Griff 4 Prez: Set Your Happening Level to "It's" - VICTORY

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I must rather would like to have a second playable state, instead of expansion.

[Fritz]

Wholeheartedly endorsed. 

[Blair]

Honestly the best candidate to fight, fight and fight for Atlasia. We need a President who's not just committed to reform, but someone who has always fought for a reformed and active Atlasia. I have no doubts that you are by far the best person for the job, and I fully endorse your bid to be President.

x Former Speaker and Senator Blair

[Adam Griffin]

Great appreciation goes out to all who have pledged their support for me thus far, as well as Kalwejt for his endorsement. I genuinely was looking forward to a competitive primary, but at the very least, we can now double-down on our focus to address the structural problems facing Atlasia.


It was obvious to me from the beginning - as someone who has seen countless struggles for reform in this game both pass and fail - that a select number of curmudgeons would come out of the woodwork, as they always do. In my original campaign announcement, I predicted such ridiculousness. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Their influence on the game, however, is more than negligible. Atlasians from all political stripes will have to unite to prevent these largely apolitical drones from derailing our plans for reform in consolidation and beyond, ensuring that countless generations after us can enjoy this beautiful game.

In the coming days, I will continue to release various components of my idea for the reformation of this game. It is worth noting that beyond consolidation, bicameralism and maintaining our Canadian borders, I am open to debate on the finer points of the process. I merely - as a candidate running for President - offer initial ideas for such a plan that my many years of game experience can lend to me because, well, it's my responsibility to do that.

[Adam Griffin]

How much thought did you put into Mexico's division? And are the Mexican states going to be separate--in other words, do you register in a specific one, or simply in Mexico as a whole?

Also, I wonder if some of the leftists who have jumped ship will come back to register in Cuba...

Mexico's divisions on the original map are as-is; those are the states that exist in the real-life rendition. However, consolidating the states into fewer territories would make sense (as I did with the tiny Caribbean countries). Perhaps something like this would be more apt for minimizing the number of empty territories (reducing them from 31 to 7) while providing the same overall sentiment.

[NeverAgain]

Endorsed.

[Adam Griffin]

BICAMERALISM AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

It is no secret that our executive and legislative branches must work together in order for our nation to run smoothly. In fact, this has been in part my challenge to the electorate for the next election - "ensure that the process of reform is balanced by not handing ultimate control of both branches to one political ideology".

In the ConCon that appears ready to open next week, we will have to deliberate the finer points of what we will do to ensure our legislative and executive branches function properly, while simultaneously considering new pathways for them to explore.

I have made it no secret that I supported the consolidation and bicameralism pathway two years ago. I continue to support this, with the primary trade-off in reform being a reduction of regional-level offices to pave the way for a second federal chamber (while still shedding a net number of offices).

For the Senate, I propose:

• A 6-member body, 2 elected from each region
• 3 members - one from each region - elected by the voters at-large (Feb, Jun, Oct)
• 3 members - one from each region - elected by the regional legislature (Apr, Aug, Dec)

My plan for the second federal chamber (the House) is simple:

• An 11-member body, elected every 2 months (Feb, Apr, Jun, Aug, Oct, Dec)
• Elected via some form of party-list proportional representation
• A Prime Minister who is a House member and elected by the House

The finer details of how each entity acts with one another will be a process for the broader ConCon to deliberate. As I've often said, every little outlined detail presents an opportunity for the naysayers and the obstructionists to create false dialogues to drag us down into the muck and ensure we accomplish nothing. However, some controversial details will need to be discussed, and I believe these points - almost exclusively in how the executive and legislative branches interact with one another - should be at least discussed now.

Interaction of executive and legislative branches:

SENATE:

It is my personal belief that the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency are weak and ineffective positions. As it stands, each possesses very little power to accomplish much of substance and will remain that way even under a two-chamber system unless their roles are altered in some way.

