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

[windjammer]

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.

[windjammer]

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.

[windjammer]

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.

[windjammer]

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

[windjammer]

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?

[windjammer]

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.

[windjammer]

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.

[windjammer]

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.

[windjammer]

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.

[windjammer]

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.

[windjammer]

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.

[windjammer]

aye

[windjammer]

The result was 15 Ayes, 3 Nays and 1 Abstain for the record.