Challenge Amendment

[Bowiemoria]

This is Kathy's proposed amendment.

The amendments are italicized.

Article 7E of the Constitution of The Rejected Realms will be amended as follows:

E: Newly-elected officials may not be challenged for one month after the close of elections.

E: If newly-elected officials are challenged within one month after the close of elections, the challenge will require the support of four other citizens.

[drunkenconquerors]

I do not agree. And will vote accordingly should this reach quorum.

And to answer regarding oppressed one, it was an opinion of the speaker that a law should not be changed in haste due to anything but an emergency. I was posting that as an excellent position to take regarding the constitution, not merely a celebration.

[Katie]

I do not agree. And will vote accordingly should this reach quorum.

What do you propose then? You do realize that compromise is the only way this situation will be solved.

[Guy]

If it's off topic, why speak? Admin hat on, as Yuno's post above is also off topic and a personal issue that has little bearing except Her ability to vote for an ammendment.

Censure that, would you please?

Or, as you noted, circumvent the ammendment process because 75% would be "hard".

Maybe it's hard for a reason.

Maybe that's why the US has a 3/4 rule in the senate to pass an ammendment. Not that the US sentate isngreat or anything, but as an example.

Want me out? Vote. Me. Out. Constitutionally.

I meant that the Rybeck/DC/Yuno discussion is off-topic. This discussion should be about whether or not to amend the Constitution. They might be tangentially related, but posts should be about the latter.

Of course the 75% threshold for changing the Constitution is intentionally high. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be improvements made. I think this amendment is worthy of ratification, which is why I'm presenting it.

This is not about wanting you out or not. As you can see, I've been advocating for this change for a long time now.

(Also, it's 2/3rds in each of the US House and Senate, 3/4ers of states ratifying.)

[drunkenconquerors]

I propose the constitution be followed, as well as precedent, and you WAIT the MONTH. Then challenge. I also further suggest whimsy not be a appropriate reason for amendments. The election was a week ago, you just missed it. So, wait the month.

[Guy]

This is Kathy's proposed amendment.

The amendments are italicized.

Article 7E of the Constitution of The Rejected Realms will be amended as follows:

E: Newly-elected officials may not be challenged for one month after the close of elections.

E: If newly-elected officials are challenged within one month after the close of elections, the challenge will require the support of four other citizens.

Article 7 Clause E of the Constitution of The Rejected Realms shall be amended as follows:

E: Newly-elected officials may not be challenged for one month after the close of elections.

E: A challenge to an official within 30 days of their election shall require the support of four other citizens.

These are rather similar, so no major qualms regarding with which one we proceed. I think my version has the advantage of clarifying the issue around 'newly elected' - making the limitation more expansive, as part of the compromise.

[Bowiemoria]

These are rather similar, so no major qualms regarding with which one we proceed. I think my version has the advantage of clarifying the issue around 'newly elected' - making the limitation more expansive, as part of the compromise.

I agree. I second this amendment, so will it be put to a vote?

[Katie]

I second Guy's version of the amendment as well.

[drunkenconquerors]

I do not approve of the ammendment, or of the ratification process, nor of its surely retroactive nature so that I get to be the guinea pig.

[Guy]

I do not approve of the ammendment, or of the ratification process, nor of its surely retroactive nature so that I get to be the guinea pig.

Yes, you've made yourself quite clear that you do not support this.

I'll note at the get-go that there has been support for an Amendment such as this one for years - this thread is from 2015, and I drafted something back then too. It was also discussed earlier than that. A lot of people who've been here a long time have supported it for a while.

You say you oppose the Amendment - that is your right.

I do not understand what there is to oppose about the ratification process.

Finally, the effect of this Amendment is not retrospective. We're not validating a challenge that had occurred in the past.

[drunkenconquerors]

The past will be the challenge before us today, since the ammendment has not been in effect when the challenge was made, and shot down by the speaker as unconstitutional.

By your statement then, I shall not be exposed until after 30 days of service under the current constitution?

[thechurchofsatan]

I think Guy's version is a fair compromise. It's not all that easy to get four people to support you for much of anything, much less an election, heh.

[CrazyGirl]

Cool your damn horses, all of you.

Now, my preference.

Once elected, no one should be challenging someone over their position for a month. Give them some time to settle down, lay down the law. If they have been newly elected or re-elected shouldn't matter, the delegate is free to rearrange officers as they see fit. They got re-elected? You've had your chance. Delegate puts them in the same spot? Petition your delegate.

I'd also like to add that a new citizen should not be running for any position for a month so they can see what the RR is about and how it works and show what they are about before taking on more responsibiliy, but I realise this might be an unpopular decision.
It just always makes my hair raise and my old suspicious mind go when I see someone relatively brand new kicking up a big fuss, causing drama and wanting "power".

