[DISCUSSION] Delegate Reforms

Hello hello! I bring here a discussion I know we’ve had before, but also one I’ve had more recently with people: the Delegacy and Regional Leadership. I’d like to make a sort of overhaul of pros and cons of having our elected head of state as Delegate of the region as well and discuss changes with increased interest in the Delegate and/or Head of State position in mind; as well as regional power.

As it stands the elected head of state being the WAD shows:
Pros:

  • Faster governance of anything related to onsite stuff
  • Easier understanding for new people of who leads the region
  • Simple democracy (1 elected person does all)

Cons:

  • Closed democracy: R/Ders don’t want to be WA locked
  • Closed democracy: some people wanting to be Delegate might not feel good enough to also be head of state
  • Closed democracy: some people might not want the hassle of being Delegate and just want to lead the region
  • Closed democracy: 1 elected position with sweeping powers
  • Less powerful Delegate: musical chairs of elections (meaning loss of WA votes)
  • Less powerful Delegate: burnout from leading the region (meaning less likely to run a second term thus loss of WA votes)
  • Less powerful Delegate: cannot always focus on endotarting, also has to act as the head of state
  • Less powerful Delegate: has to focus on endotarting the first days/weeks of the election, less focus put on actual governing
  • Less powerful Delegate: some people run only for the achievement of being GCR Delegate, not to lead the region
  • Security Danger: electing coupers

Now there are three ways to go if we wish to change that system, all of which include an elected Head of State which is not the Delegate:

(1) An appointed Delegate
This is the Europeian way if you want another region as example (see here). The elected head of state appoints a designated citizen as Delegate each X amount of days. Please not this does not mean MoWAA = Delegate though it can be. The Europeian system has these positions separated.

Pros:

  • Simple democracy (1 elected person does all)
  • More powerful Delegate: dedicated Delegate nation
  • More powerful Delegate: possibility of appointing the same person again
  • Less closed democracy: removes barriers for R/Ders and those who don’t want to be Delegate
  • Less closed democracy: makes it easier for those wanting to be Delegate without wanting to be head of state

Cons:

  • Separated positions: needs 2 people instead of one person.
  • Less Powerful Delegate: At any time can be replaced and WA voting power can be lost / decreased
  • Security risks: appointing a malicious delegate

(2) An elected Delegate
This is the Thaecian way if you want another region as example (see here). The Delegate and Head of State are elected each X amount of days, not necessarily at the same time.

Neutral:

  • Less simple democracy (2 elected positions)

Pros:

  • More powerful Delegate: dedicated Delegate nation
  • More powerful Delegate: possibility of electing the same person again
  • Less closed democracy: removes barriers for R/Ders and those who don’t want to be Delegate
  • Less closed democracy: makes it easier for those wanting to be Delegate without wanting to be head of state

Cons:

  • Separated positions: needs 2 people instead of one person.
  • Separated positions: needs 2 elections (or one general election with 2 different seats available)
  • Less Powerful Delegate: Gets replaced every X months if they do not run for re-election: lose WA voting power
  • Security risks: electing a malicious delegate

(3) A static Delegate
No elected or appointed Delegate, instead either a Vizier or “root account” type nation is made Delegate. Head of State is separate and elected every X days.

Pros:

  • Simple democracy (1 elected position)
  • More powerful Delegate: dedicated Delegate nation
  • More powerful Delegate: always the same nation, no loss of WA endos
  • Less closed democracy: removes barriers for R/Ders and those who don’t want to be Delegate
  • Ultimate Security: Makes TEP 99.99% coup-proof if an Admin or Vizier-Admin is the static Delegate.

Cons:

  • Even more closed democracy: those wanting to be Delegate without wanting to be head of state now simply cannot be Delegate.
  • Even more closed democracy: loss of interest due to fixed Delegate?
  • Security risks: one of the old people we entrust to the position decides to coup (very very unlikely)
  • Less powerful Delegate: the person behind the static Delegate nation cannot humanely endotart everyday for eternity (meaning stagnation/loss of endorsements at some point).

(4) Indefinite Vizier appointee Delegate

One of Viziers is selected to indefinitely serve as the WA Delegate of The East Pacific, which becomes an office within the Praesidium. Once selected, the WA Delegate is reconfirmed every 6 months by the Magisterium (or Praesidium). In addition to that, at any moment WA Delegate can be removed from the office for inactivity (failure to perform duties) or crimes. There is no way to replace WA Delegate until one resigns or isn’t reconfirmed or is removed - which means there is no elections, nor a challenge system. The ultimate goal of WA Delegate is to gather endorsements, increase voting power, endotart actively and vote accordingly to opinion of the Executive.

Pros:

  • Simple democracy (1 elected person)
  • More powerful Delegate: dedicated Delegate person
  • More powerful Delegate: serves until removal or resignation
  • Less closed democracy: removes barriers for R/Ders and those who don’t want to be Delegate
  • Security: nation with the highest endorsement count in The East Pacific is a part of the Praesidium
  • Security: Highly decreased chances of couping - one first needs to be nominated for Vizier, then confirmed by Magisterium, then selected by the Praesidium - meaning, that three government branches participate and the way to become WA Delegate is a long one with multiple verifications.

