Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to the NDU's forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll not only be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls, but you'll be able to enjoy the rights as citizens, such as voting on the RMB. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
The Typhlochactas Reform Act (Part II) Discussion
Topic Started: Aug 15 2012, 05:20 AM (256 Views)
Birkinghamia
Member Avatar
Founder
Quote:
 
The Typhlochactas Reform Act (Part II)
Written by Typhlochactas


Article I

Section I: The motto of the region shall be changed from ''Libertatis Omnium'' to ''Allons-Y''.

Section II: The entirety of Section B of CDADA (Congressional Debate and Deliberation Act) shall be repealed.

Section III: The Founder shall choose one citizen every month to be the ''person of the month'', and their name shall be displayed in the World Factbook Entry for the remainder of their time as person of the month. The Founder must choose a different citizen each month.

Section IV: A Senator who fails to vote on at least three bills shall be immediately recalled. A representative may, if on vacation or extremely busy, tell the Speaker of the House that they will be inactive. This means that they must abstain on the next three proposals, with no exceptions.

Section V: Every Senator shall be required to open a Forum thread, so that the citizens of the region may ask them questions about their actions and votes. All questions should be answered in a timely and formal manner.
Edited by Birkinghamia, Aug 15 2012, 05:34 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I meant WFE, not RMB.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Birkinghamia
Member Avatar
Founder
Leiurus
Aug 15 2012, 05:31 AM
I meant WFE, not RMB.
Fixed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Minecraftia
Member Avatar
Former Title-Bearer of Terronia
I'm kinda critical on Section I and IV. First of all, what kind of a motto is "Allons-Y!"? And what if they can't get on for two weeks cuz they had surgery, like Wiggle?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commonwealth

I completely agree with minecraftia about section IV.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Minecraftia
Aug 15 2012, 04:07 PM
I'm kinda critical on Section I and IV. First of all, what kind of a motto is "Allons-Y!"? And what if they can't get on for two weeks cuz they had surgery, like Wiggle?

Did you even read the whole section?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
Here's my problem with Section IV:

Firstly, if voters don't like an inactive Senator, vote them out, or recall them following the current procedures. I mean, think about it. Today, we have five proposals up for vote... If I didn't get on today, I'm recalled. That's not very equitable. Even if we exclude embassy proposals, it's entirely reasonable to have three bills in two days. And I'm sure some people might have a situation where they're inactive for two days, but people still approve of them. Again, let the voters decide what a Senator needs to do and how active he needs to be.

That aside though. Say I tell the Speaker I'll be inactive. I'm not on for a week. During that time, one proposal is voted upon. Then I come back. I am now ineligible for the next two proposals. That's not fair at all. So for being inactive, I don't get to vote when I'm there? I think it should just be you're ineligible for the period you'll be inactive... Although I think the whole section should be removed. But if the first remains, I would have to see the second clause modifies.
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Welsh Cowboy
 
Firstly, if voters don't like an inactive Senator, vote them out, or recall them following the current procedures. I mean, think about it.


This isn't about the popularity of a Senator. It's about Senators not voting on bills.

Quote:
 
Today, we have five proposals up for vote


Rare, isn't it?

We actually only have three things to vote on, presently. One of them is an embassy request, the other two are bills. The Military Creation Act has been on the table for two months, so it doesn't count. It should have been voted on a long time ago. The other two are being voted on now, but they've been up for about a week since I wrote up up the Reform Act.

I'm failing to see how any of these bills would come as a surprise to a Senator.

Quote:
 
If I didn't get on today, I'm recalled.


That's just factually incorrect. You have more than one day to vote on a bill. That's something we've had for a while, as a courtesy.

Birkinghamia already said he would extend the time for voting anyways, so I don't see where you get the impression that you have to vote on a bill the day it's proposed.

Quote:
 
And I'm sure some people might have a situation where they're inactive for two days, but people still approve of them. Again, let the voters decide what a Senator needs to do and how active he needs to be.


It's not about the voters. It's about making sure that our Senators are actually voting on bills, which is their job. It's efficiency.

Welsh Cowboy
 
That aside though. Say I tell the Speaker I'll be inactive. I'm not on for a week. During that time, one proposal is voted upon. Then I come back. I am now ineligible for the next two proposals. That's not fair at all.


