Second Constitutional Convention (OOC, TWI)

[Vancouvia]

(The Western Isles only)

I hereby bring the Second Western Isles Constitutional Convention to order. As the last few weeks have proved, we have outgrown our old Constitution, which I wrote several months ago without all the knowledge I have now about how regions work, grow, and react. It was voted virtually unanimous that a convention should be held, and thus we have begun that undertaking.

The following nations are invited to join:
-All current and former officers
-Landinium
-Lairendor
-Nights Edge
-The Lithuanian Commonwealth
-Erlands
-Verdon
-Anyone else who expresses genuine interest and wishes to provide input

This will work in three stages:
1. Drafts will be posted. The merits of each will be discussed and we will select a draft that is the closest to what we all would want.
2. That final draft will undergo further revision and refinement, until it is ready for vote.
3. That revised final draft will be submitted to a regional poll

[Vancouvia]

This is the draft I've been working on for the past week or so. A lot of the credit goes to Tuernia as it is essentially a much longer version of the CRA.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=439819

I've listed the major changes at the top of the dispatch. It is significantly different from our current Constitution but it is in the same spirit. It has a lot more detail overall and hopefully will provide guidance on any situation that props up.

I'm very willing to take suggestions, edit it (especially for typos), answer questions, and mold it closer into something we all like.

[Lairendor]

I think Section 3: President should be written as:
The President shall be the head of state and chief executive of the region. His duties shall include:
- Leading the region through both normal operations and extraordinary crises
- Supervising the conduct of executive officers
- Determining reasonable periods of time for actions to commence
- Providing necessary services and actions for previously unforeseen matters

While it is effectively the same thing, it provides more detail.

[Lairendor]

Also, I do not think it is necessary to put that executive officers can issue executive orders, as it is already implied by the text of the constitution.

[Polar Svalbard]

What if we made a true legislative branch b seperating the map into five regions and then having each vote in a Representative for them

[Randmar]

ARTICLE I: MEMBER NATIONS

Section 1: A member nation (hereafter also "member" or "nation") shall be defined as a nation that exists on the map of the region and is the primary, non-puppet, nation of the player.

Section 2: Non-member nations may enter the region but are not afforded the Rights of Nations.

I dislike this because it only afford to those who roleplay any rights, I suggest any real active player should be afforded them. Otherwise people with no intention of Rping will claim spots on the map just to have some rights.

[Lairendor]

What if we made a true legislative branch b seperating the map into five regions and then having each vote in a Representative for them

That would make the region more republic-like, but would also restrict the powers of the members of the region, which I don't think they would appreciate very much.

[Polar Svalbard]

It should be any non-puppet nation. Is there a section with a puppet registry?

[Randmar]

Also, I do not think it is necessary to put that executive officers can issue executive orders, as it is already implied by the text of the constitution.

Apparently it is not.

What if we made a true legislative branch b seperating the map into five regions and then having each vote in a Representative for them

I dont think that is the best way to do it as the map is arbitrary and more a tool of roleplaying rather than governance, to link our government to it will inspire some to get a spot just to politic. I would prefer some other system, based on getting vouches of support from other players.

The top ten or so people with the most vouches get a seat, players can only vouch for one person.
Off-sites would be needed to manage that system though.

[Vancouvia]

ARTICLE I: MEMBER NATIONS

Section 1: A member nation (hereafter also "member" or "nation") shall be defined as a nation that exists on the map of the region and is the primary, non-puppet, nation of the player.

Section 2: Non-member nations may enter the region but are not afforded the Rights of Nations.

I dislike this because it only afford to those who roleplay any rights, I suggest any real active player should be afforded them. Otherwise people with no intention of Rping will claim spots on the map just to have some rights.

Interesting thought, but usually activity is highly correlated with rping (and having a map spot). No one's really active here without being involved in the RP. I'll try to think of another definition though.

Also, I do not think it is necessary to put that executive officers can issue executive orders, as it is already implied by the text of the constitution.

No reason to not make things explicit. It also had a lot of controversy earlier because a ton of people didn't think executive officers could issue them.

[Landinium]

Is the definition of a Member Nation quite ineffective? I mean, if you're going to have member nations on the map, it'll start to fill up quite quickly. I just think defining a nation as a "member nation" is redundant and creates unnecessary divide. Perhaps you could create a citizenry(it having nothing to do with the map), make citizenship something that you apply for. As a Citizen of TWI, you are granted the vote and given protection under the constitution. It'd make voter fraud more difficult also.

Although it is essentially just a name swap, quite a radical step would be to name the Vice President's office as President and to name the President as Prime Minister(or something along the lines of that). It'd give the region less of a Presidential-Republic feel.

[Vancouvia]

I think Section 3: President should be written as:
The President shall be the head of state and chief executive of the region. His duties shall include:
- Leading the region through both normal operations and extraordinary crises
- Supervising the conduct of executive officers
- Determining reasonable periods of time for actions to commence
- Providing necessary services and actions for previously unforeseen matters

While it is effectively the same thing, it provides more detail.

Added, I liked that a lot

[Lairendor]

Also, I do not think it is necessary to put that executive officers can issue executive orders, as it is already implied by the text of the constitution.

Apparently it is not.

What if we made a true legislative branch b seperating the map into five regions and then having each vote in a Representative for them

I dont think that is the best way to do it as the map is arbitrary and more a tool of roleplaying rather than governance, to link our government to it will inspire some to get a spot just to politic. I would prefer some other system, based on getting vouches of support from other players.

The top ten or so people with the most vouches get a seat, players can only vouch for one person.
Off-sites would be needed to manage that system though.

I think we should leave law-making in the hands of the members of the region. I think it encourages participation and is more democratic.

[Randmar]

I am actually for the creation of several appointed executive positions, for several reasons. The biggest is not all jobs that our executive branch will undertaken should be handled by the most charismatic person, they might require that someone is dedicated but not necessarily word wise. I feel by allowing key elected officials appoint some positions will put the people most need to do them into that position, without all the hassle of elections.

I also feel that establishing several appointed positions will also be a great way to have a introductory course for our government. They could be treated as a place for people without much of a reputation or experience to come and learn the ends and outs while proving that they are capable. Then one day when they are more up to it, they can challenge for a government seat.

[Vancouvia]

"Member nation" is essentially equivalent to "citizen" but I wanted to avoid that term as it is synonymous with jumping through hoops in other regions.

Definition has been updated; instead of the map, you just need to be in for 24 hours, which I think is reasonable.

[Randmar]

Apparently it is not.



I dont think that is the best way to do it as the map is arbitrary and more a tool of roleplaying rather than governance, to link our government to it will inspire some to get a spot just to politic. I would prefer some other system, based on getting vouches of support from other players.

The top ten or so people with the most vouches get a seat, players can only vouch for one person.
Off-sites would be needed to manage that system though.

I think we should leave law-making in the hands of the members of the region. I think it encourages participation and is more democratic.

I am not suggesting we prevent our members from proposing laws, only on voting for them. Keeping it refined to those who feel have proven themselves in the community to be active and knowledge would be better than opining up every major legislation to puppets and spies.

[Polar Svalbard]

I do agree with Randmar. Although what positions would be elective?

[Vancouvia]

I am actually for the creation of several appointed executive positions, for several reasons. The biggest is not all jobs that our executive branch will undertaken should be handled by the most charismatic person, they might require that someone is dedicated but not necessarily word wise. I feel by allowing key elected officials appoint some positions will put the people most need to do them into that position, without all the hassle of elections.

I also feel that establishing several appointed positions will also be a great way to have a introductory course for our government. They could be treated as a place for people without much of a reputation or experience to come and learn the ends and outs while proving that they are capable. Then one day when they are more up to it, they can challenge for a government seat.

But by doing appointments, the best person may not get the job, simply because the President doesn't like them. Then we'd start having political parties. Right now it's merit based instead of politics-based.

I do agree with you it would be nice to have a place for new players who want to get into government to learn the ropes, but I don't know a practical way to put that in.

[Verdon]

I am not suggesting we prevent our members from proposing laws, only on voting for them. Keeping it refined to those who feel have proven themselves in the community to be active and knowledge would be better than opining up every major legislation to puppets and spies.

Oligarchic, I am not a fan.

Also, I do not think the vouch-for system works.

[Polar Svalbard]

In accordance with what happened this week. What do we do about Treason.

[Randmar]

I do agree with Randmar. Although what positions would be elective?

I think a secretary of Information would be a good start, put it under the Sec of Int and let who ever holds that title appoint the position.

But by doing appointments, the best person may not get the job, simply because the President doesn't like them. Then we'd start having political parties. Right now it's merit based instead of politics-based.

I do agree with you it would be nice to have a place for new players who want to get into government to learn the ropes, but I don't know a practical way to put that in.

Our current system is not "merit" based its democratic, which means only the most charismatic gets the position they might or might not have the right talents just as an appointed one wont. But the key difference is that people aren't judging the appointee based on how well he can show competency during a campaign but how well he has shown competency to someone who wants the position filled.

[Randmar]

I am not suggesting we prevent our members from proposing laws, only on voting for them. Keeping it refined to those who feel have proven themselves in the community to be active and knowledge would be better than opining up every major legislation to puppets and spies.

Oligarchic, I am not a fan.

Also, I do not think the vouch-for system works.

its more Democratic Representation than anything else as people can change who they vouch for,

It technically hasn't been tried before so It might be worth it to give it a go.

[Landinium]

I take issue with the "endorsements" addition to the law making process. It's just bureaucratic and adds a lot of red tape. How many times must a bill be approved? Also it's quite iffy on how many endorsements it needs to go to the Supreme Court

[Polar Svalbard]

Oligarchic, I am not a fan.

Also, I do not think the vouch-for system works.

its more Democratic Representation than anything else as people can change who they vouch for,

It technically hasn't been tried before so It might be worth it to give it a go.

Then again this may start the whole Political Parties thing. Which, should they be allowed? I think so, I mean I don't think it will hurt too much. But yeah representatives would be good. We can go that you can only give support to one rep.

[Randmar]

its more Democratic Representation than anything else as people can change who they vouch for,

It technically hasn't been tried before so It might be worth it to give it a go.

Then again this may start the whole Political Parties thing. Which, should they be allowed? I think so, I mean I don't think it will hurt too much. But yeah representatives would be good. We can go that you can only give support to one rep.

I think Political Parties would be interesting, they'd be something to do other than the typical sitting around and it could inspire some of our lurkers to get up.