(08-03-2022, 12:14 AM)Pronoun Wrote:

(07-31-2022, 07:46 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: I did include in the draft the compromise of "these responsibilities much be addressed by a Cabinet minister" (Article VI(3)) which I think addresses concerns about having no Minister for certain responsibilities without overly limiting the PM's discretion.

Hmm, I see. I think I read that with the assumption that the Prime Minister was themselves a Minister as well, but I'm sure we can smooth out kinks in wording like this. Semantically, I do think it would make more sense for the Prime Minister to be a member of the Cabinet if they are meant to be the leader of it.

How would you suggest we change the language to fix that?

(08-03-2022, 12:14 AM)Pronoun Wrote:

(07-31-2022, 07:46 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: From my point of view, if the structure of the military is as it is now it makes sense that Generals have to be confirmed by the Assembly, because the Generals have authority in and of themselves to govern the SPSF. (Arguably, in the status quo the PM actually has no authority to direct the SPSF! And Generals also have the authority to override the MoD/govern jointly with the MoD.) In a PM-led model, the PM is the one with the responsibility and who provides civilian oversight, not the Assembly, and this removes the need for confirmation. Despite this, the element of recall can/should remain, as the most direct avenue for public oversight of any given official.

Is this the point of view you hold more generally? The Prime Minister is the leader of the Cabinet, but Cabinet minister nominations must be confirmed, so I'm not entirely sure why being the commander-in-chief of the SPSF means there's no need for confirmation.

Generals aren't Cabinet ministers. They're Officers in the military. Civilian oversight of the military is conducted already by the Prime Minister and the Minister appointed for military operations. From my perspective, there's no need to compromise professional military leadership and advice by adding an unnecessary layer of civilian oversight to General confirmation.

(08-03-2022, 12:14 AM)Pronoun Wrote:

(07-31-2022, 07:46 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: I also think that, in all likelihood, PMs would still involve the Cabinet in those decisions, just in an informal/consultative manner instead of in a formal voting process.

I'm fine with informal consultation, as long as it actually happens. I wouldn't even mind if it was codified into law that the Prime Minister must consult with the Cabinet or something, even if that still leaves the door open to varying degrees of consultation, because I do think it is important to at least establish the intent of the Cabinet as an advisory body. With your proposal, the language introducing the appointed Minister positions is oriented around the particular areas of executive responsibility that they must fulfill. That's fine, but I do think the Cabinet can and should do more than just being "responsible for" certain areas of government. I'm sure that what I'm pointing out wasn't your intention with the language — but I do think the language, as it currently stands, overemphasizes the Prime Minister as a decision-maker and other Ministers as administrators. If we really are going to follow through with an appointed Cabinet, I'd really prefer to see it at least established, in the law, as not just as a way for a Prime Minister to pick like-minded people to carry out their agenda, but also to identify people who may serve as good advisors and voices in internal conversations.

I don't really think it should be required that the PM consult. I think it is likely they will. There's a key difference. Ultimately, you're overrating how important the "process of participating in discussions" is to player growth and underestimating the extent to which the Assembly will at times debate and discuss PM actions regardless.

(08-03-2022, 05:33 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: How would you suggest we change the language to fix that?

A rough draft, but something along the lines of—

(3) The Prime Minister shall, upon their election as Prime Minister, nominate other Ministers to assist in the execution of the region's government. The responsibilities and portfolio of each appointed Minister shall be at the discretion of the Prime Minister, but must collectively include, at minimum, the region's foreign affairs, military, cultural activities, and outreach and integration efforts. Before assuming office, Ministers must be confirmed by the Assembly in a vote lasting not longer than 48 hours.

(4) The Prime Minister and their appointed Ministers shall collectively form the Cabinet.

(08-03-2022, 05:33 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: Generals aren't Cabinet ministers. They're Officers in the military. Civilian oversight of the military is conducted already by the Prime Minister and the Minister appointed for military operations. From my perspective, there's no need to compromise professional military leadership and advice by adding an unnecessary layer of civilian oversight to General confirmation.

"Adding" more civilian oversight is one way to frame the issue. Another way to look at it is to note that we currently have Assembly confirmation, and this proposal would remove it. So yes, I'm not sure why this step is currently compromising our professional military leadership.

Once appointed, Generals are already insulated from the political process (and rightfully so!) by protections against unjust dismissal by the Prime Minister. There's no questions about whether they'd be reappointed when we have new Prime Ministers. And even if they're not confirmed, they can just be officers? Like, part of the "corps of Officers" that, in your proposal, would lead the military alongside the Prime Minister? In general, I'm just not sure why this is an issue of whether we compromise professional military service.

(08-03-2022, 05:33 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: I don't really think it should be required that the PM consult. I think it is likely they will. There's a key difference. Ultimately, you're overrating how important the "process of participating in discussions" is to player growth and underestimating the extent to which the Assembly will at times debate and discuss PM actions regardless.

