-
Cormac
Banned
-
-
|
Joined:
Apr 2014
Posts:
764
Threads:
54
|
Credits: 0¢
>>> ABOUT
The Coconut Review is a privately owned and operated, independent newspaper based in the South Pacific. The Review aims to offer independent news and insightful commentary on issues important to the South Pacific, as well as coverage of diverse issues throughout the NationStates world.
>>> INDEX
May 2017 Public Policy Survey: Results | Author: Cormac Skollvaldr | Date: June 1, 2017
>>> CREDITS
The Coconut Review would like to thank @ Imkihca for creating the Review's banner.
>>> DISCLAIMER
The Coconut Review is not maintained by the government of the South Pacific and does not represent the views of the Coalition of the South Pacific.
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2017, 09:12 AM by Cormac.)
Reply
-
Cormac
Banned
-
-
|
Joined:
Apr 2014
Posts:
764
Threads:
54
|
Credits: 0¢
From now until May 31, the Coconut Review will be conducting a public policy survey among citizens (residents) and legislators of the South Pacific. This survey asks two demographic questions, ten questions each in the areas of domestic and foreign policy, and three questions in the area of structural policy, for a total of 25 questions. The results of this survey will be analyzed in the first issue of the Review, set to be published during the first week of June.
All responses to the survey are anonymous. With the exception of the first two demographic questions, responses to all questions are optional. Comments will be published alongside analysis of the survey results.
The survey may be taken here. The Coconut Review appreciates your participation!
(This post was last modified: 05-24-2017, 03:07 PM by Cormac.)
Reply
Miniluv for TSP?  
-
Cormac
Banned
-
-
|
Joined:
Apr 2014
Posts:
764
Threads:
54
|
Credits: 0¢
(05-24-2017, 03:21 PM)Roavin Wrote: Miniluv for TSP?
More professional, somewhat less controversial. Somewhat. 
-
Cormac
Banned
-
-
|
Joined:
Apr 2014
Posts:
764
Threads:
54
|
Credits: 0¢
>>> DEMOGRAPHICS
Analysis
Twenty-seven citizens responded to the Coconut Review's May 2017 survey, 81.5% of whom are legislators in the South Pacific. This indicates that interest in the public policy of the South Pacific may remain highest among those who have opted to involve themselves in the Assembly, though it should be noted that this survey was only advertised via the regional forum and Discord server. While it's possible that interest may have been higher among game-side citizens had this survey been publicized game-side, only a small number of non-legislators who are present on the regional forum and Discord server responded to the survey. Non-legislators comprised 18.5% of survey respondents. No respondents indicated that they were non-citizens.
Review the full demographic results beneath the spoiler:
Are you a citizen (resident) of the South Pacific?
Yes: 27 (100%)
No: 0 (0%)
Are you a legislator in the South Pacific?
Yes: 22 (81.5%)
No: 5 (18.5%)
The Coconut Review's survey reveals deep divisions in public opinion in regard to regional security policy. Only one question related to security policy yielded a decisive majority opinion, the question of whether to add regions with Empire or Rahl family members in their leadership to the list of prohibited groups. 59.3% of respondents are opposed to adding such regions to the list of prohibited groups, with 37% neutral or unsure, and 3.7% -- a single respondent -- in favor of prohibiting these regions, which include fellow game-created regions Osiris and the West Pacific. Public opinion is more divided on the question of prohibiting the Rahl family as an extension of the prohibited group Empire, with 22.2% in favor and against prohibition, and 55.6% neutral or unsure.
Public opinion is also divided on the strength of the Council on Regional Security's powers. Few respondents, just 11.1%, want to weaken the Council's security powers. Those who want to strengthen the Council's powers are also in the minority, however, at 22.2%. One-third of respondents indicated that they believe the Council's powers should remain about the same as is currently the case, with another one-third neutral or unsure. Opinion on how new members should be appointed to the Council is somewhat more clear, with 40.7% favoring nomination, approval by the Council, and approval by the Assembly. With 44.4% of respondents favoring a different approach, and 14.8 neutral or unsure, it's clear that this will remain a difficult issue in the Assembly whenever it may be raised, and that regional security issues in general are likely to require a great deal of legislative compromise.
Other domestic policy questions produced more decisive results. 63% of respondents favor improving laws and procedures of the existing High Court over abolition of the High Court and transfer of its powers to other institution(s), the latter approach being favored by only 11.1% with 25.9% neutral or unsure. These results may impact the direction of judicial reform, a legislative issue that often arises but is rarely addressed.
Respondents are also clear in wanting game-side voting for general laws that directly affect the game-side community, with 74.1% in favor of game-side voting and 18.5% against, with 7.4% neutral or unsure. Nearly three-fifths are opposed to extending game-side voting to Cabinet elections, however, with 22.2% in favor and 18.5% neutral or unsure. A majority, 51.8%, favored leaving any decision to expand the size of the Local Council either up to the Local Council itself or to game-side voters. It appears that public opinion still favors pragmatic local empowerment and promotion of devolved local government rather than full game-side enfranchisement, essentially embracing the status quo in regard to game-side matters.
Finally, two remaining questions yielded inconclusive results. There is no public consensus on the creation of a new Cabinet ministry, with only minority support for any approach, though the most popular ideas revolve around splitting up the Ministry of Regional Affairs. In regard to conflicts of interest, large supermajorities favor requirement of conflict of interest disclosures for election candidates (81.5%) and ability to recall public officials for conflicts of interest (70.4%), with 55.6% also favoring conflict of interest disclosures for public officials. 48.1% favor prohibition against public officials serving in equivalent office elsewhere, with 14.8% in favor of prohibition against serving in any office elsewhere, and only 3.7% -- one respondent -- supporting no provision for conflicts of interest. These inconclusive results may be reflected in the Assembly's impending failure to pass any legislation to further address conflicts of interest.
Review the full domestic policy results beneath the spoiler:
Do you think the security powers of the Council on Regional Security should be stronger, about the same, or weaker?
Much stronger: 4 (14.8%)
Somewhat stronger: 2 (7.4%)
About the same as currently: 9 (33.3%)
Somewhat weaker: 2 (7.4%)
Much weaker: 1 (3.7%)
Neutral/Unsure: 9 (33.3%)
The CRS should only be able to suspend rights during investigations, but the Assembly or High Court should have to approve long-term or permanent suspension of rights for security threats.
Other regions have much stronger security councils and don't go through hoops to stop coups
I generally support a strong government, but I may be biased towards that by nature.
The amount of powers the same, but distributed differently.
I think they need to press charges in court if their investigation leads them to believe that the person has violated the law
They need to be able to enforce rules for people to value and follow the rules.
Its powers are fine, it's their use and execution, especially some members' adherence to the rules, that's worrisome.
Need to get the CRS active and awake and strong enough to actually do something. The only thing the CRS can do right now is get someones masking changed on the forums
It needs to be weaker in investigations, and left to the courts, and the endo protections should be increased.
I don't want something like TWP where guardians are controlling who comes in the region. The CRS should be only involved in coups or high threats, not etiquette.
Direct application to and approval by the Assembly: 4 (14.8%)
Direct application to and approval by the CRS: 0 (0%)
Application to the CRS, approval by the Assembly: 5 (18.5%)
Nomination, approval by the Assembly: 3 (11.1%)
Nomination, approval by the CRS, approval by the Assembly: 11 (40.7%)
Neutral/Unsure: 4 (14.8%)
Democracy = good
Nominations are popularity contests. Anybody can apply, though.
CRS is made up of long-term trustworthy members and should have some oversight.
I'm also fine with nomination by the Delegate as an alternative to application, but I always think the CSS should have direct input on the possible member, and their voice should be stronger than just an advisory opinion. There's a reason why we trust them to handle security.
CRS should be te ones to nominate people they can work with/trust.
Assembly vote, Cabinet Appointed with CRS recommendation
One may apply but nominations are also fine.
By application or nomination, approval by CRS, approval by Assembly by vote
Yes: 6 (22.2%)
No: 6 (22.2%)
Neutral/Unsure: 15 (55.6%)
It's troubling that the Rahl family is so closely associated with Empire, but most members are probably harmless and just involved for social reasons.
If they're in a powerful position. There are underlings and then there are partners.
Should be classified as Persons of Interest, and perhaps added to a watch list. Should not be banned, however.
Crazy shit.
Some members of the Rahl family have come to TSP to espionage or otherwise import votes which is disturbing.
But, and this is key, there should be a report on why that is. It shouldn't just be assumed that they should be co suffered an espension of Empire.
