Users browsing this thread:

Punchwood · 03-09-2015, 03:40 PM

I don't think the Cabinet should be allowed to vote on this. As a majority of citizens may not agree with the Cabinet however the vote is swung by the Cabinet which isn't fair. I can see the point of those who disagree with this however I think the pro's outweigh the cons.

I would also like to point out apart from Apad the only people who are opposing this are CABINET MEMBERS!!!!

Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member
Former Minister of Regional Affairs
Former High Court Justice

Sopo · 03-09-2015, 04:40 PM

As an alternative, we could lower the threshold for an appeal to 60%.

Essentially my thoughts are the same as Wolf's and QD's. If the Cabinet is voting to make someone a Security Threat, that person is then appealing to a body where those same members are participants. When the total voting body is so small, Cabinet members can all but guarantee that the 75% requirement would not be met. The same principle applies to citizenship appeals as well, but I did not include that here.

I view this differently from treaties and war declarations because, in those cases, the Assembly is not voting to overturn a Cabinet decision, but to approve it.

[Image: VjpdZ2V.png?1]

Darkstrait · 03-09-2015, 06:29 PM

I can't really see how this is an issue.

Darkstrait :ninja:

Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek

"Hats is very fashion this year."

RP Info

Ditortilla · 03-09-2015, 07:21 PM

Ideally we would not have to introduce this as legislation : should the situation occur in the future it would be expedient and honourable for Cabinet members to abstain from any vote on a reversal.

Unfortunately we cannot rely on such behaviour and must instead codify it into our constitution

Hileville · 03-09-2015, 08:05 PM

I'd support lowering the threshold to 60% for both removals and denials of citizenship.

~~Unibot~~ · 03-09-2015, 08:42 PM

Votes on individuals always use the 75% margin - recalls, appointments to the CSS, removals, denials - and for good reason, votes on individuals are more dramatic and more passion-based. The 75% margin keeps things more chilled and rational, as far as I'm concerned and we should maintain it as such.

(This post was last modified: 03-09-2015, 08:43 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

~~Wolf~~ · 03-09-2015, 09:06 PM

Wait...what? You're opposed to lowering the percentage base upon passion and drama?

...what?

Escade · 03-09-2015, 11:00 PM

No, I'm against this especially since the first one failed and this is an attempt to dress a pig up in a dress. It's still a pig, all the prior arguments apply.

The way it works right now is fine.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

Escade · 03-09-2015, 11:05 PM

Then who else will be added to the list? Justices? Local Council Members? Maybe with the increase in positions, more then half of the Assembly?

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

~~Wolf~~ · 03-09-2015, 11:17 PM

Those others don't get to vote on revoking the citizenship of a member and then get another vote in the repeal.

The Cabinet has a lot of power in it's abilities to strip citizens of their rights as it is, but now it seems quite a few Cabinet members want to keep their ability to vote in the Assembly appeal so they can ensure their decision can not be reversed.

A tendentious amount of power resting in the hands of so very few, while the Assembly is more or less powerless to stop them.