Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (Debating)

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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!

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

NAY

[Adam Griffin]

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), 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)!