[Guy]

Cool your damn horses, all of you.

Now, my preference.

Once elected, no one should be challenging someone over their position for a month. Give them some time to settle down, lay down the law. If they have been newly elected or re-elected shouldn't matter, the delegate is free to rearrange officers as they see fit. They got re-elected? You've had your chance. Delegate puts them in the same spot? Petition your delegate.

I'd also like to add that a new citizen should not be running for any position for a month so they can see what the RR is about and how it works and show what they are about before taking on more responsibiliy, but I realise this might be an unpopular decision.
It just always makes my hair raise and my old suspicious mind go when I see someone relatively brand new kicking up a big fuss, causing drama and wanting "power".

We've had in the past people elected then completely disappear. We've also had people whom we later found out things about them that made us not really want them to stick around as Officers.

I don't think that people should ordinarily be challenged within a month of being elected. But I think we should have the capacity to respond to these situations.

I share your view that much of the time, people who come in here and straight away run for positions are interested more in the power than helping the region (and indeed, they often move on just as quickly after they had gotten bored). I'm not in favour of constitutionalising it. Some people may have prove themselves to be of good character elsewhere, or were previously in the region, et cetera. I think that should be a call for the citizenry to make.

[Christian Democrats]

I do not agree. And will vote accordingly should this reach quorum.

What do you propose then? You do realize that compromise is the only way this situation will be solved.

Compromise? The status quo remains as long as one-fourth of citizens are willing to maintain it. There's no need for supporters of the status quo to compromise. Opponents have to muster three-fourths support.

Don't tell me to compromise for the sake of compromise; try to persuade me to vote to change the constitution.

Once elected, no one should be challenging someone over their position for a month. Give them some time to settle down, lay down the law. If they have been newly elected or re-elected shouldn't matter, the delegate is free to rearrange officers as they see fit. They got re-elected? You've had your chance. Delegate puts them in the same spot? Petition your delegate.

For once, I agree with CG.

[Guy]

I'll reiterate that arguments against this Amendment are largely disconnected with reality -- we barely have any challenges against incumbents, let alone successive challenges against new incumbents.

I'll also reiterate the arguments for this: It still poses a high bar on a challenge against a recently-elected official, and allows us to deal with situations where an Officer, Speaker or Delegate immediately goes inactive, or if something negative is discovered about them.

With that, I ask that we move to a vote.

[drunkenconquerors]

I do not agree. And will vote accordingly should this reach quorum.

What do you propose then? You do realize that compromise is the only way this situation will be solved.

Compromise? The status quo remains as long as one-fourth of citizens are willing to maintain it. There's no need for supporters of the status quo to compromise. Opponents have to muster three-fourths support.

Don't tell me to compromise for the sake of compromise; try to persuade me to vote to change the constitution.

Once elected, no one should be challenging someone over their position for a month. Give them some time to settle down, lay down the law. If they have been newly elected or re-elected shouldn't matter, the delegate is free to rearrange officers as they see fit. They got re-elected? You've had your chance. Delegate puts them in the same spot? Petition your delegate.

For once, I agree with CG.

I agree with Crazygirl and CD, for the reasons posted.

[frattastan]

A minor point: you're mistaken on the meaning of "retroactive".

If the amendment was retroactive, the challenge Kathy started yesterday - and an eventual election - would be valid (even if made before the amendment entered into force).
The proposal is not retroactive: that just means that any challenge against an incumbent would have to be made after the amendment is approved; it does not mean that the one-month restriction continues to be in force even after it's been repealed (unless you add a transitional provision to that effect).

[sedge]

I like Guy's proposed amendment. It strikes a decent balance between reducing the likelihood of "bad loser" challenges while retaining the option to remove an Officer from power should they completely disappear or some revelation reveal them to be wholly unsuitable for office.

[drunkenconquerors]

A minor point: you're mistaken on the meaning of "retroactive".

If the amendment was retroactive, the challenge Kathy started yesterday - and an eventual election - would be valid (even if made before the amendment entered into force).
The proposal is not retroactive: that just means that any challenge against an incumbent would have to be made after the amendment is approved; it does not mean that the one-month restriction continues to be in force even after it's been repealed (unless you add a transitional provision to that effect).

So a new member of the community does not run in an election, but decides they dislike the result and then one week later they petition (illegally) for the removal of said officer. The petition is struck down as illegal according to the constitution.

