Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 20, 2014, 03:48:03 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government
| | |-+  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Gustaf, MasterJedi)
| | | |-+  The Smid Proposal
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: The Smid Proposal  (Read 4365 times)
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6022
Australia


View Profile
« on: March 11, 2009, 11:18:02 pm »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2009, 09:54:37 am by Smid »Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2009, 11:49:30 pm »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2009, 11:51:24 pm by Verily »Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18880
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2009, 04:43:41 pm »
Ignore

As someone who has read the entire Smid plan (and it is long Smiley), 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
Logged

Gov. Christopher J. Christie
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22009
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2009, 04:55:00 pm »
Ignore

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

I must agree here...I think it's an excellent system.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21818


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2009, 05:01:57 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21818


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2009, 05:13:46 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21818


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2009, 05:19:31 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6022
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2009, 06:18:28 pm »
Ignore

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.

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.

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

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

As someone who has read the entire Smid plan (and it is long Smiley), 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

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.


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).
« Last Edit: March 15, 2009, 06:20:29 pm by Smid »Logged
Warner for Senate '14
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30548
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2009, 07:58:49 pm »
Ignore

I think the Smid Plan is excellent.
Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
MaxQue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8721
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2009, 08:53:46 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16717
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2009, 08:57:31 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6022
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2009, 12:05:36 am »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2009, 04:08:52 am by Smid »Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6022
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2009, 12:24:32 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6022
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2009, 12:41:28 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22009
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2009, 03:03:30 am »
Ignore

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.

If nobody's allowed to post their ideas, how do you suggest we get any proposals?
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6022
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2009, 03:18:57 am »
Ignore

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.

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.
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22009
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2009, 03:21:23 am »
Ignore

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 Smiley
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6022
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2009, 04:05:06 am »
Ignore

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 Smiley

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.
Logged
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16717
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2009, 04:41:55 am »
Ignore

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.

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

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.
Logged

Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2009, 01:20:15 pm »
Ignore

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.

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.

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.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6780
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2009, 06:25:32 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4418
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2009, 10:09:26 am »
Ignore

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.

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?
Logged

A Republican - at least for a little while
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6022
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2009, 10:15:36 am »
Ignore

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 12:39:49 am by Smid »Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6022
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2009, 12:50:27 am »
Ignore

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

There's been a Labor gaffe that I stumbled across while looking for the face recognition thing: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25202826-5018787,00.html

In the Liberal Party, the Leader and Deputy Leader are elected by the partyroom, the Deputy picks his or her portfolio and the Leader gives out the rest to whoever he or she wishes. The Labor Party doesn't do that. The Labor Party has formalised factions, who know how many MPs they each have. They are then awarded a certain number of Ministries to each faction, who names which members of the faction will receive a portfolio and the Leader just picks which portfolio to give to which person the factions have picked. Kevin Rudd announced prior to the federal election that he had a new idea - that he would hand-pick his team instead of letting the faction do it (but the Liberals pointed out that it wasn't really a new idea). Sounds like Bligh is wanting to do the same, but it also sounds like she might have some issue in convincing the factional bosses to let her do it.
Logged
bullmoose88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14503


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2009, 02:00:05 am »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 02:06:28 am by bullmoose88 »Logged

A Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative NE Republican with some Left-Libertarian/3rd Way Leanings. Simply, a Rockefeller Republican.

According to one poster, I represent a...

Dying bread of Americans.
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines