| Electoral Reform Survey |
We are not having a debate on whether a debate is wanted.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
I think it's appropriate to have a debate about debating that debate, Kris. The Assembly could be in need of a little American Senate culture!
Look, we can joke about it, but I'm serious about the way we are "constructing" this. The very premise of the way this is being handled is coming from the assumption that we need/want a new voting system. That is embedded in the discourse and practices in this thread.
That *is* something to be talked about and it's better to do it now, rather than later.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Yeah, that is the premise, because that's what the Chair of the Assembly believes. Chairs are allowed (encouraged even!) to pursue an idea without first having a wide consultation about it. If you personally do not want any type of electoral reform, you can say so and argue that it's a bad idea, even before the commission gives its recommendations if you want. But we're not going to shut things down to spend a week arguing about whether or not to explore electoral reform. The entire purpose of the commission is to avoid that, because that debate will inevitably (probably in the first post) start a debate on what types of electoral reform we may or may not want.
(12-30-2014, 11:33 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Seriously? Are we going to start with the drama just because we don't like a survey? Just answer the damn survey, or don't. When the Commission actually proposes a new votive system, then you will all have time to debate whether it's necessary to replace the system or not. Right now, whether you like it or not, the Commission has every right to start a debate on our voting system, because the Assembly is there for that: debates.People who are losing a debate start to get angry or start swearing. (12-30-2014, 01:03 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: We are not having a debate on whether a debate is wanted. You know, is not always up to you. This is a democracy and you need arguments to make a democracy work. Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice
(12-30-2014, 01:29 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: Yeah, that is the premise, because that's what the Chair of the Assembly believes. Chairs are allowed (encouraged even!) to pursue an idea without first having a wide consultation about it. If you personally do not want any type of electoral reform, you can say so and argue that it's a bad idea, even before the commission gives its recommendations if you want. But we're not going to shut things down to spend a week arguing about whether or not to explore electoral reform. The entire purpose of the commission is to avoid that, because that debate will inevitably (probably in the first post) start a debate on what types of electoral reform we may or may not want. Well you understand how that might be a faulty premise, correct? And please, do show me where the chair is "encouraged" to pursue ideas there might not be a desire for? As someone who told Unibot it was fine to have this commission, I'm not saying I'm opposed to it. But, we're allowed to have this debate -- whether or not the Electoral Commission attempted to circumvent Assembly input.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
The Chair is encouraged to promote debate in the Assembly. They are elected on their own agendas, as well. This is no different from you deciding, for example, which regions to hold events with or which treaties to revisit -- you actually have far less 'Assembly input' into that than you (apparently) think the electoral reform commission has for this (even though we're literally getting direct input right here). Unibot thinks electoral reform is worth pursuing. Unibot is the Chair, so he's created a commission to pursue it. I'm not sure why that's in need of debate.
The purpose of the commission is to avoid a free-for-all debate on "electoral reform" in general, by methodically studying electoral system and how they could work in TSP. We will present a recommendation, based on this survey, other surveys, simulations, and debate among commission members. The goal is to provide guidance, rather than a 15-page long thread that goes nowhere.
(12-30-2014, 01:52 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: The Chair is encouraged to promote debate in the Assembly. They are elected on their own agendas, as well. This is no different from you deciding, for example, which regions to hold events with or which treaties to revisit -- you actually have far less 'Assembly input' into that than you (apparently) think the electoral reform commission has for this (even though we're literally getting direct input right here). Unibot thinks electoral reform is worth pursuing. Unibot is the Chair, so he's created a commission to pursue it. I'm not sure why that's in need of debate. GR -- It's been mentioned in this thread that both we shouldn't debate this until later and that the election commission was created to skirt the debate in its entirety. I'm not saying that the Chair is bound to what the Assembly wants, that he cannot argue that this is needed or that he can't pursue this in spite of the region not wanting it. What I am saying is that the Assembly can have this debate and, that I think it could be beneficial to do it at the present. How that relates to your swap at the duties of the delegate, I'm a bit confused, but if we want to have a discussion of every activity the Cabinet decides to undertake, I'm happy to do it.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
(12-30-2014, 02:09 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: I'm not saying that the Chair is bound to what the Assembly wants, that he cannot argue that this is needed or that he can't pursue this in spite of the region not wanting it. Except most of this debate is about people criticising just that. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Tsu, the only debate being skirted right now is the debate about whether or not there should be a debate about electoral reform. Providing guidance, instead of opening a free-for-all that will be so chaotic it won't go anywhere, isn't skirting debate. It's responsible governance.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |