Talk Elections

(Slot 3: General)

---

Sponsor: Marokai Blue

This is an idea that has long deserved a mature and honest discussion, about it specifically, and the Vice Presidency in general more broadly.

An alternative title when I wrote this was the "End the Token Candidates Amendment." Why? It's pretty simple. The Vice Presidency as it stands is a role that attracts people that do nothing, and encourages tickets that exist purely for shameless electoral politicking than genuine decisions for a policy team.

As things stand there are, practically, no real governing consequences for who the top of the ticket picks. There are not even any political consequences to the pick. It's a decision that boils down to "who will get me the most votes, since it doesn't matter who it is in practice." Hell, just look at recent Vice Presidential picks. ZuWo chose another party's member as his running mate. Polnut chose another party's member as his running mate.

The Vice Presidency is a position that needs to matter. Last year, the February election winner was the Tmth/Dallasfan ticket. Another pure political ticket. Dallasfan, a Populares member to Tmth's RPP, did very little to nothing as Vice President, and the position had no governing consequences since he couldn't do anything except in the rare cases of a Senate tie.

If the Vice Presidency had the full and complete powers of a Senator (and why not, since it already has limited Senatorial powers?) people would react more to who the Vice President was. A lefty could no longer run with a righty, or a lefty couldn't run with a centrist, without seriously risking losing support because that VP would then be an active participant in the government, with serious responsibilities that could be constantly observed, instead of a cushy job with very little demands.

I would never argue that we should ban cross-party tickets. I ran on one to victory myself once upon a time. But as we stand in this era trying to preserve a multiparty system, the best way to preserve a multiparty system is by encouraging multiple tickets.

We had a beautiful thing happen this last election; we had three major tickets each that came within reach of winning. With no consequences attached to picking a running mate aside from their Prom King sensibilities, we encourage an environment where the two biggest parties pick up members from the smaller parties, and what we end up with is the slow and steady re-consolidation of our political system once more into a de-facto two party system, wherein we only have two serious tickets running in any given election, where the result is predictable.

The ultimate failing of the previous political era was the loss of ideological factions and parties. The most important thing in preserving our current multiparty system is maintaining some element of ideology. Encouraging tickets to be as ideologically consistent as possible is crucial to that effect, and it also makes the Vice Presidency matter as much as it possibly could.

It's two birds with one stone.

If I might be allowed to add my opinion for just a moment: 

I completely approve of this Amendment.  I mean, really, think about the Vice Presidency, it's the most boring job in Atlasia.  You sit around on a nice cushy seat for four months waiting to take over - something that hasn't happened in, what four years?

And I agree with Marokai, this is no way a "huge change to our very constitutional principles."  The VP already gets to set policy on the most controversial bills (ones that tie), for God's sake!

Also, as a former Presidential candidate, I must say that this would be very helpful in choosing a food running mate, as it can actually look like an appealing job.  I'm so tired of the days of parties running joint tickets leading to a two man race; as a simple citizen, I must tell you that it's gone on for too long.

I ask the Senate to please consider what I've said and to pass this Amendment.

So basically, the Vice President would be a Senator. Why not just abolish the position of Vice President and have 11 Senators? No, cuz that sounds ridiculous. Essentially, outside of abolishing the VP position, that's exactly what this amendment does.

Nay.

I may have some bias since I'm the incoming Vice President, but at first glance, this bill has my support.

I'd also suggest adding, because sometimes we'll have an even Senate (if there's a vacancy) or maybe a Senator is on a LOA, that the Vice President's vote is the tiebreaker should the vote result in a tie.

This amendment, if passed, should be made sure not to take effect until after the next election.

I actually support this.

Bgwah should like this amendment, even though he's leaving the Senate soon, because I think it discourages unity tickets.

Indeed! Anyway, here's an amendment that people have 24 hours to object to:

I'd encourage the Senate to pass this.  It sounds excellent.  And, feel free to make the SoEA a Senator as well ;)

I've never been good with wording, but how about that as an amendment?

::)

Consider it done!

So this would basically get rid of the PPT position?

Why would it do that? As far as I know we would still elect a PPT as we normally do, we would just have an additional Senator.

But basically, we'd have to elect President and Vice President separately, because if one voter wants person X to be President, but doesn't want person Y to be Vice President (Senator,) they'll be confused. Any way to fix that?

