Presentation & Summary of the CARE LRA Act

[michelmanen]

Currently, the Leader of the RA is automatically appointed based on which faction obtains most seats and which individual within that faction receives most votes. As we have seen in the last RA, a faction winning 2 seats out of 5 is capable of having one of their members designated automatically as LRA, and in turn the DPU faction's 6 members (4 of which were not in the RA) effectively decided which individual held this important position. In fact, last term, only 2 members of the RA out of 5 had a say as to who the LRA would be; this term, only 3 out of seven had a chance to do so.

This current state of affairs: a) is entirely undemocratic, in that not all RA members, but only the few members of a faction with the most seats (but not necessarily a majority or even a plurality) elected the LRA; b) does in no way represent the actual situation in the RA, where the LRA is in no way assured of a governing majority; c) for the same reason, is ineffective in that the LRA may well not be able to provide adequate leadership for the RA and actively pursue the adoption of a specfic legislative agenda; and d) unaccountable, in that the LRA cannot be held to account or removed by the RA, save for impeachment -which is an entirely inappropriate procedure for most political purposes (failure to control a majority in the RA and have key legislative initiatives, such as the CDS Budget, adopted).

In order to remedy these mutiple and critical flaws in the current LRA position, CARE will propose a [b:37b9y3ay]Leader of the RA (LRA) Act[/b:37b9y3ay].

Anyone interested in the draft [i:37b9y3ay]Leader of the RA (LRA) Act[/i:37b9y3ay] and CARE's discussions on this matter can follow and participate here: http://www.care-cds.com/forum/index.php ... sg62#msg62 .

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

I am opposed to this proposal for several reasons. I will list two, one general and one specific.

Generally, this makes the LRA more important while also making the role of parties less important. In other words, it creates a powerful position that I (as a regular citizen not in the RA) vote for someone to vote for, with no real sense of who the candidates might be or what the issues of common interest or dissention might be. If this kind of more powerful "leader of government" post is desirable (which it might be) I would prefer direct election.

Specifically, the provision that this person is "prohibited from holding any other position in any public or quasi-public organisation, current (RA, SC, Guild, Political Parties, Media ownership and control) or future" is just flat out crazy. With a two-term limit, this means that someone who would be become LRA gives up any post of influence for the rest of their life. I mean, to say they couldn't be in the RA ever again is one thing (I'd probably even still disagree with that idea), but to say they could never be a leader in a party, the SC, the media, or whatever else might be put on this list, is just silly. What kind of people would be attracted to this position as it is written? And I have to wonder, is CRAEDO a "quasi-public" organization in your view?

[Fernando Book]

This Act should be approved as a Constitutional Amendment, as it changes Art. 1 Sect. 3.

[michelmanen]

You misunderstood. The non-cumulation of powers applies only during the time the person is LRA. After that he or she can of course hold any other public or quasi-public office.

As to direct election, the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor wil be directly elected, if the CARE Executive Act will be adopted. The job of the LRA is to lead the RA and form sa majority government, like a British Prime Minister or German Chancellor, and therefore it is entirely appropriate that he or she be elected solely by the RA members.