Changing the size of the RA

[Patroklus Murakami]

In another thread discussing RA procedures I proposed changing the size of the RA to keep it at 5 members for the foreseeable future. My reason for this is that 5 is a reasonable number to express the spread of opinion in the CDS but also a very manageable size for meetings. The problem with our current system is that it requires 20-30% of our citizens to be prepared to be legislators if we are to have enough candidates to give voters a choice between competing manifestos at election time. My proposal applied to future RAs i.e. to the one that is elected in July and the ones that come after it.

In the last RA meeting (24 March) Beathan proposed that, while we wait for the by-elections to be held to fill the two vacant seats, the RA should pass a constitutional amendment to temporarily reduce its size to 5. This has several consequences, mostly bad, and would be illegal in my opinion. If it is passed at next week's RA meeting I will be asking the SC to strike it down as unconstitutional.

One consequence would be that it would be much easier to get a quorum for meetings. The RA currently needs 4 of the remaining members to meet, under Beathan's proposal it would only need 3. It would also make the bar for passage of constitutional amendments clearer. In a 7-member RA the 2/3 majority needed is 5 out of the 7 seats. Following the CSDF decision to resign our seats and leave them vacant, there is some disagreement over whether you still need 5 votes to pass a constitutional amendment or whether 4 out of the 5 remaining is enough. Changing to a 5-member RA would make that clearer (it would then be 4 out of 5). That would not be a good thing for citizens of the CDS though as this would be an Unrepresentative Assembly formed illegally and acting illegally.

The current RA was elected on the basis of the constitutional provision in power at the time. That led to a 7 seat RA. It is not open to the remaining members of the RA to unilaterally reduce the size of the RA because there are two seats vacant. To do so flies in the face of the election result. I'm amazed that anyone could propose this and not realise how illegal and how deeply undemocratic it is. The RA cannot change its size without calling fresh elections. You can't go down from 7 to 5 for convenience sake, and then back up to 7 again later.

[Beathan]

Pat --

If we pass this proposal as a Constituional amendment, there is no legal bar to it. Right now, we have problems with both quorums and with voting as a result of having empty seats. The problems you cite -- easier voting and quorums -- are the benefits I see.

The CSDF left us with a rump parliament. The CSDF wants the CDS to suffer as a result. There is no good reason why the CDS should suffer or the public business should stop because of one faction's miscalculated partisan decision.

Beathan

[Brian Livingston]

Beathan:

All due respect, but the SC (per Art. II, Section 8) is granted the power to veto or revise and resubmit legislation or amendments passed by the Representative Assembly, if that legislation is deemed to be contrary to our founding documents.

Furthermore, I was a bit surprised to see this proposal made at the last meeting. To change the size of the current RA, regardless of the circumstances around the vacancies, reduces the citizens' right to representation. The RA size was set at 7 seats, per the constitution, at the beginning of the term. The citizens voted with the expectation that there were 7 seats in the RA, and their representation would be as such. The RA is perfectly within its rights to change the size of future terms of the RA. However, by eliminating two seats to avoid the by elections, this proposal would allow a directly-elected arm of our government to reduce the ability for the citizens to determine their representation, decrease the overall representation of each citizen, and circumvent an established protocol for filling these vacancies.

I am strongly urging all RA members, my and every other citizens' representatives, to please carefully weigh the impact and precedent that passing a PCA similar to the one mentioned would have on our community and government.

Thank you for your consideration,

Brian Livingston

[Flyingroc Chung]

I was gonna post something, but now I can just say I agree with Brian.

[Sonja Strom]

...by eliminating two seats to avoid the by elections...

Although I am not sure I support the proposal, I also believe it was not intended to reduce the number of seats in order to avoid by-elections, rather to change the size of the RA until the by-elections occurred.

[Beathan]

Brian --

I certainly do not support the idea of changing the size of the RA to avoid a by-election. However, I think that there is an open question as to whether the RA is an RA of 5 or of 7 in the interim. If there is ever a vote that would pass a RA of 5 but fail a RA of 7, then we will have a lack of certainty as to whether the legislation passed -- and we would have a matter that would have to be addressed by the SC.

