…3.1. The Viziers may, following a confirmatory vote of the Praesidium, propose to the Magisterium any number of Qualified Endorsement Caps. These proposals shall be confirmed via a normal majority vote by the Magisterium.
As the previous amendment proposed by the Praesidium certainly caused huge debate both within the subject and how it was proposed. I suggest the following changes to endorsement cap act.
3.1.1 All Qualified Endorsement Cap Amendments will be conducted with the following format of 3 days of debate and 4 days of voting. The Praesidium under the Grand Vizier may request the Provost to suspend the normal 3 days of debate and move directly to 4 days of voting. The Provost can accept or deny such a request by the Grand Vizier.
3.1.2 The vote can be delayed by 3 days after the deadline specified by the Grand Vizier if 1/6 of the Magisterium agree that such a delay is necessary for debate. This must be given as a formal reply with all 1/6 magisters writing in forum supporting such a delay. This delay of the deadline may only occur once when debating such a bill.
To me it looked like 3 was a good number to settle on for a delay, because if 3 magisters were in fierce debate over the bill, they probably do need some extra time to finish said debate over it. I wanted to like make it not a filibuster but something used properly, so I didn’t pick 1 magister.
I strongly oppose this amendment and strongly object to stripping the rights afforded every non-Vizier on the basis of a desire for control of a process which ought to be reserved to the Praesidium. Every delay we codify in law, every disadvantage we lay upon our security apparatus, only benefits the people who wish to harm us. Meanwhile, it confers no benefit upon the actual government.
There already exists 7 days — a whole week — during which Magisters can ask clarifying questions of the Praesidium and express their reasoning for voting a certain way. An extra four does nothing.
There exists no mechanism for the Praesidium to amend their proposal. Even if every single Magister — every single Citizen — is against the proposal, the Grand Vizier physically cannot do anything about it.
So what is the goal of this? What is the ideal outcome?
When it comes to the bill in mind, I would argue since the majority of this is an expansion of an article, we have to look at the article to begin with: A normal vote within the magisterium.
I would say that such wording requires the magisterium to deliberate and argue over the passage, compared to the confirmation of viziers and arbiters which explicitly state an immediate or urgent confirmation. This suggests the original act believed that endorsement caps are allowed to take up some time and are in no rush as you suggest.
The reason why I’m pushing such an act is to reinforce the idea of a normal vote as arguably the current endo cap change was an attempt at immediate expedition despite numerous debates and questions. You yourself, have argued several bills within the magisterium, and most of those bills took upwards of a month or two before being seconded and then voted on, with changes and edits made into the bill itself or even being seconded at all and left in these halls.
I am open to allowing an option for immediate vote but I personally fear that would just codify the broken system in which most magisters want to exercise their right of deliberation, while other viziers and more security apparatus prone individuals wish to see immediate action. When it comes to the original timing, I would point out any discussion regarding the bill before the praesidium votes violates their standing orders, as those discussions are secretive and contain classified information. I have also recommended alternatives to both viziers and other magisters only to be soundly rejected as they say such proposals will not fix the problem, or is beyond the magisterium’s jurisdiction.
The process of changing the endorsement cap does not belong solely to the Praesidium. It belongs to three branches of government: the Praesidium who proposes the change, the Magisterium who votes on the change, and the Delegate, who ratifies or vetoes the change. If there is concern that the process takes too much time, all three of these branches have the power to reduce the amount of time that they take. I wholeheartedly acknowledge that the need to have time for debate must be tempered by the fact that matters of security are urgent and require fast action. I believe the process should be as fast as possible and as fast as is reasonable.
