MA: Re-Establishment of a Lieutenant Governor Amendment (Debating)

[tmthforu94]

It makes the most sense to have the elections concurrent to the Assembly elections, as it guarantees  a better working relationship as they'll be in during the same time. Also, many Lt. Governors will probably ascend to the Governorship, which is going to create a lot of special elections.

[tmthforu94]

Hopefully this isn't voted on until I get back to propose amendments - I think the Assembly may be becoming too power-hungry with all of this. They are far more powerful than the Governor after this.

[tmthforu94]

If we wanted to bring something unique to the region, I think a ticket would be better than separate elections - it encourages a more...efficient government. I also think it is important that if we do stick with separate, they are held together, that way we can promote a little bit more stability in the game. I understand it's an opportunity to make the off-elections more competitive, but eye, you win some, you lose some.

[tmthforu94]

Especially if the Lt. Governor has such a heavy role in the Assembly, I don't think they should have joint appointments - that is never done in the real world, and I don't see why it is so important that it is done here. Perhaps just a clause stating that the Lt. Governor makes the recommendation to the Governor, but must meet his approval in order to advance? What if the two can't decide on an appointment???

 I also think that tickets would certainly bring an interesting dynamic to the game without really potentially creating uncontested elections. It also promotes a more functional and unified government. Also, Mr. X, please expand on what you mean on how tickets "rob them of their independence." If they have that "independent quality", the Governor will probably be aware of that when they select them. And it's not like they can just be fired if the Governor doesn't like their "independence". If anything, it might just create a tense government, which could also easily happen in separate elections where two unlike individuals (say drj and jcl) are elected.

[tmthforu94]

Especially if the Lt. Governor has such a heavy role in the Assembly, I don't think they should have joint appointments - that is never done in the real world, and I don't see why it is so important that it is done here. Perhaps just a clause stating that the Lt. Governor makes the recommendation to the Governor, but must meet his approval in order to advance? What if the two can't decide on an appointment???

 I also think that tickets would certainly bring an interesting dynamic to the game without really potentially creating uncontested elections. It also promotes a more functional and unified government. Also, Mr. X, please expand on what you mean on how tickets "rob them of their independence." If they have that "independent quality", the Governor will probably be aware of that when they select them. And it's not like they can just be fired if the Governor doesn't like their "independence". If anything, it might just create a tense government, which could also easily happen in separate elections where two unlike individuals (say drj and jcl) are elected.

My worry is that a future Governor might only pick a Lieutenant Governor who to run with them who shares their views on almost everything.  Your second point is fair though and in light of it, I suppose I could live with the first option as well.

I'm sure that is a possibility, Mr. X. But considering that the same voting pool will be voting for both spots, I would say that there would be a decent chance anyways that two individuals of a similar ideology will get elected.

I still am very leery on joint appointments - I must ask again, what if the two can't decide on an appointment? At least the chances of that happening would be less likely if they were on a ticket together.

[tmthforu94]

Okay, here's an amendment. Just as a note, we're also going to need to amend in some of the currently debated amendments should they pass, so we need to make sure a final vote isn't started on this without it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section 3 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section 4 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article II, Section 2 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article III, Section 1 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article III, Section 2 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article IV, Section 1 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VI, Section 1 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All subsections of the Mideast Constitution (i.e. Part 1 of Article III, Section 5) not modified by this Act shall remain intact. [/quote]

[tmthforu94]

What this amendment does (for those who don't want to read through it):
1. Establishes joint tickets.
2. Gives the Lt. Governor responsibility over the Wiki. Before they took over if the Governor wasn't updating it. Now, they're both responsible, and if it isn't done, the Speaker takes over.
3. Gives the Lt. Governor joint power with the Lt. Governor on Assembly appointments.
4. Restores power to appoint judge to the Governor (remember, it still requires Assembly approval)

I am ceding some ground on this, as I'm not particularly in favor of joint appointments for anything as I find them to be somewhat tricky, but I'd be more apt to it with tickets.

[tmthforu94]

Also, I'm not trying to suggest anything by saying this, but while one side does have the numbers to easily pass whatever they want here, Constitutional amendments do require 2/3s support, so we'll probably need both sides in agreement if we want to pass this.

[tmthforu94]

I'm fine with this amendment, but how do we deal with the Lieutenant Governor if he fails to update the wiki as required, Governor?

Good question - should we amend it to say that the Speaker will assume the responsibilities of both?

[tmthforu94]

I think having the Lt. Governor elections during midterms would be disastrous as there would always be transitioning power in the executive branch, while more stability is needed. I also like the idea of having members of the executive branch working well together, and I think things wouldn't get done as well with two very different individuals in there.

[tmthforu94]

Not for Assembly appointments, though - the Speaker shouldn't be appointing members to his own body.

