INU Regional Legislature

I have quite a few concerns about your idea for the INUCA, Zwotstyg.

Let me address them one by one

the INUCA will assume the ability to make new laws (this authority will be removed from the Supreme Council, replaced by veto/pass authority for legislature laws).

By this do you mean that the responsibility of proposing and passing laws are given to the INUCA and that the SC has veto power?

The INUCA will also be able to override a veto that is made by the Supreme Council.

With how much of a majority? If it's the same as passing the law, the veto is essentially worthless.

If there is an official whom the INUCA feels is corrupt or power-abusive, the INUCA will have the authority to expel the official from office.

This is by far my biggest issue. The ability of the INUCA to expel any official from office is open to flagrant power abuse, and democratically elected candidates should not be forced to step down because of political disagreements. The only way to expel an official should be through referendum.

Lastly, if we put together a regional constitution, the INUCA should have the ability to amend it.

Wouldn't this be put into the passing laws category? Pass legislature to amend the constitution, i mean.

Sorry about that; I'll be a little more specific:

First, you are correct; passing laws will move to the INUCA and veto power will move to the SC.

Second, the majority numbers are to be determined in the next step. This way we don't have a cloud of disagreements about the majority numbers along with the basic plans. Right now, we're just trying to outline exactly what the INUCA will do. (I don't wish for this to be discussed until we reach the next step, but I say probably a 2/3 to 5/6 majority to override a veto. It has to be high.)

Third, I intended for an extremely high majority to determine this in the INUCA, and since the INUCA is both democratic and will represent multiple opinions, it would be virtually impossible for power abuse to occur. However, if you feel that duty should be strictly for referenda, then I will not disagree with you; I was simply trying to find enough duties for the INUCA to keep it busy.

Fourth, to an extent, yes. Some amendments would be more along the line of repealing or simply editing something, though, whereas laws are generally additions. If we combine the two, though, I would recommend they be listed as amendments rather than laws so that the duty encompasses all of those.

No problem.

First, you are correct; passing laws will move to the INUCA and veto power will move to the SC.

I see, that's fine then. I agree with that.

Second, the majority numbers are to be determined in the next step. This way we don't have a cloud of disagreements about the majority numbers along with the basic plans. Right now, we're just trying to outline exactly what the INUCA will do. (I don't wish for this to be discussed until we reach the next step, but I say probably a 2/3 to 5/6 majority to override a veto. It has to be high.)

I agree that the INUCA should be able to reverse veto's, we can discuss the required majority later.

Third, I intended for an extremely high majority to determine this in the INUCA, and since the INUCA is both democratic and will represent multiple opinions, it would be virtually impossible for power abuse to occur. However, if you feel that duty should be strictly for referenda, then I will not disagree with you; I was simply trying to find enough duties for the INUCA to keep it busy.

While i appreciate giving the INUCA things to do, i still think giving them the power to strip officials is a very bad idea, there's far too much that could go wrong with that. (Difference of Opinion, Shuttering, etc.)

Fourth, to an extent, yes. Some amendments would be more along the line of repealing or simply editing something, though, whereas laws are generally additions. If we combine the two, though, I would recommend they be listed as amendments rather than laws so that the duty encompasses all of those.

Fair Enough.

I agree with INUCA being able to rebuke a veto with majority vote from the members. But I have to disagree with them being able to strip official position. I'd rather have another watcher group just for that.

Ok. I'll edit the plan to fit the proposed changes. Here, then, is the new one:

INUCA Authorities:
1. The INUCA can vote to make new laws and amend the regional constitution when one is written. The Supreme Council will lose this ability, and instead the SC must pass or veto all INUCA legislation.
2. The INUCA may override vetoes made by the Supreme Council.

Other duties can be added later, either in this discussion or by the INUCA when it is established.

If anyone else as additional ideas or thoughts on this, please post them. If none are posted, we will assume the plan written above is mutually approved.

To Clarify: Only Legislature members can propose laws, correct?

Well, not really. The INUCA is the only one in the government that can propose laws and vote on them separately; everyone else can still make proposals, but they will be decided via referenda. In other words, if you're in the INUCA, you can write proposals that ONLY the INUCA will vote on. If you aren't in the INUCA, any proposal you make will be decided by a referendum.

