View Topic

Probably a silly question: whenever you mention 2/3 or 3/4, does this refer to a fraction of the whole Storting, or just those who voted on a particular law?

I would like to raise this question as well. Precedent implies that it only refers to the individuals who voted but now that this will involve the entire citizenry, perhaps the clauses can be edited to reflect the intention of the author? Meanwhile, I don't see the harm of keeping the method of overriding a veto through a supermajority vote, be it 2/3 or 3/4.

I've added references to make clear anytime majority, 2/3, or 3/4 is used.

I suppose we could elect jury pools every 8 months or so. Or we could have a short list of people who'd be willing to serve as judges, and then have the open assembly vote on who they'd like to preside. Or we could simply leave it up to a jarl and two thanes of justice.

I like the idea of the jarl and two thanes. I'm personally in favour of expanding the ministries' influence, and I believe the potential problem with the assembly vote is the fact that each case could go much differently depending on who presides. I also fear that the masses could potentially elect a judge who is purposely either partial or impartial to a defendant, an occurrence less likely to happen if the judicial positions were standardized from case to case.

I'm kind of interested in switching to instant-runoff voting in order to avoid runoffs for Speaker elections, although our experiment with it last year wasn't that popular. =/

After the experience with double-runoff, I don't people would be too upset. If it's a logistics issue we're talking about, it's pretty easy to solve if you just change the ballot to "vote for as few or as many candidates as you like, in order of preference from top to bottom. Should your top candidate receive the fewest votes, the vote for your second-choice candidate will take precedence, and so on until a single candidate receives more than half of the votes"

The fact that this voting process will take place for only one Speaker should make it at least slightly easier.

I'm not so sure using the Cabinet is a good idea...unfortunately at the moment we're understaffed and a bit inactive. Sapphiron and Point Breeze would be the thanes in every case if this were in effect now, because they're the only thanes at the moment. There's definitely a need to shake-up the Cabinet, but that's a whole separate discussion.

On the other hand, I'm sure I could find a Jarl to preside over cases, and perhaps we could create a jury pool where additional jurors are selected at random based on some criteria. Any thoughts about that?

Some mix would certainly be good. But have you considered using those officials as a jury pool?

Which officials?

Storting Officers
2. The Speaker shall serve as Presiding Officer of the Storting.

3. The Storting shall have the right to create, modify, and remove any other Officer positions. The Storting shall have the authority to delegate duties to these Officers, except for those duties which require the full participation of the Storting.

The only required Officer though is the Speaker...which leaves just one person unless they create more offices.

That is true. So perhaps make a mandatory 3 officers, with one of the being a Speaker/Head-Judge and the other two being deputy Speakers and additional judges while court is in session.

What if there were an appointed Jarl to preside over the case, a Thane appointed by the Jarl to serve as deputy, and the Speaker acts as the other deputy?

Yeah what exactly would be the point of a Jarl as well as a Speaker?

I'm offering many different possibilities, but I actually like what Barnes just suggested.

The only thing I don't quite like is the fact that not every Jarl of Justice/Mediation might be pro-active, and therefore it could be a ghost office until court is convened, which, judging by our history, is almost never.

What about a Jarl, the Speaker, and the Speaker Pro Tempore? The offices of Speaker and Speaker Pro Tempore have always been filled, although whether they've been active is an entirely different question.

Or another idea...the two Storting jurors could be the most senior members of the legislature, in that they've particiapted in the most votes or terms and have been active in the last so many votes.

Are we talking about a specific Jarl created for such a job, or any Jarl in any of the ministries?