[2333.AB] Voter Registration

So. Let’s talk voter registration. (Again.) If we’re lucky, we might make the one-year anniversary!

These are some ideas that @ProfessorHenn and I put together. They’re not meant to be a final draft — we’re putting these ideas out to inspire discussion, not to push an agenda. But this is also an idea that has been hashed and re-hashed in several forms by now, and we felt that it would be beneficial to have a concrete draft as a starting point.

General Overview

Here’s a quick run-down of our initial ideas.

Voter Registration Requirements

  • WA nation in TSP or sole SPSF membership
  • Good faith requirement
  • Not flagged by CRS for security concerns
  • Continued activity through voting in all eligible elections (LoAs notwithstanding)
  • Reviewed by a new Voter Registration Committee (replacing the Legislator Committee)

Rights of Registered Voters

  • Vote in elections
  • Become Delegate, Prime Minister, appointed minister, Chair of the Assembly or a deputy, Chief Justice or an Associate Justice
  • Vote in the Assembly

Rights of Residents

  • Apply to become registered voters
  • Serve in the military
  • Participate in the executive
  • Join legislative discussions


We’ve had several discussions relating to the general idea of voter registration, but many of the ideas here draw inspiriation from Roavin:

In our current system, we incentivize legislator status — but tie it to things like voting that aren’t intrinsically related to legislating but which are nevertheless fundamental to our democracy. That creates a direct incentive for players who aren’t interested in legislating to become legislators. Furthermore, we require them to participate in our legislative votes in order to retain their voting rights, creating a further incentive for token votes rather than meaningful participation.

Under a voter registration system, the goal is to instead promote direct participation in our democratic elections. Our elections are central to our democracy, and registering to vote is a fundamental expression of interest in that democracy — it demonstrates, at the very least, that someone cares about our government and our government officials. Beyond that, the paths they take are up to them, whether it be running for executive office or participating in legislative debate.

Legislative Changes

These proposed amendments are still an early draft, but should give a rough picture of what the legislation need to implement these reforms might look like.

Amendments to the Charter

These amendments to the Charter reflect the role of voters and non-voters rather than legislators and non-legislators.

View text


Establishing a body of voters.

(1) All residents of the Coalition are eligible to attain registered voter status through an application.

(2) A standing commission of registered voters will be tasked with granting and revoking registered voter status.

(3) Continued registered voter status requires active membership and good behavior.

(4) The requirements and processes for attaining and retaining registered voter status will be set by the Assembly in a law.


Establishing legislative authority in the Assembly.

(1) The Assembly holds supreme legislative authority in the Coalition, and is comprised of all eligible legislators registered voters.

(2) The Assembly will elect a legislator registered voter as Chair of the Assembly. The Chair is responsible for maintaining order and decorum, and helping guide Assembly debate into the creation of bills. If the Chair is recalled, resigns, loses legislator registered voter status, or is otherwise not in office, a new Chair will be elected. The date, time, and manner of electing the Chair will be set by the Assembly in a law.

(3) The Chair may appoint a deputy or deputies one or more registered voters as deputies, to whom the Chair may publicly delegate any powers, responsibilities, or special projects of the Chair, subject to all regulations and restrictions imposed upon the Chair by law. The Chair may dismiss such deputies.

Legislator Eligibility

(4) A standing commission of legislators will be tasked with granting and revoking legislator status. All residents of the Coalition are eligible to attain legislator status through an application. Continued legislator status requires active membership and good behaviour.


(4) Members of the Executive are required to hold legislator registered voter status.




Membership of the Council on Regional Security

(2) The minimum qualifications for membership in the Council on Regional Security are: maintaining a nation in the South Pacific and having served at least six consecutive months as a legislator registered voter.

(13) The minimum qualifications for membership in the Coral Guard are: maintaining a World Assembly member nation in the South Pacific; having served at least six consecutive months as a legislator registered voter; and meeting requirements for influence and endorsements which are set and published by the Council on Regional Security.






(2) Great Councils shall operate in parallel to the Assembly, which will still be convened under regular order. Participation in Great Councils is determined in the organizing resolution, where the Assembly may expand eligibility beyond legislators registered voters or restrict eligibility by criteria it deems fit.

Voter Registration Act

The Voter Registration Act replaces the Legislator Committee Act, establishing procedures for South Pacificans to register as voters and setting activity requirements for continued registration.

View text

Voter Registration Act

An act to establish procedures for managing voter eligibility

1. Voter Registrations

(1) Members of the South Pacific are eligible to become and remain registered voters if they:

  1. have a World Assembly member nation in the South Pacific or under the sole direction of the General Corps;
  2. are not joining or participating in bad faith,
  3. are not attempting to join with multiple nations or identities,
  4. are not considered by the Council on Regional Security to be a significant risk to regional security, and
  5. cast a ballot in all elections in which they are eligible to vote and are not on a leave of absence, provided that such review must take place no later than seven days after the end of said election and for that purpose the official who administered the election must provide a list of voters who casted votes.

(2) Members of the South Pacific may register to vote through an application with the Voter Registration Committee, including at least:

  1. any colloquial aliases of the individual in use within the last year, or in prominent use longer than a year ago;
  2. the current World Assembly nation of the individual (in case of a floating World Assembly membership, the applicant may list multiple nations such that World Assembly membership can be traced throughout the application process); and
  3. a note if the World Assembly nation is under the sole direction of the General Corps.

(3) The Voter Registration Committee shall strive to confirm the reception of each application, and then shall determine the eligibility of the applicant in consultation with any other institutions of the Coalition as needed and accept or deny each applicant based on that determination.

(4) The Voter Registration Committee may request additional legitimation steps from applicants, such as requesting a telegram from the World Assembly nation. In case of reasonable concerns of confidentiality, an applicant may choose to disclose such information to the Voter Registration Committee privately.

(5) Upon acceptance or denial of an application, the Voter Registration Committee shall post the result (including a sufficient reason in case of a denial) both in response to the application as well as per telegram to the applicant nation.

2. Voter Registration Committee

(1) The Voter Registration Committee is the committee responsible for granting and revoking the voter registrations of members.

(2) The Voter Registration Committee comprises up to four registered voters that have each been appointed by the Prime Minister and approved by the Assembly via a simple majority vote.

(3) A member of the Voter Registration Committee is removed from the committee if the member:

  1. resigns,
  2. loses voter eligibility, or
  3. is recalled by the Assembly through regular order.

(4) If there is no member of the Voter Registration Committee available due to vacancy or leave, and there are outstanding duties to be performed, the Prime Minister may appoint an emergency member to handle any urgent matters of the committee. The Council on Regional Security may, on security grounds only, rescind the Prime Minister’s appointment. The emergency member’s tenure will last until the Prime Minister rescinds the appointment or until one week after a regular committee member is available, whichever happens sooner.

(5) The Voter Committee may additionally conduct security checks on voters at the request of other government officials.

3. Voter Registration Checks

(1) Voters retain their status until resignation or removal by the appropriate authority, the latter upon the determination that the voter:

  1. No longer meets the qualifications prescribed in Article 1, Section 1, provided that no unlawful expulsion from the region may be used to support a conclusion of failure to meet the qualifications; or
  2. Has been declared a persona non grata by the Coalition.

(2) Voters may request a leave of absence for a non-indefinite period of time, specifying the end date of such leave, which will be subject to discretionary approval from the Voter Registration Committee prior to the voting period for each election. Voters shall not have their status removed if they fail to cast a ballot in an election for which the voting period is contained within their leave of absence.

(3) The Voter Registration Committee will revoke the voter registrations of all voters who are no longer eligible at least monthly.

4. Constitutional Law

(1) The Voter Registration Act is a constitutional law, and further amendments to it must meet constitutional amendment requirements.

Elections Act

View text

2. Electoral Basics

(4) To be eligible to vote in, or stand for, a forum-based election, a legislator registered voter must have been accepted by the Legislator Committee Voter Registration Committee before the period for nominations began for that particular election.

3. Office of the Delegate

(2) On the first of every January and July, the Assembly will convene for the first round of Delegate elections.

  1. Any eligible legislator registered voter wishing to run for Delegate may declare their candidacy, and the Assembly will debate the merits of their platform. Any player who has been banned from World Assembly membership will be considered ineligible and any candidate who is later discovered to be banned from World Assembly membership will be immediately disqualified. Legislators Registered voters wishing to run for Delegate must hold a number of endorsements equal to at least 80% of the existing general endorsement cap at the commencement of the election period.
  2. The campaign and debate period will last one week, after which the Assembly will vote for three days.
  3. This round of voting for Delegate will use Approval Voting to determine two winners of positions as candidates in the second round. If candidates tie for being a winner, all of those tied candidates shall be considered winners.

5. Office of the Chair

(1) Eight days before the end of a Chair’s term, the Assembly will convene to elect the Chair of the Assembly.

  1. Any legislator registered voter wishing to run for Chair may declare their candidacy, and the Assembly will debate the merits of their platform.
  2. The campaign and debate period will last five days, after which the Assembly will vote for three days.
  3. The sole winner, as decided using Approval Voting, will be declared Chair of the Assembly by the Election Commissioner.

6. Vacancies of Office

(3) If a Chair is no longer in office prior to the election of a new Chair, a deputy appointed by the outgoing Chair will serve as Acting Chair to exercise all powers and responsibilities of the office of the Chair, subject to all regulations and restrictions imposed upon the Chair by law. In the event that more than one deputy was appointed, the most senior deputy according to the order of appointment and availability will serve as Acting Chair. In the event that no deputy was appointed or is available, the Prime Minister will designate a legislator registered voter to serve as Acting Chair.

Judicial Act

View text

2. Judicial Conduct and Requirements

(2) An Associate Justice must have legislator registered voter status in the South Pacific and take an oath of confidentiality and impartiality.

Law Standards Act

View text

3. Amendments and Repeals

(6) If a legislator registered voter moves to repeal only specific sections of a law, then the amendment procedure must be used.

(7) If a legislator registered voter moves to repeal an entire law, the Chair will quote the entire law and note that the entirety of it will be repealed.

Legislative Procedure Act

View text

1. Legislative Rules

(1) Any legislator registered voter may propose a bill, resolution, or appointment, which will be debated and refined collectively in the Assembly under the guidance of the Chair.

(2) To be brought to a vote, a specific draft of a bill, resolution, or appointment must

  1. receive a motion to vote by a legislator registered voter,
  2. receive a second by another legislator registered voter,
  3. be affirmed to be in proper formatting by the Chair, and
  4. have been at debate for a minimum period of time equivalent to the length of its voting period.

(7) Any legislator registered voter may motion to cancel voting and withdraw a bill that has been brought to a vote so revisions can be made. The Chair may cancel voting on the bill, provided that there is a reason deemed sufficient by the Chair and no objection is raised within 24 hours of the motion being made and seconded. Should the motion and seconding be made within the final 24 hours of voting, the legislation shall not pass or fail until the Chair makes a ruling on the motion.

(8) Should any bill, resolution or amendment fail to become law, any proposal which is judged by the Chair as being substantially similar to that failed legislation shall be prevented from going to vote for two weeks after the closure of the vote. The Chair may waive this restriction should a legislator registered voter motion for them to do so, provided that there is a reason deemed sufficient by the Chair and no objection is raised within 24 hours of the motion being made and seconded.

2. Powers and Responsibilities of the Chair

(1) The Chair is responsible for creating voting threads and recording votes. In the event that the Chair does not perform these duties in a reasonable time frame, any legislator registered voter may create voting threads and record votes.

(7) The Chair may waive the mandatory debate period remaining on a particular piece of legislation should a legislator registered voter motion for them to do so, provided that there is a reason deemed sufficient by the Chair and no objection is raised within 24 hours of the motion being made and seconded.

You had to propose that at the one time in the past half decade where that wasn’t an option for me :angry: :stuck_out_tongue:

I like the idea (gasp). I’ve skimmed the text, and most of it is a 1-to-1 transliteration of Legislator to Registered Voter, which is what I would have expected. I think there’s a chance here to also remove some things that was gatekeeping the Assembly to Legislators and open things up to any TSP citizen in good standing (with voting still reserved only for voters). Particularly the Legislative Procedure Act could be less gatekeepy about some things.

With a laxer status expiry plus less gatekeeping, the VRC (which replaces LegComm) could also be given more leeway in the time it takes them to do things. LegComm is an awful job and the current roster would most certainly be thankful. In exchange for more leeway, something could be added that in some way “forces” VRC to have handled “all” applications at the start of an election that were submitted X or more days before said election.

Idea: Just call the status “Voter” rather than “Registered Voter”? Bit nicer to type out imho, though I get why that might be confusing, i.e. “I’m a voter now even though I haven’t even voted for anything yet!”

Anyway, overall this is a good start. Kinda a shame that this comes at a time where I WA locked myself for TGW’s frontier and won’t be able to be a voter, but alas.

