View Topic

Maybe it's just me, and how I view democracy and the entire point of an Open Assembly then.

You'll need to remember that the court is made of Storting members: the Monarch/his designee (wait, is the Monarch technically a part of the Storting?), the Speaker, and a random citizen. By allowing them to have the ultimate decision in this, these few people would in effect have more power (and the only say in the matter) than literally everyone else combined. If the court were made up of non-Storting members, then it might be different, but that's not currently the case.

If an abstain vote requirement is put in, what if the Speaker and Monarch were to vote either way in the initial vote? Would the court then just be three random people who voted "abstain"? Couldn't this be taken advantage of by people voting to abstain to have a better chance of being picked and thus having the deciding votes?

If it were just a majority needed to give suspensions, then I may agree with you, but 3/4 is an overwhelming amount to be overturned.

Personally I think we should keep our current system of selecting Judges....

anywho I still disagree, the only body that should have that authority is the court. Further the court would only be able to suspend one's ability the vote after charges were brought.

It's also not as if people here have professional legal training, so the courts wouldn't be inherently better than a 3/4 majority anyway.

Honestly it's just my beliefs, OA having that authority is against the entire reason for having it...

Elaborate. Because we're moving to an OA to cut down on useless bureaucracy, as far as I can tell. One of the biggest reasons people are hesitant to take part in elections for UH and discussions on legislation in general is because we have no way of preventing people from losing their cool and souring the atmosphere for everyone involved. That's what this would fix.

Elaborate. Because we're moving to an OA to cut down on useless bureaucracy, as far as I can tell. One of the biggest reasons people are hesitant to take part in elections for UH and discussions on legislation in general is because we have no way of preventing people from losing their cool and souring the atmosphere for everyone involved. That's what this would fix.

Well that's not true, you can somewhat easily recall someone.

Also for me the purpose of an OA is to allow everyone to vote in matters concerning law.

No, you actually can't easily recall someone. You have to have elections, and possibly run-off elections and all that fun stuff, as happened recently.

And again, the 21 last days of a term is a hell of a long time that absolutely nothing can be done when someone isn't co-operating.

That part we can always change to seven days rather than twenty-one. (Seven is the minimum amount of time for the entire recall process: two days maximum for the petition, two days for the nomination, and three for the election itself.)

And then a gazillion run-offs. I also believe Chanku is advocating that we keep our current system more than anything else.

I worded it so that we kept the current system but combined the numbering and changed "Underhusen" to "Storting".

I've ALWAYS advocated for keeping our current system.

The only reason some people have even been running for this current system is to utterly destroy it, so there's that.

And I disagree with that.

You disagree with people running for that reason, or you disagree that it's happened?