[Draft] Local Government Reform Amendments |
You can't remove the block vote, however flawed it may be, without a replacement. We can't reduce what little say regional WA members have in how their region is governed.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator (03-26-2017, 03:06 PM)Belschaft Wrote: You can't remove the block vote, however flawed it may be, without a replacement. We can't reduce what little say regional WA members have in how their region is governed. And even if you don't agree with or care about this, there is the practical argument: Game-side isn't going to let us remove the block vote without a replacement. They will be voting on it too. That said, if anyone wants to attempt to just remove the block vote with no compromise, feel free to offer competing legislation. I will not be amending my legislation to do that, because I am 110% sure such legislation would fail game-side.
Can we run a non-binding poll on the gameside that asks the WA regions about this? That way we can say "Hey we'd like to remove the block vote because of the following reasons and instead give you more options for stronger self-governance. Here are some options, please also discuss any ideas you have on the RMB"
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 (03-26-2017, 03:34 PM)Escade Wrote: Can we run a non-binding poll on the gameside that asks the WA regions about this? That way we can say "Hey we'd like to remove the block vote because of the following reasons and instead give you more options for stronger self-governance. Here are some options, please also discuss any ideas you have on the RMB" What would the poll options even be? This also isn't really about "stronger self-governance." That's what the Local Council exists to do. The block vote is about game-side participation in regional government.
(03-26-2017, 03:34 PM)Escade Wrote: Can we run a non-binding poll on the gameside that asks the WA regions about this? That way we can say "Hey we'd like to remove the block vote because of the following reasons and instead give you more options for stronger self-governance. Here are some options, please also discuss any ideas you have on the RMB" These polls have been done, and they're inherently flawed.
Whatever feud Belschaft and I have has nothing to do with the block vote. Bel wants more and more votes to happen on the RMB. I don't, and neither do most LC candidates when they run. Whenever the point pops up on the RMB, they don't want to be forced to deal with Assembly politics either. That's why I rewrote the LC in the Charter.
I am 100% fine in removing the LC Rep. I'm not even convinced the LC would be opposed to it sans "replacement," particularly the idea of the "replacement" being that the Assembly is re-granted the power to legislate RMB matters. Have any of you guys actually asked? There's no reason for us to start doing things like writing LC election bills again. I've been fighting for a long while now to get you guys to just let them take care of themselves. And it seems every time I try, you just don't get it and restart the right. Want to end the damn "feud"?? Stop restarting it!! No Assembly constitutional laws on RMB issues, period. Thus, no need to insert language into the Charter saying that votes need to be held on the RMB. There's also zero need to re-poll this issue. The LC has, literally, the strongest form of self-governance that's possible to have. If you would just let them have it ffs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
New draft. The only change made is an amendment to Article I, requiring a game-side vote on new constitutional laws that directly affect game-side. The amendments to Article XIII would only cover amendments to constitutional laws, not newly proposed constitutional laws.
Quote: (03-26-2017, 03:57 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I am 100% fine in removing the LC Rep. I'm not even convinced the LC would be opposed to it sans "replacement," particularly the idea of the "replacement" being that the Assembly is re-granted the power to legislate RMB matters. Have any of you guys actually asked? The Assembly already has the power to legislate on any matter except those solely affecting game-side. The Assembly can legislate on matters that directly but not solely affect game-side. That you obstinately refuse to see the difference between "solely" and "directly" is your problem.
So I never got an answer to the point of order I raised. I think it would benefit this chamber if the Chair would actually answer that point as it would help us to determine what the final form of this legislation needs to be ne.
Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been What's Next? CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021
This is my proposed alternative based on discussion here and on Discord. It is basically Cormac's draft but with changes that mean the LC Rep block vote is removed and that one LC member is guaranteed communication\appearance power.
I believe that LC and others may be discussing with gameside, what the gameside itself wants and that is a separate conversation. This takes the first step in removing a point of possible contention. My concerns have been outlined as: 1. Strong local governance is key to the gameside. 2. Assembly should not be making decisions about local governance. 3. Removing a power position that can be seen as affecting regional governance may help limit some of the back and forth struggle or tug of war. 4. At some point, it will be the LC itself and the gameside that will tell us what they want. Thank you for your feedback, suggestions, polite discussion and\or support! (03-26-2017, 04:00 PM)Cormac Wrote:Quote: 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 |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |