Constitution Bill 2009

[JasonMckerra]

The next proposed amendment is to insert a new clause 4:

4. The Assembly can overturn a veto by the Council of Elders with the concurrence of at least sixty percent of its members.

Debate will be open for three days, followed by two days to vote.

[Brandon]

I don't know if this one is something that matters just based on our current number of members.  Normally with our number of members it is going to take at least 60% in the Assembly to pass anything anyway.

Basically, look at it this way.

Recent votes have been getting 3 votes in the Senate total, requiring 2 of 3 to pass

Even if it moved up to 3 of 4, 3 of 5 or 4 of 6, that is still 60% or more.

In order for something to pass the Senate without 60% of the votes, there would have to be at least 7 votes.  Therefore, if anything passed the Senate, it would have the power to overturn a Council veto as well---so all the Council would be doing would be delaying the inevitable, like the *gasp* House of Lords in Britain.

[JasonMckerra]

In too many micronations there are abysmally short terms of office, and public affairs devolve into a merry-go-round of reinvented wheels. Stopping that merry-go-round and creating a more long term focus requires a more long term institution.

The Council of Elders, drawing on the experience of five years of government (a long time in any micronation) will become that institution.

Assuming we don't totally emasculate it and reduce the concept to an irrelevancy, as Mr Klaas's amendments to the moderative function have in effect proposed.

I do not support this amendment.

[Brandon]

Part of the speed of micronationalism does make sense to me.  There is just less to do and less of a tendency for people to remain devoted, so speed can be helpful and probably means more than activities such as "recwarring" which I always thought was stupid and is done in strong-simulationist micronations basically to have something to do and waste time instead of doing real work.

But I can see what you are saying, Jason.  There is a balance to be had.  A lot of micronations have 2-3 month terms for positions, I always supported 4-6 month terms.

[Zachary Klaas]

I think we should have an override.  If it's not 60%, then tell me what percentage would be preferable, but don't nix the entire concept of having a democratically-elected body having the power to override an appointed elite.  Otherwise this basically becomes an exclusive club, and I'm hoping that's not the intention here.

[Brandon]

I think 76% is actually the best number that could work if this were instituted.  It would be the number that will always require more than a 1 vote majority (unless there is only one vote at all.)

[JasonMckerra]

I want to avoid the sense of rotisserie government and constitutional musical chairs that pervaded earlier Republic's of Lavalon.

Perhaps that means making certain institutions less immediately democratic in order to make them more stable.

[Brandon]

You do have to consider one thing, Jason.  The US Congress fights like crazy to get to 60%.  I just think 76% is an incredibly difficult mark to reach which makes this feasible.  Perhaps making it an even 80 would be sensible.

[Zachary Klaas]

I'd support 80.  I'm mainly just opposed to no override at all.

[Brandon]

Compromise, Jason-O!

[JasonMckerra]

The proposal is:

4. The Assembly can overturn a veto by the Council of Elders with the concurrence of at least sixty percent of its members.

All in favour, vote to APPROVE, all against, vote to DECLINE.

[Kraffe]

APPROVE

[JasonMckerra]

DECLINE


We need at least one other person to vote on this...

[Zachary Klaas]

APPROVE.

(Thought I should make my appearances here dramatic.) 

[Brandon]

Decline. A 50% even vote means no.  If it were higher I would approve it.