Challenge Amendment

[Cormac]

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 five other citizens.

First Proposal

This proposal has been abandoned in favor of amending the constitutional rules for challenge elections.

Article 3B of the Constitution of The Rejected Realms will be amended as follows:

B: The Assembly is responsible for voting on laws, treaties, declarations of war, constitutional amendments, electing Officers and the WA Delegate, removing Officers and the WA Delegate from office for misconduct prior to eligibility for challenge, and acting as a court of appeal.

Article 3D of the Constitution of The Rejected Realms will be amended as follows:

D: Votes on laws, treaties and appeals require a simple majority vote to pass. Votes to remove Officers or the WA Delegate from office for misconduct prior to eligibility for challenge require a 66% majority vote to pass. Declarations of war require a 75% majority vote to pass or amend, and a simple majority to repeal. Amendments to the Constitution require a 75% majority vote to pass.

The amendments are italicized.

In light of Officer Kyorgia being discovered to be supporting the NPO/NLO in Lazarus, but not yet eligible for challenge, the need for an ability to remove an Officer or the Delegate for misconduct prior to eligibility for challenge has been highlighted.

While this is the circumstance that has highlighted the need, I will note there are other circumstances in which the need for this could arise that could be even more serious.

I've gone with 66% as a point between simple majority, which seemed too low for removing an Officer, and 75%, which seemed too high given that's the benchmark for amendments and declarations of war and removal of an Officer is less serious than that. I'm flexible on the percentage though.

[Guy]

two-thirds, not 66%.

I'll have more substantive comments after I get some sleep.

[Cormac]

two-thirds, not 66%.

I'll have more substantive comments after I get some sleep.

The other clauses read 75%, not three-quarters. >_> lol

[frattastan]

But 75% is three-quarters.

Do you want to introduce the possibility of recall in general, or is it more of a matter of allowing challenges earlier than possible now?
How would Delegate recall work without an immediate replacement (the position is never vacant, at least gameside)? Do we introduce a Vice-Delegacy, or will the Delegate keep holding office until the successor is elected?

[Guy]

Generally against recalls for Delegates, since it makes a few things messy -- most importantly that the position is never considered legally vacant, and this would change that.

I think a better alternative might be to change the prohibition on challenges within a month to Officers. (Or just to remove it altogether, as suggested.) If the community is so disaffected with a Delegate that they'd want to remove them within a month of being elected, something's probably gone seriously downhill anyway.

[Cormac]

That may be the better solution, just removing the month long grace period.

[frattastan]

My impression is that Cormac has moved away from the recall idea, and prefers to get rid of the waiting period (presumably for future instances of misconduct).

Nobody is going to recall you, you can relax.

[Libetarian Republics]

I rather increase the threshold to challenge officers within a month of a being elected rather than abolishing the grace period altogether. I don't want petty elections just because an individual was elected (given that challenges for officer positions only requires support of 1 other citizen) Also I'm against recalls for Delegate.

[Guy]

What do you mean by increasing the threshold, LR? Requiring that they receive less than a certain proportion of the vote? This could get messy, especially with multiple candidates.

[Libetarian Republics]

A: Any citizen who wishes to become an Officer or the Delegate may challenge for the position. A challenge for Delegate requires the support of two other citizens. A challenge for Officer requires the support of one other citizen. This requirement is waived for officials seeking reelection.

If we wish to remove the grace period for newly elected officers (meaning they could be challenged when just elected to officer), I would propose that we also increase this requirement.

[Guy]

Right. Hmm. We could require the support of five citizens, for example, to challenge (either a Delegate or an Officer) prior to the 30 days challenge.

The issue is whether the five-person requirement would only apply to the first candidate, or whether subsequent ones will require it too.

[Libetarian Republics]

Right. Hmm. We could require the support of five citizens, for example, to challenge (either a Delegate or an Officer) prior to the 30 days challenge.

The issue is whether the five-person requirement would only apply to the first candidate, or whether subsequent ones will require it too.

I believe every candidate should require a certain amount of support (prior to a 30 days period.) Consistency.

[Cormac]

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 five other citizens.

How does this look?

[Guy]

Do we still want to pursue this?

If so, I might suggest the following wording:

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 newly-elected official within one month following their election shall require the support of five other citizens.

[Cormac]

I'm happy with that wording, though I don't think it differs much from the wording in the OP.

[frattastan]

Will we still get a CormacChallenge?

[Guy]

#AdminAbuse, but I thought it might be better to have the earlier discussion for context.

Essentially, I see a few options that we have:

1) Largely retain the current provisions, just clarify whether the limitation applies to officials who have defeated a challenge, or only to "truly" newly elected officers

2) Implement the proposal in this thread: Challenges require the support of five citizens during the month-long period. We would have to specify whether only the first challenge to a sitting official requires it or if all do. Also same clarification as to scope requires, as above.

3) Get rid of the limitation altogether.

[Katie]

#AdminAbuse, but I thought it might be better to have the earlier discussion for context.

Essentially, I see a few options that we have:

1) Largely retain the current provisions, just clarify whether the limitation applies to officials who have defeated a challenge, or only to "truly" newly elected officers

2) Implement the proposal in this thread: Challenges require the support of five citizens during the month-long period. We would have to specify whether only the first challenge to a sitting official requires it or if all do. Also same clarification as to scope requires, as above.

3) Get rid of the limitation altogether.

I personally think the first option might be best. We could define "newly-elected" as "having been elected to their first consecutive term" or something of the sort.

[LPLTUKM]

Against. Also, why everybody now want to change The Constitution? Are you people insane or what?

[thechurchofsatan]

How about this? The first challenge before the end of the 30 day grace period requires the support of 3 citizens and each subsequent challenge that is before the end of the 30 day grace period requires the support of 1 more citizen than the prior challenge. This would apply individually to each different department. Is it too complicated?

I certainly don't think getting rid of the grace period is wise.

[Katie]

(insert abridged version of churchofsatan's comment here)

I mean, I suppose that's a good compromise.

[Guy]

How about this? The first challenge before the end of the 30 day grace period requires the support of 3 citizens and each subsequent challenge that is before the end of the 30 day grace period requires the support of 1 more citizen than the prior challenge. This would apply individually to each different department. Is it too complicated?

I certainly don't think getting rid of the grace period is wise.

Are you referring to each subsequent challenge within the same election, or to initiate a new election?

I don't really see the point of increasing the threshold - I mean, theoretically I do (if you failed the first time, you need more support for the subsequent challenge) but I doubt it'll have any practical effect. What more, you could only realistically fit 3 challenges in the month-long period anyway.

Things can't apply to departments. They can apply to an individual Officer, though.


I'd say allow to initiate an election with the support of three/four/five citizens, or get rid of the limitation altogether. If we do the former, I'm happy to apply it to re-elected officials.

[Guy]

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 citizens.

[frattastan]

To be honest I wouldn't mind just going for option three (getting rid of the limitation, without conditions), and requiring greater support only for the Delegate.

[Guy]

Sure. I also wouldn't mind getting rid of the clause altogether, if there is support for that.