Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 13, 2019, 02:36:04 am
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print
Author Topic: Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (Debating)  (Read 9541 times)
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,844
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2015, 03:36:53 pm »

     What if we just straight-up gave the VP a vote in the Senate?
Logged
Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN
RGN08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,194
Philippines


Political Matrix
E: 2.31, S: 4.47

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 14, 2015, 11:09:05 am »

     What if we just straight-up gave the VP a vote in the Senate?
Own POV: VPs are elected separately from the President, give the VP more workload than the duties provided in our constitution at present.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,268


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 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.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,957


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 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. 
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,647
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 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.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,152
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2015, 01:35:53 am »

I much prefer Duke's approach to yours, Adam. Tongue People's House Speaker, Senate PPT, and a VP acting as the the one who keeps the two houses functional.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 15, 2015, 09:06:11 pm »

I like Adam's idea.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 16, 2015, 06:58:09 pm »

I much prefer Duke's approach to yours, Adam. Tongue People's House Speaker, Senate PPT, and a VP acting as the the one who keeps the two houses functional.

Here here.
Logged
Talleyrand
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 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.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,957


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2015, 09:29:39 pm »

For me, bicameralism is a complete non starter.

In this situation, it is ridiculous.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,159
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 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.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,152
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,863
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 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.
Logged
Leinad
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,701
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 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?
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,159
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 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.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,152
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 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.
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,539
Italy



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 31, 2015, 03:45:58 am »

What about a principle vote on the VP position?
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,647
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 31, 2015, 04:41:55 am »
« Edited: October 31, 2015, 04:45:43 am by RG Griff »

For the record, I have proposed an amendment 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.
Logged
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.94, S: 1.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,863
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 31, 2015, 09:48:48 am »

For the record, I have proposed an amendment 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.
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,647
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 31, 2015, 10:49:35 am »

For the record, I have proposed an amendment 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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,863
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 31, 2015, 10:50:48 am »

For the record, I have proposed an amendment 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.
Please explain me where are the executive duties of the VP.
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,647
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 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.
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,647
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 31, 2015, 10:59:48 am »

For the record, I have proposed an amendment 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.
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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,863
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 31, 2015, 11:02:58 am »

For the record, I have proposed an amendment 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.
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.
So they are wrong too. There isn't a single exécutive duty for the vp in the constitution.
He's the predident of the senate and he breaks the tie: legislative branch
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC