still seems pointless and unnecessary
I really like the idea of possibly a Pres and VP from different tickets. In the last election, it could easily have happened.
I liked Kal's (and maybe originally Marokai's but I really remember Kal firing me up about the idea) and promised that I would bring it forward.
Right you are. Most "reforms" from Marokai's side are targeted at the JCP, trying to disable or handicap us by any means. It is why my attempts at giving the VP a stronger role are always met with opposition while meaningless changes to the position are pitched as reforms.
This amendment does not improve the VP position. All it does is change election rules because one political apparatus thinks it will be a beneficial rule change. Your assertion that we might have had a Duke/Bacon King administration is also what I'd have expected had the right gotten an opportunity to change our electoral rulebook prior to the October election.
Ticket cohesion is a net positive for the executive branch. Removing this, therefore, is a net negative. If we want to adjust the executive branch to make improvements to game play, let's try filling the Ag vacancy with the Veep or something.
But let us not masquerade here. This is not a "reform" in the sense the public would expect. It's a desperate effort to strengthen the chances of one political group. More so than the voter ID laws Marokai is always bitching about are.
This is retarded. Do you know how long I've been fighting for reforms to the Vice Presidency? Since before I was elected Vice President myself
when I was a member of the JCP. I fought for VP reforms for around 6-8 months before I finally left the party to form the UDL. Long before you showed up around here.
I've been fighting for reforms to the way we elect Vice Presidents, and the duties we give Vice Presidents, for nearly two years now, because I think it's genuinely the right thing to do. I didn't used to think this way, either. When I was young in the JCP, I opposed a lot of reforms to the Vice President purely out of partisan blindness. I used to oppose further restrictions on posting requirements to maintain active voters, out of JCP partisan blindness. But I eventually grew up around here and realized that the way some things happen around here are pretty boring.
It's true this would probably hurt bigger parties in general, but why shouldn't it? I think it's rather telling that you see this has a bad thing and that you are so often threatened by many of the reforms proposed around here. Is your grip on power so shaky, that one change to any part of the system may wring it loose? Why does it
scare you so much, Napoleon?
The ironic thing is, when I was in the JCP proposing ways to improve and make the Vice Presidency more different and independent, I was accused of trying to "usurp power" from the very person Napoleon imitates in attitude so closely. Now that I'm not in the JCP trying to make the VP a more independent position, I'm accused of trying to cut the JCP into little pieces. I really can't win, can I?
Here's part of the problem I have with the Vice Presidency, and I'll let June 2010 Still-JCP-Marokai explain:
Marokai Blue: The role of the VP right now is really barely a role at all. Sometimes you get a person in there, like BK, who takes a bit more active role than the position requires, but basically it's a position where the role is defined by the attitude of the person in the office, I would really really want to see that change.
...
Especially since I think the choice of a VP is based off of political expediency more than anything else. I want the choice of the VP to actually have some sort of political consequences instead of trying to pretty up the ticket.
...
Of course, the current Vice President is the perfect example of a totally inactive choice picked only to attract votes, as he's really done jack since he took office, but he's a really truly nice guy and from the right-wing, so he gets votes anyway. I really want that to change.
There are two ways to solve this problem: Elect the VP and P separately, so each are judged individually and on their own merits, or give the Vice President more duties to perform so the choice of the Vice President has actual, quantifiable political and civil consequences, and isn't just the rose on a tuxedo, so to speak. Ideally, I would want both. But either would be a suitable enough change for me.
The former would also let small parties actually have a greater chance to win. If you see this as inherently undesirable, then you are a bad person.
Ticket cohesion can be a good thing, but one candidate or the other hiding behind the ticket is a far worse risk that we consistently face. I can't count on both hands how many times I've heard people say "Well, I really would prefer voting for someone else, but his Vice Presidential nominee really is such a charmer!" Presidential elections are, or at least should be, about the top of the ticket.
The VP at present has barely any responsibilities to be worth mentioning, and shouldn't be used as a way to pretty up the top of the ticket. It only leads to bad things. Presidents who don't deserve the position, or aren't legitimately the most popular candidate on their own, winning elections to positions they're not cut out for, specifically because of the Prom King appeal of their Vice President. Not only is this stupid and downright destructive, but changing it even if it weren't a problem would allow parts of this game to flourish in a greater way than they do currently, and if we care at all about making this game better, we should at least give
something a chance.