Citizenship, The Assembly, and Judicial Reform

[Belschaft]

I've been giving the topic of judicial reform a fair amount of thought for the last few weeks, and have slowly come to a couple of conclusions about it and a couple of associated topics. I've been waiting for Escade to overtake me before posting this, and as she looks set to do so at the next update I figured it's time to share.

 

To start with, I would like the region to consider changing our current approach to Citizenship, and the distinction between 'Citizens' and 'Residents'. Since we expanded all the rights of Citizens - save voting - to Residents our present nomenclature has become largely incorrect; a more appropriate one would be 'Citizens' and 'Parliamentarians'. We've always made an effort to integrate the RMB and general regional population as much as possible, and a number of people have had difficulty understanding why they need to apply for citizenship in the region they reside in. This simple cosmetic change would eliminate that issue, and I see no downsides to it.

 

The major changes I see as being desirable relate to how one joins The Assembly and Judicial reform. What I envisage is attaching the same judicial service to Assembly membership that citizenship carries in real life; that is to say, Jury service. I would like to see us reintroduce full Jury trials, with the Chief Justice presiding, and a random selection of Assembly members (5-7 of them) acting as Jurors. We've made use of such a system in the past, fairly effectively. Generally speaking I've been advocating in favor of small, highly efficient tribunals in NS, but I think TSP has a set of unique circumstances meaning that we could make use of Jury's. We have a large, active population. We have an engaged core membership that we can count on to both show up for Jury duty, and be informed and fair in doing so. Thirdly, our political culture is notable un-toxic and consensus driven. To make the system effective we'd need to keep the list of registered Assembly members up to date, so I'm suggesting monthly roll calls, with those who fail to post being struck from the list. Considering how easy it is to gain Assembly membership, anyone struck from the rolls would not suffer permanent consequences.

 

I recognize that this goes against the established consensus in the previous thread, thus I've created a separate thread. I'd appreciate peoples input.

[Geomania]

I would caution against the use of mandatory service (like jury duty). I feel like this would discourage casual participants who wouldn't want to dedicate too much time to NS. In addition, this could alienate RP-focused players. I don't hate the idea, but I'm not so sure it's necessary.

[HEM]

I am fully opposed to jury systems. They have virtually no merits, and are a huge headache.

 

One thing I would like to explore again is limitations on the power of forum administrators and the transfer of some of that power to the court (i.e. the choice to suspend a member (in non-emergency situations), etc.)

[Hileville]

I'm against going back to a Jury system.  We had problems with it before which is why we changed the system to begin with.  The distinction between residents and citizens is one that I would be okay with looking at.

[Southern Bellz]

I would like to change our language so that everyone is a citizen of The South Pacific, and to join in the assembly you have to register to vote. 

 

Totally against a jury.

[Awesomiasa]

I would like to change our language so that everyone is a citizen of The South Pacific, and to join in the assembly you have to register to vote. 

 

Totally against a jury.

If you're talking about a roll of voters idea as in RL elections, I'd support it

[Kris Kringle]

So this is basically all residents shall henceforth be named citizens. We do away with citizenship applications and replace then with voter registration, and registered voters would also be applying to the Assembly.

Am I missing something? (I like the idea, but I want to make sure I got it right)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Rebel-topia]

Thats the way I take it, Kris And Im all for it!

[Sandaoguo]

Is that just an aesthetic change, or would there be a difference between citizenship applications and voter registrations?

[Kris Kringle]

It would mean that all residents are by default citizens, and what one would have to apply for would be the Assembly, and only members of the Assembly would vote. That's I think the fundamental difference. I mean, this isn't the reform we are actually discussing, but SB brought it to the table and I agree it's a positive change.

[Sandaoguo]

Yeah, I get that, but is that really different than what we do now? In other words, are we just changing what we call things?