My proposal was to avoid such useless exercises in Constitutional jurisprudence by clarifying the situation as follows: the RA is an RA of 5 until the by-elections are certified, at which time it returns to an RA of 7.

As far as I know, only Pat is proposing any more permanent reduction of the RA to an RA of 5.

That said, I expect that we will have trouble scheduling the by-elections. We authorized it, but did not schedule it. I want to see the by-election held as soon as possible -- but I don't think this will happen. There is heightened concern about election tactics -- especially the creation of new pseudofactions for the sole purpose of manipulating the borda-count results. My take on this problem is that we should hold the by-elections -- and if any faction chooses to fracture for purposes of manipulating the election results, we can challenge the results on the ground that several of the factions were not genuine. Now, unlike pointless squablbing over whether the RA is a 5-person RA or a 7-person RA, the question of whether specious factions can be created for purposes of skewing election results seems like an important and useful point for us to explore under our Constition.

Beathan

[Flyingroc Chung]

I've been thinking about this some more... even if the proposal is only a temporary reduction of the RA size, this brings up many constitutional questions. For example, does this make the remaining factions (already minority factions) become over-represented? The truth is, it already is, given the incomprehensible abdication of CSDF. Consolidating the RA by having 5 seats instead of 7 could mean that we pile on to the disenfranchisement of those who voted for CSDF.

On the other hand, because we vote by ranking factions, we can argue that the remaining factions are the next best choice; and since the CSDF vacated their seats, the remaining members *are* the best representatives for the voters, at least until the next elections. Still, it seems to me that reducing the RA seats temporarily will need some sort of SC approval.

If this is the case (the SC needs to weigh in), and given the glacial pace of the SC (I should know, I was a member of that august body once), then you would not have solved the original problem you are trying to solve: deciding on the legitimacy of a 3-vote majority or a 4-vote supermajority.

My suggestion is that the RA just keep going on the assumption of a 7-seat RA, and work harder in this in-between time to get the necessary votes.

[Beathan]

FR --

I would agree with your analysis regarding the disenfranchisment of CSDF voters if the CSDF abdication had happened differently. As I understand it, the CSDF voted, as a party, to abdicate rather than fill the seats with replacement voters. That is, the CSDF voters themselves (and not merely the CSDF representatives or leadership) voted for their own disenfranchisement.

Further, for the most part, the CSDF voters were not single party voters. They voted with complete, four party ballots more often than any other party (except the SP). Thus, the voters are still represented by their second choices, having decided to withdraw their first choices.

It is mystifying, but I don't see a Constitutional or Civil Rights problem here. The RA can and should do what is necessary to allow it to run smoothly and effectively. The first thing we should do is to speed along the byelection -- but we should make interim changes in the meantime.

Also, it is important to note that my interim change would only work as a Constitutional amendment. Unless the SC announces some strange rule that the Constitution can violate itself -- once the RA passes something as a Constitutional amendment, the SC cannot overturn it. The SC's job is to interpret and apply the Constitution -- not pick and choose what parts of it to apply.

Beathan

[Flyingroc Chung]

Beathan, the SC can veto Constitutional amendments:

The Philosophic branch may veto or rewrite and resubmit a bill or constitutional amendment if it is in violation of any of the founding documents.

Our founding documents include the constitution itself, so there is some circularity there. But the SC can also use the UNDHR as the basis for rejecting constitutional amendments.

[Beathan]

FR --

You are absolutely right. I stand correct. This really could be a sticky wicket the CSDF has created for us -- and if they are, in fact, planning to manipulate the by-elections by running a coalition of fragmented pseudo-factions, it will be stickier yet. What a mess. It could not have been worst if Howard Dean were running the CDS.

Now I am getting depressed.

Beathan

[Flyingroc Chung]

I'm sure the Howard Dean scenario is worse .

[Patroklus Murakami]

On the 'inexplicable' decision of the CSDF to resign our seats and not fill them with replacements, I refer you to my resignation post:

I've decided to resign from the RA effective immediately. I have written to Claude, as Dean of the SC, to inform him of my decision.