Cons:

  • Even more closed democracy: those wanting to be Delegate without wanting to be head of state simply cannot be Delegate.
  • Even more closed democracy: loss of interest due to Vizier (not easy to reach) Delegate?
  • Less powerful Delegate: Viziers barely endotart and are always many endorsements under a Delegate who already has a very low count. Thus we can’t expect a Vizier to endotart everyday.
  • Security risks: coup from inside the Praesidium (very unlikely)

Besides all the noted pros and cons, please note that there is a shared pro between all 4 proposals: the elected head of state is elected to lead the region, not to be Delegate. This is important for a democracy: it makes it so those who only (or mostly) aim for the bragging rights of being a GCR Delegate are not also our head of state, which can be damaging.

Finally note that the aim of a split is to ensure heightened WA power by having a dedicated Delegate nation: ensuring constant endotart and thus a high endorsement % (as opposed to now where we are around 55%).

If you could share your thoughts on each system and propose more pros and cons please do!

I think splitting our Delegate is a good thing and something I generally lean to supporting.

I do not think static Delegate is a good idea because I do think we need opportunities for people to advance and wield our region’s powerful positions, which static delegate prevents. Also we’ll stagnate in endorsement counts eventually.

I think the only thing I could feasibly like is Elected Delegate.

more later

I’ve added the stagnation point as a con for static delegate!

And I agree with the opportunities part, though we should still stay wary given this position grants all technical powers over the region.

Im fine being wary but it is important to remember we’ve had this set-up for 14 years and its worked (although nearly not in 2019, admittedly, but it still did).

While an elected delegate is definitely the highest in terms of security risk for relative options, security risk itself has been proven pretty low by historical trends. So long as we have a large Praesidium acting an endorsement sponge, the security structure will hold.

It only nearly failed in 2019 because the number of Viziers was too few, primarily due to cultural constraints we no longer have.

So to be more specific,

The unique part of being WA Delegate in any form is a) its ability to wield WA influence and b) appoint ROs. I imagine any system we implement will have the actual gov. leader appointing ROs, so b is moot. Anything else the Delegate currently does can be accomplished by an RO position and legal powers.

So what needs to happen for the WA Delegate is that they’re endotarting consistently and voting consistently in the World Assembly. Based on past Delegates elected under our current system, this clearly does not happen (depending on who we elect).

Security-wise, it is also beneficial to split apart the two positions. Someone who is WA Delegate can’t ruin our FA or Executive activity; someone who is the gov. leader can’t use endorsements to coup unless they have a dedicated friend.

The final thing IMO is that the Delegate needs to be open to people. I don’t really believe it will be beneficial to us to keep the Delegate static and locked behind one person. Will we have stable endorsement counts, sure. But they will stagnate eventually, and a static Delegate will eventually stop voting in the World Assembly. And I doubt our present ability to call out someone not doing their job properly unless they flat out CTE, which is what a “static delegate” seemingly relies on. TEPers are way too kind when it comes to government accountability, and I feel that makes it harder for us to… well, hold people accountable. I feel this will eventually cause our wish for WA endorsements to be a more moot concern as we’ll justify falling endorsement counts because we trust the person and they’re doing the bare minimum.

I do like our current system, but it is also clear the workload is a bit too much for most Delegates and they consequently let the WA workload slide quite a bit. It also has the most security disadvantages. However, one major point to it is that it’s a massive and highly notable way for newbies to serve the region and set goals for themselves if they wish to. This was a massive point of opposition the last time this was discussed.

more later

1 Like

So per convo with few people, here’s a 4th way, that seems to be a consensus of few conflicting takes forged into one:

(4) Indefinite Vizier Appointee

One of Viziers is selected to indefinitely serve as the WA Delegate of The East Pacific, which becomes an office within the Praesidium. Once selected, the WA Delegate is reconfirmed every 6 months by the Magisterium (or Praesidium). In addition to that, at any moment WA Delegate can be removed from the office for inactivity (failure to perform duties) or crimes. There is no way to replace WA Delegate until one resigns or isn’t reconfirmed or is removed - which means there is no elections, nor a challenge system. The ultimate goal of WA Delegate is to gather endorsements, increase voting power, endotart actively and vote accordingly to opinion of the Executive.

