Talk Elections

As some people are aware, I will be bringing forth a base model bicameral Westminster Parliamentary system that we can adjust, amend and adapt (or alternatively, just ignore). I will post it here once the results for all regions have been declared and delegates have signed their attendence. In the meantime, feel free to PM me if you want any further clarification.

Strongly support. But I would recommend we wait for everything else until all delegates have signed in. We want to make sure all of our delegates are active participants in the Convention.

If a delegate does not sign in by [a time to be determined], we will have to inform that delegate's Region that they must send another delegate. And we wouldn't want any delegates to arrive after discussion has already begun.

As someone who has read the entire Smid plan (and it is long :)), and I can assure you that is a recipe for success.  But as a told Smid, it may be a tough sell considering we may discourage some American posters from joining with the complex parlimentary system.  I like the fact that the plan adds an element of increased partisan and backroom deals

I've also read the entire plan and spoken with Smid over it.

I must agree here...I think it's an excellent system.

I've been told about it but have yet to read it. I think, if it works as he suggests, it will be a strong system.

Okay I've now read it. It makes sense to my (British) ears and certainly ramps up participation. As I suggested to Smid it is something that can be built on or simplified. I think DWTL is correct in saying that it will need explaining, not just written but 'visually' (flow diagram perhaps?) This doesn't mean it's complicated - if it's adopted and starts it should run itself.

It may be worth also considering the posibility of representing a set region/seat/constituency. It was something I had thought about it my on hiatus British sim - where the person sitting had to know about his area, what it's issues were and was to defend them. With a fully active lower house, you could have say 3 people registered in Wisconsin - so Wisconsin is split into 3 'seats' and each person represents a part of the state - urban, rural etc. If someone leaves, it's split into 2.

That can allow for a permanently active Boundary Commission, perhaps with some attempts at (and attempts to stop) gerrymandering.

I really, REALLY like this idea.




Thank you all for your in-principle support of the proposal. I've burnt the midnight oil (something like six hours over Friday and Saturday nights) and knocked together a rough draft constitution that we can build on. I'm a little busy with a few things this morning, but I'll try to post something more later today. I'm trying to decide if I should put forth a "conceptual" post talking about how the system would work, or put forward the more detailed draft - which would set out the rules more precisely but people would probably need to read it a couple of times to get a sense of how a few of the things fit together. I think I'll put forward some overview discussion of it first and put up the draft in a separate thread (which I'll lock). That way, anyone can read over the Constitution without having to look for it through however many pages of discussion...

I'll do my best to explain it simply and I'll see about some sorts of illustrations to make it easier to understand (especially for people who have never had first-hand experience with a parliamentary system and therefore may not know about some of the minor subtle differences). Afleitch - I think an illustration of flow diagram would be great in helping people follow this. Coming from the birthplace of the Westminster System, I'm sure you'll be able to help me a great deal with explaining things (allowing for time constraints, of course).

I think the Smid Plan is excellent.

I haven't read it since I wait than Smid posts it here for not bothering him, but I will study his proposal who is probably well-thought and very detailled knowing Smid.

I'm not supporting anything until we get more proposals. I don't want to see the convention center around two or three people. If it comes down to that I'll simply resign in my duties as a delegate.

I might first attempt to explain the model by contrasting it to the system used in the United States - I'll present some of the differences (these being some of the most obvious differences) because in a parliamentary model such as I'm proposing, and a presidential model such as the system in the US, both have a Legislature. I believe the chief difference revolves around the executive and how the executive wing of government operates.

What I'm proposing is similar to the Australian parliament, which  is described as a "Washminster" system - between the US model and the British Westminster System:

Firstly, assume there are no elections for President, the role is mainly ceremonial/symbolic to the point that we can entirely ignore it for now (and being unelected doesn't have a mandate to push an agenda or veto Bills). I'll also ignore the state systems, because (as presently) they're basically the same model as federally, just with different roles and responsibilities. People still vote for House and Senate, but the Majority Leader in the House is now called the Prime Minister, and appoints the cabinet (since there is no President to do so). The cabinet is drawn from the various members of the House and Senators, as decided by the PM. Different PMs/Parties may impose their own rules - for example, a Republican Prime Minister may be able to appoint his own cabinet of whomever he wishes, whereas a Democrat Prime Minister may need to accept names put forward by the caucus and merely allot them their portfolios.

