|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Apr 18, 2016 4:25:41 GMT -6
I really like the idea Senator Grischun has written above. I, too, think that the Tribunal should have no vote in the legislative process other than the veto. I do not know if they should have executive roles in the Joint Assembly, though... But I guess with our low numbers, this is something we cannot avoid anyway. Should each Tribune be the representative of their respective Province nationally, possibly also able to delegate his representational powers to the other Tribune? (Just a quick answer to why I switched places of Dandenburg and Vuode in the name “Maritiimi, Dandenburg, Maxhestic, and Vuode”: MDMV. I thought that would kind of make sense in Roman numerals, but looking at it now, it would yield 1505, with the second “M” being redundant, since D (500) subtracted from M (1000) again equals D (500)... So, whatever. )
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 18, 2016 5:56:08 GMT -6
I'm not sure if the Tribunes should be able to sit in the assembly as normal voting members. I assumed that the two tribunes would be sort of ex-officio to the assembly. The reason is it raises further weird procedural issues if they do sit on the assembly. If a tribune sits on the assembly, and one of them votes 'non' on a bill, does that equal a veto? So, a bill could be killed on the first vote, even if the vote ended up 80-20 in favour, would it still automatically fail if one of the 20 votes against came from a sitting tribune? A veto should come after the formal vote, but a sitting tribune could vote no early in the voting session and effectively kill a bill before anyone else has had a say. What if we do a system where the two tribunes are joint ceremonial executive head, and are responsible for procedure as suggested above. Each tribune has a slightly different role. Tribune A calls the sessions to order, keeps order in the house, keeps the schedule of "Clarks" going smoothly, etc. This is the 'Speaker Tribune'. Tribune B keeps records of passed and failed and vetoed bills, updates the wiki with provinces bills, does all the writing procedural work. This is the 'Scribe Tribune'. Which Trubune gets to be speaker and which gets to be scribe can be decided each new term somehow. They both don't get a formal vote during sessions. But, both have the veto ability (post voting) on behalf of the province they represent. Within their own province they are also the official ceremonial "ribbon cutter". No real local power other than the veto, within the assembly they keep procedural things running smoothly. Alright, I'm happy with that. Epic, I didn't intend to give the tribunal any other specific executive powers, although it would be good to have an executive capacity in case it was needed. We could have binding arbitrations by citizens, however a tribune should probably "license" arbiters and certify cases, in order to prevent people from backing out of the arbitration if they got an unfavorable result (someone may try to claim the arbitration wasn't official). Appeals would go to the CpI
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 18, 2016 6:43:13 GMT -6
I agree, Epic. The Tribunes' role should be in the Joint Assembly, as representatives of their provinces. Let's leave the executive question, then. If we need an executive in the Joint Assembly, we can elect a speaker of that body.
May I suggest that we wait and see how Benito's justice experiment works out, and then next term, we copy it if it looks good?
Etho, the main problem I see to having the Tribunes not be regular voting members is that then we'll have the old Justice problem: if you can't participate, really, then you stop participating. I mean, I wouldn't want to be a Tribune if it meant that I couldn't help actually make laws and vote on them. Their vote wouldn't equal a veto; that would have to come after the bill was passed.
I like the idea of "ribbon-cutter" role for the Tribunes, but I'm uncertain about your additional duties for Tribunes in the Joint Assembly. When we put together M-M's system, we left it as chaotic anarchy -- we cooperate to introduce motions and schedule votes and all that. It's something I think that's helped keep us active and working, since it's very nimble and there's no red tape. Relying on one person to keep things moving slows everything down. Maybe we should leave the Tribunes as ordinary members of the Joint Assembly in every way, except for their veto power?
Hm, and maybe we should define the principles under which the veto power should work.
|
|
|
Post by Chirbi Scherpa-Carriedo on Apr 18, 2016 9:29:49 GMT -6
That makes perfect sense to me, and a good catch, too! Epic? Etho? Chirbi? I'll let Eðo speak on my behalf. I'm sure he has the best interests of the province (and mine, too) in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Apr 18, 2016 10:07:05 GMT -6
If a wanderer from Maricopa may be permitted to comment, I feel like I must express my concern with this proposal. I feel that if the two provinces, for all intents and purposes, function as a single province, then they should only deserve representation in the Senäts from one individual. One of the primary purposes of a Senator is to represent the unique concerns of their province, and by bringing together two provinces in this type of union, then I feel like both Senators from M-M and Vuode would be representing similar, if not the same, concerns. (If this has been brought up already, my apologies, I read a good portion of this discussion but probably missed or overlooked some parts.)
