Moderator: SC Moderators
There are also the Commissions which we used during the Judiciary debate, to agree a Regional Plan for expansion and which began to discuss Citizenship during the last term.
And there are these forums which allow all citizens (and non-citizens) to raise issues and discuss them with others citizens and members of the government.
This amounts to a highly interactive system of government with multiple paths for involvement.
Ranma -
I am not refuting you. I am simply listing the ways citizens can participate currently. I believe the list is small but accurate.
And maybe I didn't make myself clear - I agree with your criticisms - the citizens are kept at arms length once the elections are over - and it is something that my political faction wants to change.
[quote="Ranma Tardis":34oysg9c][quote="Bromo Ivory":34oysg9c]
Right now - the citizens get to :
1. choose the Party rank to determine the party makeup of the RA. [/quote:34oysg9c]
Like the DPU? I use to be in the DPU but they did not get a chance, now did they?[/quote:34oysg9c]
In an election, one ranks the party - you don't have to be a member of a party in order to vote in the election. I am not sure you understood what I meant to say.
Perhaps the wording ought to heva been "In an election, choose the party rankings ..."
[quote:34oysg9c][quote="Bromo Ivory":34oysg9c]1A. If you belong to a political faction, you get the chance to rank members of the party that have agreed to serve as well. [/quote:34oysg9c] Like the DPU???[/quote:34oysg9c]
If you were a member of the DPU and were unable to rank the people in the DPU who had agreed to run for office - I am not sure what happened.
[quote:34oysg9c][quote="Bromo Ivory":34oysg9c] 2. Anyone can propose legislation to the RA. They have been , in my experience, pretty good about bringing it up in the RA meetings.[/quote:34oysg9c]
So true but that does not mean it will ever see the light of day on the agenda.[/quote:34oysg9c]
You are correct.
[quote:34oysg9c][quote="Bromo Ivory":34oysg9c] 2A. You can come to the RA meeting and participate in the discussion at any time, just not vote.[/quote:34oysg9c]
Last time I attended a session the RA members spoke first and the citizens got a small chance to speak after them. I felt like a unwelcome guest.[/quote:34oysg9c]
Thats too bad - but before I even contemplated joining a party and running for RA I participated in the discussions in the RA when I attended. They didn't make me feel unwelcome - and there was no separation of discussion between RA and interested citizen. I am not saying you didn't have that experience ... just I didn't.
[quote:34oysg9c][quote="Bromo Ivory":34oysg9c] 3. Rest of it would be to ask the Chancellor and/or RA representative directly to do something or advocate something for you.[/quote:34oysg9c]
So in the end a citizen is really powerless and depending on the goodwill of both the elected and unelected.[/quote:34oysg9c]
IN the end, once the elections are over - YES, powerless is the word.
You only gte to choose aparty, not a person. In fact if you liked everyone within a party except one person - you would even feel disempowered in an election!
[quote:34oysg9c][quote="Bromo Ivory":34oysg9c] I would love to see more ways of direct participation available - but I think the above pretty much lists what are the current citizen inputs.[/quote:34oysg9c]
At this time other than vote and chat with the RA members there is no way to get involved.[/quote:34oysg9c][/quote]
Once elections are over, you can "get involved" but not with any real power - just a advisory role that is tolerated and sometimes encouraged. It is possible to ignore individuals with concerns with impunity since the people in the RA are never held personally responsible in an election to the electorate - just the party. I would say that most RA's want ot help - but there is little teeth besides ranking the parties in the election.
So ... yes ... once elections are over there is nothing a citizen to do but hope the RA does a "good job." And a citizen can go ask, advise (such as in commissions) implore and so on - but the only "teeth" is election - and the RA him or herself is not directly elected - so ...
I think we do need something more direct as you do.
==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."
Here's something I'm having trouble reconciling. Michel argues that the CDS isn't receptive to a diversity of opinion. However, one of CARE's proposals is to restrict participation in RA elections to factions with three or more candidates. Had such a provision been in place this time, only CARE and the CSDF would have been able to participate. How does this expand participation and citizen involvement?
Sorry Claude. This is a constitutional requirement - not my idea. Each faction must inform the SC 15 days before the start of an election that it has at least 3 members in good standing, and that they are willing and ready to be listed as candidates and be ready to serve if elected. Pick on someone else next time.
[quote:vvq7y3dl]
The minimum faction size is equal to three. No later than 15 days prior to the opening of the polls, faction members will report to the SC Dean their willingness or unwillingness to serve in the RA.[/quote:vvq7y3dl]
Just in case you're going to go all technical and argue that only one candidate actually has to declare, that is nonsense in the current system. Lets say a party with 3 members declares only one candidate. Given the party vote, that party can well win, as a party, 3 seats in the RA. The constitution gives the faction the right to appoint in the RA two further individuals, even if their name was not on the ballot. Leaving aside the apallinginly non-democratic nature of this system in which individuals don't even have to put their name on a ballot to end up in the RA, the result is clearly the same as if the Party had 3 declared candidates.
