Citizenship Bill

Elegarth:
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.
Click to expand...
Ele, my apologies, I made a further edit to the bill before seeing your post. The quoted part has partially changed, though your question still applies.

The two clauses serve very different purposes. The first clause determines who is able to vote. The second clause determines the number of votes needed for quorum, by looking at the number of citizens that have taken part in previous votes.

In the scenario you describe, the citizen in question will be able to vote normally, as per the first clause.

EDIT: Posted this before I saw COE's response.
 
r3naissanc3r:
Democracy and Citizenship Bill
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.
Click to expand...
I think only the first clause here is necessary. The only time "registered resident" comes up is here:
Any registered resident may apply for citizenship, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:
Click to expand...
And applying for citizenship necessitates a forum account already. So there is no need for a distinction between "resident" and "registered resident." I think that second clause ought to be removed.

In addition, I think perhaps a less cumbersome definition of quorum may be in order. I don't have anything off the top of my head, but trying to hold onto the old voting requirements is proving to be a bit confusing.
 
Andrew:
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?
Click to expand...
If I understand your post correctly, you assume that everyone who is currently masked a citizen will magically be a member of the RA. This is not what is going to happen. To take part in the RA, everyone, including those currently masked as "Citizens" will have to go through the same procedure they do now: take the oath, be approved by the VD and admins, and confirmed by the Speaker. What changes is how they will be removed.

In that sense, we keep the RA how it currently is.
COE:
r3naissanc3r:
Democracy and Citizenship Bill
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.
Click to expand...
I think only the first clause here is necessary. The only time "registered resident" comes up is here:
Any registered resident may apply for citizenship, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:
Click to expand...
And applying for citizenship necessitates a forum account already. So there is no need for a distinction between "resident" and "registered resident." I think that second clause ought to be removed.

In addition, I think perhaps a less cumbersome definition of quorum may be in order. I don't have anything off the top of my head, but trying to hold onto the old voting requirements is proving to be a bit confusing.
Click to expand...
I have edited the OP to remove registered residents. I also changed the bill's title.

Regarding changing the quorum definition, I'd be open to that, though I consider it a change not related to the core of this bill. So, if other members think it'd be better left to a separate bill, I'd go with that.
 
r3naissanc3r:
Andrew:
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?
Click to expand...
If I understand your question correctly, you assume that everyone who is currently masked a citizen will magically be a member of the RA. This is not what is going to happen. To take part in the RA, everyone, including those currently masked as "Citizens" will have to go through the same procedure they do now: take the oath, be approved by the VD and admins, and confirmed by the Speaker. What changes is how they will be removed.

In that sense, we keep the RA how it currently is.
Click to expand...
Righto then. Thanks for clarifying :P
 
In case anyone is missing this bit: anyone in the "citizen" group would be considered a "resident" under this bill, and everyone in the "Regional Assembly" group would be considered a "citizen" under this bill.
 
I think it is inaccurate and potentially misleading to call someone who can't vote a citizen. Being able to vote is usually a defining characteristic of being a citizen.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Resident Aliens? A TNP "Greencard" / Passports? ..

kidding sortof
Click to expand...
All kidding aside, none of those would be appropriate because residents are not necessarily foreigners. Resident would be the most accurate term, since they reside in TNP and that is their legally defining characteristic.
 
r3n, are you open to including an amendment to the RA rules with this bill? That way the 1/10 immediate vote clause doesn't get forgotten and shoot up to unmanageable numbers.
 
I would prefer to keep the RA rules separate, so as not to add more ancillary changes to the bill. I intend to introduce the amended rules as soon as the bill passes (and if I forget, peope are more than welcome to nudge me about it :P ), so there should be no issue. In the interim before the rules are changed, the various formulae will work about the same as they do now.

I move we vote.
 
I have reviewed this bill carefully, going through each instance of replacing terms in the constitution and legal code, trying to foresee unintended effects or problems this might cause, or conflicts with the rest of the law as written. I have found no problems, and I give this bill my full support.

Democracy!
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I have reviewed this bill carefully, going through each instance of replacing terms in the constitution and legal code, trying to foresee unintended effects or problems this might cause, or conflicts with the rest of the law as written.
Click to expand...
You truly have no life at all.
 
r3naissanc3r:
I would prefer to keep the RA rules separate, so as not to add more ancillary changes to the bill. I intend to introduce the amended rules as soon as the bill passes (and if I forget, peope are more than welcome to nudge me about it :P ), so there should be no issue. In the interim before the rules are changed, the various formulae will work about the same as they do now.

I move we vote.
Click to expand...
This bill is now in formal debate. It will remain in formal debate for five days, after which a vote shall be scheduled.
 
flemingovia:
Crushing Our Enemies:
I have reviewed this bill carefully, going through each instance of replacing terms in the constitution and legal code, trying to foresee unintended effects or problems this might cause, or conflicts with the rest of the law as written.
Click to expand...
You truly have no life at all.
Click to expand...
That's as may be. Nonetheless, this is a strong piece of legislation.
 