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Apr 18, 2016 11:10:49 GMT -6
If a wanderer from Maricopa may be permitted to comment, I feel like I must express my concern with this proposal. I feel that if the two provinces, for all intents and purposes, function as a single province, then they should only deserve representation in the Senäts from one individual. One of the primary purposes of a Senator is to represent the unique concerns of their province, and by bringing together two provinces in this type of union, then I feel like both Senators from M-M and Vuode would be representing similar, if not the same, concerns. (If this has been brought up already, my apologies, I read a good portion of this discussion but probably missed or overlooked some parts.) Aye, S:reu Tärfâ voiced the same concerns, but I do not share them. After all, the Provinces will only “function as one” on a governing level, and only inter se. This Union should not affect any other province, or even HM’s Government. Vuodeans and Dandenburgeois will still vote their Senator into the Senäts, while Maritiimians and Maxhestians will vote their Senator into the Senäts. While, yes, it will be in both provinces’ interest to keep the Union going (so long as it is of mutual benefit), the culture of the Provinces will be different, hence the voices in national politics may differ in the two provinces.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 18, 2016 22:26:43 GMT -6
Yes, it's important to note that the primary drive behind this joint assembly idea is that both provinces are unique in culture and composition. The citizenry of VD wish to remain Voudean, and the citizenry of MM wish to remain Maritiimi-Maxhestian. There's lots of nuances that make each province what each province is. By folding into one single province, then both provinces lose those unique characteristics. Hence, two provinces, one administrative assembly.
Working together within one Chamber does not erase the fact that we are two different sets of citizens. Each of these sets of citizens are completely entitled to equal Senate representation.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 18, 2016 22:38:31 GMT -6
I really don't understand how allowing a Tribune to vote during the session makes a difference.
They have a veto. They get to decide if a bill passes or fails.
If they are first out of the gate and vote "no" before anybody else had had a chance to vote... What is the point in holding the vote? We already know the Tribune stands against the bill. The vote is pointless. The Tribune had indicated from the get-go that he will veto it even if we outnumber him in the vote.
Seems a bit silly.
The tribunes get a vote of sorts in the veto stage. A sort of casting, final, deciding vote.
No?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 18, 2016 22:49:43 GMT -6
... I'm uncertain about your additional duties for Tribunes in the Joint Assembly. When we put together M-M's system, we left it as chaotic anarchy -- we cooperate to introduce motions and schedule votes and all that. It's something I think that's helped keep us active and working, since it's very nimble and there's no red tape. Relying on one person to keep things moving slows everything down. Your right. Thinking about one of Vuodes many problems, one of them lies in electing an executive premier and presiding officer. For several years these posts have not been filled. When they don't get filled the system suddenly halts and we sit about waiting till the next general election. Rinse. Repeat. Ok. With you on that. Further point: The thinking behind giving the Tribunes speaker and scribe roles was to give them a function to prevent the 'old justice' problem.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 18, 2016 22:53:40 GMT -6
Re: Justice system.
I, too, would like to wait and see if Benito's concept works before trying it out here.
