View Topic

No, by "leave it to the OA" I meant that we wouldn't touch upon the Speaker PT at all. They'd sort it out themselves when the time came. It's going to be such a big decision that we would be pretty presumptuous to put something in place for it right now.

Also, by what right would the court overturn the suspension of someone's voting rights, when a super-majority had it stripped?

The only reason we have to include the concept of a Speaker pro tem is because of your suggestion to allow recalls after the twenty-first day before elections, seconded by @Gerrick, who suggested that there still be recalls after that time, albeit with no elections. That necessitates someone having the power of Acting Speaker until the next regular election, which presumably would be a Speaker PT or equivalent, unless a different selection process is made clear.

To prevent the tyranny of the majority. We could also very well require that anyone that voted other than abstain in a motion to strip someone of their rights (if it is being tried by the court) would be inelligble for judicial duty.

@Barnes, that is also something best discussed by the OA. If we make too many big changes to this bill now, we'd be taking something that had a good chance of passing and making it a bit more uncertain.

@Chanku, it's fairly safe to say that a two-thirds majority would make it pretty damn binding, and a court overturning something like that would be a bad idea. You'd have to create an whole new legal framework for when it's acceptable for the court to overturn such a decision. And we all know how that will turn out: we'll bicker and argue for 2 years and then just agree to disagree on what that framework should actually be. You may find it distasteful, but I do believe this is the best possible course of action. "Tyranny by majority" doesn't scare me outside of security.

EDIT: Actually, not even 2/3, it's 3/4. That's much better.

So are you saying to nix the clause and include the recall procedure as is?

Yeah, let's just fix all the smaller things, and leave the truly big stuff up to the OA where it belongs.

Fair. I see your point that it could be contended by the Citizenry and end up not passing if we were to impose too large of changes, but some of the laws that might be proposed are too fundamental to be simply "procedural rules". But I suppose that by then, the Storting would then just create new amendments to the Fundamental Laws rather than the Storting Procedure.

I would say that we should probably debate the whole Judicial thing, since it would be rather important to settle now, in order to prevent any issues of the running of the OA.

And yes, the Tyranny of the Majority may be harder to get to, however it is still possible. Further what if it was to be found that the vote was somehow manipulated to cause someone's right to vote to be revoked.

If we are creating an Open Assembly, with the ability to prevent someone from voting at all (something I fundamentally disagree with, as to me it goes against the entire purpose of an Open Assembly), then we need to make sure that there is a balance to prevent it from potentially being abused. Also unless there is a waiting period, someone could just bring in a lot of people from outside of the region to sway a vote in a revocation of voting rights...

The Monarch has the discretion of granting Citizenship, so it would be most likely that he would notice something was suspicious in regards to ganging up on a member to kick them out. Wintreath has dozens of citizens at present, meaning dozens more would be required to obtain the supermajority based on recruitment alone.

Well it depends on if the super-majority is of those voting, or on the citizens themselves...if it's the former then we should have that safeguard, if it's the latter then that is a generally bad idea.

That last bit about the possibility for some foreign region to turn our laws against us suddenly is the only part of your argument I agree with, but I'm done trying to convince people that's a problem.

As for the rest, voting rights being stripped would present such a headache to pass, that someone would have to really mess up for it to happen. 3/4 majority isn't easy to do, so if someone did something THAT unpopular, they'd likely deserve whatever they get.

Personally I don't agree. At least with regards to that. No one particularly deserves to loose voting rights, unless judged so in the courts....

What could possibly make the courts a more valid avenue to decide that than 3/4 of the citizenry?

EDIT: One thing you have to remember is that the citizenry will now be turned into a parliament. Courts getting involved in parliamentary procedure is very dodgy, unless you have constitutional sovereignty.

Because the purpose of the court is to be fair and balanced. Because the courts exist to bring balance to the government, further court decisions can be appealed.

Your fears are exaggerated, in my opinion, except for the aforementioned possibility of foregin regions abusing our OA. But that's a problem for much more than voting rights.