It has become clear since the recent elections that there's a minority in the RA that is determined to prevent me from chairing meetings as LRA. I have not always responded well to the challenges of chairing meetings under these circumstances and I apologise to the CDS community for my faults in this regard.

After careful reflection and a majority vote at its March 5 meeting, the Citizens Social Democratic Faction (CSDF) has decided to resign its seats in the Representative Assembly. Between now and the next general election, the CSDF will review and refine its mission, goals and activities, to more fully serve the CDS in the future. We will continue our weekly meetings, most of which will be announced and open to the public, and look forward to working with all CDS citizens on the issues that concern us all.

I'd also refer anyone who's perplexed by our decision to the meetings I tried to chair as LRA this term and to my protests at the name-calling and disruption of meetings. I was personally attacked, week after week, in RA meetings and afterwards. From my perspective it's pretty clear that the NuCARE representatives have worked to drive the CSDF out of the CDS; in fact that demand was made explicitly after the meeting a couple of weeks ago where I was ordered to leave the CDS by ThePrincess Parisi. Sadly, Beathan has aided and abetted this campaign, even drafting a proposal to remove me as LRA. And now, the very people who worked to get rid of us complain about the fact that we resigned! It would be funny if it weren't so Kafkaesque.

There is no "CSDF plot to manipulate the elections". There is a plan to manipulate the size of the RA to make it easier for the NuCARE/Beathan coalition to continue to dominate the CDS despite the fact that this is illegal and unconstitutional. There is also a plan to prevent the CSDF from standing in the by-elections in flagrant disregard of the CDS founding documents including the UDHR. The RA have already passed a constitutional amendment, which I have asked the SC to review, which rigs the by-election so that voters don't get to eliminate factions they disapprove of. The only ones 'manipulating the by-elections' are Beathan and his NuCARE allies.

[Jamie Palisades]

All this does not yet seem to be leading to a clear place. Feel free to correct me if I have any of the following wrong.

Patroklus thinks we ought to have a 5 member RA. Not clear to me whether he thinks we should stay at 5 for now -- apparently CDSF has no candidates, though, and his posts say CDSF's position is to wait until the next general election.
Beathan apparently supports 7 -- and so wants us to hold the by-election (to get back to 7 for the remainder of this term).
Beathan also wants us temporarily to reduce the number for 5 for now (until the by-election results), so that the RA is not possibly inconvenienced by quorum issues until the election fills out the 7.
I said "possibly", because there's a difference of opinion about whether the minimum quorum for RA meetings now is 5 out of 7 authorized seats, or less (by applying the fraction to the total of 5 presently-seated reps). See below.
I said "inconvenienced" -- not "stopped dead", because it amounts to an annoyance -- a partial thwarting of the RA's ability to work, not a complete one. *If* the first of those two views were correct, then, until the by-election's over, the RA woud be inconvenienced somewhat by always needing all members present, in order to be quorate. If the second's correct, no issue.
It's our hope that we will confirm having a by-election, and set the dates it (which we were told by an SC member is our job) at the next RA meeting. (Tomorrow, Sunday noon SLT.)
We could address that difference of opinion about quorum in several ways. One is, as Pat alluded in this thread, an SC challenge. Another may be an RA bill. Maybe both :) Something I am sure we will discuss at RA.

There are political issues in here potentially, as well as rule-based ones. Most of us are (I think) participating in government in order to try and make it work. But imagine what would happen if some folks got into the habit of vigorously trying to *not* make it work? Ugly, whether from the inside or the outside.
So far, everyone seems to be adopting constructive, good faith positions, even where we differ.

Now, I need to go give some thought to what the Constitution requires, and what it doesn't care about. And other matters. For one thing, if the Constitution provides for elections, and an RA size from time to time, what are the durations and conditions on that size requirement? (Gwyneth's comments at last RA meeting that "the RA can do anything" ring in my ears - probably true, but a little scary, that.) For another thing, is the RA's operating quorum, from meeting to meeting, a matter of some Constitutional Highfalutin Import? Or a matter which a UN High Commissioner would seriously take up as a human rights issue? Or just a rule of procedure, which the RA can adopt freely?

