Debate: Union General Election, November 2020

[Sir Salibaic]

Debate: Union General Election, November 2020

Debate closes on November 7th at 12:30 AM EST.

Brief Overview

The Debate period is intended to be a time in which citizens can assess the competence of candidates running for office and make an informed decision in the voting period that follows. All citizens may ask questions to the candidates and while the candidates are not legally bound to answering these questions, it is highly encouraged. Candidates are however legally bound to answer all questions asked of them by the Founder or Speaker.

Candidiates for Prime Minister:

Sir Salibaic - Force - The Federalist Party
Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia - Force - Force Unity Party

Candidates for House Representatives:

Sir Suter - RGBN - The Federalist Party
Renegalle's Dog - RGBN - The Federalist Party
Krovx Belgium - RGBN - The Federalist Party
Tenjouin - Heart - The Federalist Party
Drew Durnil - Canterbury - The Federalist Party
West Kronisia - Citizens Alliance for Democracy - Force Unity Party
The New State of Wales - Citizens Alliance for Democracy - Force Unity Party

Candidates for Justice:

Tigslarlowducken - Force - The Federalist Party
Illyrus - Force - The Federalist Party
Holy Alerose - Force - Force Unity Party

Relevant Law

1. As a candidate, you are required to answer all questions asked to you by the Founder (Renegalle) and the Speaker of the House (Salibaic) during this Debate or you will be automatically disqualified (§B.4.1).

Required: Questions for all Prime Minister Candidates

1. What makes you the best candidate for Prime Minister? What do you bring to the office which your opponent does not and why do you think you are better positioned to succeed in whatever you undertake?

2. How do you plan to address growth, specifically the lack there of? Please provide a specific plan that addresses every aspect of government and community.

3. Who would you appoint to your ideal Cabinet (ex-members, people who would be ineligible, and people not necessarily willing to serve can be included)? Why would you choose these people and what specific things would they bring to each office that you consider to be most important?

4. If elected, how do you plan (if at all) to change the structure of the existing Ministries? Would you consider abolishing, creating, or merging any of them? Why?

5. Territories are growing each month and seem to become more important than ever in Force politics. What do you plan to do for them?

Required: Questions for all House Representative Candidates

1. Which House Bills do you plan to pass and/or repeal? Why?

2. In what ways should the Constitution be amended, if at all? Explain how the changes would improve the current system of governance.

3. What qualifies you to serve in the House? What makes this qualifying?

4. Do you think any changes should be made to existing House Procedures? If so, what changes should be made and why?

5. If elected, do you plan on running for Speaker? If so, what makes you a good candidate for this position and if not, who do you think would be a better candidate?

6. How do you plan to ensure the voices of your constituents are heard while in office?

7. How do you feel about the influence parties have on the House and electoral process, and should it be more or less? Explain your answer fully.

8. The House of Representatives is the sole legal body with the ability to remove a Prime Minister from office with citizens vote after to confirm it. Under what circumstances would you support the removal of one and what constitutes 'going too far'? Cite specific legal passages if necessary and ensure that your answer is sufficiently detailed.


Required: Questions for all Justice Candidates

1. The Justices are responsible for deciding the punishment for a person found guilty, following a trial. You are required to do this with the advice of the Jury. Keeping that in mind, how would you balance your own thoughts on how harsh punishment should be with the Jury's recommendation?

2. The Justices are responsible for determining whether any laws contradict the Constitution. With this power in mind, what method(s) would you use to come to a decision as to the legality of a law? If a law was not necessarily illegal but went against the character of the Constitution, would you consider that fair grounds for it to be overturned?

3. Do you believe it is more important to take your time when deciding the verdict for a case, even if it means the guilty party goes longer without punishment, or do you believe it is more important to quickly decide on a verdict, even if it means the punishment may not be as suitable as otherwise? What factors would tilt this more in favour of one or the other?

