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%).