Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 08-17-2018, 06:47 AM

That wording is better, Belschaft. What if we alter it slightly:

“As leader of the Cabinet, the Prime Minister is responsible for overseeing a collective Cabinet agenda, and may give directions...”

That would highlight the ideal primary role of the PM a bit better, in my opinion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Belschaft** · 08-17-2018, 08:12 AM

This @sandaoguo?

Quote:VI. THE EXECUTIVE

Establishing an executive branch consisting of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet

1. The Prime Minister will be the head of government and the leader of the Cabinet. They will be responsible for the overall coordination of executive activities, being a liaison between the government and the community, and protecting the Coalition.

2. The Cabinet will consist of ministers with the following portfolios: Foreign Affairs, Regional Affairs, and Military Affairs.

3. As leader of the Cabinet, the Prime Minister is responsible for overseeing a collective Cabinet agenda, and may give directions and instructions to the ministers. Disputes within the Cabinet are subject to majority decision and collective responsibility; where there is no majority the Prime Minister’s vote shall be the deciding one.

3. 4. Members of the Executive are required to hold Legislator status.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 08-17-2018, 09:17 AM by Belschaft. Edit Reason: Spelling error corrected )

***sandaoguo*** · 08-17-2018, 08:13 AM

Yes, I think that’s good wording.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

***Roavin*** · 08-17-2018, 09:06 AM

"responsability" -> "responsibility" (but Rebs or I can fix that via Chair discretion if necessary as well).

Otherwise, I really like it too, and will probably have more to say on it later.

**Belschaft** · 08-17-2018, 09:18 AM

Typo fixed <_<

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Belschaft** · 08-20-2018, 03:28 PM

Does anyone have further comments?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Roavin*** · 08-20-2018, 04:25 PM

The Bel and Tim versions could go as competing, if both are motioned.

Tim's version is short, sweet, to the point. It doesn't give the PM power to set policy directly, but has a veto for anything the executive does which can be overridden if and only if all other Ministers agree - so in usual cases, MoRA MoFA MoMA would have to oppose PM's veto. In case of a MoRA vacancy, as now, MoFA and MoMA can still together oppose the PM's veto. If we were to add a fifth ministry, it would require all of MoRA MoFA MoMA and MoXA (where X is the new mistery ministry) to oppose the PM's veto.

Bel's version is not so short, but very much written in a style that fits well in the style of the Charter. The Prime Minister can both set and veto executive action and policy. A veto, or an order (which isn't possible in Tim's version), will in normal cases work as described in Tim's version: MoRA, MoFA, and MoMA have to all oppose it (if one of them doesn't, that's a tie and the PM's vote counts). In case of a vacancy, however, the Prime Minister only needs one other Minister (so, MoFA or MoMA). In case of a future fifth ministry, only two of MoRA, MoFA, MoMA, or MoXA have to agree with the Prime Minister.

So, to summarize the differences:

Bel's version fits better stylistically, while Tim's is shorter.
Both versions allow the PM to veto executive action. Bel's version also allows the PM to issue orders, Tim's doesn't.
In "normal" operation, both require a unanimous Cabinet to override a PM's decision. In non-normal or futuristic scenarios, Bel's version tends to favor the PM, while Tim's version tends to favor the collective of the other Cabinet Ministers.

I'd be fine with either. I'm probably slightly leaning towards Bel's version.

FaeBae · 08-20-2018, 08:29 PM

I know I'm new here, but I've been reading this intently and want to jump in. If I get something wrong, please don't hesitate to let me know!

I think it is fascinating that we elect ministers to the cabinet instead of having them be appointed like in most real governments. I'd personally like to hold on to that. I think a proposal like Tim's (which I'm unclear if he withdrew or not), does a really good job of keeping that unique structure intact. While I think Bel's proposal would be pretty effective at increasing government efficiency and cohesion, sometimes designing a system that requires members compromise with each other to succeed is just as good.

I also think there's something to be said for keeping legislation as succinct as possible. These are just my thoughts. If they were to go to vote today, I'd probably lean towards Tim's proposal, if it is still on the table. Only because I'd rather see a proposal that leaves the odds in favor of the Ministers over the PM.

FaeBae

North Prarie · 08-20-2018, 09:00 PM

I'm with Tim's proposal, its not too extreme but it gives the Prime Minister more power than before, which I think was necessary.

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

The Sakhalinsk Empire · 08-20-2018, 09:26 PM

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't @Tim withdraw his proposal? He also hasn't submitted another.

(08-16-2018, 02:04 PM)Tim Wrote: I'd like to withdraw my draft, so I may reflect on it further without it being rushed through.

The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe.

Complete Conflict of Interest