What if CC member is revoked but not replaced immideately. The CC (Country Council, the acting law making and decision making national Government meeting, comprised of 50 delegates each elected by all first level delegates (red) one in each 50th of the nation) in my CP (Constitution Proposal) has 50 members, it rules by its own majority and is subject to referendum laws and obligated to carry out the will of the people. Its members can be revoked at any moment by those that elected them. That is both the first level ("red") delegates together, and also the 100 person voter-group electing that delegate to be a first level delegate. What happens if a CC member is lost without immedeate replacement. The Constitution says the CC must have 50 members, now there are only 49: problem. On the other hand the Constitution does not explicitly say an understaffed CC is put out of business. However it makes sense that it would be, since with fewer then 50 members it is no longer a legal CC. One might want to make a warped kind of argument: there are 50 CC members, only some are absent pending a procedure to install them. Not that great. One might say: the show must go on. If the CC must rule by its own majority, which is 25 members or more (the chair-person has no vote, meaning 49 voting members), then it can still rule as long as 25 members or more are voting for something. Alternatively one can say: "by its own majority" means "by the majority of those present, those absent are in voting abstention." A variation on that is "by their own voluntary majority" but if a representative is absent pending procedure for installation, then "that is not voluntary absence but procedural absence" and therefore the majority must have a greater margin then the amount of delegates who are absent. Example: if 3 positions are vacant pending procedure, and if the CC (and high court, and Constitution) allow decisions with CC members not attending meaning voting abstention, then only decisions can be made if there are 4 more votes for one option, to cover the possible "no" votes by positions not present. One might argue against that: "but they are not merely absent by force of procedure for voting, they are also absent from the debate which shapes the minds of the people who will vote, meaning they might sway the entire council in a new direction if they had been present, or make a significant change that way." That last argument is certainly true. One might say: the show must go on, pending procedure we install someone temporary from the given sector. This can for instance be the number 2 in the last elections. One might say: this person is not voting, but is involved in collecting information and maintaining a presence from the given sector. This certainly makes some sense, since it is merely a presence and not an official voting member. The presence can then roll over the information to the newly elected delegate. It does not seem much of an option to leave the old delegate in power until there is a replacement, unless the given sector delegates agree to that. Removal should otherwise be removal, or what is the purpose of the procedure. One might say: a 49 or less CC is dysfuntional and unable to make decisions until the correct number has been reached again. It can review things, it can study and convene, because that is mere freedom of assembly. However it can not vote or make decisions. I think that is probably the best and strictest decision one can make. The CC can only go on if the red delegates start a replacement procedure which yields immedeately a new CC member to take over, rather then start a removal procedure (vote to remove previously chosen member). That way the sector in question has the power to temporarily shut down decision making in the CC by removal of its delegate and not moving on with electing a replacement. A solution to that can be: almost certainly not all first level delegates in the given sector will agree with such obstruction of the CC. The high court may rule, and/or the CC itself could make additional rules for this, that those delegates who do not participate into unreasonable procedural delay will promptly elect a new CC member, the other non-participating first level delegates will count as abstentions. This will almost certainly result in a new CC member swiftly. What exactly is swift enough can be put into law by the CC. A law could look like so: 1. 50th sector delegates are encouraged to send immediate replacement for a CC member they want to remove whenever possible, in order not to destroy the procedural power of the CC. 2. 50th sector delegates are encouraged to send a message of mistrust and coming replacement of their delegate to the CC, to give the CC the change to revalue the arguments by concerning delegate in light of this lack of trust. 3. 50th sector delegates are encouraged to complete a voting procedure for a new delegate if their representation is absent within one week or sooner. 4. If the 50th sector delegates do not resolve to vote within one week, the CC assumes most delegates to be in abstention and will organize a vote in the given sector for all willing first level delegates in order to continue its work as CC. 5. If the 50th sector continues to obstruct the CC by removal of members, the CC will start a case at the high court against the delegates of given sector, demanding the high court rule on whether this sector in total is in voluntary absence from the CC, or whether the delegate system has entered a state of `chaos` to be resolved by King Rule. The delegates will be asked what the problem is, and if they want to obstruct the process of governance why they are not starting their own sovereign nation using the available protocol to do so. 6. If delegates are in voluntary absence from the CC, the CC will function and rule by a majority of those present. 7. The delegates of the CC are encouraged to revisit decisions made during the time a 50th sector was in "voluntary abstention" as per point #5, once sector causing the understaffing of the CC has returned a delegate to the CC, within reason and on the request of said delegate. In general it is best to avoid these problems by simply following points 1 and 2 in above law proposal. The CC will then probably decide not to take said delegate its arguments seriously anymore, achieving probably much of the aim of removal in an informal way. If said delegate then steps down that can be made to be voluntary absence, meaning abstention voting and the CC could go on with its work. It becomes more problematic if the 50th sector is actively out to obstruct the operation of the CC through procedural tricks. It makes sense that such activities go to court for resolution. If the high court rules "voluntary absence" for that sector from the CC, it is as if there is a delegate, but he/she just always choses to take the day of or be sick. The rights of that sector should be easily covered by its right to step out the nation, which is a step in the order of magnitude of procedurally obstructing the CC of an entire nation. This should not leave any gaps, particularly if the high court decides on voluntary absence also for immedeately future delegates (that can again be removed by a larger majority then the delegate was installed). If the high-court rules this is a state-of-chaos, the King elect takes over all delegates, also in said sector. If the high court does not rule either of those, the CC could end up with a procedural minority lower then 50. At this point the game is not over: article 1 says the people are the power behind the Constitution. If they widely want, and especially if this is verified using Referendum, that the CC goes on with fewer then 50 members, then one of the previously mentioned arguments could take over as the official interpretation of the Constitution. For instance: if one sector does not resolve to make use of the invitation to send a delegate, the nation and the CC have met their obligations and the CC is taken to have 49 members, one of which choses to be absent by choice, voting and decisions go on as if nothing happened. I think in general one should not make too much of a fuss about a CC that is understaffed only by one or a few delegates. To be very nice one could postpone the "stamp of approval" on decisions from the CC a little, to give a sector some time to send a new delegate if they insisted to remove their delegate without sending replacement. On arriving of the new delegate one could subject the matters to this delegate for review and vote and then go on. If said sector is not demanding from the high court that the CC is suspended for lack of members, then no complaint could be taken to mean: no crime. If a sector truly wants to be a pain for the nation for some reason, extracts its members constantly in greater majority, obstructs voting of new delegates, appeals the high court to suspend the CC, then well and truly let the high court sort it out, and let that sector think about starting their own sovereign nation. In such cases there will probably be some underlying grief that needs to be looked at. Solving that would probably solve the problem. I say: courts are to rule with "reason and fairness," they are not just procedural bodies which are to be blind to the consequences of followed procedures. In the most extreme case one could bypass the Constitution altogether, call out the women committee to give advice, and organize a referendum on how to proceed further. That could be warranted in case of mass unrest. To make a long story short: it is only as much of a problem as it is made out to be. Sometimes people get sick or must see the dentist, or have no opinion on a subject. It seems reasonable that the CC would continue operating on even if not all are in attendence. This is also the practice in todays parliaments, which seems to bother nobody either. posted on Monday, December 15, 2008 2:44 PM Comments No comments posted yet. Post Comment