Election Corruption Amendment

mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
I would like to propose that the following be inserted as Section 1.9 of the Legal Code as outlined below. I would like to thank COE for his assistance in drafting this bill.

Following some observations of the last couple of elections, I believe that this proposal will be useful in deterring candidates from offering positions within their administration or office in exchange for support. It will similarly hopefully serve as a deterrent to newer members, to remind them that it is not a good idea to vote for someone simply because they offer you a job. A blanket ban like this is easier to enforce than trying to demonstrate fraud.

I propose that it be punished in the same way as gross misconduct. That's all I have time for this evening, but I can expand upon this later if need be.



Electoral Corruption Amendment:
Chapter 1 of the Legal Code shall be amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1: Criminal Code

1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any resident for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code.

Section 1.1: Treason
2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.
3. Specifically, no player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.
4. At this time, there are no regions or organizations at war with TNP. At this time TNP is allied with Stargate, the South Pacific, Taijitu, International Democratic Union, Equilism, Europeia, Albion, The East Pacific, and Balder.
5. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against.
9. The Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against Europeia and Albion.
10. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.3: Fraud
11. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of residents with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.
12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Section 1.4. Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming
13. "Crashing" is defined as any unauthorized action which could cause a forum to go out of service or lose information, including the deletion of posts, the deletion of a forum, spamming, or any other act of such kind.
14. "Phishing" is defined as any attempts to gain access to off-site property controls or passwords by deception, especially by posing as administrators or moderators for any unauthorized use.
15. Phishing also includes the collection of personal information kept at the Forum.
16. "Spamming" is defined as any action by non-region nationals to waste space or cause shock on any off-site property or regional message board to make it unusable.
17. Spamming includes any attempts to force a DOS error on forums and any attempts to flood the RMB of a region which is not that nation's normal abode.
18. No Nation of The North Pacific may perform, order, condone, or accept as legal, Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming.

Section 1.5: Proxying
19. "Proxying" is defined as use of a proxy server to render a forum user anonymous or any practice which allows a member multiple accounts.
20. Forum administrators will inform the Government and Court of Proxying they observe.

Section 1.6. Adspam
21. Recruitment for other regions on the Regional Message board may be regulated or prohibited by Delegate Decree.

Section 1.7. Conspiracy
22. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.

Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct
23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

Section 1.9. Election Corruption
24. "Election Corruption" is defined as offering a government position or influence in the government in exchange for voting a particular way in an election.

Section 1.10 Exceptions
25. Exceptions for treason, espionage or proxying may be given to members of the military and intelligence services with the consent of the Delegate and the appropriate Minister when on officially sanctioned missions for the purposes of preserving regional security.
Click to expand...

Chapter 2 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows

Chapter 2: Penal Code

1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.
2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.
3. Espionage will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
4. Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming may be punished by ejection and banning, the removal of any and all basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit, and/or banning by forum administration.
5. Proxying may be punished by ejection and banning, the removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit, and/or banning by forum administration.
6. Adspam prohibited by the Delegate may be punished by adspam suppression and summary ejection and/or banning from the region.
7. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime.
8. Gross Misconduct or Electoral Corruption will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Why not? Most countries with elections have laws of electoral corruption, and so why not TNP? We're a real collection of nations! *Looks around at the insanity* (joke) Let's just shoo this in, because electoral corruption is bad. We're kind of real.
 
While IRL I despise cronyism, nepotism and the like, I am not keen on outlawing it here. If someone wants to play it that way, let them. Why criminalize something that will eventually bite them in the ass anyway?
 
But will it bite them, GBM? At least in time to prevent tragedy? There are numerous historical incidents where such things have led to civil war.

While such is much less likely in TNP these days than it used to be (remember what we had to do the last time an event such as this occurred [that i recall anyway]? The Crimson Order?), is not even the remote chance of acrimonious division amongst ourselves, whether it leads to an open coup or not, too great a risk? Can we afford such division? Yet again?

Remember, too, the division in the Order of Gryphons when Dali pulled off his successful coup of TNP? Supposedly 'chivalrous' (to be defined in its original sense) knights sworn to uphold the honor and ideals of the Order, as well as their own regional obligations, such as oaths of office, which Dali broke without apparent compunction?

These corrupt individuals will likely be in positions of power with nations beholden to them for their own stations. If they're the type to resort to such ethically questionable methods, how are we to know that they won't go even further to maintain their power?
 
I'm concerned with the enforceability of this, as well as the question of proof. People who would do this can easily be subtle about it, and I'm not sure what this will achieve unless your goal is simply to make it more publicly unacceptable than it arguably already is. I suppose that would be reason enough to do this, but I think that's the only realistic result of this passing.
 
I think it is important to let the region know that corruption is unacceptable and detrimental to The North Pacific's principles. Besides, Discord screenshots and tips to the Attorney General are bound to come out of this I assure you. It surely happens in elections in Virtual Congress. I don't see what would stop the tattling here. However, I will say it seems to always make the people more pessimistic about the governmental process and the elected officials.
 
Isimud:
But will it bite them, GBM? At least in time to prevent tragedy? There are numerous historical incidents where such things have led to civil war.

While such is much less likely in TNP these days than it used to be (remember what we had to do the last time an event such as this occurred [that i recall anyway]? The Crimson Order?), is not even the remote chance of acrimonious division amongst ourselves, whether it leads to an open coup or not, too great a risk? Can we afford such division? Yet again?

Remember, too, the division in the Order of Gryphons when Dali pulled off his successful coup of TNP? Supposedly 'chivalrous' (to be defined in its original sense) knights sworn to uphold the honor and ideals of the Order, as well as their own regional obligations, such as oaths of office, which Dali broke without apparent compunction?

These corrupt individuals will likely be in positions of power with nations beholden to them for their own stations. If they're the type to resort to such ethically questionable methods, how are we to know that they won't go even further to maintain their power?
Click to expand...
History shows us when nations engage in corruption at that level, they live on in infamy. We know they cannot be trusted. There is no sentence our courts can mete out which is equal to the punishment of losing the region's trust and respect.

A ruined reputation aside, promising jobs in exchange for votes is a lazy and inefficient way to campaign.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Isimud:
These corrupt individuals will likely be in positions of power with nations beholden to them for their own stations. If they're the type to resort to such ethically questionable methods, how are we to know that they won't go even further to maintain their power?
Click to expand...

History shows us when nations engage in corruption at that level, they live on in infamy. We know they cannot be trusted. There is no sentence our courts can mete out which is equal to the punishment of losing the region's trust and respect.

A ruined reputation aside, promising jobs in exchange for votes is a lazy and inefficient way to campaign.
Click to expand...

I can't entirely agree. Memory may be failing me, but didn't many of Crimson Order go on to assume additional positions of power?

Lewis & Clark fell out in the aftermath of the incident, but a number of others became delegates (JAL and Dali?), (deputy) ministers and other positions (Gracius Maximus, as he was Imhotep in the CO?).

On second thought, though, that was a brokered peace and rejoining. All were forgiven, methinks.

I'll go dig through the archives to verify some of the above, if no one else has a better memory than me.

As to that last: I agree that campaigning in such a manner is ill-advised.


Edit: added stuff.
 
Pallaith:
I'm concerned with the enforceability of this, as well as the question of proof. People who would do this can easily be subtle about it, and I'm not sure what this will achieve unless your goal is simply to make it more publicly unacceptable than it arguably already is. I suppose that would be reason enough to do this, but I think that's the only realistic result of this passing.
Click to expand...
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)
 
I would add to my earlier post that this provision does not simply cover positions for votes. It would also cover someone insisting on influence on the regional government in exchange for their support, or greater influence or access to another region or organisation in exchange for voting a certain way.

I believe that having this on the books will help to deter people from either making these promises in exchange for votes, or falling for these promises and offering up their support by way of votes. I don't see any downsize to this.

Great Bights Mum:
While IRL I despise cronyism, nepotism and the like, I am not keen on outlawing it here. If someone wants to play it that way, let them. Why criminalize something that will eventually bite them in the ass anyway?
Click to expand...

How can you be sure it will eventually bite them in the ass eventually? I don't think that's a reasonable approach to take to reviewing the viability of the law. If the law serves as a deterrent, that person may not play that way in the first place. Our community will be healthier for it.

We also criminalise gross misconduct and treason. Arguably both of those would bite them in the ass anyway. Does not mean it shouldn't be in the legal code, surely?

Pallaith:
I'm concerned with the enforceability of this, as well as the question of proof. People who would do this can easily be subtle about it, and I'm not sure what this will achieve unless your goal is simply to make it more publicly unacceptable than it arguably already is. I suppose that would be reason enough to do this, but I think that's the only realistic result of this passing.
Click to expand...

Given that offering cabinet positions in exchange for support has been a fairly common practice for the last few elections I have seen in TNP, I do not believe it is at all publicly unacceptable as you (Pallaith) suggest. Or at the very least, it is not discussed publicly.

This proposal is not intended to stop people from discussing potential options for their cabinet. If a candidate for Delegate wants to canvass the available options that would be fine under these arrangements. If I choose to endorse you for Delegate, and then you make me MoC that would also be fine.

What would not be acceptable would be offering the position in exchange for support; or berating someone who you've offered a position to into voting for you, based on that offer (i.e. change your vote, or you won't get that position). What would not be acceptable would be you offering me a position in Cabinet, on the condition that I publicly endorse you and vote for you. I think both of these things are worthy of preventing and would not be impossible to prove - particularly given that most of these discussions would occur through discord.

BMWSurfer:
Pallaith:
I'm concerned with the enforceability of this, as well as the question of proof. People who would do this can easily be subtle about it, and I'm not sure what this will achieve unless your goal is simply to make it more publicly unacceptable than it arguably already is. I suppose that would be reason enough to do this, but I think that's the only realistic result of this passing.
Click to expand...
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)
Click to expand...

In the situation you have outlined, I have already publicly endorsed you. You appointed me after you had won the election. You had not offered the job to me in exchange for support. There was no kind of corruption involved. Even if some random player thought there was corruption, they would need to be able to prove it to the Court.

In most cases, it would take the person offered the position to come forward. So, for example, if prior to an election you had said to me "McM I'll appoint you MoC, if you publicly endorse me and vote for me". That would be corruption, and I would take my screenshots and ask the Attorney General to press charges. That would be corruption.

Nonetheless, if you were running for Delegate and were at the very least semi-familiar with our laws. You'd likely know this was illegal and you'd hopefully not make such an offer in the first place.
 
This bill is viable, and I'd have to say that their delegacy would be found illegitimate by the general people, and therefore destabilized. You only hold the delegacy by the amount of people who are endorsing you. If people believe you are illegitimate, because you corrupted the system according to this amendment, then TNP could be made unstable. That's why this is required.
 
I find it disturbing if indeed cabinet positions have been exchanged for votes. It is an abuse of power and cannot be tolerated. I for one expect our leaders to serve the public, not act as power brokers. Isimud, I can also recall some past Delegates who wielded power in service to themselves. Such behavior is woefully disconnected from the spirit of our community.

Upon reconsideration, this proposal has my support.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Such behavior is woefully disconnected from the spirit of our community.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. However, I'm not sure criminalizing the practice is the best approach. There are a great many things I think elected officials shouldn't do, but I don't think all of them should be illegal.

I think I would lean more toward an RA resolution condemning the practice, with the intent to recall officials who engage in such behavior.
 
SillyString:
Great Bights Mum:
Such behavior is woefully disconnected from the spirit of our community.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. However, I'm not sure criminalizing the practice is the best approach. There are a great many things I think elected officials shouldn't do, but I don't think all of them should be illegal.

I think I would lean more toward an RA resolution condemning the practice, with the intent to recall officials who engage in such behavior.
Click to expand...
Taking the recall route is something I hadn't considered. Off-hand, my first concern is that it could bypass the courts in favor of a "Trial by RA." How would that work with regards to things like rules of evidence or witness testimony?
 
Great Bights Mum:
SillyString:
Great Bights Mum:
Such behavior is woefully disconnected from the spirit of our community.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. However, I'm not sure criminalizing the practice is the best approach. There are a great many things I think elected officials shouldn't do, but I don't think all of them should be illegal.

I think I would lean more toward an RA resolution condemning the practice, with the intent to recall officials who engage in such behavior.
Click to expand...
Taking the recall route is something I hadn't considered. Off-hand, my first concern is that it could bypass the courts in favor of a "Trial by RA." How would that work with regards to things like rules of evidence or witness testimony?
Click to expand...
Ultimately, it would come down to whether the RA feels that an elected official acted unethically, or otherwise is not deserving of the position they hold.

There's no standard of proof when it comes to recalls because the RA can really do a recall for any reason that it wants. An allegation doesn't have to be true to spark that.

I'm not terribly concerned about the recall process going awry - it would already be possible for someone to invent false allegations about an elected official to try to get them recalled, and that really doesn't happen. Our citizenry is generally honest, and I think it's also generally well-enough informed to distinguish fact from fiction if such an event did occur.
 
Recall does have a pretty high bar, and relies on 2/3 of the RA believing that the government official did something wrong enough to be removed from office. People who get elected to office here tend to be fairly well-liked - I can imagine plenty of situations where everyone agrees on what happened, but at least 34% of the citizenry are willing to forgive it because they like the official. The question is, should that official still be removed from office in that case? If so, criminalizing the action is the only option.

I'm not sure whether I can answer that question at this point, but it should be considered.
 
That's true.... but on the other hand, criminal conviction also has a pretty high bar and has, historically, been difficult to prosecute successfully.
 
Well, there's also an extent to which criminalizing something makes people less likely to do it - not necessarily that the threat of prosecution acts as a deterrent, but more that they just don't want to win an election by doing illegal things.

I may be coming around to this, but I wonder if it's too specific. Are there other similar actions, not necessarily all election related, that it would be useful to classify as "Corruption"?
 
I think that an elected official losing the confidence of the people he or she represents can be just as painful as a downright impeachment. This bill places emphasis on the wrongdoing that is offering positions for votes. I think it is important to point out that the Delegate would most likely appoint ministers that are agreeable with him or her which I can't say is a bad thing. This is definitely a separate matter from actually using positions as a bartering tactic for votes before the election has occurred.
 
Wonderess:
I think that an elected official losing confidence in the people he or she represents can be just as painful as a downright impeachment.
Click to expand...
I have to take exception here. I'm assuming that you mean 'losing the confidence of,' but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Someone willing to engage in bribery to gain their position wouldn't likely be overly concerned with this or, if so, would be engaging in some pretty blatant self-hypocrisy...not that that is uncommon, unfortunately, but seems to be less so here.

This bill places emphasis on the wrongdoing that is offering positions for votes. I think it is important to point out that the Delegate would most likely appoint ministers that are agreeable with him or her which I can't say is a bad thing. This is definitely a separate matter from actually using positions as a bartering tactic for votes before the election has occurred.
Click to expand...
I've never run for an elected office, aside from the SC many moons ago, but there seems to be a gray area here where a potential Delegate would sound others out concerning ministerial positions prior to being elected, so as to have everything in place upon election.
Would this be considered uncommon or even inappropriate?

I have yet to reread the appropriate laws, so am ignorant about any other such worthwhile posts and how they are filled.

Possibly corruption amongst the EC? Even then, they're typically proven individuals, to some degree, in addition to being subject to RA ratification, as well as it simply being too easy to verify their results. Unless voting by PM is still a practice, but that was never common even back when.
Is it still Eluvatar who initially vets possible members or is it a group decision? Eluvatar is beyond reproach in this regard, so far as I'm concerned, but I'm not so sure about others who have come into prominence since I was last here.
 
Isimud:
I've never run for an elected office, aside from the SC many moons ago, but there seems to be a gray area here where a potential Delegate would sound others out concerning ministerial positions prior to being elected, so as to have everything in place upon election.
Would this be considered uncommon or even inappropriate?
Click to expand...
I believe any discussion as such is in unsafe territory. A person should know they have been elected Delegate before they are to seek out ministers. I know in the real world this is not a bid deal, but with the electorate being significantly smaller in TNP, I believe using positions as bargaining chips to obtain swing votes is gravely damaging to the good will of the region.

Therefore: I think it is easiest to make it as straight forward as do not discuss ministerial positions with others unless you become the delegate-elect. Plain and simple.
 
I do not really agree with this legislation.

It has been part of TNP life since .... well, at least 2004 for potential candidates to sound out support before running and during campaigns, and to seek the support of able or influential TNPers to help bolster a bid. I have been sounded out many times over the years, and on at least four occasions that I can remember have been offered cabinet positions in return for endorsement.

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 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.
 
I agree with Flem on this, I don’t feel that this has a place in TNP law because I don’t see why it should be disallowed. If people want to sound out a potential cabinet to prevent a period of inactivity at the start of a term whilst a cabinet is being found then I don’t see why they should be stopped.
 
Isimud:
Possibly corruption amongst the EC? Even then, they're typically proven individuals, to some degree, in addition to being subject to RA ratification, as well as it simply being too easy to verify their results. Unless voting by PM is still a practice, but that was never common even back when.

Is it still Eluvatar who initially vets possible members or is it a group decision? Eluvatar is beyond reproach in this regard, so far as I'm concerned, but I'm not so sure about others who have come into prominence since I was last here.
Click to expand...
I can weigh in on this! We've taken some really good steps over the past few years to minimize the possibility of ECs mucking with elections.

The vast majority of election business is carried out in public. Most votes are public, and EC discussion areas (the discord channel and the subforum) are publicly viewable. Vote tallies must be certified by all ECs who are supervising a given election, and any EC may challenge the way a ballot has been counted. The EC as a whole must also vote to certify the election results. Additionally, any citizen may petition for a review of any decision made by the supervising ECs, and reviews would be done by the whole EC as well.

We do still allow private votes, and those have some additional controls. Any ballot submitted privately needs to have an ID number included. ID numbers are chosen by the voter. If anybody chooses a ballot ID already in use, they are told to pick a different one. This helps safeguard against ECs receiving multiple identical ballots from different voters and (intentionally or unintentionally) not posting them all. A private voter can verify for sure that their vote has been counted, and counted correctly.

A determined set of Election Supervisors could invent new ballots and assign them ID numbers, and unless someone's suspicions were raised causing them to question the legitimacy of those ballots, there's no explicit safeguard that would prevent that from happening at the time of an election. However, all private votes are retained, archived, in folders for the election in which they were cast. Any future supervising EC has the ability to go back and verify the results of a prior election, and any missing ballot would be cause for a thorough investigation.

The better guard against corrupt ECs is the selection process. ECs are appointed by the delegate and confirmed by the RA. Supervisors for any given election are selected by the Chief EC, who is themselves chosen by majority vote of the EC as a whole.

I think a whole lot would have to be rotten in the state of Denmark for widespread election tampering by the EC to occur.
 
Wonderess:
I believe any discussion as such is in unsafe territory. A person should know they have been elected Delegate before they are to seek out ministers. I know in the real world this is not a bid deal, but with the electorate being significantly smaller in TNP, I believe using positions as bargaining chips to obtain swing votes is gravely damaging to the good will of the region.

Therefore: I think it is easiest to make it as straight forward as do not discuss ministerial positions with others unless you become the delegate-elect. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...
I was curious so I did some digging into past election results, regarding the rates at which ministers appointed during a delegate's term had voted for that delegate in the previous election. Here are the results!

Term Starting in...[c]Delegate[c]Number of Ministers[note]This is the total number of ministers appointed during the delegate's term, not just those appointed right at the beginning.[/note][c]Minister Votes for the Delegate[note]This includes just yes votes. Any minister who is known to have voted for another candidate, or to not have voted at all, is counted as a no.[/note][c]Unknown[note]This is the number of ministers whose vote is not known. They may have voted privately, or may have not voted at all. I have attempted to contact as many of these as I could.[/note][c]% of Total Vote[c]Known % of Minister Vote[note]This is simply the ratio of voted for a candidate from their ministers divided by the number of ministers whose voting status is not known. January 2016 and September 2015 are almost certainly not 100% in reality, but many of those missing ministers can't be reached.[/note][c]January 2018[c]Gladio[c]8[c]5[c]0[c]56.86[c]62.50[c]September 2017[c]Pallaith[c]7[c]7[c]0[c]88.89[c]100.00[c]May 2017[c]Pallaith[c]8[c]7[c]0[c]55.88[c]87.50[c]January 2017[c]Plembobria[c]9[c]4[c]0[c]57.89[c]44.45[c]September 2016[c]Plembobria[c]8[c]3[c]0[c]55.84[c]37.50[c]May 2016[c]Lord Ravenclaw[c]6[c]5[c]1[c]97.92[note]This rate is somewhat anomalous, as was the election itself. Lord Ravenclaw benefited from an incumbency advantage, and another candidate dropped out mid-voting which caused the vote to be restarted. The only remaining other candidate got just one vote in the final tally.[/note][c]100.00[c]January 2016[c]Lord Ravenclaw[c]10[c]3[c]7[c]68.75[c]100.00[c]September 2015[c]SillyString[c]9[c]5[c]4[c]77.78[c]100.00

Note that this was compiled from a combination of publicly available election data as well as privately gathered supplemental information. I will not be sharing it publicly in order to respect the privacy of private votes.
 
This amuses me, as I'm definitely aware of two Delegates offering cabinet roles in exchange for votes in their favour, I was unimpressed then but I'm not surprised that others have become aware of it.

Ultimately, if a candidate is worth their salt and has TNPs well being at heart, they will not need to bribe people to support them.
 
Owenstacey:
I agree with Flem on this, I don’t feel that this has a place in TNP law because I don’t see why it should be disallowed. If people want to sound out a potential cabinet to prevent a period of inactivity at the start of a term whilst a cabinet is being found then I don’t see why they should be stopped.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, this doesn’t make it illegal to discuss your cabinet. It makes t illegal to offer someone a position in exchange for them voting for you. It would also prevent issues with people berating their cabinet choices if they decided not to vote for a particular candidate.
 
Thank you for the data SillyString! I believe this bill can only strengthen the integrity of our region and hold candidates accountable for under the table practices.
 
The election commission is empowered by the legal code to make rules regarding elections. Perhaps, if people are uncomfortable criminalizing this sort of behavior, we could pass a motion recommending changes to the EC rules, allowing election supervisors to disqualify candidates when these actions come to light. Naturally, such a decision would be challengeable by petition and/or court review, like any other decision of the supervisors.
 
I believe for that to work, the RA would also need to pass an amendment to the law allowing for such disqualifications.

I don't think I like that solution, though. Right now, the EC is a net positive democratic factor. It operates openly and transparently and ensure our elections are free and fair. Tasking it with disqualifying people from running for nebulous "corrupt" behavior - something that's probably hard to determine even in court - seems counter to our principles. Even though court review would still be open, that has the potential to significantly disrupt our election cycle.
 
I really don't think this is very enforceable. Or something I think is worth criminalizing. Also OMG at the level of cabinet solidarity I received. Look at how corrupt I was whilst in office. Remember how corrupt I was guys?
 
plembobria:
I really don't think this is very enforceable. Or something I think is worth criminalizing. Also OMG at the level of cabinet solidarity I received. Look at how corrupt I was whilst in office. Remember how corrupt I was guys?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I noticed that. You are the only delegate whose MVR (Minister Voting Rate) is a) less than your share of the total vote and b) less than 50% both times.

