We have already had a discussion over this issue, one of the most elaborate of the entire Great Council. What way of potentially addressing this question do you feel was unaddressed in that discussion or the subsequent competing votes about possible structures for the military?
I believe that the two changes I propose here are important regardless.
If the SC are solely elder figures within the region, it is still important that they remain engaged and active enough to maintain the trust of the region. Is someone really an elder figure for the region if they are so disengaged that most members of the Assembly have never spoken to them or even seen them speak? Is someone really trusted to handle security issues if they demonstrate not a single iota of knowledge about the current security environment?
If the SC are solely endorsement holders, it is important that they actually do that, and annual “confirmation votes” by the Assembly would further serve that purpose.
Why can’t the Election Commissioner do that?
How so?