Legal Code Amendment: WA voting

falapatorius

falapatorius

TNPer
Given our current Delegate's predilection to vote their own viewpoint on WA proposals, this amendment may be worth considering.

I propose that:

TNP Legal Code:
Section 7.5: World Assembly Voting
28. The Delegate may vote on all World Assembly (WA) resolutions as they see fit, using any method to determine their vote as they decide.
Click to expand...
be amended to:

proposed LC amendment:
Section 7.5: World Assembly Voting
28. The Delegate will vote on all World Assembly (WA) resolutions in accordance with the expressed majority opinion of North Pacific residents, either by regional poll or official TNP WA Affairs forum vote.
Click to expand...
 
So, we elect a Delegate to serve as both a forum and in-game Delegate but can't let them decide what choice is best for the region? Yes, we'd hope that whatever the Delegate chooses is best for the region, but as the in-game portion of the World Assembly is one of their duties, I think it would be hindering them to force them to vote in that way. However, if you believe the Delegate is going against the WA vote to which you think they should follow, then elect a new one that will vote according to the WA vote on the forum.
 
Bootsie:
So, we elect a Delegate to serve as both a forum and in-game Delegate but can't let them decide what choice is best for the region?
Click to expand...
Seriously? You should look up democracy. You can allow Raven to choose what's best for you, but I'd rather have some say in the matter.
 
I have voted freely twice, I believe.

Most curious. The Delegate is charged with executing Foreign Policy, which the WA is part of. You may as well remove the Delegate's ability to actually appoint their own officials.

Either way, while you may dislike the fact that I can vote however I choose, you had the ability to decide on whether I was fit to be Delegate: several times in the last election which ended just over a week ago.
 
I think tying down the Delegate to a specific method (or two) is not ideal. Don't want them constantly flip-flopping. A bit of discretion usually never hurt anyone, which is why most regions don't tie down their Dels.

Generally, I agree that the Delegate should vote in accordance with majority wishes. A Delegate which regularly does not do that should be voted out of office. However, there are exceptions, such as if there is stacking, especially when it would be contrary to TNP's FA.
 
I am in favor of leaving WA voting as the Delegate's prerogative.

Also, the proposed wording would have the Delegate running afoul of the law should he accidentally miss a vote. Is that something we want?
 
I am broadly in favor of the Delegate voting in accordance with popular opinion, but I think it is important to make exceptions for questions of regional security or foreign or military policy - the Delegate should not vote to condemn an ally, for example, nor should they be forced to vote for/against a liberation if it runs counter to the NPA's strategy for a certain operation, and so on.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
Either way, while you may dislike the fact that I can vote however I choose, you had the ability to decide on whether I was fit to be Delegate: several times in the last election which ended just over a week ago.
Click to expand...
Right, I didn't vote for you in either election. WA voting was a minor reason for that though (at least until now).

Silly String:
I am broadly in favor of the Delegate voting in accordance with popular opinion, but I think it is important to make exceptions for questions of regional security or foreign or military policy - the Delegate should not vote to condemn an ally, for example, nor should they be forced to vote for/against a liberation if it runs counter to the NPA's strategy for a certain operation, and so on.
Click to expand...
Good point. I'll try and address that concern, as well as GBM's point too. I'm a bit busy in RL atm, but I'll work on it when I can. I agree SC proposals are fraught with potential political/military implications, but GA proposals.. not so much. I'll keep those differences in mind.
 
I wasn't aware that opposing resolutions presented by specific individuals and lying to other regions was an official foreign policy of TNP. Good to know.

That said, I see no reason to mandate that the Delegate must vote according to a set procedure. I personally would prefer that the Delegate set a procedure him or her self and stick to it, but that is not the same thing.
 
falapatorius:
Seriously? You should look up democracy.
Click to expand...
Democracy means we have the opportunity to regularly elect a representative to govern on our behalf. It does not mean holding a plebiscite on every issue and turning the delegate into a manager who simply does what he is told to do.

Turning TNP into a direct democracy would mean a very different form of government for the region.
 
I like the delegate's ability to make their own decisions. To me if the populace don't like what the delegate is doing, elect someone else.
 
flemingovia:
Turning TNP into a direct democracy would mean a very different form of government for the region.
Click to expand...
And I wonder if that change would be considered a step "forward" or "backward".
 
Over the years TNP has vested a greater or lesser degree of direct power in the Delegate. At one point we elected a separate official who held all the "power" and the delegate was pretty much a figurehead. So in some ways it would be a step back.

personally, I think that at the moment we have the balance about right and I am loath to change things.
 
SillyString:
I am broadly in favor of the Delegate voting in accordance with popular opinion, but I think it is important to make exceptions for questions of regional security or foreign or military policy - the Delegate should not vote to condemn an ally, for example, nor should they be forced to vote for/against a liberation if it runs counter to the NPA's strategy for a certain operation, and so on.
Click to expand...
:agree:

It is also my opinion that voting on WA matters should be restricted to nations who maintain a WA nation in the North Pacific or are actively serving with the NPA. Resident is too broad.

I think with a matter such as this it is better for the Delegate to hold discretionary power. If they act seriously against the wishes of the people, or don't hold any votes they can be challenged and recalled if it comes to that. That said though, the last Delegate who didn't hold regional votes was BWII as far as I can recall, and since then votes have been held without significant issue.
 
Gracius Maximus:
I wasn't aware that opposing resolutions presented by specific individuals and lying to other regions was an official foreign policy of TNP. Good to know.
Click to expand...
Well, as distasteful as that might be, at least it displays a semblance of foreign policy. Something that has been decidedly lacking of late.

On topic:

I note a broad reluctance to change the LC on this matter. However, I am heartened to see that 2 former Delegates (Silly and McM) favor an inclusive and informed procedure when it comes to WA voting. :yes:

I'll shelve this proposal for now. Withdrawn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top