), and the second clause deals with who counts for purposes of quorum.

See, since this bill removes the voting requirement to remain a member, it introduces the possibility that we have several to many RA members (citizens) who do not regularly vote. It makes sense to base our quorum requirements on the number of RA members (citizens) who actually vote on things, so that's where the term "Regional Assembly participant" comes in.

Does this make sense to you? I can elaborate more if you want.

EDIT: looks like I was ninja'd by an amendment from r3n.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top