After reading this, I have to say, I don't know if I agree with all of the gritty details, but I definitely agree with a lot of the sentiment. I think a lot of our charter is way too bloated and I think we put too much faith in executive power.

I think it might be interesting to move TSP towards being a total republic, with getting rid of or weakening the executive system as we knowing and empowering the assembly to make this a truly community run region. I certainly believe that our assembly is able to almost completely self-govern and respond to even the most extreme issues in NationStates properly.

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

Reply

I think you seriously overestimate executive power, both theoretically and in practice. We have a system that has worked, with occasional revisions, for more than twelve years. I question the need to alter its basic structure without an urgent need, and is like desire does not qualify as urgent or need.

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

Reply

The idea of starting fresh is not one I'm opposed to but I think more though and discussion probably needed to go into it. Some of the ideas are interesting but people cling to the familiar and fear the unknown.

I agree Escade. It is one reason this campaign is destined for failure. Not saying my campaign is perfect, but thought I would have a crack anyway.

The use of "dictator" as well makes it hard to distinguish this from a real or joke campaign.

This was a bit of an inside joke referring to my nation, where I basically repress everyone. I'm sure some think I am doing the same here with my campaign, whereas I believe it is the exact opposite. I will clarify that yes, this is a serious campaign for anybody that may be unsure.

To be honest, if that was the process I was forced to take (it was not originally as I had proposed) and that happened, I would have probably resigned and forced another election. I have been clear with what I intended and if the Assembly decided to block that, despite me being clear in my campaign what I intended and being elected based on that, I don't think I could respect anyone here for doing that.

You need higher percentages of approval for your amendment. You could easily be elected Delegate but have enough opposition for your ideas to fail passage in the Assembly. I further need to point out that you could not force an election, the Vice Delegate would succeed you.

This would have required people who did not support my campaign agree not to try to block it in the Assembly, as I believe we should all support the popularly elected delegate

I disagree. If I disagree with a bill, I have every right to oppose it. Our obligation is to support the South Pacific, not whoever is its temporary leader (because elected officials are, after all, temporarily elected).

I stand corrected with the first point.

The aim of my campaign is to introduce a new electoral system. If you disagree, don't vote for me (I already know you will not be).

I feel if you aren't dedicated enough to put your WA in the region though, you shouldn't get to vote. Another change, yes, but one I felt is better. May not be a popular one, but I'm used to it.

So, if I am the delegate of another region, but have been a dedicated citizen of the South Pacific for years, I still would have no voting rights? That's preposterous, and excludes otherwise good citizens.

Not to mention the members of the SPSF. How would they vote if they're currently in an occupation?

As mentioned I would make an exception for SPSF members as I consider these part of TSP, as the SPSF falls under the TSP banner.

As for Kris' comment, I would be willing to have this discussion if elected. It is my preference to do it this way, yes, but I understand many would have issues with it. As I am not fully on board with all the various poll options, there may be a better way to handle it.

What do you think is a better sign of success at the end of a cabinet term?
A) Being the clear favorite to being re-elected
B) Having someone from your staff being able to run and win against you.

I think it doesn't matter. I trust the people here will vote for who they think will do the best for TSP, no matter who it is. You can still do a really good job as Delegate, but it doesn't mean that someone else can't do even better, whether they be from your staff or not. I always vote for whoever I think has the best plans for the region.

After reading this, I have to say, I don't know if I agree with all of the gritty details, but I definitely agree with a lot of the sentiment. I think a lot of our charter is way too bloated and I think we put too much faith in executive power.

I think it might be interesting to move TSP towards being a total republic, with getting rid of or weakening the executive system as we knowing and empowering the assembly to make this a truly community run region. I certainly believe that our assembly is able to almost completely self-govern and respond to even the most extreme issues in NationStates properly.

Thanks SB. That is pretty much what I am aiming for and I do admit some parts of my campaign can probably be handled better - it has been made pretty clear I have a lot of work to do to sell this idea though to many here.

Reply

To be honest I think you know which way this is going but, I think you would accidently let TSP burn and you would be left as king of the ashes. Sorry.

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

Reply