Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 08, 2019, 04:17:03 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Endorsements Close today at noon

  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 9520 times)
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,626
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 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.
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

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!
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,861
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 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.
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

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!
So you consider the speaker and PPT part of the executive branch too because they are on the line of succession?
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,626
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 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.
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

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!
So you consider the speaker and PPT part of the executive branch too because they are on the line of succession?

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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,861
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 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.
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

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!
So you consider the speaker and PPT part of the executive branch too because they are on the line of succession?

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.
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,626
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 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.
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

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!
So you consider the speaker and PPT part of the executive branch too because they are on the line of succession?

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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,861
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 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.
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

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!
So you consider the speaker and PPT part of the executive branch too because they are on the line of succession?

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.
So it means that both you and the United States Government have a misconception of the role of the VP.

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.
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,626
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: October 31, 2015, 12:15:26 pm »
« Edited: November 02, 2015, 07:01:56 pm by RG Griff »

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

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!
So you consider the speaker and PPT part of the executive branch too because they are on the line of succession?

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.
So it means that both you and the United States Government have a misconception of the role of the VP.

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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,861
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: October 31, 2015, 12:17:05 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
You always have to go on personal attacks.


You failed to show a single executive duty the VP has lol.
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,626
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: October 31, 2015, 12:18:59 pm »
« Edited: November 02, 2015, 07:03:07 pm by RG Griff »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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.
Logged
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,053
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.94, S: 1.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: October 31, 2015, 12:20:13 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
You always have to go on personal attacks.
Pot, meet kettle.

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.
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 #60 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.
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 #61 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.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,294


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,861
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: October 31, 2015, 12:27:46 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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.
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,626
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: October 31, 2015, 12:39:16 pm »
« Edited: November 02, 2015, 07:03:26 pm by RG Griff »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,861
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: October 31, 2015, 12:55:17 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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.
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,626
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: October 31, 2015, 01:10:55 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,861
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: October 31, 2015, 01:18:04 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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.
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,539
Italy



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: October 31, 2015, 01:26:54 pm »

It's time for a 48-hours principle vote on the position of Vice President.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,539
Italy



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: October 31, 2015, 01:27:35 pm »

Aye
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,626
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: October 31, 2015, 01:27:54 pm »

NAY
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,861
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: October 31, 2015, 01:29:49 pm »

aye


Logged
VPH
vivaportugalhabs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,261
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: October 31, 2015, 01:46:02 pm »

AYE
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: October 31, 2015, 03:00:48 pm »

     Aye
Logged
Clyde1998
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,853
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: October 31, 2015, 03:05:52 pm »

Aye
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