Atlasians United for a Parliamentary System

[afleitch]

I support the idea but i'm beginning to think there should still be an elected 'figurehead' with little power.

The more and more I think about it, having the head of state and government selected from the pool of Senators only, would stop current Governors, Lt Governors, holders of other postions and even private citizens pursuing the 'top job' should they so wish.

[afleitch]

In that case, maybe we could let the Senate elect anyone, and have them join the Senate and participate as a Senator after their election. Whatever the way he is elected, it is essential that the PM is a member of the Senate and has a vote.

But that would be the perogative of the Senate over who they nominate. I am a strong supporter of the parliamentary system and backed it back in October, but I think giving overall power to the Senate excludes private citizens and other office holders from seeking office.

I don't mind a PM being head of government, but an elected head of state would adress the problem I outlined above.

[afleitch]

I support the idea but i'm beginning to think there should still be an elected 'figurehead' with little power.

The more and more I think about it, having the head of state and government selected from the pool of Senators only, would stop current Governors, Lt Governors, holders of other postions and even private citizens pursuing the 'top job' should they so wish.

I am not completely against a figurehead position and neither is the AUPS, myself and this organization would just like to see some sort of parliamentary system come into play. Either a semi-presidential or a full parliamentary would be quite applicable.

That was what I would support. For example there has been talk of PBrunsel running for the top job in June and he has floated the idea himself. With a combined head of state and government chosen by the Senate he wouldn't be able to do that unless he won an election to the Senate first. Or if a private citizen wished one day to become PM, instead of running for governor, winning, then running for president, he wouldn't run for governor in the first place because he couldn't go any further politically.

[afleitch]

I would urge Jake to amend his well worded legislation to allow for a seperate elected Head of State with the power of veto, which the Senate could then overturn with a 2/3rds majority, or something similar.

I just feel that the present proposal discourages people from seeking any elected office BUT the Senate.

[afleitch]

I'm not officially changing anything until we get some consensus on the matter, however, I will begin passing around possible amendments.

How should the head of state be chosen? If they are popularly elected, the election controversy and thrice yearly bs remains. We could allow him to be elected by the Governors, or have it be a rotating power among the five Governors, or have him be elected by the Senate, or even have the PM nominate someone who is confirmed by the Senate.

I believe it should be an elected position, similar to say the Italian or German President who has little power, in order to allow private citizens to run for office.

To be honest I had considered running for the Presidency either in June or October if I had a good term or two as Governor. Under the current system I, and others like me; Governors, Judges etc could go no further than our current office unless we resigned to run for Senate and then hopefully got nominated by the Senate for PM position. It therefore not only gives the Senate more influence but also makes it more appealing than any other political position. That would have an adverse effect on other elections as a result.

[afleitch]

Afleitch, that's why I proposed above that the Senate should be granted the power to choose any citizen it wishes for PM, with the stipulation that that citizen become a Senator if they aren't already.

Which basically means 'My boy one day you too can become the leader of Atlasia...as long as you're a Senator'

I really like your proposal, but unless the head of state and government is seperated and the head of state is elect I can't support it as it stands. It concentrates too much power in the hands of the Senate and discourages people from running for regional or non Senate posts if they wish to further their political career.

EDIT: I would back similar powers for the Head of State that Colin suggests. I just think it gives the people a little more power.

[afleitch]

But who would the 'candidates' be? It would be at the whim of the Senate to pick and choose rather than having them run for the position and having the public elect them.

Under the proposed system we would have

Those who can be Head of State/Government: Senators
Those who can't: Governors, Lt Governors, Supreme Court Judges, Regional Judges and Private Citizens UNLESS nominated by the Senate

Under a split system I would prefer you would have

Those who can be Head of Government : Senators
Those who can be Head of State : Senators...AND Governors, Lt Governors, Supreme Court Judges, Regional Judges and Private Citizens.

[afleitch]

Well the secondary one is probably better. But how would it be elected? How would the HoS be elected?

Have the HoG elected within the Senate as Jake proposes, but have the HoS elected by popular vote, then have the winner confirmed by the senate but acting independently from the Senate.

If the Senate calls all the shots at the national level, then apart from Judges, the system of 'checks and balances' breaks down.

Are people scared to let the people decide on anything anymore?