[tmthforu94]

Not for Assembly appointments, though - the Speaker shouldn't be appointing members to his own body.

For the Assembly appointment, who could break it then? Maybe the Judge would choose the one he deemed to be more qualified, and then issue a full explanation of his decision?

I would be okay with the Superior Court Judge breaking the tie for Assembly appointment.

I disagree.  The judge shouldn't be involved in such politically-motivated decisions.

^^^A public vote is the only option, though I doubt it ever happens, at least for a while, anyways.

Or we could just not have the joint appointment!!!

[tmthforu94]

Could we vote on the amendment I proposed, then do another amendment on how to settle conflicts?

[tmthforu94]

OK, since this amendment changes a lot, I'm going to ask the Assembly to consider throwing in one small thing that would make my life easier and isn't really worth a separate amendment: I already have the power to introduce legislation, but would y'all be okay with me having the power to introduce amendments? I probably introduce more amendments than just about everyone, but it's a nuisance to have to wait for an Assembly to officially introduce it.

[tmthforu94]

I don't think the Governor should have that power.  That makes him too much of a legislator.  And I think that should be a separate amendment.

Is it really that much power? I can't vote on it or anything - I just think it's a nuisance that I can introduce legislation but can't add an amendment to it.

[tmthforu94]

Let me just re-iterate that this isn't any sort of power grab - I don't think there's too much power in introducing amendments if you still can't vote on them. It's just a nuisance.

[tmthforu94]

I introduce the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
I must not have realized that the first time - this amendment has my full support. If we're going to have tickets, which is what the current version has, the Governor shouldn't have to have Assembly confirmation on their LT, especially since they'd be potentially running together in an upcoming election.

[tmthforu94]

Honestly, all of these nitpicks on whether or not their should be joint appointments for this or that...they aren't really a big deal. Let's all keep in mind that there will be tickets, so the two individuals serving as Governor and Lt. Governor will likely get along and have a similar ideology. I don't think it makes much difference one way or another, and it certainly won't affect my vote on this amendment.

TexasDem, on Article II Section 2 Clause I, change it to what Inks amendment placed it as. Because if the other amendment passes (which I assume it will) and then we pass this, this would overwrite it.

In essence, change it to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

If they're just nitpicks, then I assume you would have no problem allowing joint Assembly, Senate, and Court appointments?  The joint Assembly appointment is not just a nitpick, it is one of the most important powers this office would have.

I think the Governor should have a little more say than the Lt. Governor in terms of overall appointment, after all, he is the chief executive. All I'm saying is that the decision made by this body won't affect how my final vote is. I'm just trying to get a version through that will pass the public vote, and I don't think this would pass with joint appointments on everything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Lt. Governor shouldn't be nearly as powerful as the Governor - that isn't how it is in real life and that isn't how it should be on here. I'd rather establish the position with a considerable amount of power and see how that works, and if more duties are needed, add them later. I'd rather do that then making it overwhelming from the get-go, to be quite honest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're saying this as though I'm fighting to block it from happening, and I'm not. While I did give TexasDem some input on this amendment, I believe it was mainly he and Gass who came up with it. My big thing in terms of appointments was not requiring Assembly approval for Assembly appointments. I personally don't think the Lt. Governor should be making joint appointments for Assembly if he's going to be presiding over the Assembly, but if it's needed to get this thing through, so be it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I just have to say, once again, that all this argument over joint appointments and what-not is a little over dramatic considering that we're elected a ticket for Governor and Lt. Governor. Had we not done so, I would find it to be more important. By my judgement, I think there will be very few times that there will be a major disagreement between the Governor and Lt. Governor over appointments.


Barring some major change to this, I don't think this bill is watered down to the point of irrelevancy. This is overall a good amendment, and it gives the Lt. Governor some actual responsibilities, something it didn't really have the first time around. The disagreement is how much power the Lt. Governor should have - some think a lot, some don't. The objective needs to be to find that happy medium, pass it, and then treat it as a guinea pig. I'll just inform you guys now - this amendment isn't going to be perfect when we're done with it. Changes and adjustments will probably be made throughout the years.

[tmthforu94]

Could we get a vote on TexasDem's amendment? I'm not quite sure where everyone stands on this, to be honest.

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

That's the amended section that was messed up before, preventing a vote on it.

[tmthforu94]

Considering that he wanted a vote on it before, then fixed the concern you brought up, and asked if anyone else saw something before proceeding to a vote, I'd say this is the version he wants voted on, as it's clear he doesn't have anything to change unless someone else see's a mistake (which I don't).

[tmthforu94]

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 1, and the NAYs are 0, with 4 not voting.  The AYEs have it, and the amendment is adopted.

I know it's election season...but that's really pathetic.

Yo Inks - open an amendment that makes me Governor for life. Let's see if anyone catches it.

[tmthforu94]

Why 60 hours? Why not 48 or 72?