There has been serious discussion in the past about abolishing the Vice-Presidency altogether. While I am undecided on the merits of doing so under the current game system, I firmly believe that a new dynamic in which we explore new forms of gameplay must consider it.

Rather than watering down the overall power of the executive branch of the game across two entities once again, I have explored the option of doing the following:

• Eliminating the position of VP altogether
• Consolidating the VP power with the existing roles of President

Yes, you read that correctly: I propose that we abolish the Vice-Presidency and give the President tie-breaking power in the Senate. For starters, someone will have to break the tie in an even-membered body, and an even-membered body is practically guaranteed in a situation in which the regions select Senators. There will no doubt be a chorus of "OMG YOU CAN'T DO THAT!". Why not? Really, think about it: why not (please don't cite American law as your justification)? The electorate already elects the President and the Vice-President as a ticket. That power is in essence already consolidated within one team.

When the Senate is deadlocked, I believe that the only individual elected to represent all people in essence - the President - should have a say in which way the tie is broken. We already allow the executive branch to determine outcomes in essence via the VP being able to break the tie (and I do consider the VP to be 'executive' rather than 'legislative' despite his roles with the Senate), so this really isn't an unprecedented concept.

HOUSE:

But what about the House? Not only will we need a leader, but we'll need someone who can (potentially) break ties. Whether we have an even-numbered or odd-numbered chamber, the potential for tie-breaking votes is still there. As such, I propose that the House elect a Prime Minister from among its ranks, who will be tasked with all of the traditional roles of a Prime Minister as well as possessing tie-breaking ability within the House (cue the "OMG DUPLICATE VOTES!"; I disagree that it should be viewed that way and will likely be forced to argue my position shortly).

In the absence of the Vice-Presidency in the game, the Prime Minister would be next in the line of succession if the Presidency were to fall vacant. We could also explore a similar provision to what we have now for Senate seats (if the vacancy occurs before a certain point, we have an election for President; if not, then the PM serves the remainder of the term). At that point, the House would be tasked with electing a new PM and holding a special election/appointment to fill the missing member of the House.

The Judicial Branch:

Almost everyone agrees that the Judicial Branch of Atlasia is an out-of-touch, stuffy institution that can't be held accountable. In addition, a random series of events can dictate to the game for years and years who represents it in the highest court of the land. I do not think this should be allowed. It's time to spice things up.

My proposal for the Supreme Court is rather simple. We keep it for all intents and purposes how it is currently (a body of 3, appointed), but we add term limits.

My ideal, new Supreme Court would feature 3 Justices, each appointed in a staggered fashion. Justices would each serve a one-year term and would be eligible to serve successive terms, but only if the President chooses to appoint them. The term of the Supreme Court Justice would be set to coincide with the beginning of a particular President's term in office. Much like Presidents appoint cabinet officials who are subject to approval, the President for each term would then be tasked with appointing a SC Justice; he could choose to renew the current term of a Justice, or appoint a new one. In both cases, congressional approval would be required.

This means that there would be a SC confirmation hearing every four months for a Justice. This, in essence, means that every President would have the ability to make an appointment to the Supreme Court. However, none of us would have to live with the bad decisions of past Presidents for years and years on end. This also ensures a more ideologically balanced court based on the time period in which rulings are issued.


IN CONCLUSION/TL;DR:

• Two chambers - House and Senate
• House of 11; elected every 2 months; PLPR
• Senate of 6, 2 for each region; elected every 4 months; 3 by voters & 3 by legislatures; staggered elections

• Current President & VP are weak; consolidate power
• VP abolished; tie-breaking power in Senate given to President
• House elects Prime Minister; tie-breaking power in House given to PM
• PM succeeds President in vacancy; potential special election for P if vacancy is early in term

• SC Justices appointed to one year terms, staggered (Feb/Mar, Jun/Jul, Oct/Nov)
• Term for a particular Justice ends at the beginning of a President's term
• Justices can be reappointed; must face congressional confirmation regardless
• Every President will have ability to appoint at least 1 SC Justice, potentially 2
• No one will have to live to multi-year consequences of bad SC appointments

Presumably, this is now the part where everybody starts yelling at me and picking at every tiny detail!

