Possible Amendment to the Consitution

Proposed change to:

ALSO the following amendment shall be voted on:

Proposed change to:

what happens if we support one amendment, but not the other?

I suggest abstain, and post your thoughts.

Besides, this is just a discussion thread to get an idea of what people think anyways, not an actual vote on implementing the changes.

This shouldn't be approved. Do you mean to say that you can only campaign for one position? Can you only do this in all the elections or can you run for various positions in non-simultaneous elections?

Suggested:

A - 2. Subject to paragraph 3, all leaders of nations residing within Canada, regardless of UN status, shall be entitled to vote, and to be elected to one cabinet position per election.

or

B - 2. Subject to paragraph 3, all leaders of nations residing within Canada, regardless of UN status, shall be entitled to vote, and to run for one cabinet position per election.

I'd be in favor of either type of revision

In that case, I approve of the "hold one cabinet position at a time" amendment, but oppose the "run for one position" amendment.

agreed with bweezy

Yes for both of 'em. Though the first proposal I believe is a much more vital issue then the last. B)

Proposed amendment 1: For

Proposed amendment 2: Against (not strongly, however)

Yes to both of them. :)

I agree with the "hold one cabinet position at a time" amendment, but don't think the "run for one position" amendment is in the correct place. If there is a need to define who can run for office then it should be placed in section II. Actually I think Section II @ Paragraph 3 might be the best place for such a definition (if it is needed).

As with others, I suport the 'hold one position' ammendment, but am against the running for multiple positions ammendment.

Same as above ^.

Now I've actually got a mouse again, I can elaborate slightly.

If Canada is a true Constitutional Democracy, there should be no prohibition in running for multiple Cabinet positions. To incur an exlusion, would be to negate the workings of the term Democracy as well as counteract the premise of the term Consitution. I think that the idea is sound in theory, but implimentation would cause difficulties at a systemic level and may even reduce participation within the Elections.

Agreed.
1:For
2:Against

Another split vote. I have no problem with people running for more than one position but, am against them holding more than one.

I might also suggest that either they have to declare their order of choice or they get elected on a "proportion of vote" basis. E.G. If BT runs for MoD, MoFA and MoDaB and wins all the elections (Dream Big :D) as follows:
Position/BT/Other Candidate
MoD/6/3
MoFA/5/4
MoDaB/6/2
BT would become MoDaB and MoD and MoFA would fall to other candidates.

Proportional representation BT..? I like this idea. Perhaps this suggestion could be looked into a little more thouroughly?

Yes, a sort of PR idea, we don't have parties involved but, similar idea.

OK, so what our plan here. Amend or not? The vote seems pretty split...

Actually, it seems pretty consistent to me: the first amendment (about holding one cabinet position at a time) has wide support, and the second one (about running for multiple positions) has very little support. My recommendation would be to take that advice, and move the `one cabinet postion' amendment on its own.

Sounds good.

OK, does everyone agree with going ahead on amendment 1?

Yup.

I can't speak for everyone, but I support moving ahead with Amendment 1.

The first amendment listed in this thread will be voted on by the region in a referendum, to be held from this Thursday, December 2nd to Sunday, December 5th.