[Proposal] Democratic Reform Amendment (October 2019)

[McChimp]

Democratic Reform Amendment (October 2019)

Proposed By: McChimp​

Preamble

This amendment of the Twelfth Mandate of Lazarus establishes democracy in Lazarus whilst retaining the security afforded by the meritocracy it seeks to replace.

Section 1. Amendment of the Twelfth Mandate of Lazarus

(1) The preamble shall be amended to read:

(2) Article I shall be amended to read:

(3) Article II shall be amended to read:

(4) Article IV shall be amended to read:

(5) Article V shall be amended to read:

(6) Article VII shall be amended to read:

(7) Article IX shall be amended to read:

I think we've been anticipating a big constitutional amendment for a while now but it doesn't seem to be moving as fast as I'd like so I thought I'd throw my hat in. The intention of this one is that the delegacy remains meritocratic but a democratically elected Prime Minister serves as head of government, appointing ministers for the Assembly to confirm.

To summarise, the amendment:

• Removes the Delegate's veto on legislation
• Removes the Delegate as head of the Cabinet
• Establishes an elected Prime Minister as head of the Cabinet, who shall run the Cabinet as the Delegate does now during their term
• Seperates the Court from the Delegacy
• Involves the Prime Minister in the process of allowing non-citizens to participate
• Removes the Delegate's veto on constitutional conventions

As always, thoughts and contributions are welcome.

 

[Imaginary]

Thanks for taking the time to write this McChimp; it looks all professional and legal and stuffs. ^-^

I kinda like the idea of the amendment as well... Lazarus is not in a bad spot right now with the Delegate appointing Ministers so I think the similarly designed system of having a PM doing the appointing with the motivation of periodic elections will help our government system become better.

 

[New Rogernomics]

(6) The Prime Minister must appoint Cabinet Ministers to assist with executive ministries, including a Foreign Ministry, an Interior Ministry and any other ministries mandated by law. Appointment of Cabinet Ministers will be subject to confirmation by 50%+1 vote of the Assembly.

Where I would suggest changing this is here. It would be easier if we didn't need to pass a constitutional law each time we want to rename or change a Ministry.

For example:
- PM/Assembly hates the name of the Ministry of Silly Walks and wants to change it to Transportation.
- PM wants to make a new Ministry or merge existing ones.
- PM or Assembly member want to alter minor to major aspects of a ministry function.

We could easily define Ministries in a general act without going so far as requiring constitutional law.

It won't change me voting for/against this proposal.

Though something I'll certainly put forward as a proposed amendment to this if this passes as written.

 

[Imaginary]

Where I would suggest changing this is here. It would be easier if we didn't need to pass a constitutional law each time we want to rename or change a Ministry.

For example:
- PM/Assembly hates the name of the Ministry of Silly Walks and wants to change it to Transportation.
- PM wants to make a new Ministry or merge existing ones.
- PM or Assembly member want to alter minor to major aspects of a ministry function.

We could easily define Ministries in a general act without going so far as requiring constitutional law.

Agreed that passing a constitutional law for every name change you want sounds tedious. x)

It might be good to specify that the PM can create new Ministries or change the titles of old ones? I'm personally not a fan of defining all possible ministries with legislation because it seems like that might hurt the government's flexibility which is important to deal with the changing region.

For example, LD used to be doing WA stuff and Imki created the Citizenry and Recruitment Ministry... but while aspects of the job she made for that LD did well, it didn't generally work out as intended and so she was able to conveniently merge what he was doing into FA despite WA Resolutions not being an official part of FA previously.

 

[McChimp]

I have amended the proposal so that it is specified that elections shall be undertaken by the Assembly and so that the Prime Minister has greater discretion with regards to what ministries comprise the cabinet. A constitutional law is also no longer required to mandate a ministry.

 

[treadwellia]

I'll be looking this over a little more in depth very soon. I'm particularly looking at specific differences overall.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Reading this over again I came across this:

(3) The Prime Minister shall be elected via instant-runoff voting for a four-month term. Elections shall be undertaken by the Assembly. Procedure for elections will be defined by law.

shall be elected via a majority of the assembly for a four-month term.

Voting Method

(#) The voting method for the election or appointment of officials by the Assembly shall be defined as instant run-off voting, with the procedure further defined by law.

With that done you could just do thus:

(3) The Prime Minister shall be elected by majority vote for a four-month term

Also it would allow a further refinement, as all elections undertaken by the assembly are already defined as having a procedure defined by law, so you can leave that out as well.

 

[McChimp]

The proposal has been amended to specify that it is a majority instant runoff vote.

 

[McChimp]

I motion to vote.

 

[McChimp]

I withdraw my motion

 

[McChimp]

The proposal has been amended to give law greater scope to define the citizenship process.

 

[Deleted1]

Why not elect the speaker of the assembly?

 

[McChimp]

Why not elect the speaker of the assembly?

Since the Speaker is supposed to be impartial, candidates shouldn't have a platform to campaign on. The only criterion for this position is for people to trust you to manage the Assembly fairly and in good faith, which is best expressed through a confirmation. Having the Security apparatus appoint the Speaker also helps to safeguard the region's democracy from subversion, similarly to how having that apparatus retain the power to admit citizens does.

I motion to vote.

 

[Deleted1]

If the only criterion for that position is for people to trust you, then would it not make more sense to let the people decide whether they really trust you rather than just checking the yes box on an appointment in a confirmation. It is important to be impartial, and it is also important to make improvements and platforms can help point out what those might be. I also have a problem with you motioning to vote in the middle of this discussion on a topic relating to your position. That does not seem inpartial at all, nor in good faith.

 

[Deleted1]

If the only criterion for that position is for people to trust you, then would it not make more sense to let the people decide whether they really trust you rather than just checking the yes box on an appointment in a confirmation. It is important to be impartial, and it is also important to make improvements and platforms can help point out what those might be. I also have a problem with you motioning to vote in the middle of this discussion on a topic relating to your position. That does not seem inpartial at all, nor in good faith.

 

[McChimp]

If the only criterion for that position is for people to trust you, then would it not make more sense to let the people decide whether they really trust you rather than just checking the yes box on an appointment in a confirmation. It is important to be impartial, and it is also important to make improvements and platforms can help point out what those might be. I also have a problem with you motioning to vote in the middle of this discussion on a topic relating to your position. That does not seem inpartial at all, nor in good faith.

No, since people choosing you over somebody else is not a greater expression of trust than them confirming you. You might have been selected as the lesser of two evils, for example. In a democratic region it's essential to protect that democracy from subversives and having an elected Speaker rather than a confirmed one is a security risk.

My impartiality as Speaker is not at question here. It is my right as the proposal's author-not as Speaker-to motion and I did so with those sound arguments in mind; I will not be amending the proposal further.

 

[Deleted1]

They are not sound. In fact, motioning to vote because of your confidence in certain arguments is the exact definition of not being impartial. If you do not understand that, it only reinforces the need for elections, or renewed confirmations. Security risks should be checked at the door, and be the responsibility of the council of security and delegate. This security arguement of yours, if you really believe it, should be incentive to stop all these reforms all together. Why elect anyone when there could be a risk?

 

[McChimp]

They are not sound. In fact, motioning to vote because of your confidence in certain arguments is the exact definition of not being impartial. If you do not understand that, it only reinforces the need for elections, or renewed confirmations. Security risks should be checked at the door, and be the responsibility of the council of security and delegate. This security arguement of yours, if you really believe it, should be incentive to stop all these reforms all together. Why elect anyone when there could be a risk?

The whole concept behind this proposal is that a meritocratic state supports and allows for a democratic government. Exposing the Speaker, part of that meritocratic state, to elections beyond the influence of the security apparatus endangers the government, presenting an obvious position for subversives to aim for in order to start the kind of arguments and institutional feuds that were the downfall of the Celestial Union. I regard both the idea and agitation for the idea as a security issue. I would withdraw the proposal altogether before I even considered including it.

Motioning my own proposal to vote because I do not intend to alter it further is not an impartial act in my role as Speaker since I am not using any of my powers as Speaker to do it.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Second.

 

[Deleted1]

From my perspective, it looks like you are just protecting your position and this thing smells more like corruption and a continuation of authoritarianism than any real attempt to be meritocratic or democratic.