I think there are a couple obvious broad solutions to this issue:
- Grant the in-game region some kind of voting rights in the Assembly
- Create a new dedicated legislative house for the in-game region
- Elect the delegate (partially or fully) through in-game polls
These all have different merits and address in-game enfranchisement in different ways. From the discussion, it seems to me that the desire is to give in-gamers/RMBers some kind of direct voice in decision-making. I have my doubts on how much of a voice we'll hear, but I'm actually not totally opposed to the idea of enfranchisement.
I would prefer a limited or weighted enfranchisement, but that is a debate for the next part of the Great Council. We're just discussing
broad solutions here.
My previous proposals in regards to this can be essentially boiled down to two bullet points;
1. A dual ballot for Delegate elections - preferential/approval voting on the forums to vet candidates and select a top-two, followed by a simple two-candidate ballot of WA members
2. Two stage voting for some legislative business - I have previously suggested Charter Amendments, Treaties and Declarations of War - with a positive assembly vote requiring ratification by a ballot of WA members
Seems to me the first step is to find out what the RMB crowd would be interested in, if they'd be interested at all. Nations not already here either don't know how to get here, don't find it interesting and don't want to be here, or find it too annoying. You can legislate anything you want, but if the people aren't here, Who cares.
We had the right idea once that fell thru the cracks by making a RMB liaison. We just never saw it thru. We need to advertise on the RMB the desire to get them involved it things like electing a delegate. Perhaps a deputy RMB minister of regional affairs and one for foriegn affairs that would get Appearance permissions to make WFE links post about things here or there and the FA post to post on ally RMBs with TSP news.
Again, the folks on the RMB that aren't here need to be involved. We start shoving things down their throats, they'll either leave the region or just laugh at us.
I like double voting for delegate. Give the forum community veto over the candidates, but let the final voting be on the RMB.
The other thing I had endorsed a while back, but people didn't really like, was having a poll on the RMB and then counting that vote as part of the Assembly vote. I believe Imki had an idea where it the RMB poll would count as one Assembly vote. I think something like that would be a step in the right direction.
If we were to have game-side voting for the delegates, we would of course have to make sure that the person they choose is on the forums.
Could someone explain WA voting? Because it seems to me right now that people in the SPSF or people in general who don't want to be in the WA would not be able to vote.
They'd be able to vote in the first ballot, just not the second.
I don't know what other RMB users think, but for me personally, I'd like to see an increase in transparency of what's going on in the forum. The Southern Journal is, in my opinion, the most useful tool to address this problem as it allows RMB users to see exactly what is happening in the forums and choose whether or not to get involved. Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd say regular updates of forum activity should be a priority.
In a similar vein, many RMB nations, particularly the new ones, may not be aware of exactly who is a part of TSP government, and what their jobs are. I think that a factbook/dispatch giving a brief introduction of every nation involved in running TSP, whether gameside or forumside, will be useful in helping newer nations understand how everything works.
As for voting, I agree with the idea of having the forum narrow something down to two options, and then allowing WA nations to have the final vote. It seems like a good balance between democracy and practicality to me.
Just to make sure that we're talking about *broad* solutions, here, not specific policies. So "in-game vote in the delegate" would be the broad idea, and then in the next stage somebody can propose a specific text for something like a two-stage process.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(04-02-2016, 03:24 PM)griffindor13 Wrote: [ -> ]If we were to have game-side voting for the delegates, we would of course have to make sure that the person they choose is on the forums.
No, they wouldn't
If The Region rejects the Coalitions choice of candidates there should be no compulsion to foist a Forum candidate on the region.
The Coalitions duty, as far as the InGame side is concerned, should be to provide stability and security, not to dictate policy
(04-02-2016, 07:04 PM)Ditortilla Wrote: [ -> ] (04-02-2016, 03:24 PM)griffindor13 Wrote: [ -> ]If we were to have game-side voting for the delegates, we would of course have to make sure that the person they choose is on the forums.
No, they wouldn't
If The Region rejects the Coalitions choice of candidates there should be no compulsion to foist a Forum candidate on the region.
The Coalitions duty, as far as the InGame side is concerned, should be to provide stability and security, not to dictate policy
After thinking about my post, your right, I overlooked that the delegate is actually more of an in-game person anyways. But if a non-forum delegate was chosen, would the be required to join the forum?