A few big picture thoughts on this proposal:

I think this proposal does correctly identify a problem: our current system ties being a part of the political community to Legislator status, even though many of the community’s members are not actually interested in being Legislators (which is fine!) but still are interested in being a “part” of things (in particular voting in Delegate and PM elections). I just don’t think it actually solves that problem because it leaves the law-writing body as an oversized, under-incentivized group of people, and mostly just removes some administrative burden from the VRC/LegComm.

If we want to make it so people won’t vote for no reason in the Assembly, and specifically if we want to incentivize people to contribute to the legislative process, then we need to add barriers to participation rather than remove them. After all, the status quo is basically no barriers, and that isn’t working. Glen put it best:

Overall, this is moving things around instead of asking “what is the purpose of our legislature” (imo, it’s active and vigorous legislative debate) and “how do we achieve that purpose” (imo, it’s by incentivizing and rewarding active participation). Glen proposed having a more stringent debate participation requirement for the Assembly, that might work, but truthfully I prefer some other option that imposes a citizen/election-mediated barrier to participation in the Assembly. The resulting prestige of being a Legislator, along with the election debates about “who are our legislators and are they fulfilling our vision for the Assembly” are the kind of activity I want to see.

Other random things:

I think “or Council on Regional Security” should be added to this, since the CRS has a role in intelligence operations, and thus could direct a member of the South Pacific’s WA nation’s agenda/mission.

I’m not entirely opposed to this as a metric, but I do worry it could undermine the security of our anonymous balloting procedures. It may be worth it to sacrifice some integrity of our anonymous voting option in order to do this, but it is a cost.

I think this language assumes a citizenship model where a WA nation could be floating but not in service of the SPSF and, under the new model suggested here, this language should be updated/removed.

This feels like a separate (although also useful!) discussion.

Why not just citizen?

I largely agree with HumanSanity’s point of view, though with a few caveats. Before continuing, I will say that as a totally inexperienced new Legislator, I offer the following highly tentative thoughts with great trepidation, especially given that this is apparently a fraught issue that has been discussed many times in the past.

It seems to me that the basic idea behind the initial proposal is that there is a group of folks who aren’t interested in becoming Legislators (I gather due to lack of time or interest in legislative drafting / debate) but who are nevertheless active members of TSP and deserve a say in its governance via elections. That makes perfect sense. But if that’s true, then I’m not sure why we would automatically include those folks as voting members of the Assembly. After all, the entire problem at which the proposal is directed is that they aren’t actually interested in being Legislators but join the Assembly anyway because it is necessary to vote in elections.

Instead, why wouldn’t we completely decouple the two roles (i.e., Citizen and Legislator)? That way we would have an Assembly comprised of Legislators who are invested in the legislative process, but we wouldn’t make legislative participation a requirement to vote in elections for those folks who simply aren’t interested in that aspect of regional governance. At the same time, we could heighten the requirements to obtain / maintain Legislator status to ensure (as far as possible) that only invested citizens are Legislators.

I gather what I have said thus far is largely in line with HumanSanity’s view (though please correct me if I have misinterpreted), but I am hesitant about one point, namely the requirements to become a Legislator. I would prefer it remain a voluntary, non-elected position. As a new member, I was enticed by the prospect of becoming a Legislator and participating in the Assembly. But I was also cognizant of the fairly large number of experienced players in TSP; if Legislator were an elected position, I would have assumed that I had no chance of winning an election against those folks and therefore no chance of participating in the Assembly for months, if not years. Whether or not that is actually true, I think it accurately captures the feeling some new players would have. I understand the value in increasing the prestige associated with the Legislator position, but I’m just not sure it is worth potentially discouraging new players from participating. Imposing some extra hurdles to become a Legislator (e.g., WA nation in TSP) and setting a high Assembly voting requirement seem reasonable, but I worry that elections might be taking the exclusivity idea too far. In short, I wonder why the Assembly couldn’t operate something like SPSF, i.e., an option for Citizens who are interested in its work to join, but not a barrier to democratic participation in overall regional governance.

With that said, I’ve offered something of a new proposal below. I reiterate how tentative this is and of course would be interested in any and all thoughts, feedback, or criticism.