Zwotstyg wrote:Well, not really. The INUCA is the only one in the government that can propose laws and vote on them separately; everyone else can still make proposals, but they will be decided via referenda. In other words, if you're in the INUCA, you can write proposals that ONLY the INUCA will vote on. If you aren't in the INUCA, any proposal you make will be decided by a referendum.

Alright, thanks for the clarification.

Since no further objections have been made to the proposed starting plan, we will use what has been posted. Now we will move on to the next subject: what majority percentages should we use for each of the INUCA duties?

I suggest the following:

1. 65% to add a new law
2. 75% to actually modify part of the constitution when we have one
3. 85% to override a veto

Also, just to add on something that we hadn't covered, we need a chairman of a sort for the INUCA. We can't really use the ordinary chairman because whoever counts votes for the INUCA needs to also be responsible for scheduling votes and notifying all the legislators. Here is a quick plan I had in mind: there would be a short period for nominating people for the INUCA chairman, and the Supreme Council would choose the best of the nominees. The INUCA chairman would NOT be permitted to vote, for the purpose of eroding any possibility of cheating on the votes.

What are everyone's thoughts on both of these?

Zwotstyg wrote:Since no further objections have been made to the proposed starting plan, we will use what has been posted. Now we will move on to the next subject: what majority percentages should we use for each of the INUCA duties?

I suggest the following:

1. 65% to add a new law
2. 75% to actually modify part of the constitution when we have one
3. 85% to override a veto

Agreed, except I think adding a new law should only require a simple majority. Since it seems like the region is going to have a multi-party system, creating a coalition large enough or gathering enough votes (>65%) in a basically half "right"/half "left" legislature is going to be difficult.

Zwotstyg wrote:Also, just to add on something that we hadn't covered, we need a chairman of a sort for the INUCA. We can't really use the ordinary chairman because whoever counts votes for the INUCA needs to also be responsible for scheduling votes and notifying all the legislators. Here is a quick plan I had in mind: there would be a short period for nominating people for the INUCA chairman, and the Supreme Council would choose the best of the nominees. The INUCA chairman would NOT be permitted to vote, for the purpose of eroding any possibility of cheating on the votes.

It seems more democratic if the legislature elects amongst itself the chairman.

I also don't think it's necessary to not allow the chairman to vote - if each person posts their vote on a voting thread, then the votes would be visible to everyone (the only way to really prevent cheating and increase transparency).

@Othelos: About the lawmaking majority, I understand your opinion; I was thinking that it should be slightly above 50% so that laws passed would be good and agreeable ones. I can perhaps agree with 50%, but first would you agree to a compromise at 55%?

Secondly, I can agree to having the legislature pick the chairman, as well as allowing the chairman to vote. We'll need someone to take votes from the legislature for the INUCA chairman, though--I suggest the regional chairman, since he/she collects votes for the other elections anyway. The only difference for the INUCA chairman election would be that only INUCA members could vote in it.

Zwotstyg wrote:@Othelos: About the lawmaking majority, I understand your opinion; I was thinking that it should be slightly above 50% so that laws passed would be good and agreeable ones. I can perhaps agree with 50%, but first would you agree to a compromise at 55%?

Of course! 55% is good.

Zwotstyg wrote:Secondly, I can agree to having the legislature pick the chairman, as well as allowing the chairman to vote. We'll need someone to take votes from the legislature for the INUCA chairman, though--I suggest the regional chairman, since he/she collects votes for the other elections anyway. The only difference for the INUCA chairman election would be that only INUCA members could vote in it.

That works.

Okay, so here is the new modification to what I had proposed:

Percentages:
1. 55% to pass new laws
2. 75% to modify the regional constitution
3. 85% to override a veto

INUCA Chairman:
The INUCA chairman will count votes for the INUCA. He or she will be elected from amongst the INUCA members, who will be responsible for nominating and voting to determine the chairman (by this, I mean only INUCA members would be allowed to nominate, only INUCA members could be nominated, and only INUCA members could vote in that election). The regional chairman would take responsibility of organizing the nominations and voting, and would collect votes for the election. Once in office, the INUCA's job would include organizing legislative votes, collecting the votes, and passing the decision to the Supreme Council for passage/veto. The INUCA chairman would be permitted to vote in legislative decisions.

