Amendment to the Election and Appointment Procedure

Darcania:
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.
Click to expand...
Valid point. I will await Bluie's motion. At the time that I see he has joined the motion the vote will open.
 
I object to the decision to cancel the override of the objection to the decision to schedule a vote.

BluieGamer:
I move for a vote.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine:

Regional Assembly Rules:
4. If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote, including the citizen that introduced the proposal to the Regional Assembly, motion that a vote should be held on a proposal before the Regional Assembly, then the Speaker must schedule a vote on that proposal to begin as soon as permitted by law.
Click to expand...
 
Wonderess:
Valid point. I will await Bluie's motion. At the time that I see he has joined the motion the vote will open.
Click to expand...
See second edit, looks like it went up before you posted.
Darcania:
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.
Click to expand...
 
I disagree with Siwale’s characterization of the objection as a tactic to shut down the vote. I echoed the objection because the debate was in progress and the author did not offer a response. I don’t agree with using procedural tactics to defeat bills, I believe in voting against them, and I assume most of the objectors felt the same way.

I continue to disagree with the idea that there is something that needs to be corrected here. I find more traction in the arguments about why this schedule is better than status quo, because I see this as a preference argument. I have been active here a while and I stand by my (albeit anecdotal) statement that the months I highlighted have been slow previously. Well probably be fine regarding Z-Day, but it would be unfortunate if the election was extended and we were out on awkward footing. I feel like the existing infrastructure will cover things, especially if that term is a delegate’s re-election.

People who serve in government do so for our region’s benefit. You know how the forum emergency thing is a one time thing? That’s true, and that’s why this change isn’t necessary, because the people serving in the shorter term haven’t actually lost anything. They stepped up to serve and they did, and an emergency happened and altered part of that term. It probably won’t happen again, and life will go on, and the January cycle will happen as always. If we change it, it should be because we decide the schedule ought to be changed, not because we owe anything to our public servants. And it’s my personal preference to leave things be.

And for the record, not that my input is needed at this point, but I don’t mind the vote proceeding. If the author doesn’t feel the bill needs to be defended further, so be it.
 
No amount of extra time would change the fact that the author just will not defend their own bill - if they never responded to outstanding debate points during the entirety of the formal debate they moved for, then at that point they've sent the bill out to die, and we should oblige so we can end the (lack of) debate and move on.
 
Darcania:
No amount of extra time would change the fact that the author just will not defend their own bill - if they never responded to outstanding debate points during the entirety of the formal debate they moved for, then at that point they've sent the bill out to die, and we should oblige so we can end the (lack of) debate and move on.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree, in case that wasn’t clear.
 
Siwale:
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.
Click to expand...
I love how you answered all points but yet my point was STILL ignored.


There is no point in changing Judicial Elections. Judicial Terms were not effected by the downtime and therefor should not be touched. To change them entirely on the basis "Well we are changing the other elections so we much change all elections" is as stupid of a reasoning behind "We must always keep it the same because of TRADITION". You can't lambast people for wanting to keep it the same cuz it has always been that way and then provide no real reasoning behind changing something else.

But I applaud your creating of a criticism that was not made and answering that instead.


I would also like to add that you calling my legitimate concerns a "stall tactic". I am begging the author to respond to questions and remarks I have about his bills and I have been met with a disrespectful silence. I am disappointing in the author of this bill waiting almost a week to answer ANY questions at all and then rushing a motion to vote before anyone can have a chance to even read his remarks and then IGNORING anyone that asks questions or raises concerns after the Author themselves motioned for the vote and triggered a formal debate.

You know why the formal debate period was silent? cuz we all said our concerns and the author refused to respond. You can't have a debate if one side comes to the table and the other is hiding out in a cave and refuses to speak!
 
Last edited:
Bluie Gamer said s/he would respond to the concerns of the Amendment proceedings, but has an exam to study for and take, which is why s/he hasn't yet responded.
 
El Fiji Grande:
Bluie Gamer said s/he would respond to the concerns of the Amendment proceedings, but has an exam to study for and take, which is why s/he hasn't yet responded.
Click to expand...
If they knew they did not have any time in the period they wanted formal debate to start, then they shouldn't have motioned for a vote. Because all that did was silence any debate as one side asks questions and raises concerns and are met with nothing but silence.
 
Lord Lore:
If they knew they did not have any time in the period they wanted formal debate to start, then they shouldn't have motioned for a vote. Because all that did was silence any debate as one side asks questions and raises concerns and are met with nothing but silence.
Click to expand...
I must agree as this silence has become deafening. Such that the current delegate stepped in to defend conveniently as the original proposer disappears. This proposal was blatantly rushed to vote in order to avoid proper criticism and letting such happen would be an embarrassment to the RA.
 
Lord Lore:
If they knew they did not have any time in the period they wanted formal debate to start, then they shouldn't have motioned for a vote. Because all that did was silence any debate as one side asks questions and raises concerns and are met with nothing but silence.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending their actions (or lack thereof), I just figured I'd pass that news along.
 
Well we may not have the actual author but plenty of proxies so the author may deign to speak with us indirectly at least. :P
 
I cannot apologize enough for the grievances I have caused you all. I did not expect this much attention to be given to the bill. I cannot give any excuse for my silence, for even to my ears they sound weak. Nevertheless, I am here to give my response.