4. Similarly to Q2, if a case was brought to the court against someone who had not necessarily done something that was illegal, but went against the character of the Constitution, would you consider that fair grounds for the case to be considered?

5. Do you feel that parties influence the court and how will you ensure the judiciary is as non-political as possible?

[Tigslarlowducken]

1. The Justices are responsible for deciding the punishment for a person found guilty, following a trial. You are required to do this with the advice of the Jury. Keeping that in mind, how would you balance your own thoughts on how harsh punishment should be with the Jury's recommendation?
A. If there is a minor difference between the jury’s decision and my own, I would probably just take the average of the two. For a major disagreement, I would follow a case-by-case basis, but would probably go with the jury unless I have a reason not to.

2. The Justices are responsible for determining whether any laws contradict the Constitution. With this power in mind, what method(s) would you use to come to a decision as to the legality of a law? If a law was not necessarily illegal but went against the character of the Constitution, would you consider that fairgrounds for it to be overturned?
A. Any law going against the intention of the Constitution can be overturned depending on to what extent it bends the rules. Much of what I would do as justice depends on the specifics of the case.

3. Do you believe it is more important to take your time when deciding the verdict for a case, even if it means the guilty party goes longer without punishment, or do you believe it is more important to quickly decide on a verdict, even if it means the punishment may not be as suitable as otherwise? What factors would tilt this more in favour of one or the other?
A. Take the Libertatis Incident. Once doxxing was found, it was imperative to remove his permissions as soon as possible. In this case, a ruling would need to be found fast. In others, thoroughness is preferable.

4. Similarly to question two, if a case was brought to the court against someone who had not necessarily done something that was illegal, but went against the character of the Constitution, would you consider that fairgrounds for the case to be considered?
A. No

5. Do you feel that parties influence the court and how will you ensure the judiciary is as non-political as possible?
A. No, I don't think parties influence the court.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/472407264700006420/718562186418716742/melonland.mp4

[Sumeka]

1. Which House Bills do you plan to pass and/or repeal? Why?

Mainly I plan to pass Amendment 29, which in essence reforms the entirety of the government. I do not want to give too much away before we introduce it though. In addition, I plan to work with the rest of the house in order to pass meaningful legislation. As of now, I would not repeal any of the House Bills.

2. In what ways should the Constitution be amended, if at all? Explain how the changes would improve the current system of governance.

Like I mentioned earlier, Amendment 29, would be an amendment that fixes cabinet and problems with the constitution. For example, we plan to introduce a government activity commission, and a federal election commission, who respectively ensure that the government is not slacking, and to ensure a fair election and to prevent incidents of buying votes.

3. What qualifies you to serve in the House? What makes this qualifying?

I have already served in the House before, and in addition have served successfully in both the territories and capital. I have been Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Roleplay, A court Justice, and the aforementioned house rep for the capital.

4. Do you think any changes should be made to existing House Procedures? If so, what changes should be made and why?

I believe they are fine the way they are.

5. If elected, do you plan on running for Speaker? If so, what makes you a good candidate for this position and if not, who do you think would be a better candidate?

I do not, however, I still do not have anyone specific in mind. I would want somebody obviously who is trustworthy.

6. How do you plan to ensure the voices of your constituents are heard while in office?

I am the First Minister of Heart, so it very much in my interest to ensure my constituents are heard. I will ask both on the RMB and Discord what they would like to see implemented into law, as well as make my own observations based on how people are talking.

7. How do you feel about the influence parties have on the House and electoral process, and should it be more or less? Explain your answer fully.

I feel they are somewhat too influential but I think they serve an important role. I think that perhaps one day we will become a one party state, but I would do my best to avoid that while I am still in office.

8. The House of Representatives is the sole legal body with the ability to remove a Prime Minister from office with citizens vote after to confirm it. Under what circumstances would you support the removal of one and what constitutes 'going too far'? Cite specific legal passages if necessary and ensure that your answer is sufficiently detailed.

