[Last Call] Quorum Quandary

[Fhaengshia]

I started writing this then realised that I had misremembered, and that issue #614 option 3 allowed businesses to vote, but not to stand for election. Due to this, I am fairly certain that there aren't any existing issues that are too similar. Follow up for option 3 in Representative Housework.

Draft 3

Title: Quorum Quandary

Validity: chose option 3/4 in #1784

Description:
After corporations were allowed to stand for public office, the results of a series of byelections have revealed big business to be a more competitive power than established parties. However, due to mandatory recusals for conflicts of interest, industrial relations legislation has shut out their representatives from debate. With polling showing a potential corporate majority if a full election were held today, leading to current workplace legislation being set in stone due to a legal quorum not being possible, company representatives have come to your board room to pitch their proposals for a solution.

Option 1:
“What a mess! Workplace legislation is hopelessly inefficient and we can’t even fix it!” Complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, the public legislative officer of Abjad Inc, half buried under reams of legislative protocols being held together with red binding. “We had these noble ideas of change and shaking up the system with some efficient corporate ethos, but there’s layer after layer of bureaucracy that we can’t legally touch! It was so much easier back when all we had to do was pay a lobbyist and things at least got done eventually. This was an unnecessary distraction, businesses should get back to the business of business.”
Effect:
corporations outsource legislators in favour of lobbyists

Option 2:
“We’ve come this far, now it’s time that we fix this recusal problem, regulations be damned.” Polemicizes @@RANDOMNAME@@, the public legislative officer of Z Corp, using a staple remover to free @@HIS@@ colleague. “Out with the book, corporations were elected and have a mandate for change, recusals silence the democratic will of the people. There's no need to micromanage potential conflicts of interest, @@NAME@@ should be a free marketplace of ideas. Election results are all that matters and we're here to stay!"
Effect:
corporations lower their tax rates and approve hostile takeovers of competitors

Option 3:
"We've identified an opportunity for collaborative optimisation in this framework." Offers @@RANDOMNAME@@, the public legislative officer of @@INITIAL@@MBC, with a slight Maxtopian accent. "Let's pivot the strategy for an efficiency boost. Removing the overheads of corporations being elected directly and instead of an election model where solely median demographic stakeholders can leverage franchisement, we should empower incorporated citizens to have suffrage in key districts of corporate residence. This removes the regulatory friction of the current circumstances in favour of greater operational agility and improved public-private partnership.
Effect:
even fewer people can understand Government press releases

Title: Quorum Quandary

Validity: chose option 3 in #1784

Description:
Since corporations were allowed to stand for election to public office, a large majority of seats have been won by a variety of businesses. However, due to mandatory recusals for conflicts of interest, industrial relations legislation has ground to a standstill as a legal quorum is no longer possible. While the few natural person legislators go round after round of roll-call, company representatives have come to your board room to pitch their proposals.

Option 1:
“What a mess! That chamber is hopelessly inefficient and we can’t even fix it!” Complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, the public legislative officer of Abjad Inc, half buried under reams of legislative protocols being held together with red binding. “We had these noble ideas of change and shaking up the system with some efficient corporate ethos, but there’s layer after layer of bureaucracy that we can’t legally touch! It was so much easier back when all we had to do was pay a lobbyist and things at least got done eventually. This was an unnecessary distraction, businesses should get back to the business of business.”
Effect:
corporations outsource legislators in favour of lobbyists

Option 2:
“We’ve come this far, now it’s time that we fix this recusal problem, regulations be damned.” Polemicizes @@RANDOMNAME@@, the public legislative officer of Z Corp, using a staple remover to free @@HIS@@ colleague. “Out with the book, corporations were elected and have a mandate for change, recusals silence the democratic will of the people. Also, while we’re at this there’s also been the issue of mergers and acquisitions needing legislative approval being held up by this same recusal issue, we should be able to vote for our own mergers and keep any subsidiary legislative positions from those. Bring the free market to our politics in full!"
Effect:
the sole remaining company in @@NAME@@ is the state

Title: Quorum Quandary

Validity: chose to allow businesses to stand for office in Representative Housework (still a draft)

Description:
Since corporations were allowed to stand for election to public office, a large majority of seats have been won by a variety of businesses. However, due to mandatory recusals for conflicts of interest, industrial relations legislation has ground to a standstill as a legal quorum is no longer possible. While the few natural person legislators go round after round of roll-call, company representatives have come to your board room to pitch their proposals.

Option 1:
“What a mess! That chamber is hopelessly inefficient and we can’t even fix it!” Complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, the public legislative officer of Abjad Inc, half buried under reams of legislative protocols being held together with red binding. “We had these noble ideas of change and shaking up the system with some efficient corporate ethos, but there’s layer after layer of bureaucracy that we can’t legally touch! It was so much easier back when all we had to do was pay a lobbyist and things at least got done eventually. This was an unnecessary distraction, businesses should get back to the business of business.”
Effect:
corporations outsource legislators in favour of lobbyists

Option 2:
“We’ve come this far, now it’s time that we fix this recusal problem, regulations be damned.” Polemicizes @@RANDOMNAME@@, the public legislative officer of Z Corp, using a staple remover to free @@HIS@@ colleague. “Out with the book, corporations were elected and have a mandate for change, recusals silence the democratic will of the people. While we’re at it there’s also the issue of mergers and acquisitions, we should be able to vote for our own mergers. if for example my company were to takeover Abjad Inc, we should keep both legislative positions.
Effect:
the sole remaining company in @@NAME@@ is the state

[Fhaengshia]

Updated the draft to clean up option 2.

[Australian rePublic]

But representatives of companies already vote as individuals. Do they get two votes?

[Fhaengshia]

But representatives of companies already vote as individuals. Do they get two votes?

-Company X wins a seat in Electorate 1
-Company Y wins a seat in Electorate 2
-Company X takes over Company Y
-Company X now has a seat in Electorate 1 and Electorate 2

Sort of like a party, different legislative officers under the same banner. Z Corp (option 2) is arguing that the above is what should happen rather than companies being limited to a single seat each, while also removing recusals for conflicts of interest.

[Fhaengshia]

Bump as Representative Housework has been accepted.

[Haymarket Riot]

Here’s some thoughts as the editor for 1784:

I know this is NS and god forbid we’re a little silly, but it does strike me as strange that this circumstance could come to pass without at least some forewarning, e.g., an election result. Perhaps corporations win a majority of seats in a recently called election, but that now brings up the issue of quorum before a session can even be called properly.

I’m a huge fan of short issues, but the options here seem like they imply a third axis in this issue:
1. 1784.3/4 was a mistake, let’s undo it but keep the capitalism
2. Corporations have a clear popular mandate and should be allowed to regulate themselves without any gov’t oversight

Consider these ideas:
a. 1784.3/4 was a mistake and clearly we need to nationalize all the corporations they’re so bad at this government thing (also solves the issue of 1784.4 in particular being irreversible under current framework)
b. Corporations should elect a representative for a seat if they’re elected instead of sitting themselves (like guilds do in the city of london kinda)
b.

[Fhaengshia]

Here’s some thoughts as the editor for 1784:

I know this is NS and god forbid we’re a little silly, but it does strike me as strange that this circumstance could come to pass without at least some forewarning, e.g., an election result. Perhaps corporations win a majority of seats in a recently called election, but that now brings up the issue of quorum before a session can even be called properly.

I’m a huge fan of short issues, but the options here seem like they imply a third axis in this issue:
1. 1784.3/4 was a mistake, let’s undo it but keep the capitalism
2. Corporations have a clear popular mandate and should be allowed to regulate themselves without any gov’t oversight

Consider these ideas:
a. 1784.3/4 was a mistake and clearly we need to nationalize all the corporations they’re so bad at this government thing (also solves the issue of 1784.4 in particular being irreversible under current framework)
b. Corporations should elect a representative for a seat if they’re elected instead of sitting themselves (like guilds do in the city of london kinda)
b.

I want to pick this draft up and polish it a bit, but my curiosity is too strong, what is the third axis/option? (if it hasn't been too long lol)

Def makes sense to give the desc more context around an election.
I still like option 1
I think option 2 is trying to do too much / is a bit tricky. the first half i think is ok, and I should have the second half should be more about that.

[Fhaengshia]

Been a while.
Draft 3 reworks the description to base it around byelection results. Small change to option 1 to suit, significant changes to option 2, and adding option 3 for corporations to have a vote as suggested by HR.
@@INITIAL@@MBC is meant to be like HSBC but with @@NAME@@ and Maxtopia in place of Hong Kong and Singapore.

[Fhaengshia]

Putting this on last call as it's been some time and I like where it's at.