|
Title: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (Debating) Post by: Senator Cris on October 09, 2015, 08:31:22 AM Quote Article II Section 1: The Presidency 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Republic of Atlasia. He shall be elected with a Vice President for a term of approximately four months. 2. No person shall be President who has not attained 500 or more posts, whose account is not at least 180 days old, and is not a registered voter. No person ineligible to be elected to or to occupy the position of President shall be eligible to be elected to or to occupy the position of Vice President. 3.The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Atlasia. 4. The President shall have power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators concur. 5. The President shall appoint the Principal Officers of the executive departments who shall constitute the Cabinet, with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall all be registered voters. The President shall have power to dismiss any member of his Cabinet. 6. When vacancies shall occur on the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a replacement with the advice and consent of the Senate. 7. The President shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against Atlasia, except in cases of impeachment. 8. The President may give a State of the Union address, and may delegate this responsibility to the Vice-President. Section 2: Election to the Presidency 1. Presidential elections shall be held in the months of February, June and October. Elections shall begin between 0000 Eastern Standard Time on Thursday preceding the penultimate Friday of the election month and 0001 Eastern Standard Time on the penultimate Friday itself5, and shall conclude exactly 72 hours after beginning. 2. The Senate shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Presidential elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to the Presidency shall be by public post. 3. The President and Vice President shall take office at 1200 Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday in the month after their election. Section 3: Vacancy and Incapacity of the Presidency or Vice Presidency 1. If the Presidency shall ever fall vacant, the Vice President shall become President. If the Vice Presidency is also vacant, then the Senate President pro tempore shall become President. The Senate may provide by Law for the vacancy of the Senate President pro tempore also. 2. If there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President, who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of the Senate. 3. No person shall be elected to the office of either President or Vice President more than twice consecutively. 4. Whenever the President transmits to the Senate President pro tempore his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. 5. Whenever the Vice President and a two-thirds majority of the Senate sign a declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office upon his declaration that he is capable of discharging the said powers and duties, or when the Vice President and Senate annul their previous declaration. 6. Whenever the President and a two-thirds majority of the Senate sign a declaration that the Vice President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the office of the Vice President shall immediately be deemed vacant. Title: Re: Structure, size and powers of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 09, 2015, 07:10:07 PM As I said in the Regional thread, we really need to wipe the slate clean before rebuilding the government. I therefore propose the following amendment: Quote Article [TBD] [Placeholder text] Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Senator Cris on October 10, 2015, 02:47:27 AM Delegates have 24 hours to object:
As I said in the Regional thread, we really need to wipe the slate clean before rebuilding the government. I therefore propose the following amendment: Quote Article [TBD] [Placeholder text] Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 10, 2015, 03:25:29 PM Just get rid of the Vice Presidency for f**ks sake.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Lumine on October 10, 2015, 03:27:20 PM Just get rid of the Vice Presidency for f**ks sake. I'd like to second this. We will need to streamline the cabinet, and at this point the Vice-Presidency is really not necessary. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Senator Cris on October 10, 2015, 03:41:08 PM Honestly, I think we should keep the VP role. And I'll explain you why I'm in favour of keeping it.
First of all, I'm a big fan of American politics. And in American politics, the VP is an important moment of a presidential campaign. It might change a lot of things during campaign and I'm sure he might be a factor in Atlasia too, expecially in Atlasia considered the size of players. But the important fact is that if the Presidency is vacant for some reasons (it happened in the past and I'd like to remember that the President can be impeached), who takes his role, his functions? The VP is the obvious response. I also think the VP role has a great potential. Not only as an advicer to the President (and that's important) but also as a bridge between federal government and Senate by joining Senate discussions. About the Cabinet: the Constitution already says that the VP and Cabinet members (except GM) can serve in another Cabinet spot: Quote No person may simultaneously hold two or more offices of the Republic of Atlasia at any level of the government. An exception shall be made for members of the President's cabinet, excluding the Game Moderator, who may serve in multiple cabinet posts, but not in addition to any other office. The Vice President may also be allowed to serve in a single cabinet post. Any person nominated to multiple offices, and any person already holding office nominated to another office as allowed above, shall still require Senate approval for each individual cabinet post. In the event that a Vice President who holds a cabinet post becomes Acting President, the Vice President shall designate an Acting Secretary to exercise the powers of that cabinet post while he or she serves as Acting President. The Senate shall, by appropriate legislation, have the power to place further limitations on the holding of multiple offices within the President's cabinet. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 10, 2015, 05:45:05 PM Honestly, the VP is perhaps the most useless position in the federal government, and while we currently have two very qualified candidates running for the job in the upcoming election, there are many better uses for their talents than sitting around for four months waiting for the president to be banned. Literally every power help by the VP, both Constitutional and the traditional duties mentioned by Cris, could be fulfilled by a cabinet officer who would be less reliant on the president to give him or her an actual purpose. Even the effect of the VP on presidential campaigns (unity tickets, etc.) could be replicated by announcing cabinet picks before the election.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Senator Cris on October 11, 2015, 07:17:20 AM The amendment has been adopted.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 12, 2015, 02:27:50 PM The VP should have a job if we form a bicameral government. If we don't go that route, eliminate it. Sure, picking a vp is always fun strategically, but the job is just awful and I hated it despite how much I love Marokai. It just was monotonous and boring.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: tmthforu94 on October 12, 2015, 02:37:27 PM I'm sure it has been suggested before, but I am curious to hear the argument why people think it is a bad idea: why not let the Vice President lead the Senate?
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 12, 2015, 02:56:47 PM I'm sure it has been suggested before, but I am curious to hear the argument why people think it is a bad idea: why not let the Vice President lead the Senate? 1. As it exists today, the VP is primarily a patronage office used to solidify electoral coalitions, and as such is chosen based on partisan credentials, not experience or activity. 2. Having the Senate President be a member of the chamber cuts down on the number of offices at a time when governmental bloating is a big problem. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Oakvale on October 12, 2015, 02:59:12 PM The Vice-President doesn't need to have any duties. The whole point of the office is that people know who the President will be if the top of the ticket resigns. That's all. Why overcomplicate it?
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: tmthforu94 on October 12, 2015, 03:02:59 PM Here is why I do NOT support removing the Vice President...
While the governing factor is important, the primary thing that drives this game are elections. Having vice presidential candidates requires more strategy and generates more interesting elections. If you think the position should have more responsibilities, then fine, give it more responsibilities. But removing the position as a whole will lead to less exciting elections, thus, a less exciting game. I urge members of the convention to vote against any proposal eliminating the office of Vice President. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 12, 2015, 03:15:14 PM I'm fine keeping the VP, but I think the senate should govern and lead itself. The VP can continue to tie break votes but I never liked the idea of having the VP administer things a la the PPT.
I do think removing it would make elections more boring and take strategy out of it. Who says the VP needs a job anyway? They exist to stand in for the president should he disappear or be away for an extended period of time. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Talleyrand on October 12, 2015, 03:19:24 PM Get rid of the position and have special elections when the presidency falls vacant. There are already countries that have special elections for the presidency, and the Senate can continue working in the short period of vacancy, and wait for the next president to enter office to sign any bills or the like.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 12, 2015, 03:20:40 PM Who says the VP needs a job anyway? They exist to stand in for the president should he disappear or be away for an extended period of time. Given the current scarcity of active, competent players, I don't think purposefully creating placeholder offices is a good idea. In this scenario, you're either a) wasting the talents of an active player by putting them in a powerless position; or b) risking elevating an inactive player to the presidency in an attempt to avoid "a". Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 12, 2015, 04:28:24 PM While the selection of the VP is strategically interesting and adds to campaigns, the issue is that office itself is useless. As such, there is the critical aspect of balancing the election aspect with the government aspect, and catering to each.
What if, instead, the Presidential candidate could preselect members of the cabinet? Suppose I were running for President and I named Lumine as my SoIA (just an example). There would be excitement in the naming and I could even have him appear on the ballot with me. You could name as few (at least one) or as many cabinet members as you like. There'd be loads of strategic value there. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: tmthforu94 on October 12, 2015, 04:55:16 PM While the selection of the VP is strategically interesting and adds to campaigns, the issue is that office itself is useless. As such, there is the critical aspect of balancing the election aspect with the government aspect, and catering to each. What if, instead, the Presidential candidate could preselect members of the cabinet? Suppose I were running for President and I named Lumine as my SoIA (just an example). There would be excitement in the naming and I could even have him appear on the ballot with me. You could name as few (at least one) or as many cabinet members as you like. There'd be loads of strategic value there. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: bore on October 12, 2015, 05:10:18 PM The main issue is that, fundamentally, no one cares who the SoIA and SoEA are or what they do.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 12, 2015, 06:25:16 PM While the selection of the VP is strategically interesting and adds to campaigns, the issue is that office itself is useless. As such, there is the critical aspect of balancing the election aspect with the government aspect, and catering to each. What if, instead, the Presidential candidate could preselect members of the cabinet? Suppose I were running for President and I named Lumine as my SoIA (just an example). There would be excitement in the naming and I could even have him appear on the ballot with me. You could name as few (at least one) or as many cabinet members as you like. There'd be loads of strategic value there. My thought is that the cabinet nominee would agree to show up on the ticket, much like the VP candidate does now. So Homely would only actually appear on the ballot with the Presidential candidate if he agreed to do so. The thing I was getting at was that you could name who you liked, rather than naming everyone. If there are particular persons in particular positions who are likely to generate interest (referencing the President's comment, perhaps someone in a more prominent position where there is more public interest in their work, like AG), then you can choose to name them. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 12, 2015, 11:20:17 PM Here is why I do NOT support removing the Vice President... While the governing factor is important, the primary thing that drives this game are elections. Having vice presidential candidates requires more strategy and generates more interesting elections. If you think the position should have more responsibilities, then fine, give it more responsibilities. But removing the position as a whole will lead to less exciting elections, thus, a less exciting game. I urge members of the convention to vote against any proposal eliminating the office of Vice President. I'm with tmth on this one. Plus I'll add one more thing. Line of succession. Do we really want to just give the head of the legislative branch a free shot at the presidency in case of resignation or removal of the president? Hence I call motion to reconsider the amendment just adopted should such motions be allowed in this convention. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 13, 2015, 02:02:52 AM I think we should keep the VP. With the semi-Presidentialism, the VP can serve in another post simultaneously to the VP, so it is not like the talents are wasted. Second of all, the VP is only useless because the decision was made to remove its one area of responsibility in spite of over a year with the greatest number of active VPs seen in the history of the game (Mar 2013-August 2014). Four out of the five VPs in that time were active, engaged in debates and present figures in general.
With a bicameral legislature, you can restore a specific assignment. That would be keeping the two chambers working in an organized and productive fashion, and added to this you could retain the ability of the VP to also hold cabinet positions as well. Finally, there is the possibility of seperately electing the VP, which would create a different set of standards for the office as well and demand more competence and activity. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 13, 2015, 11:32:21 AM Hence I call motion to reconsider the amendment just adopted should such motions be allowed in this convention. All my amendment did was to strike the existing text so we can build a new government from scratch. It wasn't aimed at permanently abolishing the Vice Presidency. In regards to what Yankee and others have said, I'm fine with keeping the VP if we give him/her an actual job to do, but otherwise the office needs to go. The current situation, where the office has next to no powers unless the president is hit by a falling piano, only encourages inactivity and wastes the talents of competent players who hold it. A separately-elected VP might be a good idea in a bicameral system, or if we allow them to vote on legislation (sort of like the Senator At-Large I proposed (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=215670.msg4655509#msg4655509) back in July). Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 13, 2015, 12:17:04 PM It goes without saying that if we do not have any powers assigned to the office here, then the only wise course would be for us to abolish it. Our positions are practically one in the same on this Truman, but it is my hope that we will give it an important role, preferably the one included in the Duke plan.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: bore on October 13, 2015, 03:24:03 PM The VP is objectively more important than the SoIA, the SoEA, the GM and arguably the AG as well (because pretty much anyone can start any trial they want), at least as the game is currently played.
Not only is the VP the second in line to the throne which is very important in a country as prone to sudden resignations as atlasia, it also has what amounts to a vote in the senate. The other offices are largely about talking to themselves which is basically ignored by the rest of the population apart from when they are pretending to care to score a political point. If we are abolishing cabinet offices (which we should) the VP should be one of the last to go. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 13, 2015, 03:36:53 PM What if we just straight-up gave the VP a vote in the Senate?
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN on October 14, 2015, 11:09:05 AM What if we just straight-up gave the VP a vote in the Senate? Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 14, 2015, 11:19:11 AM Giving the VP a vote in the senate aside from breaking ties blurs the lines too much between branches of government for my liking.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 14, 2015, 05:43:33 PM The Vice Presidency should be retained I believe.
Duke is right, the VP should not have a vote in the Senate, except to break a tie. Perhaps the VP could bead a government department while still serving as VP. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Adam Griffin on October 14, 2015, 08:38:12 PM If we implement bicameralism, then we can do as my plan outlined: the leader of the House (Prime Minister was the title I assigned, but is irrelevant) could become the replacement for the President in the event of resignation or vacancy.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 15, 2015, 01:35:53 AM I much prefer Duke's approach to yours, Adam. :P People's House Speaker, Senate PPT, and a VP acting as the the one who keeps the two houses functional.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Clark Kent on October 15, 2015, 09:06:11 PM I like Adam's idea.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 16, 2015, 06:58:09 PM I much prefer Duke's approach to yours, Adam. :P People's House Speaker, Senate PPT, and a VP acting as the the one who keeps the two houses functional. Here here. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Talleyrand on October 16, 2015, 07:18:32 PM Bicameralism is unworkable, folks. We are not going to have that successfully run in an online political simulation, especially when we're trying to maintain regional governments!!! I haven't heard a single argument as to why it is a good idea, and see no reason why it would increase activity at all.
I support having special elections for the presidency, with an interim figure stepping in that role during the meantime. Whether or not that's the vice president (if we keep that position) or the leader of the Senate doesn't matter. I still like my senate idea personally. 3 regional and 6 district (2 per region) if we got with 3 regions, and 4 district (2 per region) and 5 at-large if we go with 2 regions. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 16, 2015, 09:29:39 PM For me, bicameralism is a complete non starter.
In this situation, it is ridiculous. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: bore on October 17, 2015, 06:33:22 AM If we want to even think about bicameralism we need to go down to at least 2 regions. I know it wouldn't add any offices but we need to seriously cut the number of offices, not just tread water.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 18, 2015, 03:19:31 AM Two regions is just too few to be practical on the other side and would deny us the ability to integrate newer players quickly, who would likely become zombie voters otherwise and eventually just fade away. We cannot contract so far as to shut out potential new membership and lock us into a death spiral, constitutionally. Right now, there are offices waiting to be taken. Their presence creates problems, but on the flip side there is tremendous opportunity for new players. Whereas if we contract to meet the current supply, we risk locking ourselves permenently at a lower level. We need to cut offices, cutting too man though, is suicide.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: windjammer on October 18, 2015, 04:34:19 AM For the VP,
Make him a senator. People would vote for a P/VP ticket, and the VP would basically be a senator being the first on the line of succession (maybe with some "additional stuff"). For example, a senate being represented by 2 senators for each region (for example, 1 elected at large, the other by the legislature), the VP being the 7th senator. Of course, he couldn't break the tie anymore. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Leinad on October 18, 2015, 07:06:50 AM For the VP, Make him a senator. People would vote for a P/VP ticket, and the VP would basically be a senator being the first on the line of succession (maybe with some "additional stuff"). For example, a senate being represented by 2 senators for each region (for example, 1 elected at large, the other by the legislature), the VP being the 7th senator. Of course, he couldn't break the tie anymore. I like this idea. Anything wrong with it, fellow delegates? Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: bore on October 18, 2015, 12:23:22 PM Two regions is just too few to be practical on the other side and would deny us the ability to integrate newer players quickly, who would likely become zombie voters otherwise and eventually just fade away. We cannot contract so far as to shut out potential new membership and lock us into a death spiral, constitutionally. Right now, there are offices waiting to be taken. Their presence creates problems, but on the flip side there is tremendous opportunity for new players. Whereas if we contract to meet the current supply, we risk locking ourselves permenently at a lower level. We need to cut offices, cutting too man though, is suicide. Given the fact that regions don't interact with each other there's no lower limit for "practicality" in terms of game mechanics, and experience shows its really easy to expand the number of offices, especially at a regional level so both of those concerns aren't relevant. Anyway I don't disagree that there should be enough offices that most people can get one at the lower levels fairly easily, but even a two region plan would more than provide that. The truth, which people in this ConCon seem to keep on forgetting, is that atlasia is in really bad shape. Even in the glory days there were still many inactive officeholders and now there's probably only like 10/15 truly active ones. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 18, 2015, 10:23:00 PM For the VP, Make him a senator. People would vote for a P/VP ticket, and the VP would basically be a senator being the first on the line of succession (maybe with some "additional stuff"). For example, a senate being represented by 2 senators for each region (for example, 1 elected at large, the other by the legislature), the VP being the 7th senator. Of course, he couldn't break the tie anymore. I like this idea. Anything wrong with it, fellow delegates? I would be fine with that idea. Its not like he could outvote the regions on his own in an all-regional Senate otherwise. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Senator Cris on October 31, 2015, 03:45:58 AM What about a principle vote on the VP position?
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Adam Griffin on October 31, 2015, 04:41:55 AM For the record, I have proposed an amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220718.msg4782094#msg4782094) that eliminates the need for a VP because:
a) we already have a dilution of the separation of powers between the executive/legislative branches by allowing the VP to cast a tie-breaking vote anyway b) as much of a hypocrite as I might be, I think the concept of "unity tickets" are something we as a game should move away from for a new incarnation; it will help in my opinion reduce the instance of coalition building not built on substance (even though my unity ticket was built on substance: bicameralism, consolidation and general game reform/experience) c) this has been converted into a relatively useless office over time, the primary functions of which (tie-breaking vote, line of succession) have either been replaced in my proposed amendment or can easily be done so in future amendments d) with a principle vote confirming we will have a bicameral government, we must strive to eliminate as many unnecessary offices as possible (that includes the VP & select cabinet positions, either through abolition or duty-mergers) As such, I will be supporting the abolition of the Vice Presidency and the investment of its responsibilities into other roles that will be born into the bicameral system. I motion for a principle vote on retaining/abolishing the Vice Presidency. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: tmthforu94 on October 31, 2015, 09:37:02 AM Here's my simple concern, which I have stated before:
- As much as we would like to think this should be a government simulation, it is primarily an elections simulation. I have the belief that having a vice president adds an unique component to elections - it certainly helped for a while in the Mideast when we created it. Unfortunately, outside of that there isn't much proof arguing one way or another, since we have always had it one way. I won't base my vote on the entire document based on whether it is eliminated. But if we eliminate it, this should definitely be considered as an "experiment," not a permanent solution. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: windjammer on October 31, 2015, 09:48:48 AM For the record, I have proposed an amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220718.msg4782094#msg4782094) that eliminates the need for a VP because: a) we already have a dilution of the separation of powers between the executive/legislative branches by allowing the VP to cast a tie-breaking vote anyway b) as much of a hypocrite as I might be, I think the concept of "unity tickets" are something we as a game should move away from for a new incarnation; it will help in my opinion reduce the instance of coalition building not built on substance (even though my unity ticket was built on substance: bicameralism, consolidation and general game reform/experience) c) this has been converted into a relatively useless office over time, the primary functions of which (tie-breaking vote, line of succession) have either been replaced in my proposed amendment or can easily be done so in future amendments d) with a principle vote confirming we will have a bicameral government, we must strive to eliminate as many unnecessary offices as possible (that includes the VP & select cabinet positions, either through abolition or duty-mergers) As such, I will be supporting the abolition of the Vice Presidency and the investment of its responsibilities into other roles that will be born into the bicameral system. I motion for a principle vote on retaining/abolishing the Vice Presidency. The Vice President isn't a member of the executive branch. He's a member of the legislative branch. So no problems with the separation of power. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Adam Griffin on October 31, 2015, 10:49:35 AM For the record, I have proposed an amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220718.msg4782094#msg4782094) that eliminates the need for a VP because: a) we already have a dilution of the separation of powers between the executive/legislative branches by allowing the VP to cast a tie-breaking vote anyway b) as much of a hypocrite as I might be, I think the concept of "unity tickets" are something we as a game should move away from for a new incarnation; it will help in my opinion reduce the instance of coalition building not built on substance (even though my unity ticket was built on substance: bicameralism, consolidation and general game reform/experience) c) this has been converted into a relatively useless office over time, the primary functions of which (tie-breaking vote, line of succession) have either been replaced in my proposed amendment or can easily be done so in future amendments d) with a principle vote confirming we will have a bicameral government, we must strive to eliminate as many unnecessary offices as possible (that includes the VP & select cabinet positions, either through abolition or duty-mergers) As such, I will be supporting the abolition of the Vice Presidency and the investment of its responsibilities into other roles that will be born into the bicameral system. I motion for a principle vote on retaining/abolishing the Vice Presidency. The Vice President isn't a member of the executive branch. He's a member of the legislative branch. So no problems with the separation of power. Well, it used to have more responsibilities, but no: at its core, the Vice Presidency is an executive position, elected just as much alongside the President as the President is alongside the VP. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: windjammer on October 31, 2015, 10:50:48 AM For the record, I have proposed an amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220718.msg4782094#msg4782094) that eliminates the need for a VP because: a) we already have a dilution of the separation of powers between the executive/legislative branches by allowing the VP to cast a tie-breaking vote anyway b) as much of a hypocrite as I might be, I think the concept of "unity tickets" are something we as a game should move away from for a new incarnation; it will help in my opinion reduce the instance of coalition building not built on substance (even though my unity ticket was built on substance: bicameralism, consolidation and general game reform/experience) c) this has been converted into a relatively useless office over time, the primary functions of which (tie-breaking vote, line of succession) have either been replaced in my proposed amendment or can easily be done so in future amendments d) with a principle vote confirming we will have a bicameral government, we must strive to eliminate as many unnecessary offices as possible (that includes the VP & select cabinet positions, either through abolition or duty-mergers) As such, I will be supporting the abolition of the Vice Presidency and the investment of its responsibilities into other roles that will be born into the bicameral system. I motion for a principle vote on retaining/abolishing the Vice Presidency. The Vice President isn't a member of the executive branch. He's a member of the legislative branch. So no problems with the separation of power. Well, it used to have more responsibilities, but no: at its core, the Vice Presidency is an executive position, elected just as much alongside the President as the President is alongside the VP. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Adam Griffin on October 31, 2015, 10:52:05 AM Here's my simple concern, which I have stated before: - As much as we would like to think this should be a government simulation, it is primarily an elections simulation. I have the belief that having a vice president adds an unique component to elections - it certainly helped for a while in the Mideast when we created it. Unfortunately, outside of that there isn't much proof arguing one way or another, since we have always had it one way. I won't base my vote on the entire document based on whether it is eliminated. But if we eliminate it, this should definitely be considered as an "experiment," not a permanent solution. OK, but nobody inherently votes for the Vice President other than as an arrangement for a unity ticket where the "bottom" party goes along with the "top party". This is how it's always worked in the modern era. Combined with the fact that the VP has no other responsibilities anymore except to cross from the executive branch into the legislative branch to break ties, it makes no sense to maintain what has become an anachronism. To be fair, the Vice Presidency was pretty much a useless position throughout the history of the game as best I can tell. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Adam Griffin on October 31, 2015, 10:59:48 AM For the record, I have proposed an amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220718.msg4782094#msg4782094) that eliminates the need for a VP because: a) we already have a dilution of the separation of powers between the executive/legislative branches by allowing the VP to cast a tie-breaking vote anyway b) as much of a hypocrite as I might be, I think the concept of "unity tickets" are something we as a game should move away from for a new incarnation; it will help in my opinion reduce the instance of coalition building not built on substance (even though my unity ticket was built on substance: bicameralism, consolidation and general game reform/experience) c) this has been converted into a relatively useless office over time, the primary functions of which (tie-breaking vote, line of succession) have either been replaced in my proposed amendment or can easily be done so in future amendments d) with a principle vote confirming we will have a bicameral government, we must strive to eliminate as many unnecessary offices as possible (that includes the VP & select cabinet positions, either through abolition or duty-mergers) As such, I will be supporting the abolition of the Vice Presidency and the investment of its responsibilities into other roles that will be born into the bicameral system. I motion for a principle vote on retaining/abolishing the Vice Presidency. The Vice President isn't a member of the executive branch. He's a member of the legislative branch. So no problems with the separation of power. Well, it used to have more responsibilities, but no: at its core, the Vice Presidency is an executive position, elected just as much alongside the President as the President is alongside the VP. Currently, to appear on the ballot and sink/swim as one entity with the Chief Executive of the country and to be first in line to replace the President. The VP has the same legislative powers in real-life American powers, yet is still identified as the second-highest member of the executive branch. According to the United States Government: https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/executive-branch https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government () The Vice President is a member of the executive branch. This isn't hard stuff, y'all. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: windjammer on October 31, 2015, 11:02:58 AM For the record, I have proposed an amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220718.msg4782094#msg4782094) that eliminates the need for a VP because: a) we already have a dilution of the separation of powers between the executive/legislative branches by allowing the VP to cast a tie-breaking vote anyway b) as much of a hypocrite as I might be, I think the concept of "unity tickets" are something we as a game should move away from for a new incarnation; it will help in my opinion reduce the instance of coalition building not built on substance (even though my unity ticket was built on substance: bicameralism, consolidation and general game reform/experience) c) this has been converted into a relatively useless office over time, the primary functions of which (tie-breaking vote, line of succession) have either been replaced in my proposed amendment or can easily be done so in future amendments d) with a principle vote confirming we will have a bicameral government, we must strive to eliminate as many unnecessary offices as possible (that includes the VP & select cabinet positions, either through abolition or duty-mergers) As such, I will be supporting the abolition of the Vice Presidency and the investment of its responsibilities into other roles that will be born into the bicameral system. I motion for a principle vote on retaining/abolishing the Vice Presidency. The Vice President isn't a member of the executive branch. He's a member of the legislative branch. So no problems with the separation of power. Well, it used to have more responsibilities, but no: at its core, the Vice Presidency is an executive position, elected just as much alongside the President as the President is alongside the VP. Currently, to appear on the ballot and sink/swim as one entity with the Chief Executive of the country and to be first in line to replace the President. The VP has the same legislative powers in real-life American powers, yet is still identified as the second-highest member of the executive branch. According to the United States Government: https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/executive-branch https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government () The Vice President is a member of the executive branch. This isn't hard stuff, y'all. He's the predident of the senate and he breaks the tie: legislative branch Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Adam Griffin on October 31, 2015, 11:07:15 AM Please explain me where are the executive duties of the VP. Currently, to appear on the ballot and sink/swim as one entity with the Chief Executive of the country and to be first in line to replace the President. The VP has the same legislative powers in real-life American powers, yet is still identified as the second-highest member of the executive branch. According to the United States Government: https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/executive-branch https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government () The Vice President is a member of the executive branch. This isn't hard stuff, y'all. He's the predident of the senate and he breaks the tie: legislative branch Considering that our Constitution and government is essentially ripped from that of the United States Constitution, that the VP is elected as an executive on an executive ticket, and that he directly replaces the top executive as first in line to the Presidency, I think I'm going to have to believe the United States Government and the White House over a random Frenchman! Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: windjammer on October 31, 2015, 11:13:36 AM Please explain me where are the executive duties of the VP. Currently, to appear on the ballot and sink/swim as one entity with the Chief Executive of the country and to be first in line to replace the President. The VP has the same legislative powers in real-life American powers, yet is still identified as the second-highest member of the executive branch. According to the United States Government: https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/executive-branch https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government () The Vice President is a member of the executive branch. This isn't hard stuff, y'all. He's the predident of the senate and he breaks the tie: legislative branch Considering that our Constitution and government is essentially ripped from that of the United States Constitution, that the VP is elected as an executive on an executive ticket, and that he directly replaces the top executive as first in line to the Presidency, I think I'm going to have to believe the United States Government and the White House over a random Frenchman! Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Adam Griffin on October 31, 2015, 11:23:04 AM Please explain me where are the executive duties of the VP. Currently, to appear on the ballot and sink/swim as one entity with the Chief Executive of the country and to be first in line to replace the President. The VP has the same legislative powers in real-life American powers, yet is still identified as the second-highest member of the executive branch. According to the United States Government: https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/executive-branch https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government () The Vice President is a member of the executive branch. This isn't hard stuff, y'all. He's the predident of the senate and he breaks the tie: legislative branch Considering that our Constitution and government is essentially ripped from that of the United States Constitution, that the VP is elected as an executive on an executive ticket, and that he directly replaces the top executive as first in line to the Presidency, I think I'm going to have to believe the United States Government and the White House over a random Frenchman! No, I just consider the first guy in the line of succession to be in the executive branch because he is in the executive branch and is prioritized in the line of succession as such, because he is the only person elected on a ticket with the head of the executive branch - who cannot be elected without a VP - because the founders literally considered it closely related enough to the Presidency to put the title in the name and, most importantly, because the official and preeminent real-life government authorities on the matter agree with me. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: windjammer on October 31, 2015, 11:25:48 AM Please explain me where are the executive duties of the VP. Currently, to appear on the ballot and sink/swim as one entity with the Chief Executive of the country and to be first in line to replace the President. The VP has the same legislative powers in real-life American powers, yet is still identified as the second-highest member of the executive branch. According to the United States Government: https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/executive-branch https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government () The Vice President is a member of the executive branch. This isn't hard stuff, y'all. He's the predident of the senate and he breaks the tie: legislative branch Considering that our Constitution and government is essentially ripped from that of the United States Constitution, that the VP is elected as an executive on an executive ticket, and that he directly replaces the top executive as first in line to the Presidency, I think I'm going to have to believe the United States Government and the White House over a random Frenchman! No, I just consider the first guy in the line of succession to be in the executive branch because he is in the executive branch and is prioritized in the line of succession as such, because he is the only person elected on a ticket with the head of the executive branch - who cannot be elected without a VP - because the founders literally considered it closely related enough to the Presidency to put the title in the name and, most importantly, because the official and preeminent real-life government authorities on the matter agree with me. So your argument doesn't make sense, or being on the line of succession is a executive duty, or it is not. The VP is fundamentally a member of the legislative branch. That'swhy during the 19th century, the VP's role was to administer the senate debates. The VP's member of the executive branch is a big misinterpretation of the constitution that is unfortunetaly prevailing in our mind. He only has legislative duties in the constitution: he breaks the tie, and he's the president of the senate. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Adam Griffin on October 31, 2015, 12:01:11 PM Please explain me where are the executive duties of the VP. Currently, to appear on the ballot and sink/swim as one entity with the Chief Executive of the country and to be first in line to replace the President. The VP has the same legislative powers in real-life American powers, yet is still identified as the second-highest member of the executive branch. According to the United States Government: https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/executive-branch https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government () The Vice President is a member of the executive branch. This isn't hard stuff, y'all. He's the predident of the senate and he breaks the tie: legislative branch Considering that our Constitution and government is essentially ripped from that of the United States Constitution, that the VP is elected as an executive on an executive ticket, and that he directly replaces the top executive as first in line to the Presidency, I think I'm going to have to believe the United States Government and the White House over a random Frenchman! No, I just consider the first guy in the line of succession to be in the executive branch because he is in the executive branch and is prioritized in the line of succession as such, because he is the only person elected on a ticket with the head of the executive branch - who cannot be elected without a VP - because the founders literally considered it closely related enough to the Presidency to put the title in the name and, most importantly, because the official and preeminent real-life government authorities on the matter agree with me. So your argument doesn't make sense, or being on the line of succession is a executive duty, or it is not. The VP is fundamentally a member of the legislative branch. That'swhy during the 19th century, the VP's role was to administer the senate debates. The VP's member of the executive branch is a big misinterpretation of the constitution that is unfortunetaly prevailing in our mind. He only has legislative duties in the constitution: he breaks the tie, and he's the president of the senate. He's first in the line for a reason: he is the most special and most closely aligned with the Presidency, because he is in the executive branch (and also a member of the cabinet; the cabinet members are part of the executive branch as well, again, according to real-life government). Fortunately, no more back and forth is necessary because the United States Government says I'm right. It also doesn't matter because the Vice Presidency has at least three other metrics working against it and I'm not arguing over what title it needs to be assigned in the Constitution or to what branch; I'm arguing to eliminate it. If the game chooses to leave this office in the new incarnation, then I don't care how it's classified branch-wise. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: windjammer on October 31, 2015, 12:04:09 PM Please explain me where are the executive duties of the VP. Currently, to appear on the ballot and sink/swim as one entity with the Chief Executive of the country and to be first in line to replace the President. The VP has the same legislative powers in real-life American powers, yet is still identified as the second-highest member of the executive branch. According to the United States Government: https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/executive-branch https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government () The Vice President is a member of the executive branch. This isn't hard stuff, y'all. He's the predident of the senate and he breaks the tie: legislative branch Considering that our Constitution and government is essentially ripped from that of the United States Constitution, that the VP is elected as an executive on an executive ticket, and that he directly replaces the top executive as first in line to the Presidency, I think I'm going to have to believe the United States Government and the White House over a random Frenchman! No, I just consider the first guy in the line of succession to be in the executive branch because he is in the executive branch and is prioritized in the line of succession as such, because he is the only person elected on a ticket with the head of the executive branch - who cannot be elected without a VP - because the founders literally considered it closely related enough to the Presidency to put the title in the name and, most importantly, because the official and preeminent real-life government authorities on the matter agree with me. So your argument doesn't make sense, or being on the line of succession is a executive duty, or it is not. The VP is fundamentally a member of the legislative branch. That'swhy during the 19th century, the VP's role was to administer the senate debates. The VP's member of the executive branch is a big misinterpretation of the constitution that is unfortunetaly prevailing in our mind. He only has legislative duties in the constitution: he breaks the tie, and he's the president of the senate. He's first in the line for a reason: he is the most special and most closely aligned with the Presidency, because he is in the executive branch (and also a member of the cabinet; the cabinet members are part of the executive branch as well, again, according to real-life government). Fortunately, no more back and forth is necessary because the United States Government says I'm right. It also doesn't matter because the Vice Presidency has at least three other metrics working against it and I'm not arguing over what title it needs to be assigned in the Constitution or to what branch; I'm arguing to eliminate it. If the game chooses to leave this office in the new incarnation, then I don't care how it's classified branch-wise. My point is that there was no problem of separation of power with the VP before because the VP never had executive duties. With your plan, there would be directly a problem of separation of power because the president would break the tie, ie legislative power as well. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Adam Griffin on October 31, 2015, 12:15:26 PM Please explain me where are the executive duties of the VP. Currently, to appear on the ballot and sink/swim as one entity with the Chief Executive of the country and to be first in line to replace the President. The VP has the same legislative powers in real-life American powers, yet is still identified as the second-highest member of the executive branch. According to the United States Government: https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/executive-branch https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government () The Vice President is a member of the executive branch. This isn't hard stuff, y'all. He's the predident of the senate and he breaks the tie: legislative branch Considering that our Constitution and government is essentially ripped from that of the United States Constitution, that the VP is elected as an executive on an executive ticket, and that he directly replaces the top executive as first in line to the Presidency, I think I'm going to have to believe the United States Government and the White House over a random Frenchman! No, I just consider the first guy in the line of succession to be in the executive branch because he is in the executive branch and is prioritized in the line of succession as such, because he is the only person elected on a ticket with the head of the executive branch - who cannot be elected without a VP - because the founders literally considered it closely related enough to the Presidency to put the title in the name and, most importantly, because the official and preeminent real-life government authorities on the matter agree with me. So your argument doesn't make sense, or being on the line of succession is a executive duty, or it is not. The VP is fundamentally a member of the legislative branch. That'swhy during the 19th century, the VP's role was to administer the senate debates. The VP's member of the executive branch is a big misinterpretation of the constitution that is unfortunetaly prevailing in our mind. He only has legislative duties in the constitution: he breaks the tie, and he's the president of the senate. He's first in the line for a reason: he is the most special and most closely aligned with the Presidency, because he is in the executive branch (and also a member of the cabinet; the cabinet members are part of the executive branch as well, again, according to real-life government). Fortunately, no more back and forth is necessary because the United States Government says I'm right. It also doesn't matter because the Vice Presidency has at least three other metrics working against it and I'm not arguing over what title it needs to be assigned in the Constitution or to what branch; I'm arguing to eliminate it. If the game chooses to leave this office in the new incarnation, then I don't care how it's classified branch-wise. My point is that there was no problem of separation of power with the VP before because the VP never had executive duties. With your plan, there would be directly a problem of separation of power because the president would break the tie, ie legislative power as well. No, the VP is a member of the executive branch, and the US Government certainly has a better idea of its definitions than anyone else. Irrespective of the powers allocated to it, the VP is a member of the executive branch. I won't be engaging any more on this, because it's akin to engaging with people who deny the climate is changing or that our deficit is decreasing. There are these pesky things called facts, such as our government's Constitution (both real-life and in-game), in which the power of the executive is invested in the President, the Vice President and other executive officers and staffers appointed by the President. The existence of the Vice President is defined in Article II of the Constitution, not Article I. The President has the power to veto legislation in some scenarios; it doesn't make him a legislator. The Supreme Court can render null and void orders given by the President in some scenarios; it doesn't make them executives. The existence of each branch and the members that comprise it are clearly defined in their respective Articles of the Constitution; the Vice-President is not defined as existing in Article I, therefore it is not of the legislative branch. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: windjammer on October 31, 2015, 12:17:05 PM Quote No, the VP is a member of the executive branch, and the US Government certainly has a better idea of its definitions than the guy who has literally lost every court case he ever represented in the game trying to argue definitions. Irrespective of the powers allocated to it, the VP is a member of the executive branch. You always have to go on personal attacks. You failed to show a single executive duty the VP has lol. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Adam Griffin on October 31, 2015, 12:18:59 PM Quote No, the VP is a member of the executive branch, and the US Government certainly has a better idea of its definitions than anyone else. Irrespective of the powers allocated to it, the VP is a member of the executive branch. You always have to go on personal attacks. You failed to show a single executive duty the VP has lol. I showed where the Vice Presidency is defined as originating from, which is all that matters. And you failed to rebut the other three very valid points as to why the Vice President doesn't need to exist lol. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: tmthforu94 on October 31, 2015, 12:20:13 PM Quote No, the VP is a member of the executive branch, and the US Government certainly has a better idea of its definitions than the guy who has literally lost every court case he ever represented in the game trying to argue definitions. Irrespective of the powers allocated to it, the VP is a member of the executive branch. You always have to go on personal attacks. I second the motion for a principle vote on whether or not to have a Vice President. I think Griffin makes valid points on the lack of responsibilities the role has had - personally I would prefer giving it more power than abolishing it, but we'll see what the delegates decide. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 31, 2015, 12:20:36 PM The VP only exists to take the place of the president should he be incapacitated and to break ties in the senate. That's it. But they are part of the executive branch. We had this debate a year ago during DemPGH's presidency. The VP is not a legislator nor is it a member of the legislative branch. There's no debate about it.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 31, 2015, 12:22:52 PM Also aye on the amendment, we can edit it as we go. This isn't a final vote on the government structure details.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 31, 2015, 12:23:59 PM I third the motion for a principle vote.
Given that we have voted to adopt a two-house Congress, the vice presidency has the potential to become an important part of the government. I'm unsure as to how I will vote at this point. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: windjammer on October 31, 2015, 12:27:46 PM Quote No, the VP is a member of the executive branch, and the US Government certainly has a better idea of its definitions than the guy who has literally lost every court case he ever represented in the game trying to argue definitions. Irrespective of the powers allocated to it, the VP is a member of the executive branch. You always have to go on personal attacks. You failed to show a single executive duty the VP has lol. I showed where the Vice Presidency is defined as originating from, which is all that matters. And you failed to rebut the other three very valid points as to why the Vice President doesn't need to exist lol. No, you showed basically nothing. And you never asked me why the VP should still exist. I already nexplained that by the way, but I see no problem explaining that: -we need a a tie breaker because with your plan, we might have often ties. -But most importantly, it is important to have a ticket running for the highest office. Basically, if there is only 1 office, the game will tend to bipartism, which is bad for the gameplay. We would lose basically all the "coalition stuff" that make this game great. Indeed, the VP has been useful for making coalition between parties happen. This is what happens with Bore and Bacon King, or with Bore and Averroes, the goal was to get the votes of TPP. When there was a straigth laboir ticket, DeMPGH and myself, we lost almost all center leftist TPP. So this office is really important because it allows the princip of alliances between the parties. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Adam Griffin on October 31, 2015, 12:39:16 PM Quote No, the VP is a member of the executive branch, and the US Government certainly has a better idea of its definitions than anyone else. Irrespective of the powers allocated to it, the VP is a member of the executive branch. You always have to go on personal attacks. You failed to show a single executive duty the VP has lol. I showed where the Vice Presidency is defined as originating from, which is all that matters. And you failed to rebut the other three very valid points as to why the Vice President doesn't need to exist lol. No, you showed basically nothing. And you never asked me why the VP should still exist. I already nexplained that by the way, but I see no problem explaining that: -we need a a tie breaker because with your plan, we might have often ties. -But most importantly, it is important to have a ticket running for the highest office. Basically, if there is only 1 office, the game will tend to bipartism, which is bad for the gameplay. We would lose basically all the "coalition stuff" that make this game great. Indeed, the VP has been useful for making coalition between parties happen. This is what happens with Bore and Bacon King, or with Bore and Averroes, the goal was to get the votes of TPP. When there was a straigth laboir ticket, DeMPGH and myself, we lost almost all center leftist TPP. So this office is really important because it allows the princip of alliances between the parties. And right now we have what is in essence either faux coalitions, or personality tickets where two popular parties can combine a ticket and win based on that alone. When Bore and Bacon King ran, it was only done to guarantee bore's victory as both of the party apparatuses were at each other's throats before, during and after that happened, and TPP leadership then basically said "put Bacon King on there or we probably won't support bore". A coalition built out of ideological coherence would be more likely to emerge if one candidate had to fight for the support from multiple parties as an individual leader. We have never had two parties with an overwhelming share of the vote in the modern era; even at their largest, the two parties have comprised barely half of the voting bloc. And often, because of the current situation, there is not real ideological coherence on a ticket. On several occasions, the President and the Vice President have had very different views on a variety of issues, even when they may have seemed the same on the surface (especially with game reform; Duke and I are the most closely aligned in that regard of any ticket in the modern era). This means that in cases where you had 5/5 splits, the VP might break the tie in the opposite direction that the President desired. The President will in effect be the only person truly representing all people; if it comes down to a tie, then that should matter. The President should get to break the tie in favor of his agenda, since he has been elected to represent everyone and is running on his ideas. The only way that is guaranteed in a simulation like Atlasia where unity tickets are currently common is if the President himself gets to do it. Furthermore, the tie-breaking in the House should be rare, but likewise, the guy who is elected Speaker (the leader of the body that is next closest to being the will of the overall people) should follow the President in the line of succession. All of this would create more exciting and meaningful outcomes for elections, and eliminate an office that - even if it remains in the game - will have even less power than it does now, by virtue of not possessing tie-breaking power for the entire legislative branch. The Vice Presidency is basically a wet blanket that historically has just put a damper on things and adds another layer of bureaucracy to the mix, increasing the probability of legislative failure. With two chambers, we should try our best to minimize the number of hoops legislation must jump through. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: windjammer on October 31, 2015, 12:55:17 PM Quote And right now we have what is in essence either faux coalitions, or personality tickets where two popular parties can combine a ticket and win based on that alone. When Bore and Bacon King ran, it was only done to guarantee bore's victory as both of the party apparatuses were at each other's throats before, during and after that happened, and TPP leadership then basically said "put Bacon King on there or we probably won't support bore". A coalition built out of ideological coherence would be more likely to emerge if one candidate had to fight for the support from multiple parties as an individual leader. We have never had two parties with an overwhelming share of the vote in the modern era; even at their largest, the two parties have comprised barely half of the voting bloc. By modern era, do you mean on this political simulation or irl?If you're talking about irl, the USA will remain bipartism because running campaigns as you know is really expensive. So obviously multipartism would be too much expensive. On this political simulation, yes, the fact the VP exists has strongly encouraged multipartism (to my mind), and that is a good thing. If there is one guy who is running, there will be only 2 parties because as you say (if I understand correctly what you mean), people will coalesce around 1 person, and there will be a dual. You have the right to believe this would be good for the game. Personally, I believe that would be terrible. The gameplay of coalitions is highly entertaining. For example, I will give you the example of the june presidential election (2014), Sirnick chose dallasfan because he thought getting the votes of DR with TPP should be enough to be elected president, thinking the federalists would have the "everything but labor" mentality. And I know that some people (I thyink Napoleon) strongly encourage DemPGH to pick me as his running mate because I would be more appealing to the social-conservatives than Dallasfan ever could be. And this is indeed what happened, in the end, DemPGH and I won because we managed to get the support of many socons like DC etc etc. So, yes, with my experience, I can say the roleplay of making coalitions can be really fun, and improbable coalitions can emerge etc etc. That's what make the game funny. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: Adam Griffin on October 31, 2015, 01:10:55 PM Quote And right now we have what is in essence either faux coalitions, or personality tickets where two popular parties can combine a ticket and win based on that alone. When Bore and Bacon King ran, it was only done to guarantee bore's victory as both of the party apparatuses were at each other's throats before, during and after that happened, and TPP leadership then basically said "put Bacon King on there or we probably won't support bore". A coalition built out of ideological coherence would be more likely to emerge if one candidate had to fight for the support from multiple parties as an individual leader. We have never had two parties with an overwhelming share of the vote in the modern era; even at their largest, the two parties have comprised barely half of the voting bloc. By modern era, do you mean on this political simulation or irl?If you're talking about irl, the USA will remain bipartism because running campaigns as you know is really expensive. So obviously multipartism would be too much expensive. On this political simulation, yes, the fact the VP exists has strongly encouraged multipartism (to my mind), and that is a good thing. If there is one guy who is running, there will be only 2 parties because as you say (if I understand correctly what you mean), people will coalesce around 1 person, and there will be a dual. You have the right to believe this would be good for the game. Personally, I believe that would be terrible. The gameplay of coalitions is highly entertaining. For example, I will give you the example of the june presidential election (2014), Sirnick chose dallasfan because he thought getting the votes of DR with TPP should be enough to be elected president, thinking the federalists would have the "everything but labor" mentality. And I know that some people (I thyink Napoleon) strongly encourage DemPGH to pick me as his running mate because I would be more appealing to the social-conservatives than Dallasfan ever could be. And this is indeed what happened, in the end, DemPGH and I won because we managed to get the support of many socons like DC etc etc. So, yes, with my experience, I can say the roleplay of making coalitions can be really fun, and improbable coalitions can emerge etc etc. That's what make the game funny. My argument was that in the game, it doesn't actually build real coalitions based on ideology - it builds coalitions based on who thinks they can win with whom (I see we agree). That doesn't lead to better ideological outcomes for the game - it just usually results in the two most popular parties at the time forming an alliance of convenience with one another in order to win, and running against one or two other parties that have formed a ticket. Very rarely does that not work for the former group (Sirnick was a terrible campaigner, etc). Forcing individuals to work hard to earn the support of multiple parties or individuals within those parties would occur more often if every candidate had to be on the ballot by themselves. And no, since we have PR-STV, it wouldn't just lead to two candidates any more than we usually end up with two real candidates these days. In addition, because of that, the President and the Vice President often end up having different beliefs - especially/usually on game ideas - and that can lead to the President's agenda being cock-blocked by an ideologically-dissimilar VP that was picked for electoral convenience. If the President has the power to say, "I'm breaking this tie in favor of the agenda that the entire nation elected me to do", then more can get done (and the President will be more accountable simultaneously). We're adding in another chamber and that will complicate the legislative process even more - removing this hurdle will help balance some of that extra bureaucracy. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: windjammer on October 31, 2015, 01:18:04 PM Quote And right now we have what is in essence either faux coalitions, or personality tickets where two popular parties can combine a ticket and win based on that alone. When Bore and Bacon King ran, it was only done to guarantee bore's victory as both of the party apparatuses were at each other's throats before, during and after that happened, and TPP leadership then basically said "put Bacon King on there or we probably won't support bore". A coalition built out of ideological coherence would be more likely to emerge if one candidate had to fight for the support from multiple parties as an individual leader. We have never had two parties with an overwhelming share of the vote in the modern era; even at their largest, the two parties have comprised barely half of the voting bloc. By modern era, do you mean on this political simulation or irl?If you're talking about irl, the USA will remain bipartism because running campaigns as you know is really expensive. So obviously multipartism would be too much expensive. On this political simulation, yes, the fact the VP exists has strongly encouraged multipartism (to my mind), and that is a good thing. If there is one guy who is running, there will be only 2 parties because as you say (if I understand correctly what you mean), people will coalesce around 1 person, and there will be a dual. You have the right to believe this would be good for the game. Personally, I believe that would be terrible. The gameplay of coalitions is highly entertaining. For example, I will give you the example of the june presidential election (2014), Sirnick chose dallasfan because he thought getting the votes of DR with TPP should be enough to be elected president, thinking the federalists would have the "everything but labor" mentality. And I know that some people (I thyink Napoleon) strongly encourage DemPGH to pick me as his running mate because I would be more appealing to the social-conservatives than Dallasfan ever could be. And this is indeed what happened, in the end, DemPGH and I won because we managed to get the support of many socons like DC etc etc. So, yes, with my experience, I can say the roleplay of making coalitions can be really fun, and improbable coalitions can emerge etc etc. That's what make the game funny. My argument was that in the game, it doesn't actually build real coalitions based on ideology - it builds coalitions based on who thinks they can win with whom (I see we agree). That doesn't lead to better ideological outcomes for the game - it just usually results in the two most popular parties at the time forming an alliance of convenience with one another in order to win, and running against one or two other parties that have formed a ticket. Very rarely does that not work for the former group (Sirnick was a terrible campaigner, etc). Forcing individuals to work hard to earn the support of multiple parties or individuals within those parties would occur more often if every candidate had to be on the ballot by themselves. And no, since we have PR-STV, it wouldn't just lead to two candidates any more than we usually end up with two real candidates these days. In addition, because of that, the President and the Vice President often end up having different beliefs - especially/usually on game ideas - and that can lead to the President's agenda being cock-blocked by an ideologically-dissimilar VP that was picked for electoral convenience. If the President has the power to say, "I'm breaking this tie in favor of the agenda that the entire nation elected me to do", then more can get done (and the President will be more accountable simultaneously). We're adding in another chamber and that will complicate the legislative process even more - removing this hurdle will help balance some of that extra bureaucracy. Yes, we agree the first part. But the problem is that whatever the system will be, it will never change the problem of a small game: that the most popular is elected. By eliminating bicameralism, you won't change that. Instead of the coalition of 2 most popular parties, it willjust be the election of the most popular party. But at least, with the current system, you have to make coalition happen. And even if it is not based on ideology, it at least creates gameplay. Your plan, and any other reform will never end the party cult system we currently know. It will just make the game less great because multipartism will disappear. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Senator Cris on October 31, 2015, 01:26:54 PM It's time for a 48-hours principle vote on the position of Vice President.
Quote Should the Vice Presidency position be retained? [] Aye [] Nay [] Abstain Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Senator Cris on October 31, 2015, 01:27:35 PM Aye
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Adam Griffin on October 31, 2015, 01:27:54 PM NAY
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: windjammer on October 31, 2015, 01:29:49 PM aye
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: VPH on October 31, 2015, 01:46:02 PM AYE
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 31, 2015, 03:00:48 PM Aye
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Clyde1998 on October 31, 2015, 03:05:52 PM Aye
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: MadmanMotley on October 31, 2015, 03:40:04 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN on October 31, 2015, 05:47:43 PM Should the Vice Presidency position be retained?