Most likely if the PM was committing such a serious crime, I would first look at the evidence and then make my judgement afterwards. A few crimes I would be in favor of impeachment for are: Malfeasance, Treason, Voter Fraud. Any one of these laws being broken would be a very serious crime for someone in such a high elected position, and would 100% be grounds for impeachment.

[Wax Krovx Belgium]

Krovx Belgium

1. Which House Bills do you plan to pass and/or repeal? Why?
Repeal And Replace House Bill 50, In Order To Allow The Academia de Noctura More Flexible.
2. In what ways should the Constitution be amended, if at all? Explain how the changes would improve the current system of governance.
I Can Not Think Of Any Ways The Constitution Should Be Amended At The Moment.
3. What qualifies you to serve in the House? What makes this qualifying?
Really, Nothing. I Simply Wish To Try My Best To Represent My Constituents In Force's House Of Representatives.
4. Do you think any changes should be made to existing House Procedures? If so, what changes should be made and why?
No, They Seems To Work Well.
5. If elected, do you plan on running for Speaker? If so, what makes you a good candidate for this position and if not, who do you think would be a better candidate?
No, I Do Not Think I Would Make A Good Speaker, Therefore I Will Not Run For Speaker.
6. How do you plan to ensure the voices of your constituents are heard while in office?
I Plan To Ask My Constituents On Their Opinion On Anything That May Affect Them.
7. How do you feel about the influence parties have on the House and electoral process, and should it be more or less? Explain your answer fully.
I Feel That As Long As Their Are Parties, They Will Hold At Least Some Influence On The House And Electoral Process. I Also Feel That If They Had Less  Influence They Would Fight For More, And If They Had More Influence It Would Be Chaos, Therefore I Think They Have Just Enough Power Currently.
8. The House of Representatives is the sole legal body with the ability to remove a Prime Minister from office with citizens vote after to confirm it. Under what circumstances would you support the removal of one and what constitutes 'going too far'? Cite specific legal passages if necessary and ensure that your answer is sufficiently detailed.
If The Prime Minister Was To Commit Either, Treason, Nonfeasance, Malfeasance, Perjury, Or Voting Fraud, I Feel I Would Support Their Impeachment For In My Opinion, I Feel That If Even Just One Of These Acts Where Committed,  The Union Would Suffer Greatly.

I Hope I Answered The Questions Adequately

[Suter]

1. Which House Bills do you plan to pass and/or repeal? Why?
I support the creation of Federal Anti-Corruption and Activity Comission that would supervise what the government is doing. I also support the reintroduction of the Force Army as a defender army in order to protect the Union and our allies. I also would support a review of House Bill X in order to update Academia de Nocturna.

2. In what ways should the Constitution be amended, if at all? Explain how the changes would improve the current system of governance.
Force is due for some big reforms. The current institutions have been here for far too long and we can see they currently are outdated. Institutions such as the Cabinet and the Court tend to be inactive and thats why we need them reformed so that it can change. We need to adapt to the present and it is now that we will do it. Firstly, I support a Salibaic Cabinet Reform Act that would finally make Roleplay a recognized ministry and would fuse Communications and Culture together. I also think amendments voting procedures should be updated so that we only need a simple majority of votes by the citizens to pass an amendment, in order to make it more democratic. We should also amend the Constitution in order to make a clear difference between Union Justices and Regional Justices.

3. What qualifies you to serve in the House? What makes this qualifying?
I am running for my second term in the House and so I have already experience working there. I was also Speaker of the House for most of my term until some complications happened. I have passed many bills and was one of the most active person in the House. I am also the President of RGBN and so I want to represent my people.

4. Do you think any changes should be made to existing House Procedures? If so, what changes should be made and why?
I already gave my opinion during my first debate and my opinion still hasn't changed. I do not think changes should be made to the current House procedures and I think it is working fine. Obviously, I think we should encourage Representatives debating more and more since by putting more time into a legislation you can have more chances to find things such as loopholes. Even if everyone agrees I still think people should try debating it since some big issues can easily be overseen and we do not want this to happen in our Union.

