Amendment to the Election and Appointment Procedure

BluieGamer

BluieGamer

Resident Future Drug Maker
-
TNP Nation
Konar
Discord
Bluie Gamer#6287
Hello to everyone in the Regional Assembly. I am Bluie Gamer, and I propose the following amendment to the Legal Code, specifically in Chapter 4:

Section 4.5: General Elections
29. The election of the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, the Attorney General, and the Speaker will begin on the first day of the months of February, June, and October.
32. If no one gains a majority of votes in the runoff vote, the runoff process will be repeated until a candidate receives a majority.

Section 4.6: Judicial Elections
33. The election of the Justices will begin on the first days of the months of April, August, and December.
Click to expand...
Section 4.5: General Elections
29. The election of the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, the Attorney General, and the Speaker will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September February, June, and October.
32. If no one gains a majority of votes in the runoff vote, the runoff process will be repeated until a candidate receives a majority.[/

Section 4.6: Judicial Elections
33. The election of the Justices will begin on the first days of the months of March, July, and November April, August, and December.

We are all aware that our old forum had been put into considerable disarray following the forced conversion to Tapatalk. It was disabled while our august administrators scraped it for every last information to port over to the new forum, which is this one. As a consequence, the executive body of the government was severely impaired. I personally know that Home Affairs was sitting stagnant for the entire month or so during the forum transition. While some departments had tried to work around it by using Discord, it is undeniable that without the forum, our government had been slowed to a near standstill.

Therefore, I propose that we move the election dates back by a month. What this will mean is that our current officials will get an additional month in their terms, so that they can make up for the lost time. Since all the election dates will be pushed back, the election cycle will not be disturbed, and any subsequent elected officials will still serve a term of four months.

Also just a small nitpick, there is a small typing error that I think we can all agree has no place in our legal code.
 
Damn, you beat me to the punch. I was gonna propose something of the sort. Anyway, I don't see a problem with this \o/
 
I think this type of legislation is unwarranted at the moment. Yes we had a pretty big issue with the forums, yes it messed up the cycles, yes this upcoming term will be shorter than others. However that is no reason to change them going forward. We can have a simple return to normalcy when January comes. I think an election cycle starting in January is the best course overall.

Furthermore, I am avidly against June elections. *shudders*
 
This seems like purely a preference thing to me. Yeah, much of the government didn’t do much in September, but the offices still existed and to the extent that we could we still did our duties. This has mostly affected the ministries and the Speaker’s office. The court and the AG I wager would have had no business even if we had had the forum in September. We would be extending the terms of the elected offices by one month because we feel they got what, cheated during the transfer? I would argue that in my case I wasn’t cheated, I endotarted I did WADP I kept watch. Siwale voted in the WA, we still conducted votes for determining his vote, we participated in a game event, we’ve engaged in diplomacy, we still ran ops. Sure, our lives would have been easier and our jobs done better if we had a forum during September, but it’s not like we literally lost a month.

SillyString mentioned in Discord that this cycle would give a new government only a couple of weeks to prepare for Z Day. I care about Z Day and I think that’s an important concern, but if it’s the only one I don’t know if that’s enough to torpedo the idea on its face. That's why I would add that the activity of government slows a bit in December too because of holidays, and January is well known to be a slow period as well. Changing the cycle will put both of the slow months in the same term, rather than split them up (and give us a shot at boosting January with the new term initiative and the election).

I don’t really think it hurts to move the date because there isn’t really anything wrong with doing it, but there's also no real reason to move it either. This is a question of if you think this new cycle makes more sense, and if you believe that a more restrained month in a 4 month term means that you owe everyone in office another month as a result of that. I don't happen to agree that we do.
 
I am against this motion. Things happen if something major happens again in the future are we going to change it again? I prefer to keep it the same because of tradition but I can see people wanting to change it.
 
I am very sorry for not responding to your concerns, I know that I am mostly online, but I have not yet made it a habit of mine to check in on the forum. And honestly, I kind of forgot about this. But I am here now.

Thomas - actually, I think that it is enough reason to change them. Also, why are you against June elections?

Pallaith - in your case, you might not have felt cheated, but what about the the others? I'd wager at least one did. Concerning Z-Day, TNP as a whole can manage to do what we always do yearly. We already have a set system for what we do; having a different delegate should not impact it in a great way. Another thing, from my experience, I would argue that the summer months are slower.

Brendog - if something major happens again, yes, we change it again as well. Tradition is important and all, but so is change. Merely saying "it is TRADITION!" should never be enough to write off or oppose an idea, I feel.
 
