Question: would the “various methods” that are in place now, prevent us from a new Fedele from becoming a Delegate or a couper?
I wouldn’t leave it up to the voters, seeing that our very large region only delivered about 30 votes in the recent Delegate election. A relatively small group, systematically working towards gaining the delegacy, could still do so, and easily imho.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn ANE-LX1 met Tapatalk
— End quote
The question is, how could one even have guessed Fedele is a couper when they first elected him? There’s always an element of uncertainty. Just because someone hasn’t exhibited the behaviours of a couper doesn’t mean they never will, and just because someone has couped another region before doesn’t mean they would coup this one. Also, keep in mind the 35 votes was only in two days, the shortest time frame of any GCR Delegate election that I know of, and that will be changed under the new election law. I’d estimate about 50 voters, which would be a pretty good turnout (I believe higher than TSP).
I disagree with the notion that we wouldn’t need security policies others than getting the voters’ trust. TEP is a democratic region that has historically always tried to be open to both newcomers and people in need of a new chance. We have already made various changes, but such an open stance can only hold if a coherent security policy is in place. Clearly checks on Citizenship alone don’t suffice. The changes regarding Viziers are a structural change, but not one aimed at the level of individual nations. The prohibition legislation is only useful to avoid specific individuals or groups, but is not a general policy across the board. I believe requiring a certain standard of conduct from TEP’s public officials is not that much to ask, and for example being banned from another GCR is a pretty high indication that special caution is necessary.
On the other, it would prevent AMOM and, if we want to go back to years and years ago, Todd from running in elections in the future
Could there be a way we could legislate the policy so as to give certain exceptions? Or should we just ban them from being candidates. Given that both Todd and AMOM have served in the Delegacy before, and how they can help the region in other ways, I’m not averse to an idea of a blanket policy.
You could legislate that the Viziers can sign off on exceptions, for example. If candidates for certain positions aren’t eligible, the Viziers can “clear” them. That way, you have a blanket rule, but with exceptions possible.
I disagree with the notion that we wouldn’t need security policies others than getting the voters’ trust. TEP is a democratic region that has historically always tried to be open to both newcomers and people in need of a new chance. We have already made various changes, but such an open stance can only hold if a coherent security policy is in place. Clearly checks on Citizenship alone don’t suffice. The changes regarding Viziers are a structural change, but not one aimed at the level of individual nations. The prohibition legislation is only useful to avoid specific individuals or groups, but is not a general policy across the board. I believe requiring a certain standard of conduct from TEP’s public officials is not that much to ask, and for example being banned from another GCR is a pretty high indication that special caution is necessary.
— End quote
For the part that I have bolded, assuming you mean IC bans (since OOC bans are of a different nature), they are often political in nature, and GCRs are not immune to it. People are frequently banned for taking a position against a certain GCR. Take, for example, Balder’s ban (up until recently) of all TRR citizens.
I do mean IC bans, as people banned OOC won’t get in anyway. And if the Viziers can grant exceptions, I really don’t see the problem with examining such bans first.
I do mean IC bans, as people banned OOC won’t get in anyway. And if the Viziers can grant exceptions, I really don’t see the problem with examining such bans first.
— End quote
Frankly, I think granting Viziers the power essentially to vet Delegate candidates is a bit of an overreach and harmful to the separation of powers.
Not all candidates, just the ones who by their record have proven to be a liability to other GCR’s. Seems common sense to me. You’ll have to explain the harm to the separation of powers, because I don’t know why you’d think that.
Not all candidates, just the ones who by their record have proven to be a liability to other GCR’s. Seems common sense to me. You’ll have to explain the harm to the separation of powers, because I don’t know why you’d think that.
— End quote
Depending on how it could be worded, lots of people could be included in the list to “have proven to be a liability to other GCRs”. As I pointed out before, every TRR citizen was banned from Balder at some point. When I mentioned the harm to separation of powers, the Viziers are in charge of security, while Delegate elections are a political process for the Executive of the region. Now, before you mention the fact that the Viceroy administers these elections, their role is limited based on a set of procedures and will be limited further based on this law, while Viziers would be given free reign over their decisions.
…4.8- Citizens who are serving a current ban sentence from any of the East Pacific’s treatied allies shall be prohibited from becoming Delegate candidates.
…4.8.1- The Viceroy shall be able to waive any citizen from the policy found in 4.8, with the approval of the Grand Vizier OR approval by Conclave vote. If said waiver is granted to a citizen, it must be publicly posted in the appropriate sub-forum for Delegate elections, in its own thread, with the title of the thread dictating the name of the citizen.
…4.8.1.1- Waivers shall last for two elections: the one in which is the waiver was granted, and the next upcoming election after the election in which the waiver was granted. The expiry of the waiver will occur whether or not the citizen runs as a candidate in an election. Upon expiry, the process listed in 4.8.1 shall be repeated.
