THE CHARTER OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC

...

V. THE LOCAL COUNCIL

...

(5) At the start of each Local Council election, a six-day gameside poll shall be conducted that shall ask whether to retain the Local Council as an institution.
a. Only Native World Assembly members may participate in the poll.
b. Members of the South Pacific Special Forces who are on deployment at the conclusion of the regional poll are eligible to cast a ballot. The Minister of Defense shall provide a list of deployed personnel to the Election Commissioner. Members on the list can cast their ballot through a public post on the Regional Message Board which tags the Election Commissioner.

(6) If a majority vote against retaining the Local Council, this Article and all other mentions of the Local Council in regional law shall be struck out and rendered null.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 08-22-2022, 05:34 PM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

Human psychology biases people in favor of giving themselves more power and influence. If we believe the LC is broken beyond repair, asking it to dissolve itself isn’t going to work. At some point we need to face the music here and realize that we are never going to “get consent” from the RMB to get rid of the LC. It doesn’t matter if somebody has never once thought about the LC and never cared before, the moment you ask them to give it up they’re gonna say no.

(This post was last modified: 08-22-2022, 03:59 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

I generally would not support this addition to the Charter, however, it is better than most aspiring-additions regarding the Local Council.
 

a. Only Native World Assembly members may participate in the poll.

I'm confused about the above. Why Native, WA members only?

maluhia
minister of culture
ambassador to lazarus
roleplayer
 

 

Reply

I generally would not support this addition to the Charter, however, it is better than most aspiring-additions regarding the Local Council.
 

a. Only Native World Assembly members may participate in the poll.

I'm confused about the above. Why Native, WA members only?

So that people can't easily make a bunch of puppets and stack the vote.

Reply

I agree entirely with Glen, although probably more than Glen I have a shrug of "why not lol", even though I think the gameside will never seriously entertain whether the LC is actually accomplishing its job.

Why Native, WA members only?

Each player may have only one WA nation. Requiring a nation be in the WA prevents foreign alts from voting and prevents puppets from voting. Requiring a nation be "Native" means its influence is primarily in the South Pacific, thus eliminating (some) foreign vote importation.

Of course, both of those can (and will) still be circumvented. But really, it's the absolute bare minimum election security measure.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

I have revised the language from six months to the start of every LC election.

Human psychology biases people in favor of giving themselves more power and influence. If we believe the LC is broken beyond repair, asking it to dissolve itself isn’t going to work. At some point we need to face the music here and realize that we are never going to “get consent” from the RMB to get rid of the LC. It doesn’t matter if somebody has never once thought about the LC and never cared before, the moment you ask them to give it up they’re gonna say no.

Regardless, it doesn't hurt to have the amendment in place.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

I think you’re underestimating the likelihood of this becoming the *only* acceptable means to abolish the LC. We’ve already (ridiculously imo) saddled ourselves with the idea that we need RMB consent to repeal these parts of the Charter, when we never asked their consent to create the LC in the first place. I can easily see something like this being done with a “there’s no harm” mindset and having the unintended consequence of further entrenching the LC.

Reply

Fair enough, I buy that argument and I'm now opposed

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

(What I am saying here applies to this proposal as well as to the others concerning the LC)

I don't see why there is such a hatred of the LC, especially since it is with the Delegate the ROs most appreciated by people, obviously because they are elected by them, and it is not because the LC seems useless or dysfunctional than it really is.

The LC cannot prevent spam but can at least guarantee a minimum of order in the RMB. And it's not by replacing it with "appointed mods", which will for sure be inactive and unappreciated, (because the principle of an election is that you need determined volunteers to participate, unlike appointments), that the problem would be solved.

At some point we need to face the music here and realize that we are never going to “get consent” from the RMB to get rid of the LC. It doesn’t matter if somebody has never once thought about the LC and never cared before, the moment you ask them to give it up they’re gonna say no.

Well it's true, people will never vote for its abolition, let's do it ourselves without them being able to contradict!!
(You will probably bring out the typical arguments: "The assembly perfectly represents the gameside community", which will not be the case before there are 1000 legislators, or "there is no gameside and forumside", but seeing the hostility you have to the RMB, and the hostility that some proposals have to gameside in general (such as the proposal on the election of the Delegate), I can only contradict these kinds of arguments.)

(5) At the start of each Local Council election, a six-day gameside poll shall be conducted that shall ask whether to retain the Local Council as an institution.

I don't really see the point of that, but the idea of ​​asking people quite regularly what they think about the LC could be good.

(This post was last modified: 08-23-2022, 06:55 AM by Jagged Fel.)

Reply

I do not have hostility towards the RMB. I’m seemingly one of the few people who just recognize it for what it is, instead of pretending that it’s possible or even a good idea to try to transform it into something it’s not.

I have hostility towards particularly annoying members of the Local Council, who on the whole have been poor representatives of the RMB and seem more concerned with coveting the title than anything else. The history of the LC is filled with examples of bad behavior, wannabe fiefs ruling over their fiefdom, and every now and then a respectable person who ends up leaving the LC to join the part of TSP that’s actually built for government-political simulation.

Reply