[Gass3268]

Great plan, very well thought out. Hopefully we can accomplish something like this.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The Plan lives! Praise!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Two houses? I doubt it can work out with our current level of activity. It would also prolong any legislative process.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Was excited until I saw the word Prime Minister in place of VP, and you lost me at the court.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

With regard to PM, are you proposing a mixed presidential-parliamentary system (like in France), or a system where the PM is pretty much assisting President (like in South Korea)?

[Leinad]

How much thought did you put into Mexico's division? And are the Mexican states going to be separate--in other words, do you register in a specific one, or simply in Mexico as a whole?

Also, I wonder if some of the leftists who have jumped ship will come back to register in Cuba...

Mexico's divisions on the original map are as-is; those are the states that exist in the real-life rendition. However, consolidating the states into fewer territories would make sense (as I did with the tiny Caribbean countries). Perhaps something like this would be more apt for minimizing the number of empty territories (reducing them from 31 to 7) while providing the same overall sentiment.

(Missed this somehow...)

I knew those were Mexican states, I was meaning more on the lines of what parts the western region gets and what the southern region gets--how much thought was put into decided which state is where.

[Adam Griffin]

Two houses? I doubt it can work out with our current level of activity. It would also prolong any legislative process.

My plan as outlined would reduce the number of total offices in the game by roughly 10-15 depending on the exact method used, so there would be more competition for fewer offices under this dynamic. Ideally, each region's number of legislative offices would be constrained under a federal formula based on population (I covered this idea here). Especially when you take into account my plans to streamline the number of cabinet positions, there'd be almost no net change at the federal level in terms of the number of positions being filled.

Was excited until I saw the word Prime Minister in place of VP, and you lost me at the court.

Aha, but the PM isn't "in place of VP" (the President is in place of VP in this case, but not really considering they are one entity currently; unless you mean merely in the line of succession). With a second chamber inevitably comes the need for a second legislative leader. Also, what's wrong with the Court proposal? It'd actually benefit you guys over the long-run - keep in mind that the creation of a new game means not holding onto tradition or real-life precedent merely for the sake of doing so.

With regard to PM, are you proposing a mixed presidential-parliamentary system (like in France), or a system where the PM is pretty much assisting President (like in South Korea)?

I'm not sure if there is an exact example of what I have envisioned thus far that adequately describes it. To be honest, my familiarity with the nuances in each country's presidential and parliamentary systems (with and without PMs) is not broad. In essence, I envision the "Prime Minister" in this context mainly as the Speaker of the House who also is second-in-line to the Presidency, but isn't inherently allied or in opposition to the President. There are many different types of ideas we could explore (such as whether or not the PM has a role in helping appoint cabinet members), but I'll be honest in saying that mainly a) I want to create a familiar yet different dynamic with a bicameral system and b) I just like the term "Prime Minister".

(Missed this somehow...)

I knew those were Mexican states, I was meaning more on the lines of what parts the western region gets and what the southern region gets--how much thought was put into decided which state is where.

Well, I weighed a few criteria when drawing them, ranked in order of most important to least important:

1) Maximizing territorial claims for the western region, seeing as how it's the least-naturally populated
2) Maintaining geographic contiguity
3) Preserving overall territorial sensibility (the "Pacific" region claiming territories bordering the Pacific, the Gulf/Caribbean region claiming territories bordering those, etc)

[Adam Griffin]

THE POWER TO GET IT DONE

I kicked off this campaign with a simple message: we have one important thing to focus on, there will be trolls who try to derail us and the game, and only I have the experience and the capability to crush them and get it done.

The next four – possibly eight – months will be about one thing – the reformation and rebirth of this game.

...

This election should be about one simple thing: who possesses the foresight to see the problems we will face before they become apparent, and who is prepared to bring the experience to the table that is necessary to obliterate the obstacles and implement the necessary reforms.

