View Topic

Out of curiosity, what is the justification behind allowing the assembly to have the power to permit other citizens to join the group?

It brings in those who wish to join the legislature, but thoroughly considers whether the people are knowledgeable, active, or committed enough to do a good job of it.

I quite like this proposal, however I don't think I understand the constitution-rather-than-absolute-veto bit. Wouldn't it make sense to just allow Wintermoot to veto since he'd be the one writing the constitution?

Also, how long are the elected members' terms? Or is it elected to join the assembly, then they stay indefinitely?

Honestly, I'd prefer absolute veto, but this attempts to meet those uncomfortable with the idea half-way. Once the constitution is set up, the interpretation of it is left up to Wintermoot, and Wintermoot alone, but it would be wise not to allow anything in it to be changed from one day to the next.

Thereby, Wintermoot gains considerable power to declare something unconstitutional, but he would ideally only use this power when something grossly violates the principles, tenets or spirit of the constitution.

This does still require considerable trust, I won't deny it, but really, by virtue of our continued stay here, and our freedom to debate things already, we already place a lot of trust in the founder and monarch's hands that he wouldn't use his site-given powers against us. I don't really see the point of pretending otherwise. We're free to do as we wish, but only because we're allowed to be so free. No words on paper guarantee our freedom of expression and continued stay.

EDIT: And yes, people's stay would be indefinite, unless they get recalled or kicked out by the assembly. There would ideally be no permanent ban from the assembly, but in one 3-month term (or 6 months, if we decide that's better) once you get kicked out or recalled, you either have to get elected again during the next elections, or the assembly needs to approve of your application to join again, or the monarch needs to appoint you again. Whichever comes first, if it comes at all.

What this does is (I hope) bridge the divide between too much freedom, and not enough, without the need for a post count or something similar. It is still no absolute deterrence or failsafe against those of impure intentions, but it is a bit more secure than a completely open assembly.

I should mention that I do see the clunkiness in not making the appointed and elected members two separate entities, but it's a bit unavoidable if we wish to ensure that there is enough of a deterrence against very bad decisions from the elected portion, and no power plays through democracy, while at the same time maintaining the balance so the appointed don't get to set up a tyranny of their own. By making it one chamber with a common purpose, my hope is that there are no divides between the elected and appointed people, and that they work united towards a shared and common goal. Unity is something I value, even when people have differences.

I also realise there exists a danger that this proposal tries to do too many things and keep too many people happy, and in effect make virtually no one happy because of it, but really, some sort of compromise is going to have to be made, even if this isn't it. At the very least, this keeps the discussion going, and presents the opportunity for other ideas to arise out of this one, and through the debate. I can't stress enough that the debate is incredibly important. Without criticism of this and other proposals, we'll never find a solution to the problem.

I should also mention that this proposal is a very bare-bones one by design. The details need to be worked out by all of us, as all of us would inevitably have to vote on it if we think it's the type of proposal we wish to have going into a ratification vote.

It brings in those who wish to join the legislature, but thoroughly considers whether the people are knowledgeable, active, or committed enough to do a good job of it.

Would such a clause not be the gateway to a pseudo Open Assembly? There is little reason to deny the application of fellow Citizens under normal circumstances, and the rapidly growing legislature will eventually allow the majority of the citizens to be within it. Is that the intended aim?

Indeed, it does try to make things very open--but within reason. It guards against some of the biggest problems with the idea of an open assembly, where just anyone can come in and mess everything up, and facilitates the natural, slow progression into something much more open.

Interestingly, I just discovered quite a big problem with this proposal: what happens if one who got elected suddenly gets kicked out, and what happens if someone who was appointed suddenly faces the call for recall, or gets kicked out or otherwise removed? 1. How does the balance of power get maintained so that one force doesn't overwhelm the other? 2. If the appointed can be recalled by the citizenry, or kicked out by the rest of the assembly, would a necessary reduction in number to the elected follow?

Hmm. That is quite the conundrum.

That said, is it of absolute necessity to maintain a rigid balance of power between the "elected" and the "appointed"? At the end of the day, those elected may have a wide spectrum of views, while those appointed may not always be unanimous regarding a particular issue.

Oh, I don't doubt that everyone would still have quite different views on matters. In fact, I hope they do. What this really does is act as a measure to maintain the harmony within the legislature, and to ensure the elected and appointed get an equal share of the power to appoint new members to the assembly (through the previously mentioned application process), and attempt to keep out overly malicious game-players.

But with a constitution set in stone, well... it does decrease the need for that to an extent. Malicious game-players would get stopped in their tracks by that, at least.

If that's the case, I would suggest removing the part where the citizenry is allowed to add additional elected members into the legislature, which in turn obliges Wintermoot to search for the same number to be appointed. I do believe that on the fundamental level, all we need is a document, 5 core elected members and 5 core appointed members. Theoretically, assuming the system is adopted and functional, the legislature will gradually expand by itself. Should a core elected member be removed, a by election can be held. Should a core appointed member be removed, I suppose we would have to trouble Wintermoot to appoint another one. Should members added in by the consensus of the legislature be removed, they would just have to wait until they are accepted again. All these are of course, just my personal opinions.

I agree, but foresee one problem with the appointed that wouldn't be such a big deal with the elected: Wintermoot's process of finding a suitable replacement might be quite a bit more stringent, and thus he could feel like being pressured to appoint someone as a compromise, not necessarily through strict merit.

EDIT: Oh, and the idea behind elections every other month is so that it can continue to expand, even should the worst happen and no applications get accepted, for whatever reason. It might just be me placing too much emphasis on contingency planning.

I reckon that the chances of such a scenario occurring is low. If the requirement for being removed from the legislature involves the consent of a (super)majority of the legislature/citizenry, by right it shouldn't occur regularly. Furthermore, there are 4 other core appointed members, who would have also consciously decided to allow new members to join the group. Wintermoot shouldn't feel pressured to appoint someone as a compromise.

Hmm, perhaps we could give the monarch the power to appoint someone he feels is worthy whenever he feels like it, and then hold an election as a result of that? I just can't get over the possible stalemate that could arise if the worst should happen, however unlikely it may be.

I wouldn't mind having a system where the Monarch appoints someone only when he truly desires it, with an election occurring immediately afterwards when it comes to additional core members. However, should an incumbent appointed core member be removed, the Monarch should appoint another one as soon as possible.

Fully agreed.

And now I'm mentioning @Reon correctly. Once more, sorry about that, Reon.