Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Trending Topics
Regional Information
The East Pacific brought to you by,
Where to Start?

Social
Discord
IRC
Skype
Steam Group

Roleplay
Regional Atlas
In-Character
News Broadcasts
Out of Character

Government
Executive Offices
Delegate: Yuno
Magisterium
Provost: Drachen
Conclave
Viceroy: Aelitia





Welcome to The East Pacific. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you may register an account here!


I'm registered. Where do I start?
When you sign up on our forums, your account may be limited to certain forums, and unable to make requests in our roleplay section. We recommend that you Apply for Citizenship to gain all the benefits of being part of our roleplay community!

Username:   Password:
Multiquote ON Multiquote off
Locked Topic
Amendments to Standing Orders; Second Edition
Topic Started: Aug 31 2011, 01:58:54 AM (1,278 Views)
SCKnightVulshain
Member Avatar
The Boll Weevel
Sorry it took me this long, but I've been sick lately.

Quote:
 
WHEREAS, the Conclave made a ruling requiring a majority of Magisters, not of Magisters Voting, to vote in favor on an Act for it to pass,

WHEREAS, The Conclave previously ruled that an 'Abstain' vote shall not become an 'Against' vote, and

WHEREAS, if the first ruling stands an 'Abstain' vote acts as an 'Against' vote,

WHEREAS, regrettably Magisters can go inactive which can disable the Magisterium due to inactivity until a new election takes place, and

WHEREAS, the ruling in question still applies to a vote to remove a Magister for inactivity, and

WHEREAS, that would make it difficult for the Magisterium to remove a Magister for inactivity when necessary,

WHEREAS, in the Concordat the word 'vote' describes the amount of Magisters required to favor a motion or bill and that the amount does not refer to the Magisterium itself,

THEREFORE,

CALLS UPON, the Provost to represent the Magisterium before the Conclave on this issue and to select any one Magister or Citizen to assist them at their discretion,

ENCOURAGES, all Magisters to show support for the Magisterium's case during the period of time in which Magisters may give feedback and again in the time which Citizens may give feedback,

RESOLVES, that the Magisterium does not support the Conclave ruling in question and would like it repealed.


Okay, so I motion we vote on this.
Confederacy of Vulshain
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stateless
Member Avatar
Tandy 400
I second the motion to vote
WhatWhatInTheButt
FORMER: Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
SCKnightVulshain
Member Avatar
The Boll Weevel
Alright, let's start voting!

AYE!
Confederacy of Vulshain
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kelssek
Member Avatar
Hero of the Soviet Onion
YES
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stateless
Member Avatar
Tandy 400
Aye
WhatWhatInTheButt
FORMER: Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Reminisci
Member Avatar
One of Us
FOR
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Carondia
No Avatar
Call me Carondia
Aye
Citizen of The East Pacific
former Magister of The East Pacific
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
Quote:
 
WHEREAS, if the first ruling stands an 'Abstain' vote acts as an 'Against' vote,

WHEREAS, regrettably Magisters can go inactive which can disable the Magisterium due to inactivity until a new election takes place, and

WHEREAS, the ruling in question still applies to a vote to remove a Magister for inactivity..


No it doesn't. Magisterium is the ONLY body with the power to remove government officials.

No government official including a Magister could possibly vote without conflict of interest on their own removal - they would be excluded by common sense and all that is rational from the pool of Magisters that constitutes a majority from any vote on their removal. Simply recuse them by procedure. That doesn't conflict with Conclave's ruling. It only conflicts with an overly broad interpretation of it.

Conclave itself has a recusal procedure for Arbiters. Because it makes sense to exclude someone who can't vote or has a tangible conflict of interest.

There is nothing in Conclave's ruling that suggests an inactive or extremely naughty Magister could block a removal vote by claiming to be part of the pool that constitutes a majority of Magisterium. It defies common sense.

Magisterium's hands aren't tied by Conclave. They're tied by Magisterium itself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Magisterium has never tried to remove a Magister for inactivity. Before or after Conclave's ruling. It becomes disabled because it fails to exercise its own authority with regard to its own members.
Barb
Arbiter Barbara Manatee
Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific
Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier

Keep TEP beautiful!

The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Quote:
 
Todd McCloud: don't feed the trolls
Quote:
 
Vulshain: you don't want the disco-roller skating bots to come
Quote:
 
Kurogasa: honest to Quetzalcoatl
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kelssek
Member Avatar
Hero of the Soviet Onion
Barb, maybe we should leave this issue for if/when we call on this to be reconsidered.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
SCKnightVulshain
Member Avatar
The Boll Weevel
Kelssek
Sep 3 2011, 04:24 PM
Barb, maybe we should leave this issue for if/when we call on this to be reconsidered.

I agree. Okay, let's leave this on hold until the time comes we do need to address this.
Confederacy of Vulshain
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Carondia
No Avatar
Call me Carondia
Has everyone voted? Yes. I think so.
Citizen of The East Pacific
former Magister of The East Pacific
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
SCKnightVulshain
Member Avatar
The Boll Weevel
Is wa
Sep 3 2011, 05:35 PM
Has everyone voted? Yes. I think so.

Hm....Well should we go ahead and ratified it now or wait and revote in the future when the time comes that we need to use this?
Confederacy of Vulshain
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
There appears to be a conflict of which votes count in which way, but I personally think the problem has been inativity among past Magisters, not the manner in which votes have been counted. Personally, I believe the crux of the problem rests there, and an effort to somehow either change the Magister removal policy or do something like hold weekly check-in posts where every Magister is required to state their presence once a week. Since drafting stages and voting stages together often take longer than a week, they'd be bound to see the action. Or require the Provost to telegram the magisters that a vote has been initiated. That may sound like a lot of work, but it's really not - depending on the age of your nation, you only have to wait a few seconds in between sending telegrams.

My point is I really feel like that, and not the structure of voting, is the main problem. To cite a recent example, TWP recently passed a new constitution. Seven of eleven voters passed it, but there were seventeen people who were in their legislature, so by our laws, 7/17 wouldn't have cut it. But it passed. They're still trying to solve all the loopholes and double-meanings in that document, months after it was passed. Now I'm not saying something like that will happen here, but maybe if it hadn't passed for them, more people would've voted against or at least went over the document with a fine-toothed comb and found some of the core issues there. This isn't meant to be a bash-TWP example, but it does stress an importance of having everyone present for a vote, as more heads are better and can look at things from different angles.

You guys are currently five-strong, which is definitely not a bad thing, especially since you all are active. "Of those voting" would mean that if just one person votes for it, it passes. Then why would we have a body of Magisters? It'd be the Magister and not the Magisterium, lol. Plus Magisters tend to come from different backgrounds. You have one that's an admin and has been here for an incredibly long time. You have another that's been here a while and RP's a lot. And you have others from other backgrounds too. Looking back on any other term, and you have a pretty diverse crop of individuals. In a legislature, that's a huge thing.

The root of the problem isn't the voting, but the inactivity of the past. In a roundabout way of saying things, I think that would be a better problem to tackle: finding a way to make inactive times run smoothly. And I'm confident you all can come up with an excellent way of solving that problem.
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Online Profile Goto Top
 
Kelssek
Member Avatar
Hero of the Soviet Onion
Okay, I'll say my piece since it seems we're going to discuss it here after all. I do apologise if this rubs anyone the wrong way, it's intended purely to be plain speaking and not to offend.

First, the most general of principles: Conclave should never have ruled on the internal standing orders of the Magisterium. The Concordat gives the Conclave the judicial role over laws. Internal procedures of legislative bodies are not laws and the Conclave cannot overrule them just as the Magisterium does not vote on the Conclave's standing orders for them to be valid. A precedent has now been set where the Conclave is permitted to outright interfere in the workings of legislative power. If the Concordat was written for a separation of powers, then the Conclave has not only compromised that separation, but we could even say it has violated the very Concordat it is supposed to be enforcing.