Bluie...
I personally like this however looking at Pall's points, the Ministries have been working properly. Nevertheless if the Ministries do end up having new Executive Officers running them or anything like that, it would br nice.
If I saw anything wrong with this, I would probably still support this, especially the [/ part. We could always edit that in a new propose but I seek more than one small edit.
BluieGamer:
I move for a vote.
Click to expand...
I second your move to a vote.
 
I think our current election cycle is better than the proposed one. If a December election were to go to a runoff, the cycle would be getting awfully close to the holidays. Same with October and Z-Day. Plus, in the near term, changing the election schedule might create confusion around when elections are scheduled. I wouldn't give that point any weight if the new election schedule was better, but I'm not seeing any ways that it is.
 
I'm not sure I'm totally sold on changing the schedule of elections to accommodate the recent happenings, but I would definitely be fine with removing typos from our legislation. :P
 
So.... I just have to ask, why change Judicial election timing. No Judicial elections or terms were effected by the downtime so changing it is only for the sake of "CHANGE!".

Keeping something entirely over "TRADITION!" is stupid but so is changing something just for the sake of change.

BluieGamer:
Pallaith - in your case, you might not have felt cheated, but what about the the others? I'd wager at least one did.
Click to expand...

Unless you can produce one that will back up that statement, Don't make it. You are basically answering a serious comment with the equivalent of "Lets imagine that I am a right"
 
Last edited:
I imagine the point of changing the judicial elections would be to keep them evenly spaced between the general elections. TNPers go into election withdrawal if two months go by without some kind of election.
 
Personally, I prefer the simplicity of breaking the year into trimesters of 4 months. It's easier to remember that elections start at the beginning of the year, a third of the way through the year, and with a third of the year to go. Also, honestly, three of the races were won by those already either in or were acting in those roles. The only exception was COE who loses a month in an office that honestly hardly sees much activity. This proposal is just unnecessary. I'm against.
 
I'm sorry, I don't find your replies convincing. An abbreviated term is not a good enough reason to make this change. Tradition for the sake of tradition may be weak, but so is change when change isn't really needed. This sentient has been echoed by several in this thread. I also don't appreciate moving this to a vote when you just showed up again and replied to the other posts in here. It hasn't even been a day since you replied.
 
With the lack of a reason for the moving of Judicial elections. The motioning of vote happening right after answering questions.

I formally object to the scheduling of the vote.
 
I reverse my stance. The short term isn't enough to do it. The reason for my initial support was one more of personal convenience; I'm going to be visiting family right at the end of this year, and won't be nearly as active right at the start of when elections would normally be. Additionally, the change would move elections away from finals week in the spring, which is appreciated. That said, personal convenience does not supersede the fact that having consistent and predictable elections is in the best interest of the region.
 
No, he's right. I think it's early to motion for the vote but formal debate does give us a bit more time. Depending on how it goes, I will probably be okay with the eventual scheduled vote.
 
Formal debate has ended. The vote is now scheduled to commence Sunday at 11 P.M. CDT (48 hours from now).
 
Last edited:
As the author has failed to respond to questions and criticisms and has thus failed to take any of it into consideration in editing the final proposal. I object to the scheduling of the vote
 
Lord Lore:
As the author has failed to respond to questions and criticisms and has thus failed to take any of it into consideration in editing the final proposal. I object to the scheduling of the vote
Click to expand...
I also object, this was very speedy and have realized the truth, the Vice Delegate was spot was vacanted in the middle of the period between May and September. Did we extend Ghost's term? No, as such, I call for the author to answer questions or continue to fail to get this on the floor.
 
@Lord Lore @Dinoium and @bootsie have objected to the scheduling of the vote. The motion succeeds and is noted. In order for a vote to be forced through on this legislation, 6 (1/3 of the current quorum of 18) members of this assembly must move for a scheduled vote for it to go forward to the voting floor.
 
SOMEBODY CALL GREITBART NEWS!!! Delegate Siwale is attempting to remain in power past January!

But in all seriousness, I see the arguments here against the election changes, which largely boil down to a subconscious desire to preserve tradition. The tradition argument is incredibly flawed in nature and dangerous to our underlying democratic principles. TNP laws are centered around living documents with mechanisms in place to allow for continual adjustment to keep up with current times. I believe a month-long forum emergency does warrant a change and I would like to challenge some of the arguments being made in this thread to keep the current, entirely arbitrary, election dates:

Argument 1: A change in election dates is not warranted in this case

I would love to hear what catastrophic event would warrant a change in election dates then. Our forum was inaccessible for one month and the majority of government activity was halted, including a general election. I do not recall anything so detrimental occurring to our forum in TNP history (somebody please correct me if I’m wrong here). Bluie’s bill works to correct that downtime by allowing government officials their full term to carry out their agendas. What exactly does TNP have to lose by doing so?

Argument 2: The government was still in place during the forum transition. Therefore, everyone still got their full 4-month term.

Our regional government is forum-based and requires the forum for almost all government activities. When you look at the elected positions of Speaker, Attorney General, and Court Justice, their roles are strictly limited to the forum. Without the forum, no legislative activity could occur in the Regional Assembly or trials occur in Court. Therefore, these 3 positions were quite literally unable to do anything for a quarter of their term. When looking at the other 2 elected positions: Delegate and Vice Delegate, yes, you could argue that they were able to perform some functions during the forum downtime. But these responsibilities were strictly limited to gameside functions (WA voting, WA endorsing, FA interactions, and any gameside events).

Argument 3: An October General Election would damage to our regional response during Z-Day.

If everything goes right in an October election and there is no runoff (there rarely ever is), a new Delegate is appointed by the 10th of the month. In the case of an October election, this gives the new Delegate 20 days in office to prepare for this event (not to mention, they can begin informally planning for this before they are even in office). I fail to see how this is not an ample amount of time to prepare. Heck, I haven't even spent that much time preparing for Z-Day. Not to mention, the Z-Day leadership is largely consistent from year-to-year with the Delegate being the only real variable.

Argument 4: Changing the election cycle will put the 2 slowest months of the year (December and January) in the same term.

This is simply not true. NS statistics clearly depict that the slowest months of the year are July and August. Look at TNP’s population records if you are not convinced which demonstrate around a 25% drop in overall population around this time this year and the WA population following a similar trend. I would also like to point out that July and August are already in same term under the current election laws, and I’ve never seen anyone complain about it. Government officials go into the May term knowing what to expect and work through it.

Argument 5: A runoff for the December Judicial Elections would be awfully close to the holidays.

That same argument could be made for the current November Judicial Elections running close to Thanksgiving (in the U.S.). We can find issues with an election during every month of the year. For example, the January General Elections quite literally start on NEW YEARS DAY! Another example, for our U.S. college students out there, are the May General Elections which almost perfectly line up with Finals Week every year. The reality is no month is perfect, not even the months selected for our current election schedule. A change in our election schedule may even entice candidates to run who were otherwise busy during the current election months.

Argument 6: The current election schedule is easier to remember.

Our government does a pretty good job of announcing elections through a number of different strategies (e.g. Discord pings, Mass-TGs, Mass-PMs, WFE announcements, etc.). Regardless of what the elections dates are, citizens will have a hard time not knowing about them. Not to mention the dates are right in our legal code published both on the forum and on a gameside dispatch if anyone is ever inquiring.

Argument 7: Moving the election dates would set a bad precedent.

This is a very special circumstance. I can't imagine TNP will ever experience another forum emergency like this again. You could argue that people would try to alter election dates for more petty reasons in the future, but they wouldn't get very far.



I would also like to say that I am extremely disappointed to see the tactics being employed to stall a time-sensitive bill. If you don’t like the bill, just vote Nay when the time comes. It is uncalled for to attempt to deny the rest of the citizenry the right to decide on pushing back elections prior to the November elections. The bill has been on the table since October 6th, which has allowed everyone plenty of time to weigh in on it. In fact, the entire formal debate period was quiet! If the author intended to alter the bill in any way, he would have done so by now.

I move for a vote on this and encourage 5 others to do the same.
 
Last edited:
I fourth the motion for an immediate vote. While I doubt I'll vote for the bill, I agree with Siwale on the use of these objection tactics to kill a bill before it's put to vote. Such objections are called objections "to the decision of the Speaker to schedule [a vote]" because they're meant to be objections to the Speaker's actions, not to the author of a bill or the bill itself. While it is unfortunate indeed that BluieGamer has not responded to the arguments from the opposition, all one has to do is vote Nay if they are not convinced that the bill should be passed.
 
Might not end up voting for, but I seventh the motion for a vote. I'm with Darc's line of thinking.
 
Why is the vote not going up now? We have moved for an immediate vote, as per clause 1.4 of the RA rules: "the Speaker must schedule a vote on that proposal to begin as soon as permitted by law."

Is there any reason the Speaker is currently prohibited by law from opening voting?

Edit: Also, the original proposer of the bill has yet to motion for an immediate vote, so it shouldn't be considered valid at all yet.

Edit #2: Praetor mentioned on Discord that Bluie has motioned for a vote, just before the objection occurred. Since clause 1.4 only requires motions to vote, I guess that counts? Up to the Speaker to interpret I suppose.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top