[Proposal] Democratic Reform Amendment (October 2019)

[McChimp]

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

[Debussy]

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.

[Debussy]

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.

[Debussy]

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.

[Debussy]

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.

[McChimp]

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.

The amendment was written with the intention of democratising the government, a decision I made after considering fruitful discord discussions and the apparent political realities of the mechanical sinkers. The Speaker isn't part of that government so if I had decided to change the appointment procedure for that position it would always have been an additional extra.