Secondly, if the concern was that one Magister voting yes can pass a law or dethrone the Delegate, then it should have been kicked back to the Magisterium with a "hey, you need to fix this" note attached. For example, it could have been with the reccomendation that a quorum rule should be instituted, which would have avoided the mess of the above paragraph and solved the problem. Instead, we now have an interpretation of what a majority vote means that is completely at odds with normality. In the real world, a majority vote is 50%+1 of those who vote, and those who can vote but don't are considered irrelevant. I can't imagine there are more than a handful of democratic governments holding power in the world right now that actually won the votes of over 50% of eligible voters. And in parliaments and legislatures (making the unrealistic assumption that there's no quorum rule), if all but one member abstains and that guy votes yes, the law passes because that's deemed 100% of the vote.

In simple terms: redefining "a majority vote" to mean a majority of all Magisters, and not "of those voting", was an abysmal decision.

Be that as it may, that decision has already been made. My solution now would be simple: the Conclave rescinds that errorneous ruling, and the Magisterium institutes a quorum rule - perhaps requiring at least 25% or some specific number of Magisters to have voted in order for anything to pass. It might even be important enough to make it the subject of a constitutional amendment.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Personally, I don't agree. When that ruling was made by the Conclave, I was for it. Still am. I could see an argument like this going on for a bit. But I think I have a slightly different reason why I'm for it, and it has to do with the whole basis our Concordat was founded on. When most people in the region got together, we had a preliminary vote on what direction our Concordat should follow. We picked FPS's initial draft, which was admittedly fashioned like the US Constitution. It underwent a lot of changes, but much of it is surprisingly still there. As for the US Congress, I believe their bill passage requires 218 'yea' votes by the reps and 51 'yea' votes by the senate; a simple majority, not just a majority of those voting. But to ensure that our Concordat had the same idea, looking back on FPS's draft, we read:

Quote:
 
Section 11) The Parliament shall have the power to remove one of its own members if 2/3 of its members find that that member is inactive or guilty of a high crime.


Which states 'of its members', not a majority vote. I know that simply deducing from a draft of the Concordat doesn't correlate to the Concordat, but it reveals the thought process. Sadly we don't have the reason for why that clause was changed. But I think if it was due to include only of those voting, it would've stipulated as such. *shrugs* Actually, I found a pretty interesting post on this very subject. Read the second quote and the response. This is what I believe to be the mindset involved with making this document. ((Even if this point doesn't help much, I'm having fun reading some of the early drafts to our concordat, lol))

As for the conclave ruling on it, I think they were just exercising their duty to ensure what passes into law is intra vires, valid by the definitions and interpretations of the Concordat. Standing Orders represented a set of internal laws to be followed by the Magisterium. They decided the majority clause wasn't kosher, and it was struck down. They do have the power to do that, though, outlined in Sec. C-5. Separation of powers are still separated in that case, as they only acted out of the belief that the majority vote was ultra vires. At least, that's how I see it. Being a non-Arbiter, I can only offer my opinion and not an official ruling on this.

Also this is kind of unrelated, but a few posts back someone said that the Magisterium is the only body that can remove governmental officials. This isn't true; Conclave can remove Viziers by a 2/3 vote.
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Online Profile Goto Top
 
Kelssek
Member Avatar
Hero of the Soviet Onion
While I am not an expert on the American constitution, I'm doubtful that it requires 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. If you had some senators absent, and the vote was 49-48, I'm fairly certain you could pass legislation there.

One RL case I'm aware of is this one - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...ticle882629.ece

At the time the House of Commons had 308 members, therefore 155 votes in favour would be required to pass the budget. If "majority" means 155 votes, then the result you read in that article shouldn't have happened. The Canadian constitution does specifically say "a majority of voices", and while I can't find a similar line in the American constitution, common sense would suggest that's the case there.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Archive: Magisterium · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Infinite is a customized version of Simple ZB created by Protego of Outline & Zetaboards Theme Zone
Icons by Paomedia and hosted by imgur


© The East Pacific 2003-2018