Empire shouldn't even be banned. Have much more dangerous people in as government officials now,
Yes: 1 (3.7%)
No: 16 (59.3%)
Neutral/Unsure: 10 (37%)
It's way too OTT to treat entire GCRs as prohibited groups.
It should be based on whether or not the security council thinks they're dangerous
GCRs especially are defined by more than their leadership.
Yeah that part of the Belschaft Security Threat Deceleration was a load of BS.
Honestly, I think that the simple instance of recent voter importation has changed my stance on this issue substantially to one where I don't want those people in this region.
But they should be treated with care and some distance. They aren't necessarily outright enemies, but they may not be friendly either.
It depends on the actions already taken plus the region and its recent past.
Improved laws and procedures for the existing High Court: 17 (63%)
Abolition of the High Court and transfer of its powers to other institution(s): 3 (11.1%)
Neutral/Unsure: 7 (25.9%)
We need to stop throwing the baby out with the bath water and opting for radical changes when something more limited will have better results.
There should still be a "judicial branch", though not in the form of a court
It would be nice to have a working court system. Ministry of Justice seems interesting, would need further development\debate.
Fine as is
I selected the first option, because procedure does help, but we have to admit that our problem with the judiciary is a cultural one. No system is every perfect to us because it's the judiciary itself that we don't trust, rather than any single incarnation of it. It's time to trust the courts.
Need participation more than procedure
Perhaps using the drafts that the APC and TIL drafted.
Conflict of interest disclosures for election candidates: 22 (81.5%)
Conflict of interest disclosures for public officials while in office: 15 (55.6%)
Ability to recall public officials for conflicts of interest: 19 (70.4%)
Prohibition against public officials serving in equivalent office elsewhere: 13 (48.1%)
Prohibition against public officials serving in any office elsewhere: 4 (14.8%)
No provision for conflicts of interest: 1 (3.7%)
Neutral/Unsure: 2 (7.4%)
We should let voters decide and not unnecessarily limit our election candidates.
People shouldn't be able to hold offices everywhere
Really dislike people from other regions coming in to simply vote or simply run for elections without establishing a record of service in the region or showing they care through positive activity.
It's always made sense to require candidates to file a CoI. It doesn't make sense to ask them to file one once in office. Let incumbent officials work, without the need to constantly keep a CoI.
We've been burned by officials leaking info to other regions they're active in before. I've suggested before a thread in the forums where people can maintain their CoI by changing it as situations change and preventing "That was so long ago, I forgot"
TSP Jobs for TSPers
For any office elsewhere, it would depend on the office held and region apart of.
Yes: 20 (74.1%)
No: 5 (18.5%)
Neutral/Unsure: 2 (7.4%)
Game-side should have binding input in everything that affects game-side.
The game-side community that wants to be involved should join the forums and\or Discord.
Sure, though I don't think the gameside community is that interested in regional politics.
Yes: 6 (22.2%)
No: 16 (59.3%)
Neutral/Unsure: 5 (18.5%)
The Cabinet directly affects game-side in numerous ways and there's no more reason to prevent game-side from voting on the Cabinet than Charter amendments and constitutional laws.
The Cabinet is for the forums. The RMB has their own government
Arguments can be made for/against, and have been made numerous times so they don't need to be reiterated here . I'm tending towards no, however.
As of now gameside votes can't be 100% restricted to native WA holding population.
I don't think the gameside community is that interested in politics. Don't force it on them.
The legislator belongs to the forum side, there is no need to give more power to the game side. Join the forums if you want powers to vote.
Yes, expand to five seats: 4 (14.8%)
Yes, expand to seven seats: 0 (0%)
Yes, expand to more than seven seats: 2 (7.4%)
No, three seats is the right number: 3 (11.1%)
The number of seats should be decided by the Local Council: 8 (29.6%)
The number of seats should be decided by game-side referendum: 6 (22.2%)
Neutral/Unsure: 4 (14.8%)
Referendum but 5 seems good
Game-side issues need to be decided by the Local Council, which will probably opt to make the decision through a game-side poll vote.
Some of the LC don't seem to do much and not a fan of positions that have no actual things to do (or are sinecures).
Change it from election to election.
The Council doesn't do much as is, it makes little sense to elect more people. First they should focus on making the current system work.
We only need 1 LC member, 2 at the most. Only one used to give block votes, only one can run a poll at a time.
If we would expand we would have to change the voting system.
