Acting from a poll in this again:
@Aurora_Yukihime @Dremaur @Kingdom_of_Napels @Marrabuk @Aggie @Dabeez
All of you formed the majority who believe the system is too burdensome and bureaucratic. Give me precise and detailed reasons and ideas so I can act on it.
Everyone else who has something to say, come, post it, now’s the time to speak up.
Oh, I purposefully abstained on that question. Mainly since I didn’t consider the system to be problematic bureaucratically, but I also wanted to hear improvement proposals.
I don’t think it’s overly cumbersome or bureaucratic at all. The components of a good voter registration system are as follows:
Our current system requires a forum post on a specific thread, a telegram from a TEP nation, and a telegram from a WA nation, both sent to a member of the VRO. I explained that in one sentence. Checks off first bullet. Additionally, forum post means IP check, IP check means no banned nations coming back. Second bullet checked. Multiple registrations? Even if IP wasn’t enough, we verify with WA. NS enforces the one-person-one-WA rule. Third bullet checked. Prevents easy votestacking? Praesidium can deny registration to security threats, and people cannot vote in elections/referendums if they registered after the election started. Fourth bullet checked.
What more do we need? An idea that has been suggested (and forgive me for not remembering who to credit, maybe Zuk?) to have voter registration (and/or voting in general) on the RMB of The Confederated East Pacific, via embassy. This would allow for RMB RPers to be judged for registration without needing the forums, and would allow them to more easily vote. It removes the extra IP check, but strict enforcement of the WA verification, and a higher level of inherent suspicion on the Praesidium’s part before a nation is cleared, could balance this out. This change I would support.
Other changes? I don’t see why they are needed. That said, not a single alternative system is being proposed here, so neither I nor my fellow Magisters may judge those on their own merits. If/when more individuals respond to this thread, as Vussul has begged and pleaded of all of you, then maybe I’ll have a different opinion on whether or not they’d improve the system. Which, by the way, he shouldn’t have to do in order to get these ideas.
Yes, and I agree that the voter registration system is good in this respect.
I suppose where I keep flip-flopping is the issue I have with “citizens”, which in general implies that you can vote on things or run for elected office without needing to go through another registration process. I don’t quite know how I’d solve this though – the system itself is fine as it’s currently designed, but even if the registration itself is easy to explain, how our system broadly works isn’t necessarily.
Well I mean in real life, voter registration is required even for citizens, at least here in the United States.
Yes, but twenty states have enacted automatic voter registration since 2015, usually when you renew your driver’s license.
The lack of discussion over this major issue is concerning. I propose a modified system:
I support these changes both as a Magister and as the individual responsible for maintaining Voter Registration.
This looks interesting. On the “getting telegrammed instead of telegramming” proposal, telegrams are meant so the nation confirms it is indeed applying, so I can’t seem to understand how that would work. How would you envision it?
The Director would telegram the nation’s Citizenship and their WA nation and ask them to reply in confirmation that they are applying. If their WA and Citizenship nations are different, they should be told to also confirm from the other nation.
I’m not sure about the other proposals yet, but this, I support.
I support this proposal.
In particular, the director/s having to TG the applicant. Just makes it easier for the applicant to “confirm” their application.
The referendum looks like it has passed. Here is my amendment to the Citizenship Act.
For the new application form:
As I currently read it, the Office can rebrand the thread and declare it the established thread. I may be stretching definitions, but I think this is acceptable.
As it is currently worded, with “may”, I read this as optional.
I do believe that is the intent behind it. I’m willing to remove it if most people want it gone.
It means, as I understand it, an application is legally denied or accepted at the moment the a post is made by an official on the thread. Similarly, it is only removed at the moment an official notes it is removed in the thread.
Implications would be someone receiving a 48 hour notice but casting a valid voting in a Delegate election because an official was tardy.
I believe this was included to make everything completely open and transparent so there would be no backstage removals nobody is aware of.
The one affirming the right to appeal is unnecessary. I have removed it. The other makes having a nation while prohibited a summary offence that can be acted upon. Obviously, if an appeal is successful, this summary offence would be inherently overturned with it.
The rest of your proposals have been acted upon.
If the Office determines a ban is inconsequential or that a ban two days prior isn’t recent enough to be of consequence, is there any recourse once they’re granted citizenship?
Do you mean if the decision to grant can be appealed by someone or an authority? At present, no, I don’t think there is.
Yes, that’s what I mean. I didn’t think there was either, and I think there should be if one office can potential readmit a questionable character.
I have added clause 3.4.1 which allows to Praesidium to overrule the Office’s decision to grant Citizenship but only for reasons of regional security.