Zwotstyg wrote:Okay, so here is the new modification to what I had proposed:

Percentages:
1. 55% to pass new laws
2. 75% to modify the regional constitution
3. 85% to override a veto

INUCA Chairman:
The INUCA chairman will count votes for the INUCA. He or she will be elected from amongst the INUCA members, who will be responsible for nominating and voting to determine the chairman (by this, I mean only INUCA members would be allowed to nominate, only INUCA members could be nominated, and only INUCA members could vote in that election). The regional chairman would take responsibility of organizing the nominations and voting, and would collect votes for the election. Once in office, the INUCA's job would include organizing legislative votes, collecting the votes, and passing the decision to the Supreme Council for passage/veto. The INUCA chairman would be permitted to vote in legislative decisions.

I agree completely with this proposal.

Zwotstyg wrote:Okay, so here is the new modification to what I had proposed:

Percentages:
1. 55% to pass new laws
2. 75% to modify the regional constitution
3. 85% to override a veto

Anything over 50% should be enough to pass a new law, i think. A simple majority would be sufficient. Changing both 2 and 3 to 80% seems reasonable too as overriding a veto seems a bit too hard while changing the constitution seems a bit too easy.

As for the Chairman, sounds good.

@Xin Prussia: I'd rather keep making laws at 55%, and I'll agree to move the second up to 80%. There is a problem, though; if the veto vote is the same as passing amendments, then it steals the authority from the Supreme Council, because any amendment they vetoed would already be overriden. The veto majority has to be higher than the others to retain the authority for the Supreme Council. Otherwise the INUCA can pass whatever amendment it wants with no power check.

I'll agree with everything else but i really believe a simple majority should be enough to pass a law. Could you explain your thought process for keeping laws at 55%?

@Xin Prussia: Just to clarify, do you agree with the veto repeal being slid up to 85%, with amendments being slid down to 75%, or how it was before?

Secondly, I think a simple majority would make it too easy for a political party to pass laws of its interest. With slightly over 50%, it presses a majority party to find support from others even if it's in primary control of the INUCA.

There isn't much difference between 50 and 55%, but it does encourage a better balance.

Zwotstyg wrote:@Xin Prussia: Just to clarify, do you agree with the veto repeal being slid up to 85%, with amendments being slid down to 75%, or how it was before?

I'm fine with that.

Secondly, I think a simple majority would make it too easy for a political party to pass laws of its interest. With slightly over 50%, it presses a majority party to find support from others even if it's in primary control of the INUCA.

We could perhaps hold a referendum on this?

There isn't much difference between 50 and 55%, but it does encourage a better balance.

I just don't want a deadlocked congress

@Xin Prussia: "I'm fine with that." didn't really clarify anything, LOL. This will make it more specific:
Option 1: Amendment percentage is 80%, veto repeal percentage is 85%
Option 2: Amendment percentage is 75%, veto repeal percentage is 80%
Option 3: Amendment percentage is 75%, veto repeal percentage is 85%
Pick one of the three, Xin, so I know exactly which one it is that you're fine with.

Also, I will hold a referendum on the lawmaking percentage; I'll also add on a vote to determine whether we should use party elections. It's a lot to handle at once, but it'll clear the air about all this.

Zwotstyg wrote:@Xin Prussia: "I'm fine with that." didn't really clarify anything, LOL. This will make it more specific:
Option 1: Amendment percentage is 80%, veto repeal percentage is 85%
Option 2: Amendment percentage is 75%, veto repeal percentage is 80%
Option 3: Amendment percentage is 75%, veto repeal percentage is 85%
Pick one of the three, Xin, so I know exactly which one it is that you're fine with.

Also, I will hold a referendum on the lawmaking percentage; I'll also add on a vote to determine whether we should use party elections. It's a lot to handle at once, but it'll clear the air about all this.

Three, Sorry

Zwotstyg wrote:@Xin Prussia: "I'm fine with that." didn't really clarify anything, LOL. This will make it more specific:
Option 1: Amendment percentage is 80%, veto repeal percentage is 85%
Option 2: Amendment percentage is 75%, veto repeal percentage is 80%
Option 3: Amendment percentage is 75%, veto repeal percentage is 85%
Pick one of the three, Xin, so I know exactly which one it is that you're fine with.

Also, I will hold a referendum on the lawmaking percentage; I'll also add on a vote to determine whether we should use party elections. It's a lot to handle at once, but it'll clear the air about all this.

Aye to 2.

Zwotsytg: Could you please explain the current process a non-legislature member would have to go through to propose a law and what the process an INUCA member would have to go through?

I want to mull over a few things