Also, I'm thinking what if we leave justice system alone ... Let that be one of the first major things for the joint assembly to work on. Let it be created as we go along, then we can build and tailor that system to put needs as the initial months go by.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Apr 19, 2016 5:22:31 GMT -6
If a wanderer from Maricopa may be permitted to comment, I feel like I must express my concern with this proposal. I feel that if the two provinces, for all intents and purposes, function as a single province, then they should only deserve representation in the Senäts from one individual. One of the primary purposes of a Senator is to represent the unique concerns of their province, and by bringing together two provinces in this type of union, then I feel like both Senators from M-M and Vuode would be representing similar, if not the same, concerns. (If this has been brought up already, my apologies, I read a good portion of this discussion but probably missed or overlooked some parts.) Aye, S:reu Tärfâ voiced the same concerns, but I do not share them. After all, the Provinces will only “function as one” on a governing level, and only inter se. This Union should not affect any other province, or even HM’s Government. Vuodeans and Dandenburgeois will still vote their Senator into the Senäts, while Maritiimians and Maxhestians will vote their Senator into the Senäts. While, yes, it will be in both provinces’ interest to keep the Union going (so long as it is of mutual benefit), the culture of the Provinces will be different, hence the voices in national politics may differ in the two provinces. Yes, it's important to note that the primary drive behind this joint assembly idea is that both provinces are unique in culture and composition. The citizenry of VD wish to remain Voudean, and the citizenry of MM wish to remain Maritiimi-Maxhestian. There's lots of nuances that make each province what each province is. By folding into one single province, then both provinces lose those unique characteristics. Hence, two provinces, one administrative assembly. Working together within one Chamber does not erase the fact that we are two different sets of citizens. Each of these sets of citizens are completely entitled to equal Senate representation. The problem, however, is exactly this one. - Whether or not Provinces, as territorial subdivisions of the Kingdom, have the ability to transfer the powers the OrgLaw gives to them to a third entity dramatically modifying the organic framework of the State; i.e.: do they have the power to enter in a political union? - Whether or not Provinces by entering in a political union and functioning de facto as a single Province, with a peculiar internal organisation, for all that regard local government do infringe upon the right of equal representation in the Senate of the citizens of the other Provinces; i.e.: as keeping 2 senators is the only substantial difference between a political union and a single province, should be this considered inorganic as infringing upon the rights of equal representation? I'm writing a text to demonstrate and sustain the inorganicity of this move.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 19, 2016 10:58:59 GMT -6
Aye, S:reu Tärfâ voiced the same concerns, but I do not share them. After all, the Provinces will only “function as one” on a governing level, and only inter se. This Union should not affect any other province, or even HM’s Government. Vuodeans and Dandenburgeois will still vote their Senator into the Senäts, while Maritiimians and Maxhestians will vote their Senator into the Senäts. While, yes, it will be in both provinces’ interest to keep the Union going (so long as it is of mutual benefit), the culture of the Provinces will be different, hence the voices in national politics may differ in the two provinces. Yes, it's important to note that the primary drive behind this joint assembly idea is that both provinces are unique in culture and composition. The citizenry of VD wish to remain Voudean, and the citizenry of MM wish to remain Maritiimi-Maxhestian. There's lots of nuances that make each province what each province is. By folding into one single province, then both provinces lose those unique characteristics. Hence, two provinces, one administrative assembly. Working together within one Chamber does not erase the fact that we are two different sets of citizens. Each of these sets of citizens are completely entitled to equal Senate representation. The problem, however, is exactly this one. - Whether or not Provinces, as territorial subdivisions of the Kingdom, have the ability to transfer the powers the OrgLaw gives to them to a third entity dramatically modifying the organic framework of the State; i.e.: do they have the power to enter in a political union? - Whether or not Provinces by entering in a political union and functioning de facto as a single Province, with a peculiar internal organisation, for all that regard local government do infringe upon the right of equal representation in the Senate of the citizens of the other Provinces; i.e.: as keeping 2 senators is the only substantial difference between a political union and a single province, should be this considered inorganic as infringing upon the rights of equal representation? I'm writing a text to demonstrate and sustain the inorganicity of this move. But, nobody has a problem with a province having Senate representation when the province doesn't have a functioning assembly or an active citizen base?
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Apr 19, 2016 12:05:16 GMT -6
Following your reasoning, the 2 Senators would still represent Provinces that don't have a functioning Assembly or an active citizen base.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 19, 2016 12:19:26 GMT -6
Following your reasoning, the 2 Senators would still represent Provinces that don't have a functioning Assembly or an active citizen base. Well, we disagree. I don't know what else to say. I've made my case and you have made yours. We disagree with your interpretations and you disagree with ours. I don't know what else to say to you without just getting repetitive.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Apr 19, 2016 17:11:44 GMT -6
Following your reasoning, the 2 Senators would still represent Provinces that don't have a functioning Assembly or an active citizen base. Well, we disagree. I don't know what else to say. I've made my case and you have made yours. We disagree with your interpretations and you disagree with ours. I don't know what else to say to you without just getting repetitive. It's pretty evident that we disagree, but do you disagree even to your words thay I've quoted in my last post? You are the one saying that VD and MM should stay as two Provinces
|
|