Now we are considering, seriously considering, altering the constitution so that same one individual, can legally challenge for the spot? Of course, opening the door to "long discussed" changes that were never put in force when those folks held office. This will open the door to Officer position challenges needing to be attended to, regardless if successful or not. There is no restriction on amount of times a sitting officer can be pestered, or the length of time someone has been a citizen in order to initiate such an action. There is also no length of time specification in the proposed amendment for how long this new, specially created challenge process shall last. Shall it, to have an elongated, or shorted election period of time? Shall the 75% rule be adhered to, or will simple majority rule the day? These issues are glaringly obvious in the proposed amendment.

This will effect every position, every election, from here on out. I urge the citizens to not make a decision out of haste that will destabilize the government as a whole unit. As I previously posted, hearing so much....discord from the new cultural and new internal affairs officers as well as a new citizen, I will not stand for re-election to the position. So if my absence is your goal, you shall have it. If altering a region so it is a less stable government is your goal (with the added bonus of removing an inactive, ineffective outreach officer, as I have been so painted) then we shall see in the vote.

As much as some folks wish it were not true, interests connect three of the major players in this, and should be weary of foreign encroachment.

DC

[Bowiemoria]

There is no restriction on amount of times a sitting officer can be pestered, or the length of time someone has been a citizen in order to initiate such an action. There is also no length of time specification in the proposed amendment for how long this new, specially created challenge process shall last. Shall it, to have an elongated, or shorted election period of time? Shall the 75% rule be adhered to, or will simple majority rule the day? These issues are glaringly obvious in the proposed amendment.

The inherent restriction would be the four (4) citizens required to second the challenge.

Unless I am interpreting this wrong, the challenge would be subject to the same electoral process as any other regular election for the position. The way I read this amendment, is that it merely outlines a challenge can be made.

[thechurchofsatan]

If you're so quick to quit on the job then perhaps it's a good thing someone may challenge you for it. An officer needs to be committed to their job and that's not the impression you're giving.

[drunkenconquerors]

If you're so quick to quit on the job then perhaps it's a good thing someone may challenge you for it. An officer needs to be committed to their job and that's not the impression you're giving.

Hello CoS,

I have held culture and now outreach positions, and I was merely willing to make way for the "new" members of The Rejected Realms. Also, I wanted to show my ability to respond to the will of (at least three) the people regarding their appraisal of how I perform my duties.

Folks that know me know I do not just quit, which is why I will oppose any attempt, constitutionally or otherwise, to remove me before my term has expired. However, once my term has run its course, I do not believe it to be discordant to resign From Outreach Officer.

I am sure I will be running for another officer position!

Its amazing what one can get when they ask the right question. Although I guess yours was technically a declarative statement. But you get the idea.

[Neop]

There's nothing wrong with DC wanting to stay in his position, but our citizenry does have the right to voive their concerns as well. I hope we can come to a compromise that will satisfy both parties.

As far as amending goes, I'm in favor of the idea of requiring an increased amount of seconds for challenges made within the first month of an officer's tenure.

[Guy]

So a new member of the community does not run in an election, but decides they dislike the result and then one week later they petition (illegally) for the removal of said officer. The petition is struck down as illegal according to the constitution.

Now we are considering, seriously considering, altering the constitution so that same one individual, can legally challenge for the spot? Of course, opening the door to "long discussed" changes that were never put in force when those folks held office. This will open the door to Officer position challenges needing to be attended to, regardless if successful or not. There is no restriction on amount of times a sitting officer can be pestered, or the length of time someone has been a citizen in order to initiate such an action. There is also no length of time specification in the proposed amendment for how long this new, specially created challenge process shall last. Shall it, to have an elongated, or shorted election period of time? Shall the 75% rule be adhered to, or will simple majority rule the day? These issues are glaringly obvious in the proposed amendment.

I had stated in Rybeck's campaign that I do not support her challenge. However, I think that she should be able to challenge, even if I do not support it.

Our only way to remove elected officials -- be they the Delegate, Speaker or Officer -- is to challenge them. For me, and as sedge pointed out above, it's not an acceptable situation that someone can go without any accountability to the region whatsoever for a period of 30 days.

Just because we did not get this Amendment done earlier, doesn't mean that this is a bad idea. I think it's a very good one.

As Bowiemoria said, the electoral process will be the same as for any other challenge. That's completely obvious. The Amendment does not change anything about challenges, other than the fact that it removes the disallowance of challenges within 30 days. Instead, it allows them, but requires that they have the support of four other citizens.

As I previously posted, hearing so much....discord from the new cultural and new internal affairs officers as well as a new citizen…

As much as some folks wish it were not true, interests connect three of the major players in this, and should be weary of foreign encroachment.

Allegations of foreign influence on our political process is an extremely serious matter. If you have any evidence, you should forward it to the Citizenship Council. I trust that you do not make this allegation without such evidence.