The point of forcing them to abstain is to prevent a loophole from being used. If we didn't include it, any Senator could just say they're inactive and wouldn't have to vote, even if they truly are active. It would basically allow every Senator to claim inactivity and the entire point of the law would be destroyed.

Now, if we force abstanation for the next three bills, then you can't just fake inactivity to prevent a recall. It's stopping you from claiming inactivity and then voting anyways, because you don't get to vote the way you want to for the next three bills. We have to make sure our Senators are truly inactive.

Quote:
 
So for being inactive, I don't get to vote when I'm there? I think it should just be you're ineligible for the period you'll be inactive...


This means that I can just tell Birk I'm inactive, and I won't have to vote at all, even if I truly am active. It can be very easily abused.



I have to observe that Welsh seems fine with taking the most absurd situations and then uses it to justify a general principle.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Minecraftia
Member Avatar
Former Title-Bearer of Terronia
Leiurus
Aug 15 2012, 04:55 PM
Minecraftia
Aug 15 2012, 04:07 PM
I'm kinda critical on Section I and IV. First of all, what kind of a motto is "Allons-Y!"? And what if they can't get on for two weeks cuz they had surgery, like Wiggle?

Did you even read the whole section?
Yep. But what if there's more than three bills/proposals? The section only said to abstain on the next three proposals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
Leiurus, there's actually four embassy Requests. So there's five things up for a vote....

And a Senator's job isn't to vote on bills,it's to represent DUAN's people. And I'm saying that if voters don't like a Senator's job, they vote them out or recall them.

Take a scenario (which isn't truly that outlandish): I haven't voted for three bills. So I get recalled, when no one in the region supports it? That's not democracy at all. Let the voters decide what a Senator needs to be doing.

Actually, there might not be more than one day to vote on a bill. Once 3 yea or nay votes are reached, voting concludes. Or, alternatively, are you saying that if I come in a week later and state my opinion, that counts as voting? If we adopt the latter, the law is pointless. If it's the former, then it's possible not to have a day of voting.
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Welsh Cowboy
 
Leiurus, there's actually four embassy Requests. So there's five things up for a vote...
.

They're voted on at once, so it's extremely unfair to count them all as bills.

Quote:
 
And a Senator's job isn't to vote on bills,it's to represent DUAN's people.


And how well are the people being represented when the representative is doing nothing?

Quote:
 
And I'm saying that if voters don't like a Senator's job, they vote them out or recall them.


I answered this already.

Quote:
 
Take a scenario (which isn't truly that outlandish): I haven't voted for three bills. So I get recalled, when no one in the region supports it? That's not democracy at all. Let the voters decide what a Senator needs to be doing.


You do understand what a recall is, right? If the voters want the Senators to stay, then they'll vote for him in the recall election. Your claim that is it against democracy has no grounding in fact.

Quote:
 
Actually, there might not be more than one day to vote on a bill. Once 3 yea or nay votes are reached, voting concludes


As I said, Birkinghamia already said he wouldn't close the vote after a majority passes/strikes down a bill, like he does now.

Quote:
 
Or, alternatively, are you saying that if I come in a week later and state my opinion, that counts as voting?


Your question is ill-formed and I really don't know what you're trying to find out.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
I must apologize, I forgot there's an actual election, they're not automatically out of office. That's my fault.

However, I still oppose the bill.

You asked how well are people being represented when Senators don't vote. Unfortunately I can't answer that, only the voters can. I don't think the government should decide what is good representation.

Also, a recall election is not impossible to get, and if not voting is as egregious as you seem to suggest (Note: You seem to suggest this) then I think the voters would rise up and recall them. We don't need to force an election upon the voters, in almost every case it would be superfluous.

My question about late voting is this: If a bill passes, and then I walk in a month later and say I supported it, does that count as a vote? I think it's pretty important.
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Welsh Cowboy
Aug 15 2012, 11:00 PM
I must apologize, I forgot there's an actual election, they're not automatically out of office. That's my fault.

However, I still oppose the bill.

You asked how well are people being represented when Senators don't vote. Unfortunately I can't answer that, only the voters can. I don't think the government should decide what is good representation.

Also, a recall election is not impossible to get, and if not voting is as egregious as you seem to suggest (Note: You seem to suggest this) then I think the voters would rise up and recall them. We don't need to force an election upon the voters, in almost every case it would be superfluous.