I don't know what role the Speaker presently performs in the US, but under this system they become more administrative - chairing the debate.

Now add a few extra parties into the mix to reflect Atlasia - perhaps the populists in the Democratic Party break off and form the Labor Party and the New England Republicans all break off and join the Libertarians (and assume that all four new parties win seats in various parts of the country). Now it's unlikely for the Majority Leader/Prime Minister to hold a majority in the House - possible, especially in big wins, but it is likely that the largest party/parties will need to negotiate with the smaller parties in order to form a government (and thus appoint the cabinet). There may be an instance of a coalition government, where the major party actually forms a coalition with a minor party, who supports them and who has members appointed to the cabinet. It's also possible that a minor party might support a major party for another reason, but not actually form a coalition.

To bring this example actually to my proposal, all participants would be members of the House, the elections would be for the Senate only, and also obviously to determine who would form government - who would be the Majority Leader/Prime Minister. Additionally, there would of course be Bills proposed, debated and either passed or voted down. The election for PM wouldn't be so much campaigning, it would be more negotiating and back-room dealing, trying to persuade minor parties to support your party to form government, while giving away as little as possible. It also makes floor-crossing important - the ability to lure away members of one party to join another (and hence, the importance of the PM giving cabinet positions to people to try to ensure loyalty). The real power would lie not in the hands of the President, but in the legislature - both the House and the Senate (since Bills need to pass both), out of the hands of the few and into the hands of the many. The Senate's power seems to be greater because there are fewer Senators than Members of the House, so votes will probably be closer, but this is tempered with the fact that the House determines which party forms government and therefore which party leader appoints a cabinet and thus is able to introduce legislation, and in my model the House would also determine the composition of the Senate.

My previous post sort of took the current US model and slowly turned it into what I'm proposing. This is a more detailed explanation of what I'm putting forward.

Governance of Atlasia would be reduced from the current system of Governors, Lt Governors, CJOs, Regional Assemblies, President, Vice President and Senators to a more simple system of a Lower House and an Upper House. The Executive roles performed currently by Governors and the President would be performed by participants in the two houses. All members registered in Atlasia would be automatically members of the Lower House – whether we choose to call this a “House of Representatives,” “House of Commons,” “Congress,” “Legislative Assembly,” or whatever.

Government would be formed in this Lower House by a confidence motion – literally a motion stating “That – this House expresses confidence in (for example, Smid) to form a Government in this place.” If the motion is successful, the person named in the motion becomes Prime Minister. To remove the current Prime Minister, the Lower House would need to pass a motion of no confidence, “That – this House no longer has confidence in (for example, Smid) to form a Government in this place.” If a motion of no confidence is successful, the Prime Minister is no longer Prime Minister and a motion of confidence is moved and voted on for another member to become Prime Minister.

The person named in a confidence motion would be the Leader of the political party attempting to form Government. In both a confidence motion and a motion of no confidence, the question will be resolved by a simple “aye/nay” vote – I guess in a way, similar to a confirmation vote.

In addition to determining the Government, the Lower House would be responsible for electing members to the Upper House – whether we call it a “Senate,” “Legislative Council,” or whatever. Personally, I like the term Senate, so I will use it interchangeably.

People elected to the Senate will not be able to participate in votes in the Lower House, as they will not be able to be members of both Houses of Parliament simultaneously. This leads to a minor quirk – Senators up for re-election won’t be able to vote for themselves as the vote to elect them takes place in the Lower House. A party that elects too many of its members to the Senate will find that it has therefore reduced its influence in the Lower House and may find that it lacks the numbers in a confidence motion (since Senators would be unable to vote for that) – this will basically result in a punishment for a political party for being too successful and help level the playing field somewhat.

The Prime Minister differs from the President, however, in that he lacks the power of veto. This pretty much removes any benefit from winning Government, so to make up for it, my proposal allows for only a certain number of Bills to be introduced each month – with the Government, the Opposition and the various minor parties all being entitled to introduce Bills, but with the number weighted firstly in favour of the Government, then to the Opposition and lastly to the minor parties.

There will be two types of Bills – Government Bills and Private Members’ Bills. A Government Bill is a Bill introduced by a Minister in the Government, which deals with the portfolio the Minister holds (Ministers are similar to Secretaries, but hold a seat in either the Upper or Lower House). For example, the Gold and Silver Standard Act, if introduced as a Government Bill, would be introduced by the Treasurer/Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the Bill relates to currency. A Private Members’ Bill is a Bill introduced by any member of the either House, who is not a Minister, regardless of the party in which they are a member. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_member's_bill

Basically, as a parliamentary model using the Westminster System has a legislature which is partially comprised of members of the executive wing of government, the differentiation of Government Bills and Private Members’ Bills is the source of the Bill – from the executive or from a “private member” of the legislature.

Under my proposal, the number of Government Bills would be unrestricted per month, whereas the number of Private Members’ Bills would be restricted to a certain number per month, with each party receiving a "ration" depending on whether it is Government, Opposition or a minor party (these will be the only designations - there won't be any diminishing level based on the size of the minor party). Bills will need to pass through both Houses of Parliament before they become legislation (not just the House in which they're first introduced).

Here’s a little more relating to the Westminster System – see particularly the discussion on Australia (dubbed a “Washminster System,” due to the merging of British and US traditions in the foundation of our Parliament - both the US and Britain systems were considered prior to our Constitution being drafted and the final result was a combination of the two): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_System & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Australia

Once the Prime Minister has been elected by the Lower House, he is able to appoint his Ministers – who will be able to introduce Bills regarding their portfolio. Parties can each determine what degree of freedom the Prime Minister will have – for example, I personally believe (for the RPP) that the Prime Minister be given free reign to appoint Ministers as he sees fit. It is possible, however, that another party may allow the caucus to determine who shall be a Minister and compel the PM to follow the decision of the party caucus.

Ministerial appointments can play an important role in negotiations – if a party is attempting to form Government, it may require the support of another party in order to win the confidence motion. The other party may negotiate support in exchange for receiving a Ministry or a number of Ministries, possibly even negotiating which it will receive.

The existence of a Lower House comprised of all people registered in Atlasia would mean that everyone has the ability to participate in Atlasian governance - not just the winners of elections (although winners would have greater powers and influence). 

I think everyone appreciated the debate that occurred between Brandon, Franzl and Marokai in the lead-up to the Senate Special Election. The parliamentary debates would be similar and allow people to express their thoughts at length before voting on legislation.

I have also been asked a few times about the role of regionalism and regional governments in my model:

My proposal is a reformation of the national government that per se does not affect regional rights. What I've suggested doesn't preclude the option of keeping regional governments playable in Atlasia, although my principal concern is that with reduced participation experienced in Atlasia we may not have enough active members to maintain both the national government and the regional governments.

I am not pushing for the abolition of the regions by any means. I remain committed to federalism and believe that local problems are best solved at local levels by local representatives of local people. If we implement my suggested model, even without regional governments it is important to codify the rights of the regions and place restrictions on the national government in the constitution to ensure the national government does not abridge regional rights. I would suggest that we use regional caucuses (similar to State Caucuses in the US to elect the President if the result of the election was a 269 vote tie) to elect Senators to keep regional issues at the forefront of our minds.

I cannot speak for the position of the RPP, but my opinion is that my party does not have a problem contesting federal elections - we have five Senators presently and we ran a candidate for President. My model would remove the influence/importance (and hopefully the position) of the President, would result in a Senate that is elected by members of a Lower House (comprised of all registered members - and therefore not really any different from the present system) but would create an additional House of Parliament - a Lower House allowing members a greater ability to participate in the day-to-day governance of Atlasia.

Under the present system, a candidate who was not elected has no capacity to influence the game (until the next election) except by whatever power that member has to influence elected office bearers. My changes would allow a failed candidate to debate legislation and to vote on legislation before the House - not as influential as they'd be if they'd won election to the Senate (as it has a more exclusive membership) or if they'd won a confidence motion (allowing them to appoint Ministers to introduce Bills) - but it still allows for active participation.

Presently, the last time each region voted on legislation was:

Mideast: Active region presently debating and passing legislation
Northeast: December 2008 (2 & 1/2 months)
Dirty South: December 2008 (2 & 1/2 months)
Midwest: August 2008 (8 months)
Pacific: Active region with a continuous legislature (which was used to elect delegates to the current Convention). 

Since the level of regional governance is already quite low, I don't think there is anything to lose by focusing the game on national governance, so long as suitable restrictions on federal power are in place to protect regional rights.

Not playing regional governance does not abolish the regions - I would assume that in Atlasia today, there exists various city councils (since we don't have debates about whether to name the park down the road "Rocky Park, in order to recognise the achievements of Conor" or any other council issues), but we don't actually elect mayors or councillors. It doesn't mean they don't exist, it just means that the game focuses on regional and national governance and elections. Likewise, under my model, regions would still exist and it would be presumed that regional governance takes place, it's just that this would be done outside of the game itself.

It would be possible to continue to include regional governance in this proposal, where participants can also contribute to regional legislatures or vote for governors, however I think this will lead to one of two problems:

1) Participants would nominate whether they participate in regional or national governance - however this would likely reduce the number of people actively involved at a national level, may not provide enough members for it to advance at a regional level and most likely will simply lead to a point where neither level can function efficiently, or,

2) Participants could participate in the national legislature (as per my model) and at a regional level. This removes the concerns of a lack-of-activity implosion, but leads to problems relating to members holding dual offices.

I therefore believe that the best way to proceed is to acknowledge the regions (through regional caucusing for Senate votes and Supreme Court Justices, as per one suggestion I received), to restrain the role of the national government (to prevent it assuming regional responsibilities) or to define the rights of the regions (and thus restraining the national government) and to consider the game to be the national component only of a larger system.

If nobody's allowed to post their ideas, how do you suggest we get any proposals?

I think he's saying he'd prefer we look at a few models and choose the best, rather than focus on one model and try to improve it.

I suppose, and I agree in principle....but the constant "let's wait for more ideas" does get old.

I see no problem with supporting a general idea and direction, and that's what I'm doing.

On a side note....this here obviously was a huge amount of work, and you did a great job, Smid :)

I am happy to hear other options, although I personally like the idea of a parliamentary model, which is why I'm supporting that. I'll assist in putting forward ideas on other models if they're suggested and discussed.

I figured that by announcing my model up front, we could start talking about the base model (and Verily's post discusses other ways of approaching a base model - ie parliamentary vs presidential, etc, I'm just bringing forward a base model for a bicameral parliamentary system with universal governance in the Lower House and an Upper House elected by participants in the game).

There was a bit of work involved in bringing this forward. As I mentioned, it was somewhere between six and eight hours' work on Friday and Saturday night to draft a constitution which reflected my thoughts. It required a little doubling back to mend a few holes that I noticed later - indeed the final few sections of Chapter 2 were only added when I posted it just now. Describing it (the posts above) weren't too hard - just explaining what I had in mind, they may have taken about an hour each but I never really noticed it and they were done over the space of a couple of weeks in discussions with other participants (and while doing them, I figured they'd be handy for posting in here at some point). I have actually rather enjoyed preparing all this, believe it or not. I am also very grateful to someone who told me to simplify my explanations and examples because my first attempt (which I think I emailed to you) was clogged with procedural discussions. It hasn't been too difficult to prepare, it's just been describing how I think things could work and quite fun to write.

Oh I'm all for people posting their ideas, I'm just afraid of others shying away or getting discouraged from posting proposals of their own if there are two or three giant (codified, even!) proposals already on the table. We don't really have any concrete organization as of yet, anyway.

Not speaking for Marokai, of course, but I'd rather we built a model from the ground up here rather than taking one proposal on wholesale and repeatedly editing it.

People just need to be patient. This isn't a quick process.

I agree with Verily. Although not a delegate, I plan on taking part a great deal in the coming debates. I would first recommend developing a rules of order for a presiding officer, a secretary to create and update the Wiki, and procedures of voting and proposal of motions, etc. Next, have a debate and then vote on basic form of the governments you want to look into, such as improving the current, parliamentarian, etc.

After that the delegates should work on building that sole form of government. If that turns out to bear no fruit, then repeat the previous debate and vote, pick a new form, and work on building that until a successful agreement is reached.

What if we, for the most part, keep the regions the same, but Governors and any regional office holder would not be allowed to serve in the upper house.

Based on the party system that would fall into play, would you see either minor parties merging into major parties or major parties splitting into smaller parties, or would there be little effect?

Something I hadn't considered... I'm going to give that some thought overnight and get back to you in the morning (it's bedtime for me now). I have thought about this some more, recognising the advantages and disadvantages in doing this. I realised that the reason I was having difficulty deciding was because I don't have an opinion either way on this. It is presently not in the draft that I knocked together, but it equally wouldn't be contradictory including it - ie, if the Convention supports my proposal and also this idea, they could be jointly incorporated. My personal thought would be that it is something I'd prefer to see included some time in the future, to see if activity levels improve, but I wouldn't be upset if we moved that way now. The only addition I'd add to your exclusion (that they can't be elected Senator) is that they probably shouldn't be appointed to any executive role - PM, Whip or Minister.


Probably little affect at first. In the long run, either could happen - minor parties could merge to create a stronger party to gain government, or large parties could split because a "factional warlord" wasn't given a plum portfolio by the PM and took his supporters and formed a new party to force the other parties to negotiate with them to form Government. Could go either way. Could also stay the same in the long run. I suspect those sorts of changes would be based more on gameplay than the structure. I'd pondered it a little, but haven't reached a conclusion. The one thing I think it would do would be to encourage independents to join parties - because only party leaders could become PM and allocate portfolios, placing a great deal of power in the hands of parties and by extension party leaders. Some independents may still exist and may receive enough support to be elected to the Senate, etc, or may find themselves holding the balance of power in determining which way a confidence motion may go, but I think the increased power to parties might encourage more people to join them.

Incidentally, this is what I was talking about with the PM appointing Ministers, vs their party selecting Ministers and the PM merely appointing portfolios...

My apologies for butting in, and perhaps I missed it skimming the thread but what would you do with the judicial branch?

*nevermind see it*

Obviously I see this through a certain lens, but I think an elected judiciary (even through the parliament) may not be the best idea...it has some merit, but judicial independence is better preserved when you give it some separation from traditionally elected branches.

I'm also of the opinion that our judicial system works, at least at the federal level...so don't fix it!!! Heh.

No need to apologise, I popped this up so we can talk about things and I welcome questions.


On the first point - I don't tend to be a fan of elected judiciaries in real life, but the option was put forward in private discussions and I wanted to include it as an option. The other two alternatives I included are similar to what we currently have, with either the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General appointing Justices. Of the two, if the Attorney-General is to be a prosecutor, the role they accept presently, then I can see a potential conflict of interest there and therefore would be satisfied with a Prime Ministerial Appointment. If the Attorney-General is responsible for the Justice Department (perhaps with the authority to appoint prosecutors) then it's probably sufficient for him to appoint Justices. I'm also fine with scrapping terms for Judges if that's the way we'd prefer to go. My main interest is in the internal parliamentary procedure and setting that section up, the judiciary is not my area of expertise and I don't have firm opinions on how that should be determined.

On the model, I have a few thoughts from an initial look.

First, while an impartial Speaker is nice, not allowing the speaker to vote may be more of a deterrent for the position. Imagine not allowing the PPT to debate or vote on legislation. I'm also not too fond of the way a PM is elected. The procedure seems far too long-winded and complex. The rules for debate should be defined by either standing orders or the Speaker in a fair way. I think the Constitution just needs to say these are the qualifications, the basic outline of the process of getting a PM and the duties of the office.

Next, rather than limiting the number of pieces of legislation that can be offered by different groups, perhaps enforce a ratio so that the majority must allow the opposition to propose up to three-fifths the number of pieces of legislation that the majority does. And one-fifth likewise for minor parties unaffiliated with either group.

Also, a lot is left open to how the individual Houses of government want to order procedure. While I agree that such a sprawling parliamentarian system should be given flexibility, some sort of guidelines should be setup. Perhaps defining a quorum, giving absolute minimum requirements for the standing orders. Just to make sure that, once we finish the Convention, the resulting government isn't stuck for months on working out how to function properly.

Rough idea here no details but kind of the Smid plan:

Fifteen person legislature
  -five at-large seats in December and June
  -five at-large seats in February and August
  -five regional seats in April and October

From the fifteen person legislature, a PM is chosen whose responsibilites closely resemble what the president does today. 

My thinking is that you leave the senate pretty much unchanged as far as function, but you give them the ability to elect a president.  It adds a level of partisanship as parties would have to work together to get one of there's elected as it is highly unlikely that one party would hold 8 seats.

I definitely think that a parliamentary system (or a system where the head of state is elected from the Senate/legislature) is the best way to go. I'd agree with Marokai and Verily though, that we should collectively build the constitution from the ground up, rather than basing it one or another person's proposals.

I dislike term limits for judges, the "for life" appointment seems to work here, though if you guys want to put language in to replace bad judges (and I dont mean interms of disagreeable opinions, but something a tad more serious) you could do that.

It would probably not be a good thing if the AG appointed judges since (s)he would have to argue in front of them.  The government leader should do that, and the AG can give his/her advice.

Sorry about the delay in responding. There's an election in my homestate on Saturday and I've been sifting through the various news articles, booth results and maps relating to that.


That was actually part of the reason I was aiming for an impartial Speaker - to act as a deterrent. Hopefully it means that people won't be able to politicise the role and won't seek the role for partisan purposes and therefore the people who are interested in carrying out the duties of Speaker will be someone who will act responsibly in the position - it would be up to the Speaker to maintain an up-to-date list of participants able to vote for Senate, in Confidence Motions, etc. There's plenty of power in other partisan roles, such as Prime Minister, the Cabinet Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition, the Shadow Ministers, the various minor party leaders, etc. They'd still be able to vote to break ties, and with the number of participants in the Lower House, it's unlikely that many votes will be close. Anyway, that's just a bit of an explanation as to why I thought an impartial Speaker would be beneficial.


I've tried to make it several clearly defined steps to elect the PM. I might show how it would work by way of example.



I agree with you. I haven't drafted any Standing Orders because it would probably be too time consuming given that we haven't decided on a model yet, but I agree that the Constitution needs to set out the big-picture qualifications, rather than the detail of day-to-day business. The reason I have included the detail for the election of the Prime Minister was to ensure that it wasn't too easy to change those rules: The rules for changing the Constitution are stringent, whereas to change the standing orders, a motion need only pass the House that the Standing Orders affect. This is also the best reason to set out the rules of debate in the SO (as you said): it doesn't need to be so difficult to change the rules of debate, so they don't need to be dictated in the Constitution. You'd have noted (and I mention this only for anyone who may not have read through my draft) that the Standing Orders were referred to in s3(1) for example.



I like this idea. What I'd put forward was more for sake of simplicity, but I don't think it would be terribly difficult to work it this way, (edit after a couple more sentences: indeed, the more I think about it, the more I like it and the simpler it seems). Perhaps the Speaker could open a thread similar to the one Happy Warrior opened today, with five slots for Government legislation, three slots for the Opposition's PMBs, and one slot for each minor party to propose a PMB. That would make things easier, would prevent the legislative timetable becoming overly jammed, benefit a party that can bring it's legislation to a vote earlier and I think would actually be easier than trying to keep track of how much legislation had been introduced in a particular month (ie. would it be calendar month or in the past 30 days, etc). I think you're right - this makes a lot more sense and would be far simpler to manage.


As I'd mentioned earlier in this post, I was planning on knocking together a few thoughts on Standing Orders that we could discuss and then move at the first sitting of Parliament if we were to adopt this sort of a model. There are two ways we could do that, that I can see: either we could put forward a set of Standing Orders for each House as "Schedule A" and "Schedule B" to the Constitution and set out in Chapter 9 that the rules for changing the Constitution do not apply to Schedules A and B and that they may be changed by a simple motion passing the relevant House (or words to that affect) and state in Chapters 2 and 3 that the Standing Orders found in Schedules A and B will be in affect from the first sitting of Parliament until such time as they are amended (something along those lines).

The other way we could approach is it would be to prepare a set prior to the first sitting of Parliament, numbered in the same way as the Constitution and at the first sitting give all members the opportunity to say which particular numbers they have a problem with (whether opposed to, or wish to amend) and then move that all the other sections are adopted and then we can just debate the ones with which people have a problem. This would be similar to how Hugh moved the Constitution in the Mock Parliament thread.

I personally am quite inclined to this proposal.  I like the idea of the backroom deals involved and the ability of everyone to be involved.

I agree also - I was putting this out here as a discussion point and I codified it so that I wasn't bringing forward something that was only half-thought-through. We can decide the model we prefer (as I mentioned, I prefer a bicameral parliamentary system) and then we can build the constitution from there. I put together something so that if we decide on using a parliamentary model, when we draft the Constitution, we can use any parts that we like, ignore any parts that we don't like, but also to just help stimulate discussion in the meantime. I figured that if I just put out some conceptual posts (like the earlier ones in this thread), somebody would probably end up asking "how would it look in practice" or ask for greater detail - like Bullmoose's earlier query about the rules for the judiciary. Anyway, I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to take over the discussion or dictate my opinions or anything.

I'm certainly not in favour of term limits - indeed, s8(5) specifically allows for judges to serve multiple terms (the recent edit wasn't me inserting this section, it was me mending the wording of s8(4) to insert the words "appointed to" between the words "be" and "serve" - I'd left them out earlier by mistake).

That said, I agree that the current system works well and to borrow an oft-used phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The judiciary isn't my main interest and when it comes time to draft the Convention's new Constitution, I'm happy to take a back seat and let others take a more active role in deciding how the judiciary would be selected and the role they'd play. I wanted to include it in my draft here for the sake of completeness.

Your explanation of the PM process was good. I am now worried that an operative could make a crappy speech and vote against the candidate, but it gets rid of the speech. Depending on what the numbers look like this could be a quick problem. I think the rules need to exclude the opposition speaker to a different party and that person's party may not join a coalition with the PM party for that round. Granted this requires party discipline (never know when some idiot is going to go and make the speech against his party's will) but that's half the point.

I read over this thread and the actual codified proposal in the formal language in the other thread. I am, overall, strongly in favour of this, with a few minor quirks.

Firstly, moving away from the British Westminster proposal a bit, I don't think the Prime Minister absolutely needs to be the leader of a political party. I think any person that fits certain requirements (activity, and something else maybe) should be allowed to be Prime Minister. This would also allow Independents who are nonetheless able to build a majority coalition around them to become Prime Minister. This is pretty much the only part of this where I have a problem.

