| Voting Concluded: At Vote: Election Act: Reconciling 3 month vs. 4 month term |
The Charter states that a cabinet term lasts 4 month. However, the election act calls for a cabinet election in 4 different months of the year, spread apart by three months, and thus implies a 3 month cabinet term. That's a contradiction, of course.
Charter VI.3 Wrote:3. Executive elections will be held every four months, where the Prime Minister and all Cabinet positions will be up for election. Election Act 3.1 Wrote:(1) On the first of every March, June, September, and December, the Assembly will convene to elect the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. I suggest to keep the 4 month term with this resolution: The Assembly of the South Pacific, taking note of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Charter prescribing a four month cabinet term, having discovered a contradiction by Article 3, Section 1 of the Election act which selects four of twelve months for elections and thereby implying a three month cabinet term, guided by the traditional four month cabinet term length of past years, taking into consideration that the last cabinet election had begun in the month of June, hereby resolves to amend the Election act as follows: 1. The list of months "March, June, September, and December" in Article 3, Section 1 will be replaced with "February, June, and October". (first time for me writing in this style - critique appreciated!) The way this looks like: Quote:(1) On the first of every February, June, and October, the Assembly will convene to elect the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
Personally, I'd sooner do it the other way so we only have three elections and four month terms.
I previously mention to Roavin, if we switch to a three month terms, every other Cabinet election will be followed by a delegate election. Staggering them would make their administration easier.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Huh? My proposed change makes it so we have 3 elections annually with 4 month terms.
I've updated the OP to make it a bit clearer.
could just be me but, it kinda sounds like a WA proposal of some sort.
(06-16-2016, 01:54 PM)W. Charlesfort Wrote: could just be me but, it kinda sounds like a WA proposal of some sort. Yeah, that was intentional! I saw in the archives that we have done this a few times in the assembly before, and I wanted to try my hand at it. I like how the justification is included in the actual resolution that will be passed.
I can support
How long until we can move to a vote? Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
Theoretically immediately, but I wanted to see if anybody else wanted to weigh in first. I do suppose this is relatively uncontroversial, though.
I would say it is. I would recommend that a vote against would effectively be a vote in favor of 3 month term limits?
Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
A vote against wouldn't actually solve the contradiction we have in our laws right now, but maybe most of us actually prefer the 3-month terms (doubtful) so we could change that before motioning if that's the case.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |