Election Corruption Amendment

I completely agree with this proposal. I have also heard reports of the same, and I think it’s pretty despicable, especially where this last election just ended a few weeks ago.

I think it’s clear that we need an anti corruption statute, and enforcing it under penalty of law will ensure that none of this back room dealing continues.
 
I struggle to see why this should not happen. NS is a political simulation, and part of politics is the art of the deal. It happens all the time in real life politics...
The real UN can be a bit of a bloated and toothless bureaucratic quagmire, but I don't think anyone would suggest NS as a whole turn the WA into that in the name of having a more realistic political sim.
If we have the opportunity to curtail this behaviour? We should take it.

...and I for one would much rather see up front who is supporting or endorsing a candidate. It helps me decide my vote if the candidate says "i have the support of Peter, Paul and Mary - and if i am elected Mary will be my MOC, Paul my MOFA and Peter my MOHA."

Where it might be dodgy is if people try to pretend that deals have not been made, or positions offered.
This would be ideal, but I think the problem is very much the latter example, where votes are being exchanged for Cabinet appointments in private with no acknowledgement from either party.

If a candidate came out and said "I have the support of Peter, Paul, and Mary and I think they'd make great Cabinet officials" then cool. That should be fine.
The problem is when Candidate X goes to Peter in private, offers him the MoHA for his vote, and then neither of them acknowledge the arrangement.

My concerns exactly. If I run for delegate and McM endorses me, then I turn around after getting elected and make McM the minister of culture, who decides whether its corruption or that its just that McM makes a good MoC? (For example)
Which brings me to BMW's great point here.
I'm all for the spirit of this proposal, but I think we'd need to hammer out what constitutes election corruption. To ensure that innocent stuff like this isn't criminalized. If we can legally define it as offering votes for cabinet positions in secret? Then I believe cracking down on that to be a worthwhile endeavour.
 
My position on this hasn’t changed, but I’m willing to support the proposal. I would also point out since Prydania is the latest to remark on this, that the proposal doesn’t ban discussing possible positions with people, which is not only common but incredibly important to setting up potential cabinets. It only restricts making appointments conditional on support and securing that support using the positions as leverage.
 
I agree in principle with the concept of the proposed amendments, but the level of factual evidence needed to prove certain transgressions would be nearly impossible, if not entirely possible under the mechanics of our system in general. Other changes need to be made to make our whole justice system more evidence based rather than based upon pure subjective feelings or political motivation.

For example, under our current system, any official can be successfully removed via the recall process for any and all reasons. If people don't like what a Delegate or any other government official does, or someone simply doesn't like a particular government official, someone can simply put removal of any official simply by initiating the proper legislative action. Now, this is corruption by definition - a system in which you have mob rule in which if enough people can be convinced that an official should be removed from office without any legal transgression of the legal code or constitution, or that enough people decide 'we don't like this guy, so lets recall him without any transgression of the legal code or constitution' being sufficient for a recall.

This is especially true in elections or corruption of elections. I am fully with GMB on her despising of cronyism and nepotism, but, unfortunately, that is how political systems work regardless of how the system is corrupted. cronyism and nepotism are indeed broad terms and not necessarily bad things, per se, unless it conducted with the intent to subvert the system (and that would be hard to prove and in most instances not even a violation of the legal code or constitution because that's how a democracy works - if enough people want to abolish the bill of rights, it can be legally and constitutionally accomplished - we have no constitutional restraints on peculiar legislation which would, for lack better terms, exempt someone by legislative act from the protections of the constitution).

Offering goodies and positions to people in return for their votes is the very nature of politics conducted by any astute candidate or politician and corrupt or not,that is how things work no matter what legal or constitutional restrictions you put on it because no one 'conspiring' in such arrangements would be crazy enough to incriminate themselves if such a practice was illegal.