Good job getting dissenters into power, I think? :P Way to expand the oligarchy.

Anyway I'm definitely in agreement that it's not very doable to criminalize the discussion of ministry positions prior to an election being over. Since we don't really have a "position-elect" period, the delegate has generally announced their cabinet very shortly after taking the oath. That's a good thing! It keeps our government running smoothly, without major transition time. Blocking someone from selecting their ministers will only put a needless roadblock in place.

Also it'd be impossible to enforce and very possibly a violation of our bill of rights.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Just to clarify, this doesn’t make it illegal to discuss your cabinet. It makes t illegal to offer someone a position in exchange for them voting for you. It would also prevent issues with people berating their cabinet choices if they decided not to vote for a particular candidate.
Click to expand...
As mcm has pointed out at least time 2 times in this thread, we, self-inclusive, seem to keep missing the above statement(s).

That given, I, too, don't particularly care to have this crimininalized. GBM made a previous statement concerning the tarnishing of reputations of those who engage in such behavior. I disagreed at the time, but am coming around to that view.

As previously noted, both prosecutions and recalls can be very difficult to wage successfully. Perhaps some form of Wall of Shame? A public pillorying of a kind? Not an actual prosecution, but based on the evidence of screenshots made public.
I'm not yet familiar enough with TNP's laws to know if something in the Bill of Rights, or elsewhere, prevents such, but if not, this may be workable, imo.
 
Isimud:
As previously noted, both prosecutions and recalls can be very difficult to wage successfully. Perhaps some form of Wall of Shame? A public pillorying of a kind? Not an actual prosecution, but based on the evidence of screenshots made public.

I'm not yet familiar enough with TNP's laws to know if something in the Bill of Rights, or elsewhere, prevents such, but if not, this may be workable, imo.
Click to expand...

Nothing prevents embarrassing information from being made public, or being used to alter the public's opinion of an official, as long as it is all true. However, I think a defined "Wall of Shame" would be... questionable, even if not outright illegal, and encouraging a mob mentality of hostility against someone might increase the likelihood of another crime being committed (e.g., others may start stating as fact that the official is guilty of a crime, which could be fraud under our laws if that official has not actually been found guilty of that crime).

I think public ostracization is a useful tool in many cases, but not one that I want us to enshrine in our laws.

The RA would only need a simple majority to pass a statement of condemnation against an official who behaved improperly, versus the 2/3 majority required for recall. I think that's a better approach, if recall can't be achieved.
 
I wasn't speaking of making such a thing a law, but more of a procedural process directed at someone accused, with some proof, of this type of corruption.

Something like being required to replace their avatar with an image of a prisoner in stripes or the bars of a jail cell for a specified period of time.

Nothing, imo, inherently prejudicial in and of itself, but more of a reminder to others, as well as themselves that what they did is considered unacceptable, if not illegal.

But, you're correct: some may take that as more than it's intended to be. But would that be so bad? I'm not yet caught up with the current methods required for a recall, but this would certainly make it more likely to succeed, as it couldn't be so easily forgotten/forgiven.

I haven't yet made up my mind if my proposal is inherently 'wrong' in and of itself, hence the delay in making this post.
 
This thread fell away somewhat. I’ve realised that I now need to revive this.

The next general election is in January. It is a month and a half away. While we need to consider the future and should talk about it, we shouldn’t be jeopardising the present, our ideals, or the honour by which we campaign.

Already government officials are fighting to replace the Delegate before his seat is even cold - he is still sitting in it and trying to do his job. The whole government is supposed to be working.

Stop offering jobs for the boys in exchange for support. Just stop it. Do your damn jobs.

People hated the way Tomb campaigned to be Delegate many years ago and sadly I think some of his habits have become mainstream and have returned to us again and again.
 
Why has no one offered me a Cabinet position in exchange for votes yet?

I support this. Would you consider expanding it to including criminalizing offering a government position or influence in government in exchange for an endorsement/material support (sending PMs, telegrams, etc.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top