[afleitch]

Well the secondary one is probably better. But how would it be elected? How would the HoS be elected?

Have the HoG elected within the Senate as Jake proposes, but have the HoS elected by popular vote, then have the winner confirmed by the senate but acting independently from the Senate.

If the Senate calls all the shots at the national level, then apart from Judges, the system of 'checks and balances' breaks down.

Are people scared to let the people decide on anything anymore?

Well but then you still have the same problem. The electoral infighting, the scandels, the bickering, the people leaving in a huff, except now it'll be for a less powerful position but I see what you mean.

Exactly. You cant stop people being people and bickering at elections. They would do the same at Senate elections too (especially now the Senate holds more authority under the proposed system) and other elections would become less contested as you can't advance any further politically unless you join the Senate.

[afleitch]

Remember, the basic tenet of a republican form of government is allowing elected representatives to decide almost all issues.

But this isn't a government. It's a game and one that needs more people to take an interest in it. Take away the power to elect their head of state, then why bother voting? Why bother running for Governor or another elected position if it won't get you anywhere?

I like your proposal; all I suggest is seperating head of government and head of state and allowing people to elect their head of state.

[afleitch]

Jake thats a very well written proposal that adresses almost all of my concerns and allows for a right to veto (but also the ability for it to be overuled) and the right to elect a President who is not a member of the Senate keeping the balance (and seperation) of government intact. In line with your legislation regarding the Head of Government then it has my full support.

I didn't mean to be a stick in the mud over this, but the more and more I though about it I could see a few problems that I outlined that could have derailed the legislation further down the line.

Thanks for taking everything into consideration You are one of the few people who are willing to take time and write draft legislation and it's apreciated.

[afleitch]

As I said in the other reform thread, I'm leaning toward supporting this.

It has my full support now as it gives us not only an experienced Head of Government, but an elected Head of State that has a few reserved powers to keep the Senate and the PM in check if need be. It's a welcome shot in Atlasia's arm if you ask me

[afleitch]

Does anyone like the idea of a national referendum? Seemed like a fairly decent idea when Colin brought it up. I forsee it as a tool the President can use to give the people a chance to rule on controversial legislation.

That was something I supported when I began the little missed Civic Alliance and I would support it now. Referenda could be used when issues of 'morality' or more accurately conscience are proposed, issues that cross partizan lines. I can't think of anything, other than abortion and the death penality and other social issues that have been devolved to the regional level however. But referenda could occur when the people petition for one or the Senate and the President cannot reach a decision.

Hopefully it would only be used sparingly.

[afleitch]

No monarchs! (spits out coffee) As Jake sets out, lets have a President with the power of veto, but the main administrative powers lying with the senate and the PM. The proposals are sound and allow checks and balances in government to remain in place while also giving the people their say.

[afleitch]

Beacuse that's how any country with a parliamentary system that isn't a monarchy operates.

And? There's no need for it.

Yes there is. If you have a Supreme Court with judges approved by the Senate and the Head of State and government is elected by the Senate from within the Senate, then basically the Senate controls the entire structure of national government and can appoint whom they wish. The system of 'checks and balances' then breaks down. To whom would the Senate be accountable?

If you wish to have a parliamentary system operating in Atlasia you have to have a seperate head of state and government, with the head of state having limited but important constitutional powers (such as the right to veto) and elected by the people. Most importantly, it allows them to keep a check on the Senate.

[afleitch]

I'm happy with Jake's proposals as it retains the presidency but also streamlines government. As for regional senators I'm undecided and can see arguments both ways. If these proposals are implemented, I hope there will be fresh elections.

[afleitch]

2. Remove all of the current President's powers except his veto powers, and also add the ability for him to order a national referendum on a Senate bill.

Such an ability would only be used sparingly. If you read from the start for this topic you can see how and why the proposals took shape.

[afleitch]

How do we know it would only be used sparingly? Is there some limit on it?

Not in the proposed legislation, and on reflection perhaps their should if it is of concern. However I don't think we should loose sight of the bigger picture here and that is that the President will remain a counterbalance to ther PM and Senate.

[afleitch]

There would be no need for a PPT with a PM. However I would suggest another Senator is nominated as a Speaker to mediate, basically undertaking the old PPT role.