The problem is, that with 'direct democracy' in absolute form, without the proper protections for the rights of individuals and political minorities, is eventually doomed to failure. I hate to use an RL example of this, but I think this quote shows how 'corruption' tends to work in pure democracies:


“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

― Alexander Fraser Tytler

At first, this quote might seem inapplicable to the NS/TNP world, but when you consider that power and influence is our form of currency and fiscal transaction, it applies perfectly.

One runs for Delegate or whatever; then one promises certain key individuals appointed positions in return for their votes and whomever's votes they can garner in return for supporting their agenda, it's potentially game over for democracy. While this particular flaw has never really expressed itself in TNP (where traditionally any rogue seizes power by brutally seizing the Delegacy), it is a method that is out there and very to implement in a system where whimsical public opinion can be whipped up by someone crafty enough to exploit the 'pure democracy' nature of our system.

So, if you are worried about corruption in elections, it is better to work on safeguarding against exploiting the actual system under which we operate. Think about it.
 
Question: What if someone insinuates but doesn't explicitly offer a position? How would that be classified under this law?
 
Question: What if someone insinuates but doesn't explicitly offer a position? How would that be classified under this law?
Insinuating things is very subjective, especially over text, where tone can easily be mistaken. While in general, I support what this bill is trying to achieve, I think it is worrisome in that gray area where Delegates may sound off future Ministers to build an administration. I believe that practice is acceptable.
 
Question: What if someone insinuates but doesn't explicitly offer a position? How would that be classified under this law?
I'm not really sure how you can insinuate a cabinet position in exchange for a vote, but regardless that would be a test for the court to interpret. There's only so much that you can define explicitly before it becomes a judgment call, which is the reason we have judges.
 
Insinuating things is very subjective, especially over text, where tone can easily be mistaken. While in general, I support what this bill is trying to achieve, I think it is worrisome in that gray area where Delegates may sound off future Ministers to build an administration. I believe that practice is acceptable.

Well, heck - go back to the Great Bight era and Pixidance Era and out various 'provisional governments' whereby entire coalitions that made it possible to regain control of TNP actually required that you position certain people in the government in order to get those individuals' support.

How many times have candidates for Delegate been asked in open forum during campaigns who they would want in their cabinet? For instance - any candidate for Delegate, if they are smart, already has in mind who they want to people their potential administration and if they are really smart they will talk to these people ahead of time to garner their support. In that instance, it isn't cronyism, it isn't really nepotism, but rather smart planning and campaigning. If you are running to be Delegate or any other position in which one can appoint people to various positions, you want people who will fulfil your agenda on they way there and once you get into office.

I suppose you could check such a situation by electing cabinet members, per se, but what type of administration do you end up with if a Delegate cannot choose whomever they want to execute certain offices in accordance to their agenda and programme?
 
There's a difference between, "If I am elected Delegate, I am willing to give you X position if you'll have it." and "I think you'd be a good X, however, it would be a lot easier for me to give you the position if you did Y."
 
Whilst I wholeheartedly endorse the principle behind this, I really don't see how this would be enforceable in practical terms - particularly how you drawn the distinction between corruption and the entirely legitimate activity of a candidate for Delegate building a coalition/cabinet before being elected, as Roman, et al have already said. To be honest, I would be concerned if a viable candidate for Delegate was not having conversations of that nature before the election!

I just don't know how you draw the line between legitimate activity along those lines and corrupt vote buying with patronage, and it isn't just the difficulty in enforcing it against those who do commit such acts - there is the potential pitfall that perfectly legitimate activity could also fall foul of this law.
 
One radical solution would be to require candidates for Delegate to publicly state who they intend to appoint.

Obviously, the cabinet-slated citizens would still be able to vote privately, but at least any campaign activity of theirs would be understood in full context.
 
One radical solution would be to require candidates for Delegate to publicly state who they intend to appoint.

Obviously, the cabinet-slated citizens would still be able to vote privately, but at least any campaign activity of theirs would be understood in full context.
That still seems pretty hard to enforce. Someone may genuinely not know, or may want to take applications after being elected, or may change their mind, or may deliberately announce false choices to try to induce those people to vote for them...
 
Back
Top