[Draft] Amendment to clarify elections and candidacy

I actually convinced myself in my previous post that the "seated by the Delegate" clause should be omitted altogether. So, "A fourth position "Alternate Justice" shall be elected by the Legislature and seated by the WA Delegate," should be changed to "A fourth position "Alternate Justice" shall be elected by the Legislature." This way the Delegate cannot refuse to seat the candidate elected by the vote and the Delegate will not serve to filter the candidates thus eliminating the cronyism concern. The need to have a committee is also eliminated by removing the clause. Therefore, only the nomination system proposed by Lun Noir will filter the candidates. Admittedly, this will mean run-off elections will almost certainly be needed; however, the 5-3-6 day election process will minimize the length of the election cycle and thus the pain of a run-off election.

They may do voluntary things for the good of the region... which becomes an unwritten duty of the position effectively increasing the power of the position. And what happens when someone comes a long and questions the duty being not covered in the constitution?

 

In addition to a candidate having a minimum requirement of being a citizen, we could also make it a requirement that a candidate not hold any other office at the time of their election (this would give precedent for future amendments to give the same requirements to all other positions)

 

I agree about the WAD seating phrase.

I think that as long as the additional tasks do not carry the weight of law behind them (that is, they do not sway any legal processes and are things that can be carried out by anyone), there is no conflict.

In doing a bit more research, it makes sense: This phrase shows up in job applications to maximize the amount of things that an employee may be asked to do, but it does not show up in Constitutional articles because in the case of authority positions, the purpose is to limit the amount of things they may do.

I think this would be a fair thing to state.



Am starting to put a draft together currently, based on the discussions so far. Keep in mind that this is all still under debate and that the draft should in no way be taken as a 'final'. It is simply that: a draft, so we can all kind of see what we're talking about.

Also, a question (admittedly a highly unlikely one): What should occur in the event that a call for candidacy of a necessary position receives no candidates? Should the Delegate be permitted to appoint someone in that eventuality?

 

I wouldn't be opposed to that IF it came with checks and balances, for instance the legislative body could vote yea or nay on the appointee.

 

Yes, this is what should be allowed.

The balance to this is that when the W.A.D/CEO appoints a new officer, it will be left to the citizens of Capitalist Paradise to vote for or against this individual as the legislative body. In the event of a draw, the POL issues the final vote as head of the legislative in order to break the tie.

 

It was my understanding that the citizens of CP ARE the Legislative body, so yeah I agree with you.

 

Perhaps, as a sort of compromise, in the event that a call to candidacy receives no candidates, the WAD may select a candidate (of course subject to that candidates willingness to perform the job). The candidacy process begins anew (5 days), and if the Legislature is unable to muster up an alternate candidate, the single candidate selected by the WAD would simply gain the position.

This would avoid a situation where the Legislature just repeatedly voted 'Nay' against the WAD's selection without ever offering up an alternative. If they were unhappy with the selected candidate, they would be obligated to find an alternative.

 

I am still against the additional requirement that the candidate hold no other office. When the constitution was written, we were taking into consideration all possible conditions the region may find itself in. The constitution does state the operations of the government when there is no active founder. The constitution does need to consider times when the population is 5 and times when the population is 700, so the constitution can govern the region regardless of regional population.

 

I very much agree with this.

 

This sounds reasonable.

I don't think an officer should have to give up their office if they wish to pursue a new one, however, they should be required to step down from the old if elected to the new.

 

Understood. In any case, this amendment need not make a decision on this particular issue at this particular time. We'll omit mention of holding a position, but will be including the requirement for citizenship.

 

Are you suggesting that the Minister appointments also be voted for by the legislature?

 

That should not be subject to vote. The cabinet is an extension of the elected Delegate.

 

This.

 

I dunno, I always thought the appointment system worked fine... though I can definitely see the benefits of such a system.

 

I thought that I had worded it in such a way that would mean they only had to leave previous office. If I failed to do so, that is what I intended.

would you be willing to compromise? maybe say that the only circumstance they could hold two offices would be if there was no other willing candidate.

 

Actually, if it were phrased right, the aforementioned process of 'WAD may select a candidate in the event of no eligible candidates' could potentially cover this.

 

I don't see how it could, but i'm willing to be proven wrong

 

You are right such a clause would cover times when the population of the region is below the number of available positions. Great thinking Lun!

 

Electors are defined as the players and not the nations. Each player within Capitalist Paradise who has current regional citizenship is allowed only one vote; puppet nations are not permitted to cast additional votes

No person convicted of election fraud by the regional Court shall be qualified to vote or hold office until they are issued a regional pardon.

Why should all of these positions be barred from running for office? Some of these positions can simply forfeit their current positions upon election to another office.

Don't forget to add that the inability of the legislature to vote or produce an alternate results in the WA Delegate's authority to seat the appointed person.

I thought we agreed that dropping out of the general election simply resulted in the loss of that candidacy slot, period.