My question about late voting is this: If a bill passes, and then I walk in a month later and say I supported it, does that count as a vote? I think it's pretty important.
You asked how well are people being represented when Senators don't vote. Unfortunately I can't answer that, only the voters can. I don't think the government should decide what is good representation.

Not voting on bill is inherently unrepresentative, no matter how many times you repeat the mantra.

Quote:
 
Also, a recall election is not impossible to get,


This bill isn't supposed to make recall elections easier, so I don't care.

Quote:
 
and if not voting is as egregious as you seem to suggest (Note: You seem to suggest this)[/wuote]

Yes, it's becoming a problem for us. Even if it wasn't, we still need something in place for the future.

Quote:
 
then I think the voters would rise up and recall them.


We haven't seen this happen yet.

Quote:
 
We don't need to force an election upon the voters


We've been doing that since the first constitution.

Quote:
 
in almost every case it would be superfluous.


What do you base this prediction off of?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Birkinghamia
Member Avatar
Founder
Welsh, I don't think it'll be as bad as you make it out to be.

Minecraftia, Commonwealth and I consistently vote on almost every bill - while Aaraya rarely votes, and I can't even remember when Zaharawi voted the last time and it counted towards anything.

Not only does that mean that the voters are being misrepresentated, but it also means that controversial bills could stall, when we might actually need four or five votes to settle the outcome.

Besides, as Typhlo said, the person isn't automatically removed from office, they have to go through an election. That would weed out inactive Senators, and people who accidentally miss three votes or usually vote will be fine (as long as they are still supported on the grounds of their ideology).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
Birkinghamia
Aug 16 2012, 03:10 AM
Welsh, I don't think it'll be as bad as you make it out to be.

Minecraftia, Commonwealth and I consistently vote on almost every bill - while Aaraya rarely votes, and I can't even remember when Zaharawi voted the last time and it counted towards anything.

Not only does that mean that the voters are being misrepresentated, but it also means that controversial bills could stall, when we might actually need four or five votes to settle the outcome.

Besides, as Typhlo said, the person isn't automatically removed from office, they have to go through an election. That would weed out inactive Senators, and people who accidentally miss three votes or usually vote will be fine (as long as they are still supported on the grounds of their ideology).
Birk, and Leiurus for that matter, do you feel Aaraya and Zaharawi are being bad representatives?

If so, Get a recall election. That's what I'm advocating. If people don't like representatives' actions, they vote them out. That's what recall elections are for, representatives who are publicly opposed by the voters.

Seriously, when would mandating a recall do anything that voters couldn't do by calling for a recall themselves?
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Welsh, you really are missing the point of this whole thing.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
Leiurus
Aug 16 2012, 11:38 PM
Welsh, you really are missing the point of this whole thing.
Which is? I think I'm being perfectly being logical.

These mandated recalls and such are unnecessary because there is already a system in place for handling recall elections that people want.
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Welsh Cowboy
Aug 17 2012, 10:28 AM
Leiurus
Aug 16 2012, 11:38 PM
Welsh, you really are missing the point of this whole thing.
Which is? I think I'm being perfectly being logical.

These mandated recalls and such are unnecessary because there is already a system in place for handling recall elections that people want.

You are failing to recognize the fundamental point of the bill. We have recalls for a while now, and representatives are still missing votes a lot. This shows that the threat that they may be recalled one day isn't enough. When we have mandatory recalls, then the threat of being recalled for missing a vote is absolute. There's no vagueness or getting around it.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Welsh Cowboy
President of DUAN
Obviously no one thinks missing votes is bad enough to be recalled.

Again, if you're so upset or annoyed about that, recall some people. I haven't heard much of an outcry about missing votes...
Current President of DUAN

Please telegram me with questions!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Birkinghamia
Member Avatar
Founder
Welsh Cowboy
Aug 19 2012, 07:33 PM
Obviously no one thinks missing votes is bad enough to be recalled.

Again, if you're so upset or annoyed about that, recall some people. I haven't heard much of an outcry about missing votes...
It's not necessarily upsetting, but it's dumb to have inactive Senators in office.

Plus, automatic recalls are easier than organizing a petition.

Also, I haven't said anything because the three of us have covered the vote so nothing stalls, but that only lasts as long as there's nothing controversial...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Proposal Creation/Discussion Thread · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1

edge created by tiptopolive of ifsz