JJ 4 Speaker

JhawnathinJ

JhawnathinJ

TNPer
Hello, I am JJ and I am running for speaker in the January 2014 General Elections.

Before you immediately announce on this thread that you don't have my support due to my previous campaign for AG, I think should take a moment to read this thread. Firstly, this campaign will be on a completely different platform than my former one. So I no longer believe in an oligarchy, and that will not be part of this campaign. (See: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7279868/3/#new)

I've been in the North Pacific for 6 months now, I am the assistant AG, and I am an active member in the RA. I have debated and proposed resolutions, as well as voted on them. I have been researching the Speakers Position for the past month, considering a possible run. I believe that as an active member of the RA, I am prepared to fill the duties of the Speaker of the North Pacific. You may ask why I didn't apply to be a deputy speaker before I started this. Well, I've been very busy with my position in the AG's office and with RA bills. But still, I will enforce my belief that I am experienced enough to fulfill theese duties.

My Thoughts on the RA:
_________________________________________

Current Speaker Olvern:

I think Speaker Olvern has been very beneficial for the RA, and citizens. He has fairly chosen when to begin formal debate for bills and how long that said formal debate shall last. My only concern with him is inactivity. In the last bill voted on by the RA(which I proposed) was set to pass because the Speaker had not closed the vote due to inactivity. It took three days after the vote should have ended for Speaker Olvern to close it. All votes casted after a certain date were discounted, and thus the bill failed. I find this a unfair to RA members.
_________________________________________

"Acceptable Votes" Issue:

I think this is nonsense. It should be very simple. Post "Aye", "Nay" or "Abstain" in reply to the thread, and we're done. have it written however you like, it just has to be in plain black text. A voting rationale is stupid as well. If I am elected, anybody who posts anything other than a vote in an RA voting thread will have their vote discounted.
_________________________________________

Waiting time for Formal Debate/Votes:

If elected, I would bring a bill to formal debate after 1-4 days, granted the proposer wants it to be in it, and granted the bill has enough actual debate in it. The length of formal debate will be up to 5 days. If a legislator wants to lower or increase that amount, they will have to PM me. I will review the request and grant it or deny it.
_________________________________________



Edit: JJ Has confirmed his candidacy.
 
Are you accepting questions?

If so, here's mine:
If elected, I would bring a bill to formal debate after 1-4 days, granted the proposer wants it to be in it, and granted the bill has enough actual debate in it. The length of formal debate will be up to 5 days. If a legislator wants to lower or increase that amount, they will have to PM me. I will review the request and grant it or deny it.
Click to expand...
How is this different from the current system, where a bill enters formal debate when the author moves it? What method would you implement to determine whether the proposer wants their bill to be in formal debate that is not them posting when they're ready for it to move forward?
 
Good to see the competition so early! :)

I'll respond to some things first before I go and hide:

1) Even if I did count the rejected votes for the BoR bill, the bill will still have failed.
2) Trust me, what may seem like the most obvious solution can bring up a lot of weird legal situations. Even the idea that the vote has to be in black was questioned before.
3) For the last bloody time, I have decided not to implement the 'voting rationale' nonsense. I know it was crap, so stop bringing it up.
 
SillyString:
Are you accepting questions?

If so, here's mine:
If elected, I would bring a bill to formal debate after 1-4 days, granted the proposer wants it to be in it, and granted the bill has enough actual debate in it. The length of formal debate will be up to 5 days. If a legislator wants to lower or increase that amount, they will have to PM me. I will review the request and grant it or deny it.
Click to expand...
How is this different from the current system, where a bill enters formal debate when the author moves it? What method would you implement to determine whether the proposer wants their bill to be in formal debate that is not them posting when they're ready for it to move forward?
Click to expand...
The author would have to request to move it to formal debate.
 
Since you're learning the ropes in the AG's Office (I presume), wouldn't it be logical for you to move up in that department? Not that you shouldn't run for Speaker though.
 
falapatorius:
Since you're learning the ropes in the AG's Office (I presume), wouldn't it be logical for you to move up in that department? Not that you shouldn't run for Speaker though.
Click to expand...
The thing is, the AG's office is not an active one. There have been an average of 2 complaints per term.

Besides, I have been more active in the RA then in the AG's office.
 
SillyString:
JhonsJoe:
The author would have to request to move it to formal debate.
Click to expand...
So uh... how is this different from the current system?
Click to expand...
The author would have to pm me, and he also gets a chance to request to shorten or elongate the time there is in formal debate or a vote.
 
1. A legislative motion is brought before the Assembly, and is in formal debate. an hour before it is due to go to vote, substantive changes are made by the proposer. Do you put it to vote?

2. You discover that, due to an error on your part, vote on a motion closed a full 24 hours early. Some people have voted after the vote was closed. What do you do? Do you allow those votes? Do you reopen the vote?

3. You notice that the Delegate has not voted in a number of Assembly motions, and if he does not vote in the current one, he will be ejected from the RA (with implications for the security of the region). There is only a couple of hours to go to the close of the current vote. Do you contact the delegate to try to get them to vote?
 
flemingovia:
3. You notice that the Delegate has not voted in a number of Assembly motions, and if he does not vote in the current one, he will be ejected from the RA (with implications for the security of the region). There is only a couple of hours to go to the close of the current vote. Do you contact the delegate to try to get them to vote?
Click to expand...
I would note that this is no longer an issue under the VRA.
 
Lord Nwahs:
flemingovia:
3. You notice that the Delegate has not voted in a number of Assembly motions, and if he does not vote in the current one, he will be ejected from the RA (with implications for the security of the region). There is only a couple of hours to go to the close of the current vote. Do you contact the delegate to try to get them to vote?
Click to expand...
I would note that this is no longer an issue under the VRA.
Click to expand...
Please answer questions put in your own campaign thread.

My question was in part to see whether JJ understood the implications on the office of recent legislation. You have spoiled that. Thanks.
 
flemingovia:
1. A legislative motion is brought before the Assembly, and is in formal debate. an hour before it is due to go to vote, substantive changes are made by the proposer. Do you put it to vote?

2. You discover that, due to an error on your part, vote on a motion closed a full 24 hours early. Some people have voted after the vote was closed. What do you do? Do you allow those votes? Do you reopen the vote?

3. You notice that the Delegate has not voted in a number of Assembly motions, and if he does not vote in the current one, he will be ejected from the RA (with implications for the security of the region). There is only a couple of hours to go to the close of the current vote. Do you contact the delegate to try to get them to vote?
Click to expand...
:bump:

Voting is getting close. Are you answering questions?
 
flemingovia:
flemingovia:
1. A legislative motion is brought before the Assembly, and is in formal debate. an hour before it is due to go to vote, substantive changes are made by the proposer. Do you put it to vote?

2. You discover that, due to an error on your part, vote on a motion closed a full 24 hours early. Some people have voted after the vote was closed. What do you do? Do you allow those votes? Do you reopen the vote?

3. You notice that the Delegate has not voted in a number of Assembly motions, and if he does not vote in the current one, he will be ejected from the RA (with implications for the security of the region). There is only a couple of hours to go to the close of the current vote. Do you contact the delegate to try to get them to vote?
Click to expand...
:bump:

Voting is getting close. Are you answering questions?
Click to expand...
Oh my. I'm sorry. I didn't check this thread in a while. Let me answer theese questions.

1. If the changes are completely different from what was debated by RA members, I will not put it to vote because RA members haven't actually DEBATED the proposal.

2. I will not allow the votes IF the bill's original duration was 24 hours early. If I misread the prewritten date, and closed it too early, I would be forced to count the votes by law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top