5. If elected, do you plan on running for Speaker? If so, what makes you a good candidate for this position and if not, who do you think would be a better candidate?
I do not really intend to but I could take the lead of the House if no one that I consider qualified is running for Speaker. I already have some experience for it since I was Speaker for almost an entire term and I only left the position due to personal issues. I don't really have anyone specifically that I would endorse for Speaker but most current candidates would do just fine in my opinion.

6. How do you plan to ensure the voices of your constituents are heard while in office?
I ensure to talk to the citizens of RGBN like I already do and ask their opinion about the current bills or amendments. If a law has no support in RGBN even tho I support it, I ensure to vote against it since my job will be to represent the people and not benefit myself. I am already pretty active in RGBN and I communicate daily with its citizens so it shouldn't even be difficult for me to do it. I will also encourage people to contact me if they think a law should be proposed. Because as their representative, I would ensure that if someone comes up to me and says they want a certain law to be written, I feel it is my duty to help them do it. That wouldn't mean I would push for it to pass but I would at least make the other representatives be informed of it.

7. How do you feel about the influence parties have on the House and electoral process, and should it be more or less? Explain your answer fully.
There was a moment in which tensions between the Feds and FUP were at an all time high but I think those times are gone. I still think parties should a lot of influence but I think it deserves to be split. I support the creation of multiple third parties in order to fight the current establishment. I also think we should move on to a party based voting since it will allow House elections to be more democratic and not tyranny of the majority.

8. The House of Representatives is the sole legal body with the ability to remove a Prime Minister from office with citizens vote after to confirm it. Under what circumstances would you support the removal of one and what constitutes 'going too far'? Cite specific legal passages if necessary and ensure that your answer is sufficiently detailed.
I think that if the Prime Minister commits any types of crimes the House should start impeachment procedures on the spot. The PM is supposed to be a model for citizens and we can't let him be irresponsible. Obviously, impeachment procedures for the Prime Minsiter should last at the very leadt 3 days so that Representatives don't kick him out without really thinking about it. You can just go to Article I of the Constitution to know what crimes I am talking about.

[glacieri]

Alemputo here!

1. Which House Bills do you plan to pass and/or repeal? Why?
I have been observing the upcoming amendment and I appreciate what it calls to change. I am not 100% for the amendment as it stands but I am excited for its proposal and the upcoming discussions it will be incurring. I do not have an agenda as of yet what bills I want to pass or repeal.

This being said, I would like to clearly state that the cause to make Roleplay a constitutionally enforced ministry is something that I am 100% for.

2. In what ways should the Constitution be amended, if at all? Explain how the changes would improve the current system of governance.
I am not 100% for the upcoming amendment and will be discussing it with the House if I win election.

The Judiciary is the area that needs the most attention. Judicial officials should not have parties, and should not be able to participate in them. Justices should not be anywhere in the Cabinet or the House.

I believe that Force's army should be constitutionally Defender to get an XKI embassy. I have been remaining in contact with them and they are very interested in this election for that reason.

3. What qualifies you to serve in the House? What makes this qualifying?
I have been in the house before and was the most moderate representative in my time. Concerns about doxxing and the state of the region forced me to leave, but I am back and willing to stay in the job so long as there are no doxxing or other personal threats.

4. Do you think any changes should be made to existing House Procedures? If so, what changes should be made and why?
I see no reason for someone to be in the Legislative branch and in the Executive branch. (with the exception of mostly nonpolitical executive branch positions such as Roleplay and Culture) To me it feels slimy no matter what party.

5. If elected, do you plan on running for Speaker? If so, what makes you a good candidate for this position and if not, who do you think would be a better candidate?
It's looking pretty empty on those willing to take the speaker position. For now I will wait and see who is willing to take that tedious position and who isn't. I will run if only one or nobody is running.