To be blunt, “Every delay we codify in law, every disadvantage we lay upon our security apparatus, only benefits the people who wish to harm us” is scaremongering hyperbole. The need for speedy discussion of an endorsement cap change—indeed, the need for speedy discussion of anything at all—must at least to some extent be tempered by the need to give rational due deliberation to the question. I expect that you will say that we should defer to the Praesidium’s expertise—to essentially take their word for it when they deliver us a number. But the Magisterium has the right to vote yes or no, and it should have the ability to give fair consideration of which of those options to choose. The deference that the law grants to the Praesidium exists in its established role to take the initiative in proposing changes—the Magisterium does not propose the change first, it only answers what the Praesidium has proposed. I agree that the Viziers are senior members of the region and experts in security, but the law affords the Magisterium a role in this process, and we have the right to have opinions on security as well. The concept of Viziers saying ‘We deliberated and picked this number, take our word for it when we say this is the only good number’ does nothing for me.
As currently written, the law has no limitation on the amount of time a debate on an endorsement cap change could take. In the most recent example, there were three days of discussion before Magisters—who happen to also be Viziers—motioned to open the vote. In the past, there has been a tradition—but not a binding law—that the vote immediately be opened and discussion take place simultaneously with the vote being opened. I am not opposed to this concept, but my point here is to note that there is no definitive limit. The Magisterium could have taken a week, a month, a year to sit on the question before opening the vote. Any establishment of a limit in the text of the law is shortening the amount of time the process could take. This proposal establishes such a limit. I think that’s good and something that all sides of this debate should see benefit in.
I am entirely unpersuaded by “there exists no mechanism for the Praesidium to amend their proposal.” The Praesidium has the power to change this, and I strongly encourage them to do so. In fact, I believe this is one of the easiest ways to ensure expedience in the process. If there is a way to accomplish this through legislation, then I believe we should do so.
Also, it should be noted: ideally, the Praesidium will always be keeping a close eye on the situation and discussing endorsement cap changes long before the situation becomes an emergency. It cannot be the responsibility of the Magisterium to waive its due diligence just because the Praesidium waited until the last minute. (I’m not saying that happened in the most recent case, I am speaking to a hypothetical.) In other words, I would hope that the Praesidium is beginning this process when there is plenty of time to consider the question, not waiting until the last minute when a change is desperately needed and demanding that the Magisterium just hurry up already. I also believe that there should be some degree of trust afforded to Magisters to be able to tell when a situation is urgent and time is of the essence to make a decision.
@arleat In regards to the specifics of your proposal, I agree with the fundamental concept but think some of the specifics can be tweaked.
Proposed Section 3.1.1 is vague and I don’t think strictly necessary. We can simply establish a separate procedure in the bill without announcing we are doing so.
For 3.1.2, personally I am more in favor of establishing a specific amount of time for debate, coupled with a shortened window of time that Magisters can vote on the question. (The seven day voting period is established in the Standing Orders of the Magisterium, which are overridden by statutory law.) My preference is three days for discussion, after which time, the question automatically (that is, without a motion and second) proceeds to four days of voting. It should be noted that this is seven days, the exact length it would take under current law to have a debate and a vote open at the same time.
For 3.1.3, I might consider something more like “a quarter of the Magisterium” rather than a specified number like 3. A quarter is probably a lot though, perhaps an eighth. My point here is that it scales with the size of the Magisterium. Otherwise, in some future huge Magisterium, 3 might be very easy to reach, while in some future tiny one, 3 or any fixed number might be too hard to reach. Personally, I am happy to also entertain some mechanism by which a Magisterium can waive the discussion period if a proposed change is non-controversial, though this would have to be agreement of a majority of the Magisterium, and I expect people may feel this is redundant/would probably take three days anyway. But I think that shortening the debate time should require a higher bar than lengthening it because shortening it reduces the rights of Magisters to chime into the debate.
I also strongly think that these changes should be coupled with changes to allow the Praesidium to withdraw or amend its proposed change, and possibly even an amendment to the Concordat to shorten the amount of time a Delegate has to sign off on the change, or even eliminate that requirement entirely for endorsement cap changes. (No offense to the Delegate, but I am comfortable in this context replacing the Delegate’s sign-off with the Praesidium’s, which is presumed by the fact that they made the proposal.) I think these are more reasonable ways to limit the length of time the process takes that do not jeopardize the Magisterium’s right to deliberate.