Pallaith - it has been shown statistically that the July - August period is actually the lull in TNP's activity, but you are free to keep believing otherwise. To say that the people serving did not lose anything is incorrect. Losing the forum forced much of our government to stop, or at least to slow down considerably. And it's exactly the fact that they are public servants that stepped up to serve that means that we owe them what they signed up for: four months to carry out their agendas.

Lord Lore - I will retract that statement about wagering an executive official feeling that they were cheated. There is a point to changing the judicial elections. The court was rendered nonfunctional without the forum. It also lost a month of its time, like the government. It only makes sense to adjust the judicial elections as well.

Dinoium - When the special VD elections were held, those who ran did so knowing that they would not get a full term. Unlike those who were elected during the regular elections, where they were promised a full term. As such, it was not necessary to extend Ghost's term for that reason.

Siwale - Thank you, Siwale, for being able to give voice to my thoughts.

I see no reason to change my proposal. Let us get this over with. I motion to open the vote.
 
I really can’t folow your argument here. The forum emergency happened in the middle of voting. Everyone who was elected to serve until the end of that election served the entire length of their term. They didn’t lose anything, and in fact got an extra month. You pointed out that the special election for VD wasn’t a problem because all the candidates knew we would be elected to a short term. This is also true for everyone who ran for office in the September election when it restarted - clearly it didn’t escape anyone’s notice that the election happened in October and the next term would be shorter than usual. What did we lose, what was taken from us? We all knew what we were signing up for.

I don’t believe I or any other elected official needs the RA to accommodate me because of a one-off event that we all had to deal with. I guess in the end it’s just going to be one of those things where we see things differently. I don’t think we’re owed a do-over month, especially me and Siwale, since we were incumbents and got an extra month last term because of the delayed election. As I already said, our jobs were slightly harder but we could still do them. Many ministries got gummed up and were most affected by this, but they’re appointed by the Delegate and not guaranteed any particular term of service anyway.
 
I also don't think we citizens of TNP owe our elected officials an extra month. I don't buy the argument that time was stolen from these terms. That said, I agree with Siwale's election schedule argument. From a personal perspective, pushing back the elections one month would really help me out. It would give me the peace to rest over the holidays and the focus to study for exams. I'm still on the fence, but I'm thinking of voting For.
 
The North Pacific has had a number of different election calendars in its history of scheduled elections.

The 2005-2007 calendar was February, May, August, November, electing a Delegate (and later Vice Delegate,) several Ministers including a Prime Minister, a Speaker, and a Security Council to authorize or review official actions related to regional security.

An extraordinary election occurred in December 2007 following a drawn-out process on adopting a new constitution, and a new calendar was adopted in January 2007 for a new calendar of general elections in January, May, and September and judicial elections in April and October.

The Judicial election calendar was changed with the adoption of our current Constitution in August 2012 to have 4 month terms with elections evenly distributed against general elections: March, July, and November. To suit this change, the then-current judicial term which was to end in October was extended to November.

It is worth noting there was a failed proposal in 2013 to abolish the calendar and have terms last 120 days instead.

There is no particular reason to retain the January, May, September / March, July, November calendar specifically. It has served our region for just over 6 years which is not that long in the grand scheme of things, and even if it had served us for twice as long it would always be something the region can choose to change.

However, I think there is value to having a consistent calendar, and I don't personally think the (enormous) delays we saw recently necessitate an adjustment. As has been pointed out, terms are not something the region owes its members as due desserts for winning, but a time for which our members volunteer their service.

Further, I think that if this proposal had been intended to affect the November Judicial Elections it should have been pursued with a greater sense of urgency from the get-go. Rescheduling an election 4 days or less before it is scheduled to begin is something to be avoided.

Finally, I feel I may be biased because I feel personally responsible for the loss of September. The permanent change in election calendar would really bring that home. Therefore I will personally abstain.
 
Eluvatar:
Finally, I feel I may be biased because I feel personally responsible for the loss of September.
Click to expand...
If you feel responsible for it I am more responsible for it for deleting my account with no warning in the middle of the forum move.

I wouldn't feel too bad about it - I can't speak for others but the way I see it I appreciate the work you and the others did getting our new forums up and running as well as you all could considering the circumstances. It is Tapatalk's fault for us losing September, not yours or anyone else's.
 
BluieGamer:
Lord Lore - I will retract that statement about wagering an executive official feeling that they were cheated. There is a point to changing the judicial elections. The court was rendered nonfunctional without the forum. It also lost a month of its time, like the government. It only makes sense to adjust the judicial elections as well.
Click to expand...

You do realize how little goes on in the court right? In last two terms we have had a grand total of 3 actions. One of which wasn't even heard by most of the elected justices and included two THOs, one of which was retracted and the other rejected before it could even be heard. The lose of a month of "activity" isn't really a credible reasoning behind changing the judicial elections. Especially since NO elections were disrupted for the court.


I mean I could understand if we were in the middle of an important R4R or criminal case and the move disrupted it. But that just isn't the case. And the fact that people weren't beating down the doors of the court room filing floods of R4R or etc shows that we really didn't miss anything from our term.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top