…4.8.1.2- Should a citizen holding a waiver obtain a new ban sentence from an allied region, their waiver shall immediately expire.
— End quote
How’s this? What this does:
Any allied region’s ban sentences, whether administrative or court-ordered, shall bar entry as a candidate. I say allied, because even if someone does coup another region (It will get brought up during campaigns anyways), I believe we shouldn’t have non-allied GCRs influencing our policies in elections. In that case, let the voters decide. Ofc, if we want to make it a stringent all GCRs, I can do that as well. Also, allied regions includes UCRs as well.
The Viceroy can go through two methods to approve a candidate: approval of the Grand Vizier or by Conclave vote. Approval by the Grand Vizier is definitely faster, but the option for the Conclave to take matters into their own hands is equally valid. After all, the Conclave led by the Viceroy is tasked with running elections.
This introduced the concept of waivers, of basically a statement which clears the candidate. Separate thread needed so that it doesn’t get lost in the bustle of elections, and waivers can only be granted during elections.
Waivers expire after two elections because things regional values and perspectives change, so we should keep this. However, should a citizen occur a new ban sentence from an allied region, they shall immediately have their waiver expired and their status as a candidate voided. This should assume that if elections are in the voiding period, the candidate who has lost their waiver will become a write-in.
Looks good to me. Also regarding the “allies”.
Someone being banned from an unallied region (e.g. a fascist one, banning them for being too nice) should not stop us from having that person as a Delegate after a while.
This only applies to elections? So, when an elected Delegate gets a ban from an allied region (how unlikely that may be) half way through their term, then that only affects their next election. Right?
I don’t think I can support this change. On principle, I just believe it should be the voters’ choice. And on effectiveness, I have considered a few examples.
Firstly, Fedele. At the time of his first election he appears to be a popular figure in the region (hence why he was elected), supported by the outgoing Delegate (also a popular figure). If such a law had existed then, would there even be enough basis for the Viziers or the Conclave to go against public opinion and bar the candidate based on evidence of coups many years ago? (I believe Fedele wasn’t involved in any recent coups at the time, even if other Rahl/LWU members were.) It would, in all likelihood, not have prevented Fedele’s election. Even in his third term, many were skeptical Fedele would actually coup. Would the Viziers or Conclave have changed their opinion on an already twice-elected Delegate, with no new evidence? Again, most likely not.
Secondly, I’m going to refer back to Balder. Balder, an allied region, banned all citizens from TRR, an even older allied region, for the comments made by one TRT staffer. Now, they could probably be given a waiver. But what if Balder decided to double down because someone else from TRR made another comment, and it just happens while a TRR member is candidate during an election? For what it’s worth, the same scenario can be considered for an individual rather than an entire region. What if someone makes a negative remark on a region twice and thus banned twice? Now, the possibilities are slim, but that would be extremely unfair to the candidate.
Despite my skepticism for this whole thing overall, I’ll still point out some things you can fix if you decide to go through with it. The term “ban sentence” is rather vague. Many regions institute bans, much like with our proposed PIGS Act, without a court sentencing. So would a “ban sentence” mean any ban, or only ones enforced by a regional court? (On that note, some regions don’t have courts, like TRR). And on the expiration of waivers that I’ve already touched on before, I don’t think nulling one during an election is a great idea, since it doesn’t give the candidate the fair chance of a review, even if the new ban could be for trivial reasons.
…4.8- Citizens who are serving a current ban sentence from any of the East Pacific’s treatied allies shall be prohibited from becoming Delegate candidates.
— End quote
Aside from the obvious issue I have with this, why would we give anyone this much power over us?
Not sure, tbf. Maybe we can say that anyone who has been banned from an allied reason, for whatever reason no matter what, just needs to be vetted by the Viceroy before running? And this status would simply be kept until the Viceroy decides to revoke their status?
We could find some way to prevent potential abuse, and it’s simpler I think
I think the simplest way is to let the voters choose. Do they feel so strongly in favor or against any particular candidate(s) that they’re willing to risk the loss of a few treaties? It may someday be a choice we face.
If a citizen has no criminal history within TEP they should retain the right to serve, and we should not restrict the region’s ability to choose them with circuitous “checks & balances” spaghetti. You’d be hearing the same thing from me even if I wasn’t in my current PR predicament. I may be the only one ruled out by this at the moment, but the moment is fleeting. We have treaties with regions that effectively have no justice system. They can ban whoever they like on a moment’s notice. Would any of them do anything duplicitous at this very moment? Unlikely. We probably wouldn’t be allied with them currently if we suspected them of that sort of intent. Would you be setting us up for a very awkward, dangerous situation in the future? Maybe.
I am not a fan of letting the voters decide. As said before, we’re a large region and yet only a handful of people have voted in the last election. Letting the voters decide would make it very easy for say the Rahl family to gain the delegacy, just by showing up. And exactly that is what this was meant to prevent.