[Belschaft]

It's a cosmetic rather than substantive change, but one that makes sense. Many a time over the last few years there have been people who have objected to having to apply for Citizenship, as they felt that residing peacefully in the region should grant them it de-facto.

[Escade]

I do like the aesthetic change of calling all TSPers citizens.

 

I think the application for voter registration needs some changes.

 

I'll expand more when I'm home tonight.

[Kris Kringle]

It's changing how we name things, but if you think about it it's also more important than it looks. Like Belschaft said we've had people talk about an inherent right to citizenship, so this is a way of accomplishing that. I do have a feeling we'll see more threads and discussions about regional and government openness in the near future, so this might be a good way to start the discussion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kris Kringle]

-

[Letoilenoir]

It is changing the syntax of what we currently do, but it removes obstacles to increased participation. As such I would support such moves

[Escade]

So far the change that the majority seems to be in agreement over is that all TSPers are now citizens. However, citizens who want to vote in elections must register to do so.

 

This will require some wording and\or restructuring of the Charter.

 

With this expansion, it might make sense to move up Article 2. Bill of Rights as the first article of the charter since it covers the broadest group of people referred to to in the charter.

 

Currently in Article 2:

"The right to apply for citizenship and have such an application promptly accepted, subject to requirements of citizenship, or otherwise denied under reasonable causes, with the right to an appeal to the appropriate officials."


 

Proposed Revision:

"The right to register to vote and have such an application promptly accepted, subject to requirements of citizenship, or otherwise denied under reasonable causes, with the right to an appeal to the appropriate officials."


 

Currently in Article 2:

"Voting and being elected to an office under the Coalition of The South Pacific shall be rights afforded only to citizens."


 

Proposed Revision:

"Voting and being elected to an office under the Coalition of The South Pacific shall be rights afforded only to citizens who have registered."


 

 

Is there a particular term we want to use for citizens who have applied to vote? Assemblymen was mentioned but I'm not that fond of it.

 

Other possibilities:

- Constituent

- Registered voter

- Voting public

 

 

The other thing I'd like to suggest is that when updating the charter have a post that holds the previous draft and link it it at the bottom instead of having the somewhat confuding bits of it there.

 

As for voter registration, will open up a separate discussion for that.

 

Also, I'm against the jury system. However, we do need judicial reform. QD and others who worked on the last judicial reform package, perhaps now is the time to start a new discussion?  Our court system is barely used and not very well integrated with the rest of the government. We need to find a better way for all three branches to work together.

[Kris Kringle]

Perhaps just call them 'representatives'?

[Hileville]

I have some thoughts on this but am not sure when I can get to posting then.

[Hileville]

This is just making my head hurt as I look at it further.  Are we discussing changing admittance to the Assembly to what citizenship currently is?  If so we are going to need to look at multiple changes to the first 3 Articles of the Charter.

[Belschaft]

The proposal is to change 'Residents' to 'Citizens', and 'Citizens' to 'Parliamentarian/Representative/Congressman/Assemblyman/Registered Voter'

[Sandaoguo]

Definitely prefer Assemblyman/person. We aren't really a parliament and nobody is representing anybody.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

[Cormac]

Assemblyperson is clunky, and I'm not sure it's accurate to say we aren't representing anyone. In a sense we are, in that the Assembly governs The South Pacific and the vast majority of TSP residents -- whether issue answerers, RMB posters, or what have you -- are not members of the Assembly. In that sense, I do think we are representing them and that we should be mindful we're representing the entire region and our behavior in the Assembly should reflect that. An official title of Representative would keep that in the minds of Assembly members, and I favor that title for that reason.

[Belschaft]

My personal preference is for Parliamentarian (if only so I can start addressing people as The Hon., The Rt. Hon., etc) but after that I would favor Representative.

 

An alternative would be to rename the Assembly something else, so as to make a different title ie; Senator fit.

[Hileville]

I just don't think Parliamentarian fits.  I would be okay with Representative and also am not opposed to looking at a rename of the Assembly.