Rights of Residents

  • Apply to become Citizens
  • Serve in the military (I left this unchanged from the original proposal simply because I don’t really know what is required for military service from a security perspective. If experienced SPSF members think service should be limited to Citizens, I would have no objection).
  • Participate in the executive

Citizen Requirements

  • Good faith requirement
  • Not flagged by CRS for security concerns
  • Continued activity through voting in all eligible elections
  • Reviewed by a New Citizen Committee

Rights of Citizens

  • Vote in elections
  • Become Delegate, Prime Minister, appointed minister, Chief Justice or an Associate Justice
  • Apply to become Legislators

Legislator Requirements

  • Be a TSP Citizen
  • WA nation in TSP or sole SPSF membership
  • Continued activity through voting in two-thirds of monthly Assembly votes
  • Reviewed by the Legislator Committee (If it is too bureaucratically cumbersome to have two committees we could potentially combine into a joint Citizen and Legislator Registration Committee)

Additional Rights of Legislators (in addition to their citizenship rights)

  • Vote in the Assembly
  • Become Chair of the Assembly or a deputy
  • Join in legislative discussions (I make this particular suggestion with even greater tentativeness than the proposal overall, as I can see the virtue of allowing Citizens (or perhaps even Residents) to participate in legislative discussions. I’m curious what other folks thoughts are. For starters, what is the current practice? Are most discussions in the Assembly carried on by Legislators only or do Residents join in?)

Which is exactly what I proposed in KWB.

Took me some searching to discover that KWB means Kringle Was Bored!

Since I wasn’t yet around when KWB was being discussed, I’m curious–was there a particular reason the Citizen-Legislator decoupling proposal was not taken up or adopted? I.e., are there any serious objections to it?

To be fair, I actually don’t see terribly much difference between Pronoun and Henn’s proposed Voter Registration system and a Citizen/Legislator system. The only difference is the overhead of Legislator applications, which Roavin correctly identifies as being a bit of a hassle for LegComm. To me, having a distinction between “Citizens” and “Legislators” (or whatever term we use) will only achieve the productive goal we’re looking for if being a Legislator is something to want to be and people actively are incentivizes to run for it, opt-in to it, etc., as in Glen’s original formulation of the idea.

The climate wasn’t right for meaningful reforms, for a variety of reasons.

In any case, I still believe now as I did then that the way to go is for voter (or citizen) to be the broader group to which everyone can apply, and for legislator, soldier or others to be additional groups which one can join with mostly cursory review from the appropriate officials (Chair, Generals, etc.).

I agree there is some additional bureaucracy involved, and I don’t really have a good sense of how much. If a significant amount, then that meaningfully reduces the proposal’s appeal.

I guess I’m just wondering how this situation is different from the SPSF? A similar system seems to exist there, i.e., people who want to participate opt-in. Those that don’t can get involved in other ways without penalty to their participation in regional democracy more broadly. Is there a reason why the same type of set-up wouldn’t foster a more productive / involved Assembly?

This is exactly what I was trying to say in my last post, but put in a much more cogent way!

The SPSF isn’t a decision-making body, it’s a military. Therefore, the question in admitting someone to it is about if they will contribute constructively to the SPSF, as the military mechanism of the South Pacific’s power. The SPSF’s leadership, i.e. the General Corps and the Prime Minister/Minister of Defense, is different because they have decision-making power, and thus are subject to Assembly confirmation (or, in the case of the PM, election).

The Assembly, meanwhile, is a deliberately/decision-making body. One should want to be in it to get a voice in those decisions, not just because you kinda like the idea of the title or of some of the side perks (which is the status quo). An elected Assembly accomplishes that, and then builds in both accountability for Legislators (i.e. “was this person active enough?”, “did they bring good ideas to the table?”, “did they execute on those?”, “did they show good judgement on unanticipated challenges?”, etc.), and a level of prestige to having the opportunity to be a legislator.

Hmm, maybe I should put a proposal together :stuck_out_tongue:

First things first — welcome! I must say, you’re already leagues ahead of where I was as an inexperienced new legislator…

I’d rather keep this under citizens/voters — having a WA nation in service to our region isn’t really related to being interested in legislating, but rather a fundamental token of caring about our region and our government.

I agree with a lot of this, actually, and am certainly amenable to adjusting the proposed legislation to reflect that. One thing I will note, though, is that the review might not always be cursory — for example, I don’t think it’s out of the question for someone to participate in good faith as a citizen/voter while being on the opposite side of a military engagement (and yeah, I know that’s kind of a moot example with the WA requirement, but I think the general idea still stands).

I do wonder, Kris, if you’ve changed your mind on the ‘citizen’ terminology? Because honestly, I think I’ve changed my mind since the last time we discussed it. (It honestly just feels like the more natural terminology to me now, but also not really a hill to die on.)