Formal debate has been shortened to two days from when it was announced.

@plembobria: no second is required, as according to standing procedure only the expressed intention of the proposer (and naturally the Speaker's agreement) is required.
 
Formal debate ended some time back, this bill goes to vote after voting for the Vacancies, Absences and Successions Bill is over.
 
Given that the vote on the RA Warning Act ended and there is a free vote slot, why does this bill need to wait for the Vacancies Bill vote to end?
 
r3naissanc3r:
I think it is inaccurate and potentially misleading to call someone who can't vote a citizen. Being able to vote is usually a defining characteristic of being a citizen.
Click to expand...
Agreed, r3n. Full support to this resolution.
 
r3naissanc3r:
Given that the vote on the RA Warning Act ended and there is a free vote slot, why does this bill need to wait for the Vacancies Bill vote to end?
Click to expand...
The weird spelling bill goes to vote first, out of fairness (if not logic)
 
There's an implication that needs to be cleared up, somehow.

Since members of the Security Council are not required to maintain Regional Assembly membership, does the change in nomenclature mean that they would not be considered citizens if they are not members of the Regional Assembly, or whatever the terminology would be under this proposal?

Logic would suggest that SC members are clearly residents and citizens even if they choose not to participate in legislation and elections. I'm not sure that the changes proposed here is consistent with that principle, and not addressing this clearly in the bill may lead me to vote against or to abstain.
 
Grosse, this bill will not change the legal status of SC members. SC members who are currently RA members will be citizens if the bill passes, but they will not be required to maintain citizenship to remain SC members. SC members who are not currently RA members will be classed as residents if the bill passes, but will retain their SC status. If they would like to become citizens, they could do so without having to participate in legislation and elections, merely by applying, and then posting once per month after their application is accepted.
 
falapatorius:
The passage of the Voting Rights Act, could very well see a further dwindling of RA numbers.
Click to expand...
This is from discussion on the Bicameral Legislature bill, but I didn't want to drag that thread off topic by addressing this point, so I decided to post here.

How would this bill decrease the number of RA members? It's relaxing the requirements to remain a member. I predict that RA numbers will explode over the course of a few months after this bill is passed.
 
COE:
How would this bill decrease the number of RA members? It's relaxing the requirements to remain a member. I predict that RA numbers will explode over the course of a few months after this bill is passed.
Click to expand...
That's the potential flip side. But since a lot has been made about RA membership being an obstacle to participation, the Citizenship Bill makes it easier to contribute. Why join the RA when I don't have to? Like I've stated before.. I joined the RA for the right to vote. Without that requirement, who gives a damn about legislation? Leave that to the usual suspects.. ;)
 
falapatorius:
COE:
How would this bill decrease the number of RA members? It's relaxing the requirements to remain a member. I predict that RA numbers will explode over the course of a few months after this bill is passed.
Click to expand...
That's the potential flip side. But since a lot has been made about RA membership being an obstacle to participation, the Citizenship Bill makes it easier to contribute. Why join the RA when I don't have to? Like I've stated before.. I joined the RA for the right to vote. Without that requirement, who gives a damn about legislation? Leave that to the usual suspects.. ;)
Click to expand...
Who is Keyser Soze?

I think that even right now, quite a few RA members only vote 'reluctantly' to maintain citizenship. Looking through voting records could tell a thing or two. I guess that perhaps with voting no longer being 'compulsory', there could be more 'Get Out The Vote' kind of campaigns, maybe. Just speculation, but I think that it really is hard to speculate about the long-term consequences of the VRA until, say, about a few months or so.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
There's an implication that needs to be cleared up, somehow.

Since members of the Security Council are not required to maintain Regional Assembly membership, does the change in nomenclature mean that they would not be considered citizens if they are not members of the Regional Assembly, or whatever the terminology would be under this proposal?

Logic would suggest that SC members are clearly residents and citizens even if they choose not to participate in legislation and elections. I'm not sure that the changes proposed here is consistent with that principle, and not addressing this clearly in the bill may lead me to vote against or to abstain.
Click to expand...

Crushing Our Enemies:
Grosse, this bill will not change the legal status of SC members. SC members who are currently RA members will be citizens if the bill passes, but they will not be required to maintain citizenship to remain SC members. SC members who are not currently RA members will be classed as residents if the bill passes, but will retain their SC status. If they would like to become citizens, they could do so without having to participate in legislation and elections, merely by applying, and then posting once per month after their application is accepted.
Click to expand...

The original draft of the bill did include a change requiring all SC members to also be citizens. However, I removed that change as it was ancillary to the main purpose of the bill, and it merits its own separate discussion.

As COE said, the version currently at vote does not change anything with respect to the RA membership/citizenship status for existing SC members, besides the name of their status for those who are currently also RA members. I think that's rather straightforward in the bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top