The South Pacific

Since the other thread is going around and around regarding "security issues" and no one likes the previous solutions ... here's a different attempt.

Since we have an "executive branch," I think we can use it as a way to better secure everything.

Change to the Charter:

Quote:Article 3: Legislature

Section 1 - Construction of the Legislature
1. The legislature will consist of a bicameral legislature in which any nation in The South Pacific may participate.
2. The legislature will consist of a NationStates house, hereafter referred to as the General Congregation, and an off-site house, hereafter referred to as the Grand Assembly.
3. The General Congregation will consist of all native, World Assembly residents of The South Pacific.
4. The Grand Assembly will consist of citizens as designated by the Charter.

Section 2 - Powers of the Legislature
1. The Legislature is responsible for the drafting and discussion of General Laws, and amendments to the Charter and Code of Laws.
2. The Legislature may pass and amend a Law with a vote resulting in 50% + 1 in favor, in either house and approval from the Cabinet.
3. The Legislature may amend the Charter with a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor, in either house and approval from the Cabinet.
4. Approval from the Cabinet means a documented vote of 50%+1 in favor of the proposal, by the senior Cabinet members.
5. If the Cabinet vetoes a bill passed by either house, the veto by be overrode with appropriate passage from the second house.
6. Proposed legislation may be moved to a vote by the Legislative Chair after a Motion and a Second to vote is lodged in that house.
7. The voting period will last three days for all General Laws and five days for Amendments to the Charter.

Section 3 - Powers Reserved for the Grand Assembly
1. The Grand Assembly has the sole power to declare a state of war exists with another region or organization.
2. The Grand Assembly has the sole power to pass a treaty with another region or organization.
3. The Grand Assembly may override the denial or Cabinet removal of citizenship upon the affected nation appealing and a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor.
4. Declarations of War and Treaties require a 60% majority in favor by the Grand Assembly to be enacted or repealed.
5. The voting period will last five days Declarations of War and Treaties.

Section 4 - Legislative Chair and Duties of the Chair
1. The Legislature will elect a Chair which, in conjunction with the Delegate, will be responsible for the administration of all aspects of the drafting, debate, and passage of legislation.
2. The Legislative Chair has the clerical duty to maintain the Charter, Code of Laws, and all subsidiary documents, ensuring that all laws comport with proper standards and formatting, and all minor changes made are publicly recorded.
3. The Legislative Chair will serve on the Cabinet and act as the Legislative Liaison between the Cabinet and Assembly.
4. The Chair will serve a term lasting four months.
5. Procedures for the election of the Chair must be defined in Code of Laws.

Change to the Charter:

Quote:Article 6: Executive

Section 1 - Cabinet and Powers of the Cabinet

 1. The Cabinet shall consist of senior and junior members.
2. The senior Cabinet members shall be the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minster of Regional Affairs, Minister of the Army, and Chair of the Assembly.
3. The junior Cabinet members shall be all appointed Deputies.
4. Senior members of the cabinet are the only members with voting rights within the Cabinet.
5. The Cabinet is charged with signing or vetoing laws passed by the either house of the legislature.
6. The Cabinet shall strive to promote activity in the region and shall remain cognizant of the well-being of all nations in the Coalition of the South Pacific.
7. The Cabinet may adopt Executive Policy in cases where no law exists; Executive Policy may not conflict with the Charter, Bill of Rights, or Code of Law.
8. The Cabinet will serve a term lasting four months, excepting appointed Cabinet Deputies, who serve at the discretion of their respective Senior Cabinet member.
9. Procedures for the election of the senior Cabinet must be defined in the Code of Laws.

Change to the COL:

Quote:Article 1: Elections

Section 2 - Position Specificities
1. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will run on a joint ticket and be elected by a majority vote. If no ticket receives a majority vote a runoff election with the two tickets receiving the most votes will occur.
2. Cabinet offices will be voted on separately and be elected by a plurality vote. Court Justices will be voted through a single ballot, with the three candidates who receive the most votes winning seats.
3. In all elections an option to re-open nominations will be included. For non-judicial elections, if this option receives the most votes the nomination period for that office will be restarted.
4. For Court Justice elections, if the option to Re-Open Nominations receives enough votes to be placed within the top four, then the nomination period will be restarted for all seats with lesser votes than this option. The candidates who receive the top votes will win however many seats are left to be filled.
5. The Legislative Chair will be subject to an approval vote by the General Congregation.

