(08-18-2022, 11:41 PM)A bee Wrote: Honestly most former Chairs wanted no elections at all

Right...

(08-18-2022, 11:43 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

(08-18-2022, 11:41 PM)A bee Wrote: Honestly most former Chairs wanted no elections at all

Right...

Ask them yourself.
Either way, this doesn't even personally benefit me as I'd like to be Chair. It's lowering the disproportion between what's expected v/s what the results almost always are and shortening the process.

Okay, the Legislative Procedure Act might be a very big bite to chew on.
If anyone has any ideas on how this should be approached, please don't hold back.

I don’t know if I’m comfortable with the idea of the Chair basically handpicking their own successor. That has no precedent in the region and, even if there’s a ballot, the outcome is partially predetermined by a single person.

I agree with Kris. I honestly could be persuaded to not have 4 month Chair terms since it is a largely administrative office with no real need for electoral accountability. But the idea of a closed ballot is just a lightning rod for corruption.

(08-19-2022, 10:38 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I don’t know if I’m comfortable with the idea of the Chair basically handpicking their own successor. That has no precedent in the region and, even if there’s a ballot, the outcome is partially predetermined by a single person.

Okay I'll try convincing you with a different approach; instead of saying "that's what happens anyway" I'll elaborate on why this happens and why it's not an issue.
Systemically, TSP has "apolitical" offices. Contextually I'm using "apolitical" to describe an office where it is desirable that the user in office is neutral towards any other factor(s) and the goal is efficiently accomplishing the duties of that office. Factor(s) range from personal relations, personal opinions, affiliations, rhetorical discussions etc. A RL analogue would be a social worker - they are to ignore all other factors than seeing which legislation applies in the situation they are given and responding to a request according to it.
In TSP, such offices are: the Delegate, the OWL, the High Court and so on. The Chair is also an apolitical position whose duty is to "guide" the Assembly and provide assistance to legislators. However, both in law (LPA-2-7) and in practice, these are to be used in a manner as to make the process more efficient, not effect the outcome of it.
I think we can agree on this. Now let's explain why is it that the Deputies are proportionally more likely to succeed the Chair's office than other candidates.

The Chair has a lot of responsibilities attached to it - the compilation of which is in the attached PDF. Naturally, this office will employ subsidiaries. Now, reading through the responsibilities we see that the Chair sometimes has byzantine attachments related to completing their duty, relying on the Office holders' own discretion, meaning: they will either use precedents set by previous Chairs in similar situations; ask previous Chairs and/or their subsidiaries for feedback or make a new precedent themselves. The last option is usually avoided due to negative community feedback. So, the Deputies which the Chair chooses work with the Chair already enough to understand how the Office is de facto ran in an efficient manner (given that the current Chair is efficient which is now a given). We can argue how the Deputies are chosen, but it is safe to assume that Deputies are given the chance to examine how the office operates and how it should be done. So now, elections.

Any legislator can participate in election for the Chair but there are two issues with this. Firstly, being an apolitical office, legislators are incentivized into voting for someone with prior experience. Secondly (when it occurs), if a legislator who has had no connection with how the office operates is chosen, what you always get in practice is the previous Chair's second term, because that's who that legislator will consult. Avoiding this issue and having the ballot consist only of subsidiaries who are already in the office is a desirable choice.

However, as I said, what could be debated and should be regulated is how the Deputies - in this proposal the candidates of the ballot next turn - are chosen by the Chair.
A premonition I foresee is you using the rhetorical of all this being "needless bureaucracy" but I could argue the same for what we do now; as the results are, ultimately, the same.

Frankly, I see nothing about the chair or the administrative aspect of the Assembly that needs changing.

(08-20-2022, 01:01 AM)A bee Wrote: -snip-

How does your system check against rampant corruption in terms of the outgoing Chair's sole authority to set the ballot for their replacement election?

-If there weren't issues, this thread wouldn't exist. This thread exists which points out issues. Just because the incumbent office maneuvers around issues efficiently, does not mean they do not exist.
-I have already addressed that question, which, if you didn't snip replies, would have noticed.

This is the one and only time I will address pure and empty rhetoric here, notifying that they will not be engaged with going further.

What issues? You also haven't really addressed the question, you avoided it. Feel free to quote the part of your post where you addressed corruption specifically.