/me smiles, sighs at the large stack of possibly relevant information, and heads back to the virtual desk ...

[Beathan]

Jamie --

Thanks for restoring order here. You are setting an example for how an LRA out to behave. Rather, you are setting an example of the kind of personality a LRA ought to have -- and personality matters a lot in these things.

Pat --

To set the record straight, it is crazy to say "Beathan and his NuCARE allies." I stand on principle -- and sometimes that principle leads me to side with NuCARE on positions it takes (such as its support for growth; its objection to the haphazard and frankly stifling manner in which you ran the RA); other times my principles leads me to oppose NuCARE (as when I stood with Jon against NuCARE's election tactics and defended Jon from what I perceived as unfair and unfounded accusations that he somehow manipulated the election results).

It is also true that I draft, but did not propose, a "no confidence" provision while you were LRA. However, this was to be statement of no confidence only -- and was to be offered as a preventative alternative to attempts to remove you. In other words -- I wanted to pass an advisory bill criticizing your improper running of the RA without removing you. It is simply untrue to say that I wanted to remove you or wrote any proposal to remove it. Further, I never did propose my "no confidence" alternative -- because there never was any serious attempt to remove you.

Whether the CSDF will behave properly remains to be seen. If the CSDF breaks up into a coalition of pseudo-parties to unfairly increase its electoral share, then we will know that it is interested in electoral manipulation. If it does not, then these whispered concerns can be dismissed as unfounded paranoia. Personally, I am taking a wait-and-see attitude here -- while expressing the concerns that others have so that those concerns can be known and assessed by all members of our community.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Patroklus thinks we ought to have a 5 member RA. Not clear to me whether he thinks we should stay at 5 for now -- apparently CDSF has no candidates, though, and his posts say CDSF's position is to wait until the next general election.

Jamie -
Let me explain. I think that in future, after the next general election and for the foreseeable future while we grow as a community, a 5 member RA is perfectly fine. I think it's an optimum number.

Reducing the size of the RA to 5 now by discounting the seats won by the CSDF and which we have decided to leave vacant is illegal and unconstitutional and so I oppose it. There you go, not so difficult after all!

I resigned as LRA after a campaign of harrassment directed against me. I discussed this with colleagues in the CSDF for several weeks before making my final decision to depart. Anyone who knows me well will know that I don't give up or walk away from a situation easily. I would usually prefer to stand and fight. But, in this case, when Sunday night's meeting approached I began to feel physically sick. My partner began to ask me why I was doing this voluntary activity which I was putting so much time and energy into when it left me feeling angry and abused week after week - I didn't have a very good answer to that. This is supposed to be fun after all, isn't it?

After discussion, and by a majority vote, the CSDF decided to resign our seats and leave them vacant. We decided to remove ourselves from the fray because the fighting in the RA was much too personal. We also acknowledged our part in the drama; I've apologised to the community for the fact that I have not always behaved in the best way possible. We thought that it would be an opportunity to regroup, to reflect on what we could have done better, to get involved in other positive work that supports the CDS community. That was why we left and did not fill the seats. Given the abuse dished out to us over recent weeks do you think there'd be anyone in the CSDF itching to take over as LRA punchbag for ThePrincess et al to have a go at?

Since we resigned there's been a further whispering campaign. We resigned 'because we want to take over' - the most bizarre of the charges thrown at us. The rumour-mongers are saying we resigned in order to stall progress on the 4th sim - despite our manifesto commitment to expansion and the fact that we proposed the legislation to enable it! The latest set of allegations are that we plan to splinter into micro-factions to manipulate the by-election result - we do not plan to do this. What's more we've been abused by those who harrassed us out the door for resigning in the first place. Truly we are "damned if we do and damned if we don't!"

I don't really want to say much more on this. It's already been rehashed and rewarmed several times now. Now, if only people would stop repeating the rumours being spread by the gossip-mongers, I'd be able to reduce my posting frequency!