I can’t help but feel this is more boilerplate than substance. If we want to decouple the executive from the legislature, we might as well start with voters themselves — because as long as voter eligibility remains tied to legislator status, I think it doesn’t really make sense to separate executive eligibility.
I’d tend to favor something more similar to what Henn mentioned. I share some concerns about how we use the term ‘citizen,’ but I think the issue of how we name things is a separate issue from whether we should separate voting and legislating. We aren’t really seeing any fundamental issues with a lack of flexibility in who we can appoint as ministers — the underlying trend here is that it’s impossible for anyone to vote in our elections without becoming a legislator, even if they aren’t interested in legislating.
I like the current system we have. The Delegate and Ministers need Legislator status in order to hold their office. I also do like what Henn has brought up about status and keeping it via voting in Prime Minister elections.
I think there are a lot of ways we can make the current system better, but I don’t think the one at hand in this thread is going to help.
If people do not want to participate in the legislature, then they do not need to be legislators.
I support allowing all (security checked) citizens to vote and hold office and allow for those that want to take the extra step to apply to become legislators.
I would like to note that this amendment has been motioned to a vote around two days ago. It was buried in discussion.
The Chair of the Assembly, @Cryo, was last seen online around one day ago. The two deputy chairs, @BlockBuster2K43 and @Jebediah , were last seen an hour ago and two days ago.
The motion has not received a second; Drei’s “support” was not a second motion.
As there seems to be debate again, despite the lull in the debate that triggered the motion, I don’t think the Chair would entertain a second motion to vote until the debate has reached consensus.
Sorry, I completely missed it to begin with, but Griffindor is correct. Given debate is continuing, I’ll hold off on any vote until it finishes (Leg. Pro. Act, 2 § 5).
Also, the last draft that I assume was being moved to vote was only published 3 days before the motion (21 Mar), when it should be 5.
I want to preface this by saying that I think this bill comes from a good place and that the author has a genuine intention of improving the region, which is something that should be nurtured and encouraged. It is always good when someone not only has an interest in improving the region but also actually does something about it, as the author has done by drafting this bill. That being said, I have two concerns about this bill and more broadly the topic within which it was proposed.
First, I think that this bill as currently drafted focuses on a broadly performative solution -removing legislator status requirements from ministers- without first giving legislators space to fully diagnose the issue. We can all probably agree that giving people more space to get involved in regional governance is a good thing, but before we draft and motion a bill it would perhaps be good that we discuss what are the obstacles to that and what sorts of solutions would address those specific obstacles.
In the specific case of this bill, while it may sound good to let non-legislators become ministers, what goal is being accomplished by this? Is this a scenario where people might be good ministers but are being kept from appointment or election by their lack of legislator status? Would it not be good to have a broader discussion about how we approach voting rights and security checks, so that we can still require a certain level of prior registration and background check without tying that to lawmaking?
Second, this bill is dangerously ambiguous and assigns a concerning degree of discretionary power to the confusingly-named Inauguration Committee:
This could very easily be read as to allow the Committee to veto or otherwise overrule any and all actions or decisions made by ministers.
This could be read to allow the Committee to veto nominations for ministers despite the wishes of both the Prime Minister and the Assembly.
This could be read to allow the Committee to keep any otherwise eligible member from running for Delegate.
I am sure that the intent of the author was not to allow for any of these actions, but this is precisely why bills need to be carefully read and critiqued before they are motioned, and ideally they would also come at the heels of a vigorous discussion on the issue that they intend to address.
On second thought, I think I’ll give up on this idea for a while, maybe file it somewhere to refine it, and propose it again in a while. Thank you all.
I am inclined to agree with this statement, I feel that being a legislator is an integral and important requirement when it comes to serving within the executive.
I think it would be useful to have a wider discussion on the benefits/drawbacks of such a proposal without being tied down to currently worded and presented proposals.
To that effect, my reply to a related topic can be found here.
I am also opposed. The executive remains accountable to the Assembly, and, in my opinion, the ministers should be required to hold legislator status, seeing how important it is.
The disassociation of the position of Legislator from the Delegate and the Ministers does not mean that they will no longer be accountable to the Assembly. One thing is not related to another.
Forgive me, but I failed to properly explain my point. The decoupling of the legislator status from the ministers and the delegate could prove harmful, especially since a recent constitutional law allows for the prime minister to simply appoint their cabinet into positions of power without any input from the Assembly (I could be interpreting it wrong, correct me if I am). Thus, it is of upmost importance that ministers and the delegate remain connected to the Assembly through the holding of legislator status. Even if greater inclusivity is needed, it can not be through this way.
Are there any specific things that make someone eligible? Or can the eligibility committee just say yes or no because they fill in criteria they made themselves, rather than a standardized set of criteria?