I disagree
This is not a helpful comment. Please try to provide more detailed comments in the future. The goal is to have a proper debate, not a string of “agree” or “disagree” posts.
2 Likes
I find your use of the term entrenched as both highly amusing and a bit of self own. Having retired finally, I’m only interested in opening up our region to all the residents, not just the special ones.
If we decide, and we should, to split off a mod team and a team to interact with our non forum or discord users, then I’ll be happy to entertain that premise.
1 Like
But Glen, we both know how this works. When you can pass a CG with minimal support we start calling them when they seem politically expedient rather than when the are necessary. That’s silly and opens up the door to abuse.
A change in the law is a change in the law and requiring 60% to make and Charter amendment at one time and 50% to require a Charter amendment at another is a problem. If we want to make it so that laws can always be changed with 50%+1 vote sure, but I don’t think we should have shifting parameters based on the timing of a change.
And, how are we being held at gunpoint by the LC? Can’t people make the case to RMB voters why they should support these changes, too?
1 Like
One thing actually changes the law, the other one folds a change in a law into the final package. That’s different.
That’s unrealistic given the very things about the nature of the RMB that make it a bad forum for conducting regional government business in the first place.
I’ll explain Kringle’s dislike for this approach in a warmer way (as to retain the amount of people interested in these discussions) which might help you even outside of this (subtly reminding all that this is a game at the end of the day) game we decide to play —>IRL.
(FOOTNOTE: This is me advising you, unrelated to how Kringle feels about it, but yes, do avoid such judgements… I’ll give you a reason as to why)
It is advisable to truly clear your inner conscience as to avoid sudden decisions. Sometimes, those sudden prejudices are not even you speaking from the objective. Without getting too much into it, all you must do in these discussions is to metaphorically silence you inner thoughts. This will help you understand the framework of this machinery and all others. Only such a vessel may truly cast judgement, after truly listening in to the ideas, who are material as any other substance is.
We’re talking about something different here, HS.
The end of the GC anything we want to pass needs to meet the regular legislative requirements to pass. In the past, we’ve held GCs where a simply majority could rewrite the Charter, making it easier to change the entire government. As far as I’m concerned, we shouldn’t have a situation where we usually need to have 60% to amend the Charter, but we can burn the whole thing down because it’s suddenly designated a “Great Council.”
Either we think 60% of the region should support a change or a simply majority is just fine. We should not have a sliding scale based on whether or not those in power think it’s expedient to maintain the status quo or not.
Just to be clear, no one in this thread has proposed lowering the requirements for final passage of an amendment. If I understand Glen’s post correctly, their objection was to the fact that we have amendments that had simple majority support but did not pass the preliminary voting stage. Even if one were to lower the preliminary threshold, the final vote would still require a supermajority to pass.
I’m not saying you can’t have concerns about lowering the threshold for the final vote, because that is legitimate, but I did want to clarify that this is not what was being discussed.