On Discord, I had posited that the Praesidium including a summary of its deliberations on an endorsement cap change when it sends the proposal to the Magisterium would be beneficial in reducing the amount of time the Magisterium takes to discuss the question. I still think this would be a good idea, but Viziers seemed cool to the idea and suggested that there might not be anything unclassified they could share, so I’m not proposing that that be included.
I’m happy to implement your feedback but I won’t adjust yet, as I do would like other magisters to chime in before I make the adjustment with the intent to see it seconded and voted upon. When it comes to your arguments, I wholeheartedly agree with you, as I have grown frustrated with how the entire process specifically the voting upon this specific endorsement cap has unfolded.
This proposed procedure is anything but normal. As it stands, the process follows the Standing Orders of the Magisterium, as any other vote does. What you want is to break the Standing Orders of the Magisterium and break tradition. What about that is normal, in any legal or traditional sense?
When I argue bills in this chamber, I am doing so as a citizen and, at times, as a Magister, without yet the input of anyone else, and with the frequent flaws of an individual. Never with the unanimous advice and consent of a full branch of government staffed with experts in the field on which I am speaking. Therefore, more debate makes more sense. I’d also say that sometimes big changes I propose are met with few comments. It varies wildly.
Nothing in the current system prevents Magisters from exercising their right of deliberation. In the proposed system, however, a different right is infringed – the right of sponsors and magisters to make motions. This right is afforded in every normal vote, I might add, as well as in immediate ones. There is no other example of this. This is unique. Abnormal.
I would personally request that all formal proposals for Praesidium procedural changes be made on the forums or through the Grand Vizier to ensure that it is addressed by the branch and not an individual.
Seven days in the Praesidium.
Eleven days in the Magisterium – or 18, if only three people want it.
Ten days in the Executive.
This proposed process can be filibustered for well over a month without even bending the law and without even a majority of the Magisterium. I don’t think that’s reasonable.
I believe rational due deliberation can be made in 7 days rather than 11-18+.
I believe a Magister can decide how to vote in 7 days rather than 11-18+.
I agree. The law gives the Magisterium a role which I respect. What I don’t like is making that role bigger and shifting more control away from the security apparatus. In other words, changing the balance of powers to disadvantage one branch over another.
The Magisterium can still vote it down. Nothing stops that. And there’s no reason to delay the vote unless the dissenters believe they don’t have the majority.
I agree with the need for codification of something, but disagree with the fundamental premise that said something should be an unstoppable expansion of time and a restriction of the sponsor’s rights, neither of which I believe are good for the region.
It will take at least a week to make that change. We can’t do it in time for the currently proposed cap.
For something like F/S, starting conversation 35 days before anything happens is viable. For something like Drew Durnil’s youtube video, it’s not. These are the most impactful events on both sides, but most lay between the poles. There’s also the matter of, in this case particularly, waiting to confirm if a trend or state of being is temporary or permanent. If we have a 28-35 day wait, we may be pushed to jump the gun and risk acting permanently on something temporary.
Even if they believe time is of the essence, the minimum length of time is 28 days. I believe this is unacceptable.
Honestly, I agree. I can’t think of anything else with three branches involved, and a Magisterium signature/veto is way better for security than a Delegate’s IMO under our current concordatial structure.
I’m not opposed to this actually. As we’ve seen here, we can express a lot of unclassified reasons and arguments without even invoking classified considerations.
I think a delay of seven days is a little much. I would suggest lowering the minimum time allotted to three days, and any delay to four. I think seven is kind of excessive, four should reasonably give all active Magisters time to weigh in and consider in the event we haven’t already come to our conclusions in the minimum time.
Agreed on removing the Delegate’s sign-off, as well.
Something which is the Praesidium’s responsibility to address, not ours. I cannot fathom why you keep bringing it up as if this is somehow a point the Magisterium should take into account when it is entirely out of our hands.
