Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Welcome to The Rejected Realms

Government:

Delegate: Wabbitslayah
Officer: Frattastan (Foreign Affairs)
Officer: Marilyn Manson Freaks (Outreach)
Officer: PowerPAOK (Media)
Officer: Relfa (Culture)

Other Officials:

Speaker: Vulturret
RRA High Commander: Frattastan
RRA Commander: Guy
RRA Commander: Wopruthien
Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Register now!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Constitutional draft
Topic Started: Feb 12 2011, 01:10 AM (1,221 Views)
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
Naivetry
Mar 7 2011, 02:33 AM
Mm, k. I'll tweak it to say,

Quote:
 
B: Elections begin once a challenge is submitted. If the elections are for the position of Delegate, no new citizenship applications will be processed until elections are completed.

Looks fine.

Naivetry
Mar 7 2011, 02:33 AM
Heh. Nonsense - the Delegate isn't allowed to step down! :P Once you're in the chair, you're stuck for seven years! ...Yeah, it would probably be a good idea to have something in mind. Not sure what, though. Automatic elections make the most sense, probably, but that could get complicated.
Erm... could just say it triggers the challenge system automatically (so from the point the delegate steps down, there's 7 days for nominations).

I'll accept the admins doing the checks if CG is OK with it - ultimately, it'd be her doing them, as I can only check for matching IPs on this forum.

Quote:
 
*quorum stuff* Maybe add it in a separate piece of legislation if it becomes an issue?

OK.
Edited by sedge, Mar 7 2011, 04:46 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Naivetry
Member Avatar
Spammer
Mmk. I understand the concern about security checks, but I figure you could delegate external IP checking to someone in Intel and make the call based on that information only.

How about for the Delegate:

D: If the Delegate submits their resignation, elections for a new Delegate will begin immediately with a challenge period as set out in Article 6. The resigning Delegate will retain the position until elections are completed.

So that would leave us with something like this:

The Constitution of The Rejected Realms
Article 1: Preamble
  • A: This Constitution defines the government and citizenship of The Rejected Realms. No laws or treaties may contradict this document, and all citizens of the region are required to comply with the provisions set out in it.
  • B: The Rejected Realms (TRR) is the NationStates region http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_rejected_realms.
  • C: The forums of The Rejected Realms are http://s8.zetaboards.com/The_RR_and_RRA.
  • D: The Rejected Realms Army (RRA) shares the same forums, but operates independently of the government of TRR.

Article 2: Citizenship
  • A: Citizenship may be granted to any person who has both a nation within [region]The Rejected Realms[/region] (or in service to the RRA elsewhere) and an account on TRR's forums.
  • B: All citizenship applications are subject to a security check by forum administrators. Citizenship applications are automatically approved if no security concerns are found.
  • C: Citizenship may be denied or retracted by forum administrators for reasons of regional security. This decision may be appealed to the Assembly as set out in Article 3.

Article 3: The Assembly
  • A: The Assembly consists of all citizens of The Rejected Realms.
  • B: The Assembly is responsible for voting on laws, treaties, constitutional amendments, electing Officers and the WA Delegate, and acting as a court of appeal.
  • C: Votes in the Assembly are visible to all citizens, and last for seven days.
  • D: Laws, treaties and appeals require a simple majority vote to pass. Amendments to the Constitution require a 75% majority vote to pass.
  • E: Contested elections are decided by a plurality vote. In case of a tie between a current official and another candidate, the current official retains the position. If there is no current official involved in the tie, the remaining Officers are responsible for breaking the tie. If a vote by the remaining Officers also results in a tie, the Delegate is responsible for breaking that tie.
  • F: Uncontested elections for Officer must be confirmed by a simple majority vote.

Article 4: The WA Delegate
  • A: The WA Delegate of the region is the Head of Government.
  • B: The Delegate may change the regional World Factbook Entry and act on WA proposals and resolutions as they see fit.
  • C: The Delegate assigns roles to the Officers of the region.
  • D: If the Delegate submits their resignation, elections for a new Delegate will begin immediately with a challenge period as set out in Article 6. The resigning Delegate will retain the position until elections are completed.

Article 5: Officers
  • A: Officers of the region are responsible for carrying out the governmental functions of the region.
  • B: Up to four Officers may exist at any one time. Vacant positions will be filled before current Officers are replaced.