All legislation will have to go through an elected Cabinet, but also has the possibility of being overrode. That way we have no issues about "security" since the Cabinet can easily veto something questionable and the RMB nations have both a say and a representative through the legislative chair.

Any better?

No, it's not really better. Unibot told me about this idea, and it doesn't address what I've been talking about. You're still relying on back-stops to prevent a catastrophe inherent in the very core of the idea.

Switching veto power from the Assembly to the Cabinet isn't a "solution." The same problems persist.

All you've really done here is you've placed more power and more importance in the lower house by allowing it to override the Assembly AND the Cabinet. Simultaneously, the Cabinet is granted even more power, which doesn't help with the accusations that it's an oligarchy, and works against the rhetorical basis for this reform.

The issues I've brought up are with the idea of including the RMB in the legislative process in a binding way. It's not in the details of how it's organized.

As you are looking at other solutions, what are the general thoughts on having it so the region still gets a say through polls, but these votes having a lower weighting (20% of the total for example).

This was suggested on the RMB and seemed to have a bit of support.

(01-14-2015, 07:17 PM)Aramanchovia Wrote: [ -> ]As you are looking at other solutions, what are the general thoughts on having it so the region still gets a say through polls, but these votes having a lower weighting (20% of the total for example).

This was suggested on the RMB and seemed to have a bit of support.

Well, it's not ideal, but it's a start. And it may be the only thing that we can actually compromise on.

As far as I'm concerned this is even worse, in that in seriously empowers the executive at the expense of the Assembly.

To be frank, I'm not going to support anything that removes the supremacy of the Assembly with our region's citizens as the final arbiter.

I could support this revised proposal as a compromise between the previous 2 positions even though it does give more power to the Executive in a couple of areas than I'd ideally prefer (I was happy with the upper chamber as the veto wielding body not the executive). However, if that is the price of a compromise - and I think it's right the delegate try to explore a compromise position before we bring this issue to the vote - then I'd willingly support it.

If I were to suggest one change, it would to Article 3, Section 2, paragraph 3.

The original proposal stated "3. The Legislature may amend the Charter with a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor, in both houses." while the new proposal is for "3. The Legislature may amend the Charter with a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor, in either house and approval from the Cabinet." If we're going to amend the Charter, I personally feel it should be through the agreement of both houses. Would there be any support for a combination of both to read:

"3. The Legislature may amend the Charter with a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor, in both houses and approval from the Cabinet."

Aramanchovia raises the issue of weighting the chambers. My initial thoughts would be that this might be overly complex but I'd be interested is seeing how this would work in practice if someone has a proposal.

(01-14-2015, 07:38 PM)Hopolis Wrote: [ -> ]Aramanchovia raises the issue of weighting the chambers. My initial thoughts would be that this might be overly complex but I'd be interested is seeing how this would work in practice if someone has a proposal.

Well, it's not that hard to calculate the math for it. I'd be willing to run that if this passes and no one else wants to.

I didn't mention it earlier, but I'm not a fan of this new proposal at all, I don't like the cabinet having veto power over the decisions made by the rest of the region. Gives them too much power, and changes how the government works completely, may as well just skip the voting part if we go for this option and let cabinet decide on all legislation.

(01-14-2015, 08:17 PM)Aramanchovia Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't mention it earlier, but I'm not a fan of this new proposal at all, I don't like the cabinet having veto power over the decisions made by the rest of the region. Gives them too much power, and changes how the government works completely, may as well just skip the voting part if we go for this option and let cabinet decide on all legislation.

Hmmm... I see your point. Especially since it seems that a lot of members of Cabinet are against this proposal...

(01-14-2015, 08:18 PM)Darkstrait Wrote: [ -> ]Especially since it seems that a lot of members of Cabinet are against this proposal...

What?