Debussy;7152 Wrote: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.