...

It will take someone like me – and again, it’s important to emphasize that there are very few people like me – to drive through the necessary reforms, burn the naysayers to the ground and force our agenda through to the very end.

This alone is my argument for what this presidential election should be about to Atlasians. The consent is nearly unanimous among the sane on what we need to do, but the obstacles that will be thrown at us by a ridiculous yet powerful minority cannot be underestimated and will sink us without the right leadership.

I was proven right in recent days by the known troll Talleyrand and his band of heathens. They have returned to this game with only one objective in mind: the total obliteration of stability in order to destroy this game once and for all. Some publicly admit it, while others have backtracked on the claims they made before selfishly and rudely leaving the game, but make no mistake: they all still believe in it.  

These ridiculous fools picked the wrong leader to challenge. Lesser men would have been weaseled into submission through their trollish behavior, but not I. Within less than 24 hours of becoming aware of their silly little antics, I engineered a speedy resolution that stopped them dead in their tracks. What a bunch of lightweights and losers - low energy! What they intended to be a weeks-long grab-bag of lulz was quickly dismantled and neutralized, and make no mistake: I'll be ready to castrate them once again when they rear their ugly heads.

Now, I understand that not everyone agrees with my unorthodox approaches to solving problems at times. Despite the fact that this poll received nearly 10 "nay" votes from the troll's IRC clique within less than 10 minutes of being posted (which is completely contradictory to the board's current organic traffic state; similar behavior in the other polls), I recognize that there may be a somewhat respectable minority of people who disagree with my tactics. However, nobody can deny the effectiveness of them, which is exactly what we need in the White House: somebody who can get it done.

Furthermore, the alternative in this particular case would have been a weeks-long witch-hunt in which the day-to-day duties of one of the most importance offices of the game were rendered null and void, followed potentially by a weeks-long period in which the office remained entirely vacant between the election and the beginning of the President's next term. If I didn't act in the way in which I did, we could have had two months of compromised government functionality. I merely did what had to be done. I'm not bragging: it's just a fact (but you are welcome)!


I look forward to continuing my defense of our common goals as we enter the ConCon in the days ahead and begin forging ourselves a new game. Together, we can GET IT DONE, but remember: there is an 'I' in IT!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If anything, Griffin should be praised for not abandoning his crucial work as RG during the governmental crisis.

[Leinad]

Nice Trump impression!

Also, congratulations on the ConCon election, I look forward to working with you and and the 23 other delegates to Make Atlasia Great Again! (Cris, Clarence, you, and now me--what can I say, It fits like a good toupee!)

[Adam Griffin]

An important announcement is forthcoming!

[Adam Griffin]

IT'S HAPPENING

It is high time that this Era of Deeply Disturbing Events end - now is the time to usher back in the Era of Good Feelings and the Radical Gay Agenda!

Do you remember what it was like in 2013? Oh, what glorious times...activity everywhere, competition all up in this b****, sociopaths freely running about the countryside, building their mini-empires. You should have seen it!

I am pleased to announce my running mate, Duke, who will be joining us in this grand resurrection of the game and our country!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

There's no way I can justify not voting for this ticket now. ENDORSED!

[Simfan34]

Complete betrayal!

[Adam Griffin]

Complete betrayal!

Of my solid Labor principles? Nonsense! Duke and I have always been willing to work together for the country's best interests (as have TPP & Labor, when TPP was being governed responsibly), and this ticket is the latest expression of that sentiment!

[Simfan34]

No, you're the enemy. Duke is the one betraying us.

[Adam Griffin]

No, you're the enemy. Duke is the one betraying us.

You just never could accept that TPP wasn't an uber-right-wing outfit. I have no idea why, but you shouldn't be impugning the character of my running mate over your lack of perception! I'd tell you to go make a bunch of socks to vote against us, but we've already passed the deadline for registration!

Bye Felicia!

[Simfan34]

I'll just go quietly cry in the corner.