New Bill Proposal

FionnMcCumhall

Emperor
Joined
May 28, 2002
Messages
1,158
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
This is a new bill proposal brought to the judicial by War_Mongrol.

Please read and discuss this, and do not be quick to dismiss it as well.

The Following is a speech.

To my fellow Citizens and more directly to the members of the Judiciary,

While I may be a member of the Executive Branch I come before you today not as the Foreign Affairs Leader, not as the Mayor of the Beautiful City of North Shore, but instead I stand in front of you as the root of all that is great, I stand as a Citizen of Fanatica.

I have come here today as a Citizen to invoke our written laws, more specifically our Constitution, Section C, Article 2, Subsection B.

This is a proposal, an amendment that can alter the way we view our roles as Leaders. In my travels abroad I have come into contact with other civilizations and their forms of government. Please excuse me as I give you a brief explanation of what I have found.

In a Republic we the people, the citizens, lose direct control on the Government Executive Branch. With one single vote, spent on voting individuals into Parliament, we put our entire power into that particular group of individuals. But what I find interesting, what I fail to find is the law that gives the people sole power for trust in their Government Leaders. In a Republic it is a called a Vote Of Confidence, in a Democracy (although on a much smaller scale) it is called a Recall.

Both these processes share the same idealogy which can be summed up briefly, a Vote that is based on the discontent of the people which effectively ends the Leader in question's Term.

Why would I propose such a bill? Do I not have not have cnofidence in our Leaders? The answer is undeniably YES I DO. How ever there may come a scenerio where we may think that whis may be necessary, where it may be in the better interest of our Nation.
 

FionnMcCumhall

Emperor
Joined
May 28, 2002
Messages
1,158
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
The following is the actual bill.

Bill of "Vote of Confidence"

Purpose: To allow the Citizens (all citizens including Leaders) to express their discontent with a Current Leader.

Execution: This I leave to the Judiciary to make better preparations and regulations but this is my envisionment. A) The Citizen that wishes to hold a vote of confidence posts a thread entitled "Vote of Confidence for (Insert Leader Name)" or B) the Citizen approaches a Leader and states their Case to them, that Leader will raise the vote. The Vote thread has two options Confidence or No Confidence. The thread should remain open for 24 Hours and CAN include the reasons for the vote. In a Republic the vote is cast immediately and sometimes with out reason. That is why I propose this type of Voting.

Reprucussions: If the vote gives the result of No Confidence in a Republic and Democracy the Leader is immediately removed from office. How ever considering the need for Growth of Fanatica I propose they either be put on probation for a given amount of time followed by another vote of confidence or removed. This I would leave in the hands of the Judiciary.

This is my Proposal and I hope this Great Nation, it's citizens and it's Leaders, sees this Bill as I do, another oppurtunity for Fanatica to be truely Democratic and give more power to it's People.
 

DaveShack

Inventor
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
13,109
Location
Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
I agree with this idea, and have suggested a similar implementation in the DG4 ideas threads. I think this comes too late in DG3 to offset the amount of work required to get it passed. It should definitely be included in the draft ruleset for DG4.
 

Peri

Vote early and vote often
Joined
Aug 31, 2002
Messages
3,261
It is a very good idea indeed. Perhaps we could even do away with PIs with this in place. I agree with Dave that this needs to be in the DG4 ruleset.
 

Bootstoots

Deity
Retired Moderator
Joined
Mar 2, 2003
Messages
9,437
Location
Mid-Illinois
I think a form of it should be in the DG4 ruleset, however I think that it should be modified a bit. As we are always in a democracy in the DG regardless of in-game government I feel that we should include that proposal for every government type. I would also like to see it be significantly harder to kick someone out of office than the proposal suggests. I do support recalling leaders in emergencies or if they have been absent for a long period of time without explanation, but I don't want the replacement of leaders in mid-term to be commonplace. I think it would be better if a vote of confidence required a 48-hour discussion and another 48-hour poll for the vote of confidence. Perhaps it should require a three-fifths or two-thirds majority to remove a leader from office. However, if a leader underwent a vote of No Confidence he would be immediately removed from that office. Also, the number of PI's would be greatly reduced; the only reason I can think of to have PI's is for illegal playing of the game under this proposal.
 

