|
Post by Markotovia on Mar 5, 2015 1:59:53 GMT
Cabinet Approval Act This Bill is an amendment to the Power to the People Act Recognizing that once elected, Cabinet Members have a duty to serve to the Commonwealth and its citizens Realizing that some Cabinet Members do not take their roles seriously or, are not working to their best ability in making an efficient government. Understanding that if a Cabinet Member is not reaching their expectations, citizens should not have to wait until next elections to make a change. Therefore this proposal calls for:
1. After 30 days (roughly half of the Cabinet's term), a regional telegram will be sent to all citizens who are eligible to vote, and they will will choose either Yes or No, to the question of "Is this Cabinet Member fulfilling their role, and working to the best of their abilities?",2. The regional telegram will be sent to all eligible voting citizens by the Lord Chancellor, and will be formatted in the exact way of the Cabinet Election Ballot, 3. Once the results are tallied and checked over, a regional telegram will be sent out notifying everyone of the results, 4. If a Cabinet Member received a 55% or above Approval, then they will remain in their position until the end of the term. If the Cabinet Member received a 54% or lower Approval, then they will be removed from office, and a by-election will be held to elect a new member, 5. This Cabinet Approval Act will have effect on the following: Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, Minister of Defence, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Internal Affairs, Minister of Justice, and the Chief Justice. All Deputy Positions will NOT be on the ballot, as they are appointed, not elected. If the Cabinet Member is removed from office, the Deputy Member will also be removed.
*If you wish to change certain details such as approval/disapproval percentages, or the date it is sent out, please say so in the thread.
Endorsements: AOS Markotovia
Denouncements: Sulania Vladovaskia Everestopia COLDR
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Mar 5, 2015 2:09:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by AOS on Mar 5, 2015 2:10:51 GMT
I endorse this bill. I would be more in favor of cutting the terms of Cabinet members in half, but this is the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by Sulania on Mar 5, 2015 2:18:39 GMT
Beat me to it. And since there is already legislation for this, I denounce this bill.
|
|
|
Post by Markotovia on Mar 5, 2015 12:24:42 GMT
Beat me to it. And since there is already legislation for this, I denounce this bill. I totally forgot about that bill, but I feel that this bill is more to the point as it is either you get to stay in office or you don't.
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major on Mar 5, 2015 16:01:39 GMT
Beat me to it. And since there is already legislation for this, I denounce this bill. I totally forgot about that bill, but I feel that this bill is more to the point as it is either you get to stay in office or you don't. If you make this law an amendment to the PPA, then I will consider endorsing.
|
|
|
Post by Vladovaskia on Mar 5, 2015 16:55:28 GMT
I denounce this bill, as like Sul has said, there's already similar acting legislation, and I see a few flaws that I don't like: The 60% pass or fail thing leaves a 20% gap that has no instruction on what to do if a Minister is within it. The Chief Justice should not be grouped with the Cabinet, as that position follows a completely separate election format and term.
Those are just a few, but I doubt either way I'll change to endorsing this bill, as there's already legislation I agree with. But, good job on the bill Mark. It has its flaws, but for the most part it is well-written.
|
|
|
Post by Markotovia on Mar 5, 2015 21:45:23 GMT
I totally forgot about that bill, but I feel that this bill is more to the point as it is either you get to stay in office or you don't. If you make this law an amendment to the PPA, then I will consider endorsing. This Bill will be an amendment to the Power to the People Act
|
|
|
Post by Markotovia on Mar 5, 2015 21:48:46 GMT
I denounce this bill, as like Sul has said, there's already similar acting legislation, and I see a few flaws that I don't like: The 60% pass or fail thing leaves a 20% gap that has no instruction on what to do if a Minister is within it. The Chief Justice should not be grouped with the Cabinet, as that position follows a completely separate election format and term. Those are just a few, but I doubt either way I'll change to endorsing this bill, as there's already legislation I agree with. But, good job on the bill Mark. It has its flaws, but for the most part it is well-written. If the bill/amendment is passed if a Minister gets above 60% approval then they stay. If they get only a 59% or lower than they are out of office. Sorry I should have made that clearer
|
|
|
Post by Markotovia on Mar 5, 2015 21:53:03 GMT
I denounce this bill, as like Sul has said, there's already similar acting legislation, and I see a few flaws that I don't like: The 60% pass or fail thing leaves a 20% gap that has no instruction on what to do if a Minister is within it. The Chief Justice should not be grouped with the Cabinet, as that position follows a completely separate election format and term. Those are just a few, but I doubt either way I'll change to endorsing this bill, as there's already legislation I agree with. But, good job on the bill Mark. It has its flaws, but for the most part it is well-written. And i found this in the Constitution: 3. The Chief Justice will be voted upon publicly by all registered citizens during the same election period as all other elected officials, every 2 months.
|
|
|
Post by Everestopia on Mar 5, 2015 23:02:38 GMT
Beat me to it. And since there is already legislation for this, I denounce this bill. I hereby DENOUNCE this Amendment on the grounds that the proposed practically already exists.
|
|
|
Post by Sulania on Mar 5, 2015 23:03:00 GMT
Eh... I still think that 60% is a bit high for it. I'd go for a 40%-50%, especially since it's a said and done you're in or out percentage.
|
|
|
Post by Markotovia on Mar 5, 2015 23:04:51 GMT
Eh... I still think that 60% is a bit high for it. I'd go for a 40%-50%, especially since it's a said and done you're in or out percentage. I'm willing to settle for 55% and above (You're In) and 54% or lower (You're out)
|
|
|
Post by Markotovia on Mar 5, 2015 23:08:10 GMT
Beat me to it. And since there is already legislation for this, I denounce this bill. I hereby DENOUNCE this bill on the grounds that the same proposal practically already exists.I understand but this is more of an amendment to that bill. I want to get rid of the censure thing because if a Minister is not acting well it should be either you're in or out. If many think the Minister is not doing well, having a statement of disapproval is not really doing anything to fix the issue. Once again this is an amendment to the PPA. Not a new bill
|
|
|
Post by Sulania on Mar 5, 2015 23:08:26 GMT
Eh... I still think that 60% is a bit high for it. I'd go for a 40%-50%, especially since it's a said and done you're in or out percentage. I'm willing to settle for 55% and above (You're In) and 54% or lower (You're out) I can't get behind this. The concept is good, but I personally think that our current legislation is sufficient and is not in need of amending. The percentages are too high for a said and done thing, in my personal opinion, along with that.
|
|