Article 6: The Challenge System
  • A: Any citizen who wishes to become an Officer or the Delegate may challenge for the position. A challenge for Delegate requires the support of two other citizens. A challenge for Officer requires the support of one other citizen. This requirement is waived for officials seeking reelection.
  • B: Elections begin once a challenge is submitted. If the elections are for the position of Delegate, no new citizenship applications will be processed until elections are completed.
  • C: Any citizen who also wishes to submit a challenge may do so during the first week of elections in the case of a challenge for Delegate, or during the first three days of elections in the case of a challenge for Officer. No further challenges will be accepted during the elections after this period.
  • D: Once the challenge period is over, a period of campaigning equal to the length of that challenge period will follow, during which candidates are encouraged to lobby citizens for their votes.
  • E: Once the campaign period is over, the Assembly will vote to elect the Officer or Delegate, as set out in Article 3. Candidates may continue to campaign during voting.
  • F: Newly-elected officials may not be challenged for one month after the close of elections.
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation]
~
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
Looks good, and CG says she's fine with doing the security checks. I'm ready for it to be put up to vote, unless anyone else has anything to add.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Whamabama
Member Avatar
Questionably Evil
As is I would not vote in favor, but I think by now everyone knows, but I doubt anyone cares.
Those who don't create, dictate
The structure of our world and preach hate
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
Aw, Wham - of course we care - unfortunately, we don't agree. Lets see how things go for now - Nai doesn't seem interested in having a veto - if in the future, we find it's something that we need to add, then we can consider it then. The constitution isn't set in stone - if things don't work, we change it.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Whamabama
Member Avatar
Questionably Evil
you can still vote, but my vote is still nay.
Those who don't create, dictate
The structure of our world and preach hate
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
If there's no further suggestions, I'm going to put this up to vote tomorrow.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Naivetry
Member Avatar
Spammer
Wham - over the lack of a veto? Or are there other issues that bother you in this draft?
[nation]Kandarin[/nation] the Younger/[nation]Lirantha[/nation]
~
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Whamabama
Member Avatar
Questionably Evil
Yes, the lack of a veto, leaves an important balance of power, and protection out of the constitution. Also ignores the realities of the true power of the delegate, who can simply make these forums disapear on the wfe.

This has been a problem in the past with other delegates, and while I don't see you doing Anything remotely like that, we should build for the future, and we don't know who will be the next delegate of the region, nor the one after that. Maybe when NS actually dies perhaps you will still be in the seat, we just don't know.

However it is a weakness in the constitution, one that needs to be fixed, and knowing something is a potential problem, and ignoring it for the sake of getting it done, and with the thought of, we can change it if it becomes a problem, just doesn't make sense to me.
Those who don't create, dictate
The structure of our world and preach hate
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan Termopylae
The Fool on the Hill
Both sides are seemingly immovable here. Is there no middle ground? A compromise? I suggested one a while back, can no-one else come up with one? Else theres certain...issues being left open as dont need to be
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die

Liebe ist fur alle da
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
Yeah, I am kind of immovable :P I really don't think there's a problem with having members of the region decide on legislation, and the delegate being responsible for governing the region. There's no need to mix the roles - the delegate has enough power already - I don't want to appease someone who might 'get bored' with 'just' being able to control the WFE, WA votes, and government of the region. We shouldn't be electing someone like that in the first place, and I'd rather deal with that issue - ie by campaigning against someone who I felt would act like that, rather than trying to 'keep them interested' with extra powers. I also see no reason to give the delegate the power to override the will of the region on legislation.

Anyhow, didn't put this up to vote today, since we had a bit more debate. Will likely do so tomorrow.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan Termopylae
The Fool on the Hill
Have I already asked whether the challenge system sort of combats that? Because if the delegate used the veto innappropriately, then they could be removed. Incidently, that would be one thing that couldn't get vetoed. Or you could place limitations on the veto. Only certain issues are able to be vetoed?
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die

Liebe ist fur alle da
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Whamabama
Member Avatar
Questionably Evil
Regardless of that, and the thinking, "it will never happen to us" (has happened countless times to others thing that btw) There is still no balance of the power of the assembly. No redress for anyone who considers something wrong. Nothing at all for a group to come in, enter the assembly, and do whatever it is they want to do, so you could end up in the minority rather easily if that was to occur.

So no balance of power = asking for a bad situation. and a very loud Nay vote.
Those who don't create, dictate
The structure of our world and preach hate
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan Termopylae
The Fool on the Hill
Whamamba, can you think of any other way to obtain this balance short of a veto? Elsewise we're going round in circles "I want a delegate veto" "I don't, lets put this constitution to the vote" "But I'll vote nay" and we're stuck in an infinity loop, because no-one will comprimise. Won't someone pleas just look at the middle ground? All we have here are black and white, and all the many shades of grey in the middle are being ignored
When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die

Liebe ist fur alle da
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Whamabama
Member Avatar
Questionably Evil
Spartan Termopylae
Mar 10 2011, 10:57 PM
Whamamba, can you think of any other way to obtain this balance short of a veto? Elsewise we're going round in circles "I want a delegate veto" "I don't, lets put this constitution to the vote" "But I'll vote nay" and we're stuck in an infinity loop, because no-one will comprimise. Won't someone pleas just look at the middle ground? All we have here are black and white, and all the many shades of grey in the middle are being ignored
Nai pointed out one that would be suitable.

Quote:
 
unanimous vote of the Officers + Delegate could veto legislation. That is, the decision of a representative democracy could overturn the decision of the direct democracy.


Would satisfy the check in power of the assembly.

We need to do something in regards to balancing the power of the assembly. To balance the power now would certainty be better than regretting it later.
Those who don't create, dictate
The structure of our world and preach hate
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Assembly Archives · Next Topic »
Locked Topic