Secondly, I disagree with parts of Article 4 on Political Parties, though I agree with the gist of the article. I do not think that political parties should be considered political parties after they have five members. Since all voters are MPs anyways, I think political parties of any size should be allowed. However, I propose a system similar to the one used in the French Parliament concerning parliamentary groups. A parliamentary group should have atleast 5 (or 10, whatever) members. Large political parties should have no trouble forming a group. Smaller parties or Independents that do not pass this threshold can choose to (i) caucus (apparentée) with a larger group or (ii) to sit as non-inscrits, which is not a group per se but a grouping of minor sub-5 parties and "fully independent Indies". Parliamentary groups would each have a leader (or speaker) and a whip, like the current constitution plans for political parties, and have a quota of PMBs like Purple State proposed earlier. A group speaker's would be responsible for addressing the group's response to a NCM, confidence vote, PM vote, law or whatever. He could also delegate this power to another member of the group at any time. Small (small defined as sub-5 members) political parties that would choose to caucus with a larger group would have access to these "advantages". Non-inscrits could choose a "delegate" that has less powers than the other leaders and would not have a whip. I assume non-inscrits MPs should have the right to introduce one piece of legislation per session. This whole thing is just an idea, but I feel that it would allow smaller political parties that do not have 5 members to have a voice.

I also had this idea concerning the election of the Prime Minister while reading the Constitution of the Fourth Republic like we all do in our spare time. Two alternatives, with many sub-alternatives. Basically:

1

Senators and MPs assemble in Congress and elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). For example, Smid declares as RPP candidate, Lief declares as SDP candidate, Franzl declares as DA candidate, realistic declares as JCP candidate, and maybe some Indie. Here we have three scenarios that break off:

1. In the first and second rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win, and in the third round he needs a simple plurality of votes cast. No candidate is eliminated after each round, but one may choose to drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. No one drops out, then it remains as in round one. Candidates may now choose to drop out, and their voters vote the way they wish. If one candidate has 39 votes, he wins.

Round three. No one drops out, then it remains as in round one and two and Smid wins by plurality. If a candidate dropped out before round two or three, then whichever candidate has the most votes wins.

Pros: There is a guaranteed winner after 3 rounds, so there is no chance it goes into 13 rounds of voting.
Cons: The winner may lack a stable majority in Parliament. For this reason, I do not recommend adopting this system.

2. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. No candidate is eliminated after each round, but one may choose to drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately.

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: It could potentially take for ever for one to get a majority. In France in 1953, Coty won after 13 rounds of voting.

3. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The candidate receiving the least votes is eliminated after each round, he doesn't have to endorse another candidate immediately. In addition, a candidate may drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid. Lief is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 34
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19

Round three. Assume all Lief votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: A high number of candidates in the first round means that it could take a long time.

4. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The second round is only between the top two candidates in the first round.

Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid and all votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.

2

MPs only elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). The same scenarios (1, 2, 3, 4) from Alternative 1 apply, but only the House votes (composition RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 ). So on and so forth.

Anyways, this is all just an alternative.

Lastly, if you want more fun in this, courtesy of the Fourth Republic. The elected Prime Minister, in a speech to the House, outlines his political agenda and his government's policy. All MPs vote in a confidence vote, which requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. Voluntary and voting abstentions are therefore counted in this total. Members not voting are not counted in this total. If it passes, the Prime Minister names his cabinet and must/could (two alternatives, you see) proceed to a second confidence vote in the House with the same rules as in this first vote. A NCM can be proposed at any time, and requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. If it passes, the PM and his cabinet must resign immediately and a new vote is held. Just an idea.

As said above, the part that I really have a major issue with is Article 5, Section 1, Clause i and parts of Article 4. My other proposals are just things that I feel could add to the game and could make this more fun. I probably won't defend them to the death, though.

On a last note, I really like Article 2, Section 1, Clause i and the general idea of constituencies. Though I feel there should be boundary commission that sets the borders of these constituencies so that people don't just go around randomly creating their constituencies out of the blue, which would be a disastrous idea.

I also apologize for this very long post.    

Glad the example explained it well, I figured that an example would be the best way to show how it would work in practice and it would make a little more sense than trying to follow the wording I'd provided in my draft.

I share your concerns regarding someone giving a poor speech against the candidate nominated. While I was typing the example, I started to think that perhaps the time in which to give the opposition speech should be extended and perhaps limited to an opposing Party Leader (or someone the Leader delegates to in a post in the thread). Your suggestion works just as well, however and as you said requires greater party discipline - which I think would improve the game dynamic by adding an extra level of strategy to the game.