GenMarshall

Highborne Night Elven Ghost Agent
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
43,784
Location
New Suramar City, Vekta, United Terran Systems
Heh, now I know how Chansellor Valorium was kicked out of the Republic by a Vote of no Confedence. After seeing that the PI on Donsig did not worked, possibly this would help keep renigade Presidents in check.
 

War_Mongrol

The Quiet, loud one...
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
83
Location
In my subconscious
Just to clarify, I would like this proposal to include all Leaders from the President to a Governer to possibly even Mayors.
Also the idea of kicking some one out of office I feel would be a very harsh action. That is why I suggested probation, unless an overwhelming majority want the leader out.
Aslo I would like to throw this into the mix which came to me last night was the idea of limiting the votes. Instead of leaving it free and open how about limiting it to 1 or 2 possible votes per term. Also in republics the Leader himself can call for a vote of no confidence on himself/herself, they use this as a tactic toscare parliament into doing what they want, since after all if parliament is just upset about one single issue and voting No confidence would kick out the leader there by ending all issues. Hopefully this makes sense to some one if not PM and I'd be happy to give you the run down on republic Governments.

As I've mentioned this is just a proposal and if it does get passed I highly expect it to be tweaked since there are many things that can be fixed.

Once again thank you for listenning to my proposal and Long Live Fanatica!
*waves peace sign and leaves to meet with Persian Official"
 

zorven

12,000 Suns
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
1,964
Originally posted by DaveShack
I think this comes too late in DG3 to offset the amount of work required to get it passed. It should definitely be included in the draft ruleset for DG4.

I believe that it is not "too late". Why? Because I think that we should not re-invent the wheel at the beginning of each demogame. I think we should take our current systems with us to DG4 and work within the system to make the changes we feel need to be changed. I think this adds continuity, lessens confusion, and adds to the "legal game play" aspect of this game.
 

ravensfire

Member of the Opposition
Joined
Feb 1, 2002
Messages
5,281
Location
Gateway to the West
I am absolutely against this proposal.

When we elect a citizen to an office, we are doing more than entrusting that person with that office, we are affirming that each citizen has carefully examined that person and their knowledge, and deemed them up to the challenge of that task. If you as a citizen vote for a person soley because you are a friend of that person, and did not consider if they can do that job, then YOU, as a citizen, have FAILED at your duty to elect officials.

The infamous "donsig" incident has once again been brought forth from the dark closet of Fanatican history. Let me remind everyone about several factors in that situation.

First, NOBODY could find a SINGLE LAW on the books that donsig broke. Nobody.

Second, several official resigned because they couldn't be bothered to discharge the duties of their office.

Third, many of the loopholes and deficiences found during that time are STILL not closed.

When we elect a person to an office, they ought to have the expectation that, as long as they follow the law, they will have a full month to implement their agenda. A "No-Confidence" vote is nothing more than another popular vote the official must endure. It's not even a trial, where they at least after the presumption of innocence.

No, if we as citizens want to remove an official from office, we need to do it soley for cause, as found in a PI. This proposal makes a farce of the entire election process.

-- Ravensfire
 

zorven

12,000 Suns
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
1,964
I was sitting here trying to think of what I was going to write in response to this proposal. However, once again ravensfire has put into words what I was feeling. I fully support what ravensfire posted.
 