I’m glad you clarified that, given quotes like “Magisterium approval is more of a formality” early on in this particular discussion.
I don’t see how this would make the Magisterium’s role bigger. I would personally characterise the intent here more as enabling the Magisterium to perform its role more properly, rather than bigger.
That is true, and yet, I see little reason as to why you would not set this in motion anyway. This amendment, for one, wouldn’t apply to the present change either.
…no, but a cap change wouldn’t affect much there anyway, whether it takes the current two weeks or even the proposed maximum month, which is frankly stretching it a bit. Confused as to what this is supposed to mean.
I believe seven days is enough to properly perform our role.
Let’s say the Delegate and Viziers drop thirty endorsements over two months. We don’t know if they’ll regain enough to stabilize until we see what happens. We could either propose a lower cap and risk it being unnecessary once it’s enacted, or wait a month ish to see if it’s stable and then wait another month to enact it, leaving us vulnerable for, in my opinion, far too long.
Eliminating delegate approval on endo cap changes is ideal in general. I trust the Magisters to make the right choice on signing off on an endorsement cap change as it is. This would be a significant reduction in bureaucracy as well as a solid security measure.
I don’t see why we can’t just… deliberate whilst voting? Almost like 12 Angry Men (but a bit less lopsided): votes may change as sides present their argument. This has happened at least once in this sad, sad saga, hasn’t it? (Do correct me if this is a bad idea.)
If the Praesidium could at the very least vaguely hint as to the reason they want to do a change, I think that’s a good enough explanation to be added in the case of deliberation summarization. If not for the whole “classified” deal, I’d consider the summary a common-sense addition; I still do, really.
It is imperative that the Magisterium and Praesidium work to an agreement to reduce bureaucratic delays on both sides of the equation if both parties consider endorsement cap changes to be an urgent matter, as seems to be the case made over the course of these deliberations.
a. Backing up from the endorsement cap argument and going to the Magisterium as a whole: in this modern day and age of one-click, one-tap Magister voting, is it really necessary for voting to be a week-long process?
This is what I’m saying. It makes perfect sense to me, idk why people don’t agree – particularly because no one has bothered to engage with that argument in either of these threads.
The following edits have been made: Lowering the amount of time it takes to 3 days of debate and 4 days of voting,
Changing the arbitrary value of 3 to a fractional value of the magisterium calculated as 1/6, and lowering the delay to 3 days.
TLDR: The total amount of time for the magisterium to deliberate and vote will be 7-10 days.
So in other words, excluding the extension (to which I still object), it will take the same amount of time for the Magisterium to consider the proposal, but they will be barred from voting for three of the seven days? What’s the reasoning behind this? Keeping in mind, as I’ve said multiple times, Magisters can still debate while the voting period is open, may change their vote at any time, and may withhold their vote for any number of time within the period if they personally make that choice.
Psychological norms really, when the vote has been called most magisters really don’t debate at all. A rushed vote imperceptibly forces a yes vote for most magisters.
If Magisters make the personal choice to vote without deliberation I don’t think we should stop them. And I know for a fact that many who are voting against our currently proposed cap (maybe even all) would have also done so had the vote been opened immediately.
I don’t support this change as a kneejerk reaction to a surprisingly heated argument over an endocap decrease, nor do I ever support a voting period being shortened from 7 days. I think the lesson we need to learn from this experience is better communication between government bodies and individuals within said bodies, and I believe that trying to institutionalize said better communication or build it into the mechanics of our process will most likely fail. Something that convolutes our process like this isn’t necessary. TEP is already complicated enough.
I wouldn’t necessarily argue that this bill is a knee-jerk reaction to what happened in the bill, I would argue that the fundamental difference between the magisterium wishing to reserve the right to conduct its own timely due diligence and the praesidium wishing to preserve our region’s security has been at odds and we have to draw the line somewhere. I wrote this bill with that in mind so we can draw a line in which we are in agreement with.