The Smid Proposal

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

On the model, I have a few thoughts from an initial look.

First, while an impartial Speaker is nice, not allowing the speaker to vote may be more of a deterrent for the position. Imagine not allowing the PPT to debate or vote on legislation. I'm also not too fond of the way a PM is elected. The procedure seems far too long-winded and complex. The rules for debate should be defined by either standing orders or the Speaker in a fair way. I think the Constitution just needs to say these are the qualifications, the basic outline of the process of getting a PM and the duties of the office.

Next, rather than limiting the number of pieces of legislation that can be offered by different groups, perhaps enforce a ratio so that the majority must allow the opposition to propose up to three-fifths the number of pieces of legislation that the majority does. And one-fifth likewise for minor parties unaffiliated with either group.

Also, a lot is left open to how the individual Houses of government want to order procedure. While I agree that such a sprawling parliamentarian system should be given flexibility, some sort of guidelines should be setup. Perhaps defining a quorum, giving absolute minimum requirements for the standing orders. Just to make sure that, once we finish the Convention, the resulting government isn't stuck for months on working out how to function properly.

[Purple State]

Your explanation of the PM process was good. I am now worried that an operative could make a crappy speech and vote against the candidate, but it gets rid of the speech. Depending on what the numbers look like this could be a quick problem. I think the rules need to exclude the opposition speaker to a different party and that person's party may not join a coalition with the PM party for that round. Granted this requires party discipline (never know when some idiot is going to go and make the speech against his party's will) but that's half the point.