Yes, a ministry for culture split from Regional Affairs: 6 (23.1%)
Yes, a ministry for game-side affairs split from Regional Affairs: 4 (15.4%)
Yes, a ministry for integration split from Regional Affairs: 7 (26.9%)
Yes, a ministry for media split from Regional Affairs: 10 (38.5%)
Yes, a ministry for role play split from Regional Affairs: 5 (19.2%)
Yes, a ministry for justice: 5 (19.2%)
Yes, a ministry for security and intelligence: 5 (19.2%)
Yes, a ministry for World Assembly affairs: 6 (23.1%)
Yes, a ministry not listed here: 0 (0%)
No, we have enough Cabinet ministries: 6 (23.1%)
Neutral/Unsure: 5 (19.2%)
The current integration system is non-existent. Make it exist.
We need to do better with integration so we need a ministry specifically dedicated to integration. WA affairs could give us a great new source of activity, but we need a dedicated ministry like most other major regions.
There should be an independent ministerial position to promote RP in TSP.
Security/Intelligence work is important, and it also builds trust within the government itself.
I think media or communications and role play could be split up. We could also have the higher cabinet and the lower cabinet.
The number and portfolio of ministries is fine, but some, MoRA specifically, should do a better job at being more prominent and active. Let's make sure that it does plenty of stuff and generates new regional leaders, like it once did.
We need as much ministries as possible.
Something like TNPs executive staff would be nice. Move to Reddit - forums are pretty outdated and hard to use. They push off new users quickly.
What the government needs isn't more laws and regulations, it's a culture that respects laws as the building blocks of our system (they can't be ignored just because one thinks they're inconvenient). We also need to make it a regional policy to focus on culture, making MoRA the most important ministry: have people develop festivals, revive the regular publication of the newspapers, restore the Fellowship Programme. Force MoRA to adopt bold new ideas, rather than the stagnant institution it looks like nowadays.
It is too toxic. We should focus on inclusion, not "I have more experience than you".
A balance and careful consideration is definitely necessary.
The Coconut Review's survey finds that approval remains high for all of the South Pacific's current treaty alliances, with even the least approved alliances -- the South Pacific's alliances with Europeia and The North Pacific -- receiving 59.2% approval ratings, with only 11.1% disapproving of each alliance. Approval was even higher for all of the South Pacific's other bilateral alliances.
By far the highest approval was given to the Treaty of Peace and Amity between the Rejected Realms and the South Pacific, which meets with the approval of 81.5% of respondents, and did not receive the disapproval of a single respondent. This represents a significant triumph for the foreign policy of former Minister of Foreign Affairs Sandaoguo, who came under fire by some for pursuing a treaty with the Rejected Realms at the expense of the South Pacific's now former alliance with The New Inquisition. It is hard to imagine that alliance receiving such high public approval, had it endured. If nothing else, Sandaoguo's foreign affairs legacy will be remembered for carving out what can only be described as the crown jewel of the South Pacific's alliances.
Meanwhile, the public remains deeply divided and uncertain in regard to the South Pacific's involvement in the Coalition Against the Ideology of Nazism (CAIN). Only a little over one-quarter of respondents disapprove of the South Pacific's involvement in CAIN, but CAIN's approval rating is also quite low at 37%, with an equal number neutral or unsure in regard to continued participation in CAIN. While the public does not seem prepared to withdraw from CAIN, it is clear that the organization does not enjoy majority confidence despite an 81% vote by the Assembly on May 1, 2017 to ratify a new CAIN treaty. Restoring public confidence in CAIN is likely to be a salient issue in the upcoming Cabinet elections and a key test for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs next term.
In regard to the South Pacific's military alignment, a commanding majority of the public, 55.6%, would prefer for the South Pacific and the South Pacific Special Forces to remain non-aligned. The next highest preference, at 14.8%, was for adoption of a defender alignment. Independence and neutrality clocked in at 11.1% each, with adoption of a raider alignment receiving 7.4% support. Not a single respondent supported adoption of an imperialist alignment, perhaps indicating that memories of bitter foreign policy disputes with former imperialist ally The New Inquisition, as well as troubles with other imperialist and imperialist-friendly regions, remain alive and well in the public consciousness.