6. How do you plan to ensure the voices of your constituents are heard while in office?
The citizens of Canterbury can rest assured that they will be updated once a week on what I am doing in the RMB and Discord.

7. How do you feel about the influence parties have on the House and electoral process, and should it be more or less? Explain your answer fully.
I don't think parties matter in the House. It is as it should be. Those who are elected for a legislative or executive position should be able to affiliate with a party. I am much more weary of politicizing justices. I already feel like the Federalist Party has too much leeway on the court, and it undermines the neutrality that I feel justices should have. Let them say what they will, I still do not think that their party should be listed in their election, and shouldn't influence their decision making. If it were up to me, they wouldn't be able to share what party they sympathize with at all.

8. The House of Representatives is the sole legal body with the ability to remove a Prime Minister from office with citizens vote after to confirm it. Under what circumstances would you support the removal of one and what constitutes 'going too far'? Cite specific legal passages if necessary and ensure that your answer is sufficiently detailed.
I would bring the issue to Canterbury and to the Justices. If the Justices believe that it is an offense which merits impeachment, and Canterbury is willing to go through with it, then I would vote to impeach, but only if those criteria are met.

[Holy Alerose]

1. The Justices are responsible for deciding the punishment for a person found guilty, following a trial. You are required to do this with the advice of the Jury. Keeping that in mind, how would you balance your own thoughts on how harsh punishment should be with the Jury's recommendation?

The jury is there to give there own ideals and to give advice and recommend actions, so I would probably go with for the most part the jury’s Judgement in smaller cases but in bigger land mark cases  I think I would have to side with my own and just take into account what they are saying.

2. The Justices are responsible for determining whether any laws contradict the Constitution. With this power in mind, what method(s) would you use to come to a decision as to the legality of a law? If a law was not necessarily illegal but went against the character of the Constitution, would you consider that fair grounds for it to be overturned?

Our constitution is the highest law in the land so for the first question the answer would be that I will refer back to the constitution when looking over new laws, and for the second one I would have to go by how badly it went against the character.

3. Do you believe it is more important to take your time when deciding the verdict for a case, even if it means the guilty party goes longer without punishment, or do you believe it is more important to quickly decide on a verdict, even if it means the punishment may not be as suitable as otherwise? What factors would tilt this more in favour of one or the other?

I think that there is defiantly a balance to a fair conviction.

4. Similarly to Q2, if a case was brought to the court against someone who had not necessarily done something that was illegal, but went against the character of the Constitution, would you consider that fair grounds for the case to be considered?

As I said in question two it depends on the severity of the contradiction of character.

5. Do you feel that parties influence the court and how will you ensure the judiciary is as non-political as possible?

I will not let my party influence me in any way by referring back to past cases, and talking and conferring with the jury.

[West-Kronisia]

1. Which House Bills do you plan to pass and/or repeal? Why?

If elected, I would like to see the "Office of the World Assembly Act" passed, as I feel it is important to make WA participation worthwhile for member states, but also is a worthwhile measure to protect the Region's security.

2. In what ways should the Constitution be amended, if at all? Explain how the changes would improve the current system of governance.

I would like to see the amendment "Stronger Justice Act" passed, as I feel it makes a good argument for reforming sections of the Force Judicial System, for a fair and reasonable system (I.E. the change to how many court cases presided over at once, and the increase in number dependent on justices available would make for a more streamlined system, compared to not including this amendment). Furthermore, when this amendment was being drafted, I had voiced my opinion in favour of removing the "any close friends" etc. portion of clause 5, concurring with one of the authors, as I feel that in a community of a limited size, 90% of individuals could be argued to be "close friends".


3. What qualifies you to serve in the House? What makes this qualifying?
I am currently serving as Vice Mayor of the territory of The Citizens' Alliance of Democracy, so I already have experience in handling the wishes of those in the region.  Whilst I am most certainly new to partaking in governance, I am definitely earnest to do my part, and to work on behalf of my territory's citizens.

4. Do you think any changes should be made to existing House Procedures? If so, what changes should be made and why?

I don't think so, no.

5. If elected, do you plan on running for Speaker? If so, what makes you a good candidate for this position and if not, who do you think would be a better candidate?

No, I feel as if attempting to run for Speaker with zero prior experience of being a House Representative would be foolish, and a waste of the House's time, to be quite frank.

6. How do you plan to ensure the voices of your constituents are heard while in office?

I plan on ensuring that my constituents' voices are heard by thorough engagement with my community, and by regularly requesting their input on house matters, to ensure that I am doing what they wish, not what I personally feel is correct.

7. How do you feel about the influence parties have on the House and electoral process, and should it be more or less? Explain your answer fully.

I feel that the influence of parties within the House and electoral process is an inevitable situation - It is simply impossible to remove one's bias in favour of their party in it's entirety. However, I do believe that if one is exceptionally vigilant towards their own potential bias, one can mitigate as much of that effect as possible, to act on behalf of their constituents, not their party.  I think that party influence should be minimised, as it can lead to constituents going unheard, in favour of the party's wishes instead.

8. The House of Representatives is the sole legal body with the ability to remove a Prime Minister from office with citizens vote after to confirm it. Under what circumstances would you support the removal of one and what constitutes 'going too far'? Cite specific legal passages if necessary and ensure that your answer is sufficiently detailed.

My view on this is much in line with other candidates within this election; acts such as Treason, Voter Fraud, Malfeasance, Nonfeasance are most certainly "too far" to go without impeachment, as these would be irrevocably damaging to one's ability to lead Force. Crimes other than these I would most certainly wish to see the PM punished, but not necessarily impeached. This  would most likely depend on the situation at hand, I.E. if the the PM had committed a long string of minor crimes, that is also worth impeachment in my eyes.   

[Sir Salibaic]

1. What makes you the best candidate for Prime Minister? What do you bring to the office which your opponent does not and why do you think you are better positioned to succeed in whatever you undertake?

What makes me the better candidate? Well, I have a proven track record and I am the most experienced candidate here especially in terms of Force politics. I have always stood for what I believe in but I also pay attention and listen and try my hardest to always make sure every voice is heard. I have always been an advocate for territories and genuinely makes me smile to see the successes in RGBN and Canterbury. Before I left Heart as First Minister I managed to revive it even if it fell apart under my successors, it proved that it could be done and proved I was a competent leader. Under my last PM term, we had the highest number of nations in Force ever, and the Union did rather well. Even through difficulties, we have pulled through every time. What I offer different from my opponent is I never give up, I do what I believe is the best course of action, and will stand up for every citizen no matter who. This campaign I have done my best to put forward a plan that will help to rebuild this region from hard times and build a grassroots campaign.


2. How do you plan to address growth, specifically the lack there of? Please provide a specific plan that addresses every aspect of government and community.

The major way to stop people from leaving or ceasing to exist in the region is government activity. The problem with our current cabinet is that the activity is minimal at best and so the first thing I would do is appoint an active cabinet. I then plan to implement reforms to ministries to foster meritocracy as I believe cabinet appointments shouldn’t be as political as they are right now and should be appointed based on merit and hard work. I then will aim to introduce legislation for these reforms. The next step is to work with my cabinet secretary to create a Citizens Advisory Council so that citizens across the Union have a place to voice their concerns and be listened too. I will create a weekly press briefing with my press secretary to make sure citizens are informed and know what their government is doing to promote transparency. I will support the reinstatement of GARC to scrutinize unlawful inactivity of government members. I shall also alongside my roleplay minister establish a new and better roleplay to reignite activity in RP.

3. Who would you appoint to your ideal Cabinet (ex-members, people who would be ineligible, and people not necessarily willing to serve can be included)? Why would you choose these people and what specific things would they bring to each office that you consider to be most important?

