Certainly, this is a third rail of politics in TSP, but really this means of achieving a "democratically" elected delegate offers far more risks that rewards.

Constantly trying to hold elections here has its risks (election concerns) and then trying to make the in-game delegate match with the elected delegate here is its own problems. Right now, our endorsements are low and we have time to get the delegate into the position. What happens if we succeed in upping our endorsements and someone has to go from 0 to 400+ ? That conceivably could take the entire term length.

This has less to be concerned about an outside invasion, but rather a Milo-style coup from the current election set up. As Unibot has previously pointed out, it's a lot easier to upset an election of 30 than the endorsements of 200+.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

The thing is, there is nothing we can do to prevent a Milograd-style coup. People trusted Milograd, which is why it was such a shock when he coup'd the region. So switching over to picking a "trusted member of the community" to be Delegate For Life/Head of State doesn't mean we've made it impossible for that person to coup. People change in the most unexpected of ways.

Our current security set-up makes delegate transitions less of a danger than before this system was in place. The whole point of the CSS is to have a group of high-endo, high-influence players that can serve as a firewall in internal and external attacks. With that firewall in place, we can take our time getting a newly elected Delegate the highest number of endos. If an internal coup occurs, we can pile onto a CSS member, and because they already have a decently high endo count, we can get them to the top in a relatively short amount of time. In both an internal and external attack, CSS members have influence, so it would be very costly for a couper to eject them.

Reply

The thing is, there is nothing we can do to prevent a Milograd-style coup. People trusted Milograd, which is why it was such a shock when he coup'd the region. So switching over to picking a "trusted member of the community" to be Delegate For Life/Head of State doesn't mean we've made it impossible for that person to coup. People change in the most unexpected of ways.

I suppose. But, there's an inherent risk in allowing newly election people to delegate seat.
Look at the issues surrounding Escade's ascension.

Was she to be trusted? Yes.
Was there a lot of uncertainly around it because she was a newer player? Yes.
Would this be mitigated by having a PM as head of state instead of the delegate? Yes.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Why would we want a PM as head of state? What you really are proposing is making the head of government separate from the delegate.

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

You haven't addressed my point about clashes of agendas, Tsu. Let's say if the Delegate had been a very well trusted member of TSP, one of the most senior members of the CSS ... Belschaft, and Escade had been PM ... do you REALLY think that would have went better than if Escade had just been delegate?

No, it would have been an unmitigated disaster. Most of the people we would have considered extremely trustworthy, including Milograd, Belschaft, Hileville, Southern Bellz etc. would have been problematic and have clashed with a Prime Minister at some point.

This has less to be concerned about an outside invasion, but rather a Milo-style coup from the current election set up. As Unibot has previously pointed out, it's a lot easier to upset an election of 30 than the endorsements of 200+.

Ahem --- it's even easier than both upsetting an election of 30 or 100, to worm your way up a chain of respected senior appointments and be chosen based on exclusive criteria. Winning against a field of candidates in a competitive election has always been more challenging than deceiving meritocratic structures.

If you think the problem of small electorates is as troubling as I do, I encourage you to reconsider my proposal to expand the size of the electorate.

(This post was last modified: 06-28-2014, 08:41 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

Reply

Why would we want a PM as head of state? What you really are proposing is making the head of government separate from the delegate.

Yes. In so much as the Queen of England is separate from the government.

You haven't addressed my point about clashes of agendas, Tsu. Let's say if the Delegate had been a very well trusted member of TSP, one of the most senior members of the CSS ... Belschaft, and Escade had been PM ... do you REALLY think that would have went better than if Escade had just been delegate?

No, it would have been an unmitigated disaster. Most of the people we would have considered extremely trustworthy, including Milograd, Belschaft, Hileville, Southern Bellz etc. would have been problematic and have clashed with a Prime Minister at some point.

You wouldn't have a clash of agendas. The delegate would be a trusted figurehead who we protected, who voted in WA votes, and updates the WFE. Obviously the person would have some political sway -- as Bels, SB et al. still do, whether or not they hold an official office.

But, we wouldn't be handing over keys to the entire world so it would make fears of transition much less.