My proposal does nothing more than maintain the requirement that each party must have 3 members in good stading order willing and ready to serve if elected.
I think it is a misunderstanding on the part of Michel: "No later than 15 days prior to the opening of the polls, faction members will report to the SC Dean their willingness *or unwillingness* to serve in the RA." -- There is no requirement for 3 members to be willing to serve; only that those interested (could be less than 3) in serving indicate willingness to serve.
[quote="michel":14iddlwr]Just in case you're going to go all technical and argue that only one candidate actually has to declare, that is nonsense in the current system. [/quote:14iddlwr]
Erm, technically, you can have *no* members declare--which is the case with the DPU this term. I don't understand why this is nonsense?
Well if no member declares the party does not take part in elections.
My proposal, which argued in favor of a single vote, allowing each citizen to rank all candidates in accordance with the principles of the Single Transferable Vote system, aimed to avoid the creation of one-member parties and total individualisation of the political process by requiring the maintenance of the current system where each party must have 3 members in good standing order - which, as explained, in the current circumstances means that, as long as even one member declares, all three could be elected on the basis of the party vote.
[quote="michelmanen":1tr606g5]My proposal, which argued in favor of a single vote, allowing each citizen to rank all candidates in accordance with the principles of the Single Transferable Vote system, aimed to avoid the creation of one-member parties and total individualisation of the political process by requiring the maintenance of the current system where each party must have 3 members in good standing order - which, as explained, in the current circumstances means that, as long as even one member declares, all three could be elected on the basis of the party vote.[/quote:1tr606g5]
I'm not sure I understand, under the STV, what is wrong with a party offering only one member to stand as RA candidate? Under the STV system wouldn't that faction only get that one member to the RA, if indeed he gets voted in?
[edited for clarity]
The same thing that currently requires all parties wishing to participate in elections to have at least 3 members in good standing order and who, in case even one member actually declares as willing and ready to serve, may well end up as RA members even if their name never figured on the ballot paper.
The reason for this is to keep actual political parties with platforms and common policies alive rather than have a simple popularity contest between individual candidates running independently of each other.
[quote="michelmanen":49up33ig]The reason for this is to keep actual political parties with platforms and common policies alive rather than have a simple popularity contest between individual candidates running independently of each other.[/quote:49up33ig]
Shouldn't you then require a minimum faction size, rather than a minimum number of candidates for the faction?
Sure, that is possible. But:
1. as explained, the current system by requiring each faction to have at least 3 members in good standing order, de facto allows each faction to have as many candidates as the number of seats it will win, regardless of how many declare;
2. it's much easier to set up "pseudo-parties" with two "sleeping members" whose only purpose is to allow the "founder" to run, as a party where each of the three members puts his or her name on the ballot and takes the chance to actually be elected.
As explained, this requirement is, in essence, in no major way different than the way our system currently works. No one has questioned this until now. I thought I'd maintain it because it would be entirely non-controversial. How naive of me!
[quote="michelmanen":39ahu9jl]As explained, this requirement is, in essence, in no major way different than the way our system currently works. No one has questioned this until now. I thought I'd maintain it because it would be entirely non-controversial. How naive of me![/quote:39ahu9jl]
I think what bothers me is that you seem to be trying to preserve the *effect*, rather than the *principle* of what is written in the constitution.
Nikki,
Our current constitution says:
[quote:aygilp4n]The minimum faction size is equal to three. No later than 15 days prior to the opening of the polls, faction members will report to the SC Dean their willingness or unwillingness to serve in the RA.[/quote:aygilp4n]
A faction of three does indeed qualify as "very small". Smaller than that would be a faction of one (ie an individual) or two (a couple). This was entirely non-controversial until now. All I did in my proposal is to preserve this requirement, for two reasons:
1. since this requirement is already included in our constitution and since no one -until now- voiced any objection to this, I wanted to maintain it as something already accepted and non-controversial;
2. most importantly, since under my proposal there would no longer exist a party vote, and since one of our "founding avies" concerns was that our system of govenance be a debate on issues and not simply a popularity contest, having parties of at least 3 candidates would require invidivuals to get together, talk about issues, arrive at common understandings and agreements, draft platforms, and run common campaigns... rather than just doing catwalk runs on their own.
In this way, we achieve the double objective of preserving a functioning public system whilst simultaneously allowing each citizen, with one vote, to rank candidates from all parties, and choose them either on the basis of their individual excellence and ideas, or of their party membership, or -most likely, a mixture of both.
