Provisional Parliament: Voting on Amendment

[Talleyrand]

x Talleyrand

I'll be independent for now.

[Talleyrand]

Some have suggested moving the number of MPs to 21 to avoid ties, or shall we just break ties based on how the Speaker voted?

You could also prevent the Speaker from having a deliberative vote and make him abstain on all non-tied votes.

[Talleyrand]

Blair (just supporting a fellow party member - nothing against TNF)

Normally I'd do this, but this time I have to go with TNF since he's the one who has set up much of the game so far and has been the most active participant in it.

1. TNF
2. Blair

[Talleyrand]

AYE

[Talleyrand]

I've already pointed out an even parliament can be dealt with as long as the Speaker is elected from the parliament and denied a deliberative vote, so in effect you'd have an odd number of MPs. That said, if people are insistent on having an odd number of MPs, we could easily go to 21 members.

Also, do we have a procedure to fill vacancies? Would they just go to the first unelected position on the vacating member's list?

[Talleyrand]

Nay

[Talleyrand]

Aye

[Talleyrand]

Nay

[Talleyrand]

I agree with Xahar. Unless we figure out a few more things, it's too early to call an election.

My suggestion is a Head of State (a President?) elected by the Parliament with a 2/3 majority who serves a single consecutive term of 3 months. That way, you could have interesting dilemmas and the like if the Parliament failed to elect the President on time (such as an automatic dissolution procedure?)

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this better?

A new parliament could easily amend it, and I'm pretty sure we could elect a figure like Hashemite (as an example; I have no idea if he's interested) President with a 2/3 majority in the current Parliament.

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this better?

A new parliament could easily amend it, and I'm pretty sure we could elect a figure like Hashemite (as an example; I have no idea if he's interested) President with a 2/3 majority in the current Parliament.

[Talleyrand]

May I make a suggestion?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would also suggest specifying that the President appoints other members of the executive (the Cabinet, etc) on the advice of the PM.

I'm fine with this, but I thought it'd be easier if the PM got to do the Cabinet on his own- makes the reshuffles and stuff a bit easier.

Sorry to clutter this up, but what powers does the President have? It's always a mess, for example in the UK the Prime Minister in theory has 100% control over the Armed Forces. What's the situation with us?

I think through convention you'd basically expect the President here to be a figurehead.

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another version of the act (now with an impeachment procedure).

Could we vote on this before Riley's bill if at all possible? I'd be fine with voting for his bill if we got the situation with the Head of State out of the way.

[Talleyrand]

Nay

[Talleyrand]

I oppose the amendment proposed by Rpryor.

The president is supposed to be the Head of State and although just a figurehead, should command wide support across the Parliament instead of just being the candidate of whichever government is sitting at that time. Having a 2/3 majority requirement to seat the President would force parties across a broad ideological spectrum, and quite possibly from both government and opposition to settle on an acceptable candidate. The negotiations, etc. needed to get to that would be fascinating for the game.

[Talleyrand]

Yeah, I support oakvale's amendment and rpryor's amendment to remove the redundant clause. I still object to the removal of the 2/3 clauses though.

[Talleyrand]

If I remember correctly, two issues we wanted to resolve before calling an election were the Head of State situation and voter eligibility. There's nothing stopping the first elected Parliament from altering or remaking them as it sees fit at the moment.

[Talleyrand]

Leinard, why exactly is 3/5 better than 2/3? Not a fan of this amendment, as it's a perfect illustration of the fallacy of the mean.

[Talleyrand]

aye on striking 1(d)/nay on lowering the majority requirement to elect a president

[Talleyrand]

Nay

[Talleyrand]

I think a good option would be Hashemite- if he's interested of course. Maybe Afleitch?

I would much rather pick someone who has been involved in the creation of this game than randomly getting someone from Atlasia.

[Talleyrand]

Aye

Another good option might be Averroes.

[Talleyrand]

I seek unanimous consent to proceed to a vote on the amendment.

^

I'll be voting NAY.

[Talleyrand]

I think Hagrid would be a good President too, but for the sake of the game, we should elect the person with the most knowledge about South America and already has the support of the game's three largest parties (as Xahar has pointed out earlier).

Once we have an election and a government is formed, legislation on creating a Head of State will be finalized. Then we can have longer deliberation/discussion, whatever.

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Assuming the amendment passes and we can get the presidency bill through, I'm proposing this act to have the election as soon as is reasonably possible, considering it has already been a month since the beginning of provisional parliament.