Ahem --- it's even easier than both upsetting an election of 30 or 100, to worm your way up a chain of respected senior appointments and be chosen based on exclusive criteria. Winning against a field of candidates in a competitive election has always been more challenging than deceiving meritocratic structures.

Please, Unibot. What you're really saying here is that those in a position of power don't get to know people. Understandable with your experience in the region, but I doubt you yourself wouldn't be able to name a few trusted individuals in the region.

If you think the problem of small electorates is as troubling as I do, I encourage you to reconsider my proposal to expand the size of the electorate.

When the option is between 30 relatively active and informed members or 4500 uninformed members, I'm going to choose the former.

To be really honest guys, there are similarities between this discussion and issues with the forum administration. We continually conflate what is "power," "democracy" and "government positions" with the enabling structures there of.

Further, I understand this is an effort in futility considering that 1) this would never be passed and 2) this is a radically different worldview from what/where TSP is now. I push this discussion, at least, because I think these issues need to be considered when we consider other legislation -- a la Uni's previous election discussion.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I don't think that the separation of the positions of Head of State and Head of Government is necessarily a bad idea, but at the same time I don't think it is a better system than what we have at present either. Both systems have their own benefits and their own disadvantages.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

You wouldn't have a clash of agendas. The delegate would be a trusted figurehead who we protected, who voted in WA votes, and updates the WFE. Obviously the person would have some political sway -- as Bels, SB et al. still do, whether or not they hold an official office.

Yes - and political sway can cause problems for a cabinet trying to pursue reforms and different policies than what "established" leaders have pursued in the past.

But, we wouldn't be handing over keys to the entire world so it would make fears of transition much less.

No, but the new concern would be a lack of transition - and not just change in terms of who is delegate, but change internally.

Please, Unibot. What you're really saying here is that those in a position of power don't get to know people. Understandable with your experience in the region, but I doubt you yourself wouldn't be able to name a few trusted individuals in the region.

I can name many trusted people, in no particular order and not exclusive...

Yourself,
Glen-Rhodes,
Rebelstopia,
Kringalia,
Belschaft,
Southern Bellz,

And a year ago, I would have included Hileville and Milograd. Here's the problem though: none of those people on that list are fit to be handed the keys to the delegacy for the rest of their active career. (1) People go inactive over time - you can say that we would just rid of them when they went inactive, but the reality is when a leader has been your leader for three years, you let things slip, and you keep letting things slip.. despite it hurting the region, (2) All of our trusted people are also people will strong beliefs - would they use their political sway to veto changes and pose a challenge for future administrations? I wouldn't rule it out, no offense intended to the people I list - I know if I was ever made delegate, I'd eventually become a right pain in the arse for a future President.

When the option is between 30 relatively active and informed members or 4500 uninformed members, I'm going to choose the former.

You're assuming that the region would continue to be uninformed if they were the voters. It would be in the best interests of all candidates to disseminate information to voters. Currently, they remain uninformed because it is in the personal interests of no-one to inform them about our candidates during elections ... and it is really not in the interests of any candidate to build platforms tailored for residents (since they don't vote them in).

Most of our region is left in the dark out of design, not out of apathy or a deliberate desire to be ignorant.

I believe people are themselves particularly bad at judging people, our judgement is flawed. This is why I believe both democratic and meritocratic systems usually get things wrong, because in both cases, they're a body of people, picking other people based on flawed or arbitrary criteria. The problem with a meritocratic structure, where the people who get appointed get appointment powers themselves, is that bad judgements multiply in meritocracies, whereas bad judgements get re-set with the next election in democracies. This means that the performance of meritocracies gets worse and worse, while the performance of democracies rises and falls in a consistent, predictable and stable fashion.

Reply

You're assuming that the region would continue to be uninformed if they were the voters. It would be in the best interests of all candidates to disseminate information to voters. Currently, they remain uninformed because it is in the personal interests of no-one to inform them about our candidates during elections ... and it is really not in the interests of any candidate to build platforms tailored for residents (since they don't vote them in).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMKScopMnKI

Reply