Finally, in terms of overall direction for foreign and military policy, more than three-fifths of respondents would like to see the South Pacific pursuing treaties with culturally oriented and democratic regions. Significant numbers would also like to see treaties with other Feeders and Sinkers (40.7%), neutral regions (40.7%), and defender regions (37%). The least popular option was imperialist regions at just 18.5%. While there were no decisive preferences for types of military operations, 37% would like to see the South Pacific Special Forces engage in more operations with allied regions, with defensive and anti-fascist operations perhaps unsurprisingly clocking in as the next most preferred types of operation at one-third each. Raiding remains the least popular type of military operation, with only 22.2% of respondents wanting to see the South Pacific Special Forces conduct more raids.
Review the full foreign policy results beneath the spoiler:
Should the South Pacific and/or the South Pacific Special Forces adopt an official alignment in regard to military gameplay?
Yes, a defender alignment: 4 (14.8%)
Yes, an imperialist alignment: 0 (0%)
Yes, an independent alignment: 3 (11.1%)
Yes, a neutral alignment: 3 (11.1%)
Yes, a raider alignment: 2 (7.4%)
Yes, an alignment not listed here: 0 (0%)
No, remain non-aligned: 15 (55.6%)
Neutral/Unsure: 0 (0%)
Not choosing an alignment works for TSP and for SPSF. No need to change.
TSP shouldn't ever destroy other regions
While I personally identify as a defender, and do wish for SPSF to remain de facto defender/antifa leaning, I realize it's also a cultural thing and there may be instances where TSP may deliberately want to invade regions (though I hope non-arbitrarily).
I think the region should be neutral and the military should make choices based on its membership.
It should defend, not raid (unless we're talking about fascist regions and Warzones), but remain officially unaligned.
Yes, more defensive operations: 9 (33.3%)
Yes, more raiding operations: 6 (22.2%)
Yes, more anti-fascist/anti-Nazi operations: 9 (33.3%)
Yes, more operations with allied regions: 10 (37%)
Yes, more operation types not listed here: 1 (3.7%)
No, I am content with the current number and types of operations: 4 (14.8%)
Neutral/Unsure: 6 (22.2%)
The SPSF needs to do more ops with all of our allies and more anti-fascist ops with CAIN.
More operations in general would be nice to see.
We, the Assembly, should require the MoA to brief us on the goings on with the SPSF
I think we need more recruitment to actually do more missions. It's a small number of people currently.
They should do more defences with our defender allies: Lazarus and the Rejected Realms. We definitely shouldn't work with Europeia: they rarely support us for what we are, and have been poor allies for the most part.
Yes, with culturally oriented regions: 17 (63%)
Yes, with democratic regions: 17 (63%)
Yes, with Feeders and Sinkers: 11 (40.7%)
Yes, with defender regions: 10 (37%)
Yes, with imperialist regions: 5 (18.5%)
Yes, with independent regions: 8 (29.6%)
Yes, with neutral regions: 11 (40.7%)
Yes, with raider regions: 6 (22.2%)
Yes, with types of regions not listed here: 3 (11.1%)
No, we have enough treaties at present: 2 (7.4%)
Neutral/Unsure: 3 (11.1%)
I don't see the value in pursuing a specific direction for additional treaties; each potential region to be allied with in such a way should be evaluated on its own for its merit and its gain for our region. While I can imagine it's not the most popular choice, I can see a mutual defense treaty or even "full" treaty with The Pacific to be of value .
I think pursuing relations with more regions is a good idea, I think it should take time to build to a treaty and that treaties should carry weight.
Cultural regions should be a priority. It's not paramount that they be democratic, as long as they have open and welcoming societies. I marked defender regions, but gameplay alignment shouldn't be a focus of our foreign policy, culture should be.
All regions that have over 100 residents, and no ties with nazi/fascist regions. Regions that have been in NS for a while and are a big part of NS.
Strongly approve: 6 (22.2%)
Somewhat approve: 10 (37%)
Neutral/Unsure: 8 (29.6%)
Somewhat disapprove: 3 (11.1%)
Strongly disapprove: 0 (0%)
We need to do more with the region beyond them asking us for help with little matters.
It's there, and maybe it doesn't hurt much, but it's not that useful on a day to day basis.
I'm not a fan of TNP.
Strongly approve: 4 (14.8%)
Somewhat approve: 6 (22.2%)
Neutral/Unsure: 10 (37%)
Somewhat disapprove: 4 (14.8%)
Strongly disapprove: 3 (11.1%)
CAIN doesn't do much
We know we are committed to anti-Nazi and anti-fascist operations if as part of CAIN or not, and it can be trivially demonstrated to anybody that may cast doubt on that commitment. It doesn't hurt right now to be in CAIN, it doesn't help either, and we should just wait and see how things evolve.
It remains to be seen how active CAIN will be or not.
We don't need to be involved in bombastic alliances. We can fight fascists just fine in a more quiet manner, without the moralist undertones that CAIN has, and the foreign policy pressures of having to please Europeia.
CAIN needs ti get organized. Nothing TSP can do to fix this. Better to support something that is benign than dealing with the shitfest not supporting int
I'm fine with leaving
It is good to be apart of, but needs some editing to be better.
Strongly approve: 11 (40.7%)
Somewhat approve: 7 (25.9%)
Neutral/Unsure: 7 (25.9%)
Somewhat disapprove: 2 (7.4%)
Strongly disapprove: 0 (0%)
Regional relations are great in the measurement of crossover (people from each region who regularly chat\hang out) and that makes it a good relationship.
It can be a good alliance, but it needs to be kept alive.
Strongly approve: 12 (44.4%)
Somewhat approve: 8 (29.6%)
Neutral/Unsure: 5 (18.5%)
Somewhat disapprove: 2 (7.4%)
Strongly disapprove: 0 (0%)
I would like to see this expanded to a mutual defense treaty if possible.
The festival with them helped to create some bonds and more work can be done to strengthen both regions.
It's a treaty now. Same as with Spiritus, it can be good, but needs more working on. Treaties don't stay alive on their own.
Indicates hostile intent; make friendship treaty.
Probably for the best.
Strongly approve: 9 (33.3%)
Somewhat approve: 7 (25.9%)
Neutral/Unsure: 8 (29.6%)
Somewhat disapprove: 2 (7.4%)
Strongly disapprove: 1 (3.7%)
It's not like the other treaties, and Europeia isn't doing a good job leading CAIN
Europeia, in the past, has interfered with TSP's internal affairs which I really do not care for. Right now, the region seems on a better track but caution here due to some previous attempts to dominate TSP.
Europeia has been an awful ally, rarely supporting us, rarely respecting our policy stances and often downright interfering to steer us their way. We should repeal that treaty.
Strongly approve: 11 (40.7%)
Somewhat approve: 9 (33.3%)
Neutral/Unsure: 6 (22.2%)
Somewhat disapprove: 1 (3.7%)
Strongly disapprove: 0 (0%)
See above with NAP with Lazarus (?)
Same as what I said with the NAP.
How can you have this, if you have a non-aggression pact?
Strongly approve: 15 (55.6%)
Somewhat approve: 7 (25.9%)
Neutral/Unsure: 5 (18.5%)
Somewhat disapprove: 0 (0%)
Strongly disapprove: 0 (0%)
Probably need to build a little more here but there is some overlap between TRR and Lazarus so the groundwork is there.
I feel TRR is too inactive at the moment. The alliance was good when it was signed, but we need to check if it's worth keeping, and if so, work hard to make it alive again. There's plenty of potential. As always foreign policy needs to be regulated to promote TSP and the region first and be taken away from those that make it a political arena for other regions.
Our foreign policy needs to be more culturalist. Let's approach culture-focused regions, do festivals with them, exchange tips and information. Political and gameplay regions are fine too, but they're not what makes TSP active, fun and engaging.
We should be isolationist first. If not, we should be allies with as many as possible.
The Coconut Review's survey finds that the public is satisfied with the overall structure of the South Pacific's regional government, with two-thirds of respondents approving of the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific and just 11.1% disapproving. The approval and disapproval numbers are virtually identical for the three-tiered distinction between the Charter, constitutional laws, and general laws.
Perhaps the clearest indicator that the public is mostly satisfied with the South Pacific's constitutional structure is the opposition by more than three-fifths of respondents to the calling of another Great Council. Only 11.1% support the calling of a Great Council, while 25.9% are neutral or unsure. It is clear from these numbers and from the approval numbers of the Charter that there is no appetite for radical constitutional change.
Review the full structural policy results beneath the spoiler:
Do you approve of the current Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific?
Strongly approve: 3 (11.1%)
Somewhat approve: 15 (55.6%)
Neutral/Unsure: 6 (22.2%)
Somewhat disapprove: 2 (7.4%)
Strongly disapprove: 1 (3.7%)
Like previous charters, it has some things that are great and some that could be better.
Its organisation is confusing and there are plenty of loopholes and gaps in the Charter. It needs reforming, not to change the actual provisions, rather to make sure it's better written, both in terms of thoroughness and formal language use.
Was hastily written up after the last GC. Didn't address the reasons for the last GC and still has many holes.
Strongly approve: 6 (22.2%)
Somewhat approve: 12 (44.4%)
Neutral/Unsure: 6 (22.2%)
Somewhat disapprove: 3 (11.1%)
Strongly disapprove: 0 (0%)
Simplifying to a Constitution/Law system makes sense.
Honestly, a two-tiered approach, with a minimal charter and just general laws, should be enough. It makes it simpler.
I don't fully understand them and wish there was more clarity there.
It's good. I think it should be kept, but I don't think it'd be the end of the world if somewhere along the line it was removed.
We're 30-40 active people. Should have one set of laws.
There should be a charter, and general laws. The charter doesn't need to be a catch all.
Yes: 3 (11.1%)
Neutral/Unsure: 7 (25.9%)
No: 17 (63%)
Never again a Great Council. They don't work.
Didn't we have one last year? That seemed to have been a bit messy. It depends.
Not now. There is no need
Those can be dangerous and useless. Often they are used to promote pet projects, rather than honestly and fairly discuss regional foundations.
GCs are a two week bitch fest endind with a quick charter drawn and accepted to end it.
Great councils sound good, but ultimately end up dragging on too long and losing their focus, so much so that a new charter is thrown together. Rash changes are more of a danger than anything else.
TSP needs more professionally written laws, with less informal language, and a greater awareness of the importance of writing thorough laws. We can't just hope the Court will fix it, that's not their job. They interpret the law as it is, they don't did the law to what we wish it was.
Senior members shouldn't slam reform attempts.
With Cabinet elections opening in a few short hours, the results of this survey provide much food for thought:
- How best can the Cabinet encourage consensus on matters of regional security?
- Will the Cabinet encourage the Assembly to add the Rahl family to the list of prohibited groups?
- Will the Cabinet seek to provide leadership in the inconclusive debate over conflicts of interest?
- Will the Cabinet weigh in on potential division of the Ministry of Regional Affairs into one or more new ministries?
- How will the Cabinet build greater confidence in the weakest links among our alliances?
- How will the Cabinet restore public confidence in the South Pacific's participation in CAIN?
- Will the Cabinet continue to uphold the popular status quo of military non-alignment?
- Will the Cabinet seek new treaties with culturally oriented and democratic regions?
- Will the Cabinet seek to conduct more operations with allied regions?
- Will the Cabinet make any move to capitalize upon widespread anti-imperialist sentiment for new foreign policy initiatives?
The Coconut Review is pleased to be able to put these questions forward for consideration by the candidates in the upcoming elections, in the hopes that this substantive contribution to the election campaign dialogue will bring greater scrutiny to and participation in this round of Cabinet elections. Thank you to those who responded to this survey for their participation and for helping to facilitate greater dialogue over important public policy questions.
The Coconut Review is not maintained by the government of the South Pacific and does not represent the views of the Coalition of the South Pacific.
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2017, 09:56 AM by Cormac.)
Reply
-
Belschaft
Evil Emeritus
-
-
|
Joined:
Mar 2014
Posts:
6,189
Threads:
132
|
Credits: 0¢
I vaguely remember a question about what people thought the biggest threat to TSP was?
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media
-
Cormac
Banned
-
-
|
Joined:
Apr 2014
Posts:
764
Threads:
54
|
Credits: 0¢
(06-02-2017, 03:47 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I vaguely remember a question about what people thought the biggest threat to TSP was?
That wasn't in this survey. It may have been in Farengeto's security survey, the results of which haven't yet been published.
So many surveys lately, it's easy to get confused.
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2017, 04:52 PM by Cormac.)
Reply
This was a really informative read, Cormac, thanks for putting it together!
Very well done Cormac! I can't wait to see what's next!
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
-
Cormac
Banned
-
-
|
Joined:
Apr 2014
Posts:
764
Threads:
54
|
Credits: 0¢
(06-02-2017, 07:22 PM)Tim Wrote: This was a really informative read, Cormac, thanks for putting it together!
(06-02-2017, 11:06 PM)Omega Wrote: Very well done Cormac! I can't wait to see what's next!
Thank you both!
|
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Full Results