War_Mongrol

The Quiet, loud one...
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
83
Location
In my subconscious
The purpose of this proposal is not to hold a popularity poll, it is not to make the specific leader feel targeted in the sense that they are are an evil person. It merely is a vote that says "We feel you aren't doing yout job" in what ever sense that means.
Secondly I did not intend this proposal to be used in any reference to the Donsig incedent, so please if you feel that is is then distant both issues becuase I did not target it for this.
While I agree with you wholeheartedly that a citizen makes the decision to vote, but the fact that that they thereby know what they are getting themselves into is not guranteed. You can elect some one into office and hope you get the best, but what if they do not follow along on what they've proposed, what if by some twist of fate they become lazy or sheer mad :)... I mean while these instances are rare they are still possible. I agree with you also that some leaders step aside, what if they do not? What right do we have as citizens that enables us to say "enough is enough"? We do not have one! We must wait until they violate a law that is written, when there are so many laws that are not written but expected of the average person. I'm not sure if I am making sense anymore but I feel that this proposal gives more power to the people that enable others to have power. If we the citizens lose control of the government, which is in place by us, the citizens, then we are no longer a democracy!
 

zorven

12,000 Suns
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
1,964
Originally posted by War_Mongrol
You can elect some one into office and hope you get the best, but what if they do not follow along on what they've proposed, what if by some twist of fate they become lazy or sheer mad :)... I mean while these instances are rare they are still possible. I agree with you also that some leaders step aside, what if they do not? What right do we have as citizens that enables us to say "enough is enough"? We do not have one! We must wait until they violate a law

I agree with that there is the potential for bad / absent leaders, but feel the solution is not needed. If someone is not doing their job:
  • it is a short period of time until there is another election.
  • if a leader fails to do anything, the deputy can fill in
  • if there is no deputy, the President is the overall leader and can perorm as necessary
  • a PI can be started because the leader is violating the constitution by not "following the will of the people" and can thus be removed.

The above items apply if the leader is doing nothing. If the leader is doing something, but you just don't like it - too bad. Vote them out of office during the next election. If they are doing something and it is agains the law, then PI them and have them sanctioned and / or removed.
 

ravensfire

Member of the Opposition
Joined
Feb 1, 2002
Messages
5,281
Location
Gateway to the West
Originally posted by War_Mongrol
We must wait until they violate a law that is written, when there are so many laws that are not written but expected of the average person. [/B]
And there you have stated the single biggest problem I keep seeing.

Custom. Tradition. "But we've always done it this way!"

I HATE this stuff when it comes to rules/laws. You have recently come into this game, and have been elected to an office (Congrats btw!). How can you possibly be expected to know about, let alone follow, stuff like this. Sure, someone can point it out, after you've broken it, but you will feel bad because you broke this rule, but you didn't, and couldn't know about it!

There is always going to be circumstances where people aren't happy with how someone is doing their job. Well, as a citizen, you can point that out to them, and use public pressure and commentary to force them to change, or risk a PI and be removed from office.

We already have a way to tell leaders they aren't doing what we the people want, it's called a post in their thread. Look through the past Presidential threads. Every single one of them has a negative post of one kind or another. That's how you tell someone they aren't doing their job.

If an official IS fulfilling the duties of their office, and following all laws, how can you suggest removing them? Because they are bad at it? Too bad - you elected them! A leader that is meeting their responsiblities, regardless of how poorly they are doing this, should not be removed from office, or have the threat of such action dangling over their head.

The only mechanism that we should have for discipling a duly elected official is the PI process - a process created to be fair to all sides and assure that the rights of all are respected.

A no-confidence vote is nothing more than a mob-rules witch hunt.

-- Ravensfire
 

War_Mongrol

The Quiet, loud one...
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
83
Location
In my subconscious
I don't wish to get rude, but you two have jumped the gun you are assuming that the leader will be removed I suggested it but I also suggested probation, or various other things I DOES NOT DEFINATELY MEAN REMOVAL!
I appreciate the feed back especially the negative ones, but I stand by my proposal and it SHOULD go under major reconstruction if it is to be passed.
Once again thank you for the criticism.
Respectfully,
War Mongrol
 

ravensfire

Member of the Opposition
Joined
Feb 1, 2002
Messages
5,281
Location
Gateway to the West
Originally posted by War_Mongrol
I don't wish to get rude, but you two have jumped the gun you are assuming that the leader will be removed I suggested it but I also suggested probation, or various other things I DOES NOT DEFINATELY MEAN REMOVAL!

Anytime I look at any proposal, I will always carry it out to the farthest it can go. In this case, removal of an official. I quite understand that there are other options, but for something like this, I will always consider the punishment to be the maximum possible.

Let me ask you a direct question about this proposal. What are the differences between this, and the current PI process?


I appreciate the feed back especially the negative ones, but I stand by my proposal and it SHOULD go under major reconstruction if it is to be passed.
War_Mongrol - this thread IS where such major reconstruction will be happening. However, I stand against your proposal, and suggest that the major reconstruction needed is simple, scrap it. I still haven't seen what this proposal can do that a PI can't, other than censure an official, or even remove them from office, without that person violating a single law.

THAT is why I don't like this proposal, and will continue to argue against it.

-- Ravensfire
 

FionnMcCumhall

Emperor
Joined
May 28, 2002
Messages
1,158
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
Ill interject one peice of wisdom in regards to this bill. No matter what i feel the current ruleset needs to be re-written i have felt that way since we started this game knowing that there more loopholes than the DG1 & 2 rulesets combined! As i said in the beginning of this thread dont be quick to dismiss an idea such as this, it can be fine tuned if those do no like the wording. I have to say at least someone out there in this game is trying to get some sort of participation from this game even if this bill proposal fails.
 

FionnMcCumhall

Emperor
Joined
May 28, 2002
Messages
1,158
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
hmm no more discussion on this? Ok ill give it one more day then bring it to poll.
 

zorven

12,000 Suns
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
1,964
If you are going to bring this to a poll, I think it should be coded as it would look in the Constitution or Code of Laws. Which brings up the question, would this need to be a Constitutional amendment? I think it does because section D of the Constitutions states "All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms." This proposed bill would contradict that, so therefore this proposal would have to be a Constitutional amendment.

And for the record, I will be voting against this measure.
 

Noldodan

2 years of waiting...
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
1,747
Location
Gondolin!
I think a comprimise is in order. I propose an amendment to the bill stating that this "recall" would be an emergency measure, to be begun (as in recall poll posted) when a PI is recognized as having merit, and will be rendered ineffectual when the PI procedure is completed.
 

D'yer Mak'er

pikmin eater
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
104
Location
Sweden
at the first look I thought this idea would work good as it was, but I realize Ravensfire has a point. the PI process worked out by him could work the same way as this proposal would, and also have democratic advantages, but currently, it isn't. this process is a well thought out standard format for the investigation process, available for all to see and criticize, which is a necessary thing to have to assure legal security. however, this is not good for anything if we actually have no laws to follow!

If we have no written rules for how the offices should work, then one can't expect people to perform well. the current instruction "plan and act according to the people" is way too vague and not even close to satisfying. what we need to do, if we want to use this system to handle our problems, is to work out some kind of format, a standard manual for how we all want the offices to be managed. we have to agree on standards we all consider to be the "minimum" responsibilities for an office, and then make these standards law.

for example, IMHO, ONE fair demand of an office is to participate in ALL turn chat instructions thread. another is to "update the respective office thread with advancements after each TC". but laws can't look like the this. there has to be detailed and precise instructions for what the office should do. to help new people (and old?), IMO, technical instructions of how to carry out the different instructions would also be in order.

an example of how one typical instruction for the trade office could look like:

#1

within 12 hours after turnchat:
check and list all possible deals currently available with all nations and post them in a new post in the trade office.

exception 1: map for map trades not included

instructions:
1. download the new save.
2. examine the different trade options available
(gameplay tips and restrictions could be useful here, and other rules need to define what should be considered worth considering and what shouldn't)

reminder:
do not enter any trade

3. make a post titeled current trade options: XXXXAD in the trade office.
4. list possible trades with each nation in alphabetical order.


If we had laws like this regulating the functions of the offices, elected people would know just what was expected from them and we could actually define what we considered a good work. as need arise, rules could be added and/or changed to improve the work of the offices.

respectfully

d'yer mak'er
 
Top Bottom