[Draft] Omnibus State Code Amendment Act

[Vaculatestar]

I actually rather like it now that I see your reasoning.

[Venico]

Could a change log be posted possibly for a quick list of things that were changed?

First off, this looks absolutely solid and great job to everyone who worked on this.

1. The Deshret will have the power, by three-quarters majority vote, to amend this Code. Amendments to this Code will not be subject to the signature or veto of the Pharaoh.

This is literally my only complaint so I'll keep it short. xD I think a 2/3 majority with signature by the Pharaoh or a 3/4 majority will work honestly. I am just skeptical as to whether or not we should exclude the executive from changes to the constitution. Their concerns should be just as valid. Maybe give the Pharaoh and Vizier the ability to vote for amendments? That way we're not cutting out the executive but we're also not giving them the ability to hold onto their power unreasonably.

Procedure looks good after a quick skim but admittedly did not get the same attention as the constitution by me. xD I'll re read later and provide more insight later. But after first read it all looks solid and I don't see anything objectionable.

Good job all around to the people authoring these.

VeniEdit: Oh forgot to read the discussion here. Term limits bad. Especially in a community as small as ours. If people feel there is an oligarchy then don't elect them. We still get the same amount of elections and opportunities to throw out people we want to.

[shetef]

I'll also be brief because I don't want to think very much right now. Both the State Code and Procedure look good after a quick skim, I'll pick them apart some more later.

Term limits are bad and evil. If we impose term limits, the terrorists win.

I like Cormac's reasoning re excluding the executive from amendments but don't feel particularly strongly re that issue.

[Andrew]

VeniEdit: Oh forgot to read the discussion here. Term limits bad. Especially in a community as small as ours. If people feel there is an oligarchy then don't elect them. We still get the same amount of elections and opportunities to throw out people we want to.

How could we not elect them? The oligarchy would be comprised of some of the most experienced individuals within the region. A community as small as ours would need experienced leaders in order to somehow expand our community while simultaneously deterring new players which would not help expansion and possible contrast our community

Term limits are bad and evil. If we impose term limits, the terrorists win

Could you please explain your points for being against term limits?

[Cormac]

Ven, there is a change log in the OP though it may not be comprehensive. I did make some language changes that don't really change the substance but just clarify things, and those generally aren't noted. The substantive changes are in a spoiler in the OP though.

Regarding amendments, I think it's reasonable to let the Pharaoh vote on those if there is no veto power over them.

Andrew, one thing about the more experienced citizens: They won't always run. I've yet to run for Pharaoh, for example. Often more experienced citizens will step back to let newer citizens have their shot, or just because they're busy with other things and can't commit to being a GCR Delegate.

[Vaculatestar]

Or on the flip side of that you have a situation like Balder with Rach and NES seemingly trading the delegacy back and forth. *cough* I mean what was that out loud?

That was a joke, yes term limits are bad. In NationStates with relatively small communities and the talent pool being as small as it is regions generally can't afford to have term limits.

[Venico]

I think that's what I'd like to pursue then. Allow the Pharaoh to vote on Amendments.

@Andrew You don't elect them by having a majority of people not vote for them. If the Oligarchy extends to over 50% of the voting membership then it is no longer an oligarchy and is in fact called democracy.

(Also I was dumb and did not see change log. Could have saved a lot of time instead of having two tabs open and reading paragraph by paragraph. =P)

[Lands of the South]

Looks good, except that I never liked judicial elections and I never will. I by far prefer our current system, as is, including the option for Elders to continue their services as Scribes and Councilors; maybe with revolving terms as proposed by Treize Dreizehn.

Since advisory opinions are the responsibility of the Advocate of the Deshret and their power to review Admin action is fairly limited, they are left with judicial review, injunctions against governmental actions, and criminal trials. The Pschent doesn't seem too busy anyway. Does it make sense for a small community to keep three capable members from serving the region while picking their noses and waiting for a court case?

Side note, I agree that term limits are bad and evil. If the electorate wants to elect the same official ten times in a row, they should be allowed to do so.

[Cormac]

My primary concerns with your proposals is maintaining an independent judiciary. If Elders are appointed by the Pharaoh -- even if confirmed, and to essentially life terms -- and even more importantly, if allowed to serve as Scribes, it's going to be hard to keep them truly independent of the Executive.

Elders are still allowed to remain members of the Deshret though, under both our current system and under the proposed amendments. Two of our three current Elders have opted not to do so, presumably to avoid conflicts of interest.

[Vaculatestar]

I don't like electing judges because that means that when making rulings they also will have to "play politics", in order to keep there position.