Pros:

  • Simple democracy (only Head of State is elected)
  • Quality leadership: people who run for Head of State for the sake of “GCR Delegate achievement” no longer can harm the region
  • More powerful Delegate: dedicated position to focus mainly on increasing WA voting power
  • More powerful Delegate: one serves and gathers endorsements until not verified or removed or resigns (intended long-term position)
  • More powerful Delegate: no constant switches and losing endorsements
  • Less closed democracy: removes barriers for R/Ders and those who don’t want to be the WA Delegate
  • Safety: no risk of puppetswapping, WA multying etc
  • Security: nation with the highest level of influence in The East Pacific is a part of the Praesidium
  • Ultimate Security: Highly decreased chances of couping - one first needs to be nominated for Vizier, then confirmed by Magisterium, then selected by the Praesidium - meaning, that three government branches participate and the way to become WA Delegate is a long one with multiple verifications.
  • Foreign Affairs: one of first steps to take to start having power projection and higher FA & WA relevance

I continue to support the current system for its merits, as it is possible for a common citizen to dream of being at the top of the page one day and achieve it simply by being the best in the seasonal election. I’ve heard this be called “bragging” in pre-post discussion. I call it an engagement opportunity, when we’re already hurting for those. I immediately think of two former TEPers who’d have been entirely different people if they weren’t able to lust for being WAD+Delegate the entire time.

But I understand. The numbers haven’t been the same since my time, and I was an outlier because I endotarted constantly. It definitely makes sense to me to promote TEP’s WA security by having the office become an Executive-Praesidium partnership.

As mentioned prior, the WAD will always have a few duties by very nature of being the WAD. This is voting in the WA and managing ROs.

Now, we’ve already a system where the Delegate commands the immediate past Delegate whilst they still hold the WAD seat during transition. In this situation, it’s always a former Delegate or Vizier the Delegate works with. Such proposals I’ve heard introducing an Admin or parallel-elected official simply doesn’t make sense with respect to that comfortably working portion of our tradition.

My desire, however, is for such an officeholder as a WAD, reconfirmed and reviewed periodically, helmed by a Vizier, should be able to hold their own when approached regarding the WA and requisite FA questioning. This would also promote WA education for new Delegates, in an era where contenders for the office who are also active, much less regulars or authors, in the WA is becoming rare. But to choose from the Praesidium someone for WAD who’d be dedicated to only the WA and WA-FA would be brilliant for Delegate onboarding.

For a tl;dr look only at what’s bolded and such, though I regret this is a more sustainable solution than TEP’s voters valuing endotarting more in campaigns.

I’ve added (4) to my OP while also adding cons and editing its pros!

The main problem with having only Viziers As WAD is that it will not really give the WA power we are seeking after, because our Viziers do not endotart enough to maintain a high level of endorsements.

Case in point, before Shadow’s Delegacy the highest endoed Vizier was like 100 endorsements off from the Delegate. Keep in mind that the individual mandate of a Vizier is to get as many endorsements as possible for a prolonged period of time for security reasons - a mandate similar to a Vizier WAD (but the reasoning being WA power rather than security).

Not to mention the vast majority of Viziers dont endotart daily - which is what you need to do ti maximize endorsements.

We have an extremely clear example of the type of endorsement levels we can expect from a Vizier WAD. So im not sure its the solution here in terms of WA power

And i still think elections aew best for the reaosns i explained above

1 Like

Agreed with Zuk especially due to the Vizier endotarting point, it’s something I’ll add as a con too

I’m gonna reply to some stuff later.

Just.

Why are we bringing “there was 100 endos gap when Shadow took over”? This is irrelevant information. There is 51 endos gap now between Delegate & most endorsed Viziers. What was 4 months ago doesn’t mean much, honestly.

While I was using the gap from four months ago to illustrate how the Viziers arent great at endotarting (the closing of the gap is not from any of the Viziers’ work but rather Shadow failing to endotart everyday), a better metric would be to see how many nations each Vizier needs to tart.

I checked and all the Viziers (excluding Axdel and Sammy) need to endorse arpund 200 nations. Many need to endorse 300, 400, or even 800 nations. Axdel himself is also at around 50 endorsements behind endorsing the entire region. Sammy is around 140.

If we want a WA power, we need a Delegate who endotarts daily. There is simply no other way. At present,the vast majority of the Viziers could not reasonably serve in that capacity for that purpose. Security wise, a Vizier is great. WA wise? Not so much.

One can argue that the added mandate of “getting as much WA power as possible” could lead to different effects, but at the end of the day Viziers are still expected to be as close to the Delegate as they possibly can… i.e., get as many endorsements as they can (what we want a WAD to do) by endotarting daily (what we want a WAD to do). Which they arent doing. And Im not sure making a Vizier WA Delegate will change that habit, considering the similarities of the jobs when it comes to endorsement gathering.

Why would our tradition of having interim Vizier Delegates and having a new Delegate command a former one in the seat invalidate an elected Delegate seperate from Head of State? One could argue that having an elected Delegate itself is a tradition.

I’m gonna ask that. If ya all don’t agree with any of four options, what is your proposal to make sure, that TEP WA voting power constantly increases (as opposed to now, where it comstantly decreases)?

Also I voiced my opinion on Viziers before. If they cant do their job anymore (understandable - they’ve all been Viziers for long years) maybe it means we need a change in the Praesidium.

i did say i agreed with the option to split the delegate into elected del and head of state, or at least that’s what i lean supporting towards

i have my own thoughts on the praesidium, but that’s another discussion.