I don’t think that’s really much of a difference between these two systems; in either case, I’d prefer some sort of security check to vote in our elections. I don’t think becoming a legislator in addition to a citizen/voter really needs much additional overhead — whether we make it simply opt-in or keep Assembly-specific activity requirements, as it stands, a lot of that is handled by the Chair anyway.

My gut is kind of screaming at me that this is a bad idea :stuck_out_tongue: — I don’t know, maybe there’s a point there about our historic values or something.

Rationally, I’m a bit more conflicted. I get where you’re coming from, but I still think there’s a difference between participation requirements that prune inactive members, and participation requirements that make it harder to join. The former sounds a lot more like what Glen proposed (which I liked and still like, to be honest), while the latter sounds a lot more like an elected legislature.

I think we do agree on this. I’m fine with having citizens/voters opt-in to join the Assembly if they’re interested — taking a step to show they want to be in it — but I’m less convinced that we need an elected legislature where competitive elections, by their very nature, would have people who ostensibly want to be legislators not be able to participate in the legislature.

To clarify, when I refer to cursory reviews I just mean that, since voter registration would be where the main security check is conducted, applications for legislator, soldier, or others would be simpler. For example, the Chair would not ordinarily need to conduct in-depth checks, if any checks at all. Perhaps a particular case would require closer attention, but in generally it just wouldn’t be needed because the applicant would already have been admitted as a voter.

I don’t know if I’ve ever been a hard opponent to the term “citizen”. I’m not necessarily a fan but I don’t see it as a dealbreaker. That’s the terminology that was used prior to 2016. My concern is mainly with the optics of having to tell a non-voter “you’re not a citizen”. It doesn’t look good and I think that, if we do use the term “citizen”, we should use an appealing term for non-voters.

Thank you! That’s so kind of you to say. I only hope that my contributions are at least marginally helpful.

Fair point. I proposed moving the WA requirement to Legislator status for two reasons: (1) to impose an additional “commitment” of some kind on becoming a Legislator, in an effort to ensure that only folks who really were invested would opt-in to becoming Legislators and (2) to lower the barriers to participation in TSP as a Citizen. But upon reconsideration, I agree with your point that WA status is so unrelated to interest in legislating that this would be a purely arbitrary requirement and that adequate investment in the Assembly would be better assessed via back-end participation requirements, whether through voting, discussion, or both. (Though, as an aside, I am a bit uncertain about the value of mandatory debate participation, but that’s a detail for another day). That said, I at least tentatively think that point (2) might still be worth considering. If we are trying to broaden participation by Citizens, is the WA requirement too exclusionary? In other words, would there be a problem with it being dropped entirely as a requirement for both Citizens and Legislators? I ask these as genuine questions, not rhetorical ones. I am curious to hear the views on both sides.

I agree with this, though I also see the potential value in an elected legislature. But I’ve already given my views here so won’t carry on.

Relatedly, your mention of historic values made me curious as to whether TSP or any other game-created region has experimented with an elected legislature in the past? If so, do we have any sense of the results? That might give us a more concrete basis to assess whether it really increases participation and accountability on the part of the legislature and / or discourages participation by those who are not elected to the body.

Balder had an elected unicameral legislature called the Storting when I first was in the region ~2018-2019.

It’s not a perfect comparison because balder was/is so inactive, but it had the habit of making the Storting much less active, and generally rubber stamped whatever the monarch/crown prince wanted.

Once I got some reforms passed through the Storting, it was transformed to a bicameral legislature where anyone that wanted to could be a part of the lower chamber.

I intend to make a comment of my own on this topic in the next several hours, stay tuned!

It’s not game created but Europeia is probably the most successful example of an elected legislature I can think of, with their Senate.

Likewise, I will also have more to say soon.

All right, so having read the discussion, my thoughts are as follows:

I agree that there is merit to decoupling continued “citizenship” from legislatorship" I supported that during the GC.

I think that this breakdown is the way we should proceed:

I really liked @Welly’s initial proposal, and I think these changes will improve it.


1 Like

I agree

Does this change the requirement that only legislators can run for delegate?

Not at all! Just that (perhaps) a citizen candidate would need to get clearance from the Assembly or CRS to run.

However, after thinking it over the last several hours… I don’t think it would be necessary due to the other safeguards within the election of delegate.