[] Abstain Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: tmthforu94 on October 31, 2015, 06:49:46 PM AYE
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Classic Conservative on October 31, 2015, 07:20:03 PM AYE
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 31, 2015, 08:47:32 PM Aye, also I'd propose an amendment to allow the VP to be part of the cabinet if it's mutually agreed by the ticket and approved by both houses.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 31, 2015, 09:33:50 PM ABSTAIN
I'm okay with keeping the VP if we give him/her an actual job to do, as opposed to sitting around for four months waiting for the president to be banned. In lieu of a concrete plan to make this happen, I can't support this proposal - but I don't want to shoot the possibility out of the water, either. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Clark Kent on November 01, 2015, 11:56:26 AM AYE
If the President is banned, we'd need someone to take control. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on November 01, 2015, 03:14:14 PM Nay.
In the absence of a plan that significantly shifts the role of the office, I cannot support retention. We need to making serious changes if we want to save the game. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: bore on November 01, 2015, 04:22:42 PM Nay
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 01, 2015, 04:40:52 PM Aye
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 02, 2015, 12:53:55 AM AYE
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on November 02, 2015, 01:06:45 AM Aye
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 02, 2015, 01:09:12 AM After years of inactive and placeholder VPs with few exceptions, we gave the VP small share of directly presiding over the Senate. We then went 4 out of 5 VPs that were active and engaged (Duke, DemPGH, Cincy and Windjammer, with Matt being the only exception due to personal reasons). Then everything went to hell and a hand basket in August of last year. I lost my internet access, Labor had a nominal majority and was obligated to give that commie traitor the PPTship (and in the process enact the disastrous concept of a partisan Senate administration to fix something that wasn't broken or at least not in that way!) and Jammy baby had to go and resign. :P By October, people had soured on VP involvement and it's removal from Senate leadership got rolled into Nix's "OMG SIMPLICITY AT ALL COSTS" OSPR overhaul and subsequent amendment. And since then VP activity has been sh**t. You get what you pay for.
Restore the VP To being President of Senate, or better yet, make him "Primary Officer of the Congress" (We can find a better title later), empowering him to keep both houses running smoothly. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Leinad on November 02, 2015, 03:49:24 AM Aye.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Senator Cris on November 02, 2015, 03:18:07 PM The VP position will be retained.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: windjammer on November 02, 2015, 05:11:27 PM The result was 15 Ayes, 3 Nays and 1 Abstain for the record.
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: bore on November 02, 2015, 05:16:11 PM Well Nix's senate rules reform was one of the best things we ever passed, because what went before it was completely unreadable.
Anyway I think we need to avoid doing an attorney general thing here where we randomly attach duties to a job. To take the attorney general as an example it had updating the wiki, a sort of SoIA style thing for the police, and prosecutions all rolled into one, but which require different skill sets. The only duty which people actually wanted was the prosecutions one, so the other two just didn't happen. Worse, in the wikis case no one else did it because it was the AG's job. We need to remember that the VP is chosen for three main reasons, because they help the president get elected, in case the president resigns and to vote as the president would in the senate. None of these things have anything to do with running a legislative body. We need to avoid having a situation where the person running the legislatures is chosen not because they are good at that but for a completely different reason. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 02, 2015, 05:39:49 PM We need to remember that the VP is chosen for three main reasons, because they help the president get elected, in case the president resigns and to vote as the president would in the senate. Honestly, the reason nobody pays attention to Vice Presidential candidates right now (except when forming unity tickets) is because the office has no significant responsibilities - it's not unlike taking the wheels off your car and then complaining that it doesn't go anywhere. By giving the Vice President an important role in running the national government, we will force candidates and voters to pay attention to VP picks, and the game will be better for it. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 02, 2015, 10:39:05 PM Indeed, bore has it backwards. After we gave the VP that ability, 80% of VPs were active. Windjammer was selected partially because of his experience in the Midwest Althing if I recall correctly. As it became in place longer, it had an impact on the selection process.
Also, no one doubts that consolidation of the rules were necessary. However, his package was not the only alternative and I created one that cut just 10% less from the text than Nix's, and yet retained the VP's responsibilities. (I think it was 73% versus 62% reduction in text size, so both were substantial. That was my point, it got lumped in with that and then defended ad nauseum by completely deriding all that came before. The old text was abysmal, but there were decent aspects of it that we had added over the years. And the VP's administering of part of the Senate derived not from specific grants but an arrangement made with the PPT at the beginning of the term, resting on the VP's role as the PPT Constitutional superior. The rules merely acknowledged this arrangement and had since 2010, only never to be utilized until 2013. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON VP) Post by: bore on November 03, 2015, 06:10:07 AM Well whether the VP ran the senate or not wasn't really something that affected the length of the senate rules. As far as I remember, and this was debated at the time, the decision to put running the senate in the hands of a senator was taken, rightly or wrong, because it was seen as making the senate run better (for similar sort of reasons to the ones I mentioned), not because it made the rules slightly shorter.
To be honest I tend towards the view that the running of the senate should all be in one persons hands, it's far less confusing than 90 different threads ran by 90 different people, and the less people that need to be relied on the less likely things are to go wrong. So whatever we do it should be one person, not the PPT, the most senior senator and the VP who run things. It's my opinion that the most important roles of the VP are, and will always be, the three I mentioned, and presidents will always select based on that, and that will lead to problems. That said, there is clearly a will here to give the VP this role, and there's no point fighting this. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, Vice Presidency. Post by: sentinel on November 28, 2015, 11:08:50 PM Quote Sirnick chose dallasfan because he thought getting the votes of DR with TPP should be enough to be elected president, thinking the federalists would have the "everything but labor" mentality. Ahem, ahem -- allow me to make my rare post. I picked Dallasfan because 1) he's the bomb and 2) to unite the two smaller parties behind a candidate to be competitive for first choice picks and then (ideally) win on second/third choices etc. We only came 5(?) votes shy of winning so the strategy was fairly effective. Someone else wrote we were terrible campaigners -- you're mis-remembering. We were decent at the minimum. Dallasfan and I had a huge outreach effort going on, although we did come up short in the end. Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (Debating) Post by: Adam Griffin on November 28, 2015, 11:37:37 PM Yes, even I can admit that the sirnick / dallasfan ticket overperformed relative to the upsets that the DemPGH / windjammer ticket was able to generate with the relatively large number of defections (21% of the conservative vote (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=194461.msg4799735#msg4799735)), but there is a caveat there. As windjammer can attest to, this is in part due to my laziness during the election save for the NE Senate race; I was completely convinced we would win after the first 12 hours or so (and I was right, wasn't I?) so I sent out only a handful of PMs that weekend. I had to deal with jambles constantly telling me "we're going to lose! The margin is closing!" etc etc, but based on initial returns, I was confident that we would eek out a victory in any scenario, as well as in a majority of Senate races. So, their efforts were largely successful because they did not have the Griffin machine grinding out one unbelievable vote after another; it's amazing what I can do when my back is against the wall! However, because I was not threatened by them, their over-performance had no counter from me.
Had it been a status quo election where all of the Federalists and conservatives knee-jerked against Labor, though, then the result would have been a mirror image in terms of margin. Fortunately, several of those votes came in early and cemented their fate. But history doesn't remember losers well (unless and/or especially if they delete the appropriate threads)! Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (Debating) Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on March 16, 2016, 09:56:56 AM Have we settled the issue of the VP yet? Not that I'm complaining about having nothing to do, but we need closure here
Title: Re: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (Debating) Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on March 16, 2016, 03:52:10 PM Have we settled the issue of the VP yet? Not that I'm complaining about having nothing to do, but we need closure here |