VIII. SEPARATION OF POWERS
[…]
(5) No person occupying the Office of Prime Minister, an appointed Cabinet minister position, or the office of the Delegate may hold any equivalent of those offices in a foreign region or organisation.
2 Likes
People should not be able to hold both the delegacy here and a Head of Government position elsewhere. This section is basically “if you hold a foreign equivalent to any of these positions you cannot hold any of these positions.”
3 Likes
This doesn’t specify what may constitute an “equivalent office”, though. Could that not include a comparable head of state role that simply doesn’t involve WA membership? At the very least, the current language implies that a delegate may not simultaneously hold office in another region. I don’t see how it would be beneficial to change that.
4 Likes
I think this proposal is a solution in search of a problem.
1 Like
I’m obviously against
1 Like
Complete rubbish, not even a contender.
Against. This is rubbish.
I’ve always interpreted this section as “If you are a PM/Cabinet Member/Delegate, you cannot be that same position in another region.” and doesn’t prohibit someone from being the Delegate in TSP and the PM in another region, for example.
I’m sorry but I don’t quite understand the intention of this amendment? Doesn’t the law already say that delegates, PMs and cabinet members of the region can’t hold an equivalent office in a foreign region and your amendment actually removes the delegate part?
Edit: Sorry for slow understanding, seems like you meant a TSP delegate shouldn’t hold a foreign PM equivalent position looking at the above post, but in that case, couldn’t it be written in a better way, because your amendment proposal indicates that PMs and Cabinet members cannot but delegates can hold such an office somewhere else?
So we have to amend it based on your reading of it?
Okay, changed to prohibit holding any of those offices in a foreign region/organization.
1 Like
Way better. In this case, I am for.
What about this?
I feel like that’s too restrictive, since there might be lower-level offices in another region a TSP Cabinet member may want to apply for that won’t cause too much of a conflict of interest by being in both offices.
That sort of doesn’t specify which type of office… are we trying to prohibit people from holding, let’s say, RMB moderator (unrelated to politics) or maybe Pollmaster in another region?
I don’t think it’s restrictive at all, I think it’s to be expected. There would be questions asked of the efficiency of senior office holders if they were also committed to other roles elsewhere, nothing here prohibits those in lesser roles to have lesser roles elsewhere or more senior roles elsewhere, but it prohibits our senior management, to use a school term, from doing the same and I don’t honestly think they should enter office expecting to keep up other commitments, especially having made a conflict of interest in their campaign.
This seems like a solution to anyone in TSP gaining too much power. I vote for.
Genuine question - when was the last time that a holder of one of the listed offices in TSP held an equivalent listed office in a foreign region?
I was Delegate of Wintreath June 2024 to Jan 2025. Additionally, UDS ran for PM a few times and at least one of those elections would have required them to resign from a foreign position to hold the PM seat.
You should also be considering the dissuasive and preventative nature of this part of the charter though.