I'm confused in trying to understand what your concern is. :P What is the problem, exactly? The Vice President would still be elected in exactly the same way, he would just have the full powers of a Senator. His title would still be Vice President, he would just function in the Senate like the rest of us. I don't see how this confuses elections, or causes problems for the PPT position, as Bgwah mentioned.

Let's put it this way: Let's just say Rand Paul and John Boehner are running on the same ticket for President. I personally like Rand Paul and would want him to be President, but I do not like John Boehner and would not want him to essentially be a Senator. If I vote for the Paul/Boehner ticket, I am voting for a President I want, but I am also forced into voting for a Vice President/Senator that I do not want. Perhaps we could have it that the President and Vice President are elected separately?

I proposed that amendment and it went down in glorious defeat.

Well, I'm going to reintroduce it.

Please do not attach that amendment to this. I will object, but give you some amount of time to reconsider. They're separate and in absolutely no way need to be connected. The whole point of improving the Vice Presidency in this way is to make constructing a ticket more difficult and the decision to vote for one more ideological. We don't need to attach another controversial idea onto this which would almost assuredly cause it to go down in defeat.

Whatever. Amendment withdrawn.

Wow, dude, stand your ground. Literally, the only way to accomplish anything positive with either idea is with those two amendments working in conjunction. Even then, I can't say if it will help overall.

It is also more fun to go through the process of voting things up or down. (hint: Remember the "five reasons" I mention a few days ago. ;))

The amendment's going to fail anyway. I'm thinking pragmatically.

You never know. Besides, when has that ever stopped anyone else?  :P

You yourself complained that not enough legislation gets introduced. Another amendment vote would slow things down.

I complained about legislation sitting on the floor not being debated when a final vote should have already been taking place on said legislation. Im all for debating and amending proposals until the best possible product is attained. Certainly, Senator, you have mischaracterized my position.

His amendment was a completely separate issue from this. I also must confess that I'm baffled at what he's upset about. It seems like he's acting like he's seeing something everyone else is missing, somehow. "You guys do know that this amendment to make the vice president have the powers of a Senator is making the vice president have the powers of a Senator, right?!"

Well, yeah. Duh. The point is to make the Vice President be a worthwhile position to seek, to make tickets more ideologically consistent, to make voting for one a more difficult decision because candidates can't just throw on a pretty face or a cute partisan balance for more votes, because suddenly that decision has consequences. All of that is the point.

Certainly I did, Governor. But certainly you must attend to regional affairs and allow me to go about my business as Senator and don't call me out on a perfectly viable decision, correct?

What do we need more senators for?  If you want to make the VP a senator, fine, go ahead.  Give all the cabinet posts senatorial powers if you want, but give back!  We need more active people in regional governments!  Having more than ten senators is ridiculous.

Amen, Yelnoc, but its worth noting that neither the at large nor the regional senate elections have been remotely competitive lately, due mostly to a lack of interested candidates.

I don't understand this objection either. We're just graduating the Vice President from "Senator in very specific circumstances" to "Giving him a Senate job full time." This has nothing to do with the Senate more broadly or reducing viable candidates for Senate elections. If people want to oppose this, that's their prerogative but I at least wish people would frame their objections within the topic.

We have uncompetitive regional elections because people don't step up to the plate. The people have no one to blame but themselves. At least with this proposal we would ideally have:

1. A more active and engaging Vice Presidency.
2. More ideologically consistent and meaningful tickets.
3. More Senate activity.
4. Elections that are more about competency and governing consequences than popularity contests circa the prom.

Your objections, based on some sort of weird daisy-chaining-back-to-the-regions logic, could be just as easily applied to the current situation in having a Vice President at all. Yet when given the opportunity, people don't want to abolish it either. And why not? Token VP candidates are the greatest tool of parties that want power. If we're going to have a Vice President at all, the job should at least be worth a damn. Since no one apparently wants to get rid of it altogether, then..

Apparently what I've been saying all along is false, yet when Marokai says it, it's true. Here's what this bill does:

IT MAKES THE VICE PRESIDENT A SENATOR

Essentially, the title of Vice President becomes even MORE useless because you're essentially running for Senate, not for Vice President.

Hypothetically speaking, say someone misses a vote or there is a vacancy in the Senate and we end up having a tied vote in the Senate.  If the VP is already a Senator, who would cast the tie-breaking vote?

I would be fine with getting rid of the Vice President.  My point is, the regions are suffering from inactivity.  With that in mind, why would our priorities be towards augmenting the federal government?