Not a proposal - just an idea

What if we removed the Borda count from within the faction and let factions generate their lists any way they wished? Is it the city's business to dictate faction governance?

That would render the body undemocratic. Since the RA is the democratic branch, it relies on democracy to select its members. This is similar to how the SC, a meritocracy, uses merit to select its members.

The goal of the Constitution was to roughly define the structure and selection process and let the group figure everything else out for itself. I think making the process undemocratic would be another one of those major changes that some nosey foreigners like to squawk on about.

~Ulrika~

Why do you hate Neualtenburg's freedoms?

I don't hate the city's freedoms. I understand things to be as follows:

1) In RA elections, citizens vote for factions, not candidates. Ergo, none of this would affect citizens rights to rank factions in the RA election.

2) If we believe in freedoms, let factions choose their candidates in the manner they wish. If you don't like the way a faction creates its list, don't vote for it and don't join it.

I would argue this is in fact more free than the current system, which imposes the Borda count as the one true way.

BTW, I am not going to propose abandoning the Borda count in the DPU. If you're right (and you may well be), factions choosing other methods won't get members or votes. Why not let the marketplace of ideas decide rather than having it imposed from above?

meritocracy

n 1: a form of social system in which power goes to those with superior intellects


These "intellectuals" select one another. They are required to self-interpret the founding documents, regardless of original intent or even the actually words in said documents.

These members are self selected. They have veto powers over all laws, even if the laws are in accord with the founding documents, as there is no appeal process that could over rule their edict.

If the RA writes a law, the SC has the power to veto it or rewrite it. An example.. The RA writes a law that says placing frogs on your land isn't acceptable as it change the feel of the land. Though there is nothing in the founding documents concerning frogs, the SC could say they find the law unconstitutional according to their personal interpretation of the founding documents.

The RA then asks the SC to explain, what in the constitution protects ones right to have frogs on their land. The SC simply says "It's how we interpret the documents, period, end of discussion". The SC then rewrites the law to say "Frogs are allowed because the SC likes frogs".

The RA then seeks to change the documents to include an amendment that says frogs are not permitted in the city. But the SC simply vetoes the amendment on the grounds "It's how we interpret the documents, period, end of discussion".

And now --here's how it would really work.

The RA writes a law that says placing frogs on your land isn't acceptable as it changes the feel of the land. The Guild (Not the SC) balks at the law and says since frogs existed in Bavaria, frogs can stay, besides --the Guild would control this zoning issue according to the Constitution.

The RA complains to the SC and says it has every right to legislate frog banning. The Guild maintains it has the right to allow frogs. The SC looking at the Constitution for the the correct answer correctly judges that the Guild has control on this issue.

The Constitution remains unchanged, the ruling of the sitting SC being the final arbiter of this bit of conflict between RA and Guild over a Constitutional squabble.

Don't forget:

n 2: A body on which Kevn will never serve.

~Ulrika~

cheeky monkey

The SC doesn't need to look at the constitution, it's not bound by the words found within.


The constitution never needs to change. The SC decides what they feel, individually, it means or should mean. After all, they are the intellectuals. The rest of N'burg is just the lowly peons.

There there, Kevn --have a piece of candy.

I won't respond in kind.

Your rude comments are not the example we expect from an officer.

I don't do predictable, darlin'.

You can be as rude as you wish, I will ignore it. It reflects on you, not me. Sweetie.

keep thinking that, sugar dumpling