The Cabinet Initiative Act

I denounce this bill.

Article I: The people decide whether their democratically elected candidate is qualified for said office, not the CFN's educational institution. We are a democracy, not an oligarchy.

Article II: See above.

Article III: A hundred times no. I fail to see the rationale on which this intended reform is founded, given the backlash that that has been experienced each time this has been publicly proposed. There is something distinctly undemocratic in the pursuit of this goal when it is clear that public sentiment is not on its side. Of course, we'll allow democracy to speak now and with a clear voice as to whether the region agrees with this reform so as to truly gauge this public sentiment. But, I believe taking into better account those opinions that were expressed during previous consultation phases would result in proposed bill that better reflect the sentiment expressed during said consultation. I do not recall a lot of support for this reform as written.

Article IV: See above.

Article V: So, we're imposing office standards on just a single cabinet member? Standards that is intended to remove someone from office even if the citizenry have confidence in said officeholder? We already have midterm confidence votes, which put the power of democratic confidence in the hands of the people. This is where confidence should stem from. I state again: there is something distinctly oligarchical about this bill.

Article VI: See above. Also, this is susceptible to manipulation as it is not clearly defined therein.

Article VII: Oh. If the Vice Chancellor doesn't recruit 5 nations, than he/she is only subject to a no confidence vote? The logic here is flawed throughout. The Vice Chancellor would have until the end of his/her mandate to recruit 5 members, so this vote of no confidence would take place during... the election! Which means the election would serve as the Vice Chancellor's confidence vote, with the people voting him/her back to office if he/she retain confidence or voting for an alternative if not. And if even they're reelected due to no contest, there is (again) the mid-term confidence votes. And clearly a lack of public interest in replacing the officeholder at the time when this bill could force a no confidence vote. So, we already have the mechanisms to gauge public confidence in this officeholder, and for all of Cabinet.

Article VIII: I am distinctly of the opinion that a citizenship application provides the MoIA with a basic overview of our citizenry; it can be amended if the citizenry feels as though it is too prying but should certainly not be done away with entirely. Further, the waiting period for citizenship ensures that those who seek citizenship have at least some interest in the region. 

Article IX: If citizenship is granted automatically, how is it that the MoIA is to delay the citizenship process? Do they contact the nation and alert them of their delay? Do they provide a reason to the affected nation? How long can the citizenship be delayed for? What is qualified as due reason? This section leaves a lot to be desired in terms of detail.

Article X: Granting voting rights to non-WA nations is precisely how voter fraud can take place uninhibited. There is no contingency in this bill to safeguard against said fraud. Therefore, this cannot be allowed. A single individual could decide the election with six days and an army of puppets.