My cabinet is as follows:



His Majesty's Government | 3rd Salibaic Administration

Cabinet

Prime Minister - Sir Salibaic
Deputy Prime Minister - Sumeka
Minister of Internal Affairs - New Waltonburg
Minister of Foreign Affairs - Oimatsu
Minister of Media and Culture - Azerubia
Minister of Roleplay - Alemputo

Advisor to the Prime Minister - Sir Lashnakia

Cabinet Secretary - Illyrus
Press Secretary - Greatest Elysium

I feel this is the best possible cabinet as I know these people rather well and I know I can rely on them for my vision of the Union.

4. If elected, how do you plan (if at all) to change the structure of the existing Ministries? Would you consider abolishing, creating, or merging any of them? Why?

My plan as mentioned above is to create a system in which those who perform best and succeed. I believe that mostly all cabinet positions with a few exceptions such as DPM should be as non-political as possible. I plan to introduce a system secratires under each minister to run certain tasks and departments. I believe this to be the right way to go as it allows good civil servants to rank up to a secretary then a minister if they perform exceptionally well. I am also going to merge culture and communications as I believe manpower would be better spent in one ministry than spread out. I also plan to make Roleplay Ministry constitutionally protected.

5. Territories are growing each month and seem to become more important than ever in Force politics. What do you plan to do for them?

In terms of territories, as mentioned before I have always been an advocate for them as I originally came from Heart. I plan to work with the High Commission and keep the capital as involved as possible with engagement with High Commission. I will also use IA to help promote territorial voter turnout and participation inside the Union government as I believe all voices matter and especially those not from the capital.

[☕️ 𝓝𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓼𝓢]

1. What makes you the best candidate for Prime Minister? What do you bring to the office which your opponent does not and why do you think you are better positioned to succeed in whatever you undertake?
a.  I believe what makes me the best choice for the esteemed seat is my views and values. I have long advocated for the division of the responsibilities  of Cabinet into smaller ran departments and the restructuring of the ministries, something I am thrilled to see gaining traction. I, while quite unknowledgeable about my opponents previous positions, believe I offer more in terms of concern for Internal Affairs. No matter what region I was in or position I recognized the importance of an Internal Affairs and the positive impact it had on that region and if elected I plan to continue that policy.

2. How do you plan to address growth, specifically the lack there of? Please provide a specific plan that addresses every aspect of government and community.
b. The government, and specifically government activity, I believe is not the sole cause of of lack of community growth in Force. It is what we offer to generate that activity. A lot of good people who are on Nationstates simply don’t have the time or want to pursue new obligations that involve ministry work. We can’t expect everyone who joins to be an eager person looking for work. We, as an entire region, need to offer them what we have. And things such as clubs, Academia, and other communities and/or services we provide to the average nation will ensure retention of the members we do get.

3. Who would you appoint to your ideal Cabinet (ex-members, people who would be ineligible, and people not necessarily willing to serve can be included)? Why would you choose these people and what specific things would they bring to each office that you consider to be most important?
c. My ideal cabinet, without department heads and minister subordinates named:
Deputy Prime Minister: Sir Lashnakia
Minister of Internal Affairs: Caduceo
Minister of Foreign Affairs: Oimatsu
Minister of Culture: Loomburg
Minister of Communications: Sir Azerubia
Minister of Roleplay: Sumeka

4. If elected, how do you plan (if at all) to change the structure of the existing Ministries? Would you consider abolishing, creating, or merging any of them? Why?
d. Ideally, I would wish for the merging of the Ministry of Communications into the Ministry of Culture as the Department of Communications (sorry az). I would also seek out to reclassify the Ministry of Roleplay as a Citizen’s Committee under the definition prescribed by the Ministerial Division Act I authored with the goal of separating  Roleplay administration from the regional government.

5. Territories are growing each month and seem to become more important than ever in Force politics. What do you plan to do for them?
e. Autonomy. I hope to give states of the Union the right over their Foreign Affairs and provinces the leaders they choose, not appointed ones by another appointed office. However, I recognize that these wishes are out of my control in the hands of the Founder and the House.