I think it would be good practice! And I think it benefits our laws in the long run to codify reasonable best practices into law. This isn't just about player growth — there are bigger and broader differences in our viewpoints here.

To me, if I'm going to get behind an appointed Cabinet, then it at least has to be one designed as a collaborative entity. The Prime Minister chooses people they think would be able to carry out their agenda, yes, but hopefully also to hear good advice and make better decisions. As you have pointed out, maybe they'll choose someone who they believe has potential, even if that person maybe doesn't yet carry the confidence in themselves to run for office.

I don't think we should stop at "well, it's likely to happen" (or, worse, "it's possible") for everything. If we write our laws about ministers exclusively describing them carrying out government functions, that's the intent that will be captured in law.

You argued that an appointed Cabinet would make our executive more dynamic. I want a more dynamic executive too! But when I think of a dynamic executive, I think of one that generates more ideas, more actively — not just one that carries out functions of government more efficiently or responds to crises more quickly. That can come from the Prime Minister being able to implement a broader agenda, sure, but it can also come from real-time feedback from Cabinet Ministers as they implement that agenda. That doesn't preclude the Assembly debating and discussing actions taken by the Prime Minister. It just allows the Cabinet to respond to feedback faster.

Saying all of this could and likely would happen anyway is great, but I'd much prefer to see that intent down in writing. Once a proposal is adopted, that proposal becomes the law. Whatever intent we convey here will not become law.

Apologies for the delay.

(08-04-2022, 12:06 AM)Pronoun Wrote: "Adding" more civilian oversight is one way to frame the issue. Another way to look at it is to note that we currently have Assembly confirmation, and this proposal would remove it. So yes, I'm not sure why this step is currently compromising our professional military leadership.

Once appointed, Generals are already insulated from the political process (and rightfully so!) by protections against unjust dismissal by the Prime Minister. There's no questions about whether they'd be reappointed when we have new Prime Ministers. And even if they're not confirmed, they can just be officers? Like, part of the "corps of Officers" that, in your proposal, would lead the military alongside the Prime Minister? In general, I'm just not sure why this is an issue of whether we compromise professional military service.

From my perspective, in the status quo, Generals are an office with their own power and authority. Their power is actually not derived from any other official who is subject to public oversight or accountability because the General Corps is an autonomous entity with its own decision making prerogatives. Furthermore, right now, Generals are a political office that a Commander of the SPSF can hold.

In the proposal as made, Generals are simply a rank. They're the rank above Officer, for the more experienced and trusted members of the SPSF, but they are ultimately just staff position underneath the Prime Minister, who is subject to public oversight.

(08-04-2022, 12:06 AM)Pronoun Wrote: Saying all of this could and likely would happen anyway is great, but I'd much prefer to see that intent down in writing. Once a proposal is adopted, that proposal becomes the law. Whatever intent we convey here will not become law.

I am against making the Cabinet a collective instrument of government which must discuss matters. The Prime Minister needs to be the leader of the region. They will use the Cabinet collaboratively, but if it is about intent, then I'm opposed to an intent which makes the "Cabinet" a deliberative or decision-making body under law, rather than just in practice.

All the things you talk about (i.e. plans being adjusted on the fly, the PM consulting others, etc.), aren't just likely to still happen, they are certain to still happen. The PM will want their agenda to work, so will take input on their agenda from the Cabinet. Similarly, the PM will circulate drafts and debate major decisions internally within the Cabinet. It's going to happen. If it is about perception, then creating the perception they should consult is something I object to, because the Cabinet is an agent of the Prime Minister's will, who is themselves an agent of the citizenry's will. Anything else is the same broken system we have now.

Like, if there's widespread support for this compromise and it will actually result in some "yes" votes, I'm willing to implement. But if it's an attempt to get me to put a skewed 2012-era gameplay philosophy of collective leadership and infinite consultation into a proposal for streamlined executive government with genuine leadership (as opposed to the pathetic and toothless excuse for a Prime Minister position we have now) and then people are still planning to vote "no" on the proposal, I'll skip it. It's reducing how responsive government is to the Prime Minister's agenda in a way that does not actually increase public accountability.

I realise I am late to the game but I recently realised I've got nothing to lose in stating my honest opinion.

I don't see why an appointment-based cabinet will make a difference, if the sitting Minister is under pressure in their role, they're still going to resign, elected or not, the only benefit I see is that the replacement process will be much quicker but that, to me, is hardly a reason to bring this up in a Great Council debate, what am I missing?

I’m against this proposal for one main reasons: I feel as if the same people will be appointed to the cabinet. Now yes, there are many wonderful candidates who are skilled in different fields of each Ministry, but I feel like the exact same people will be in the Cabinet. For instance, let’s take me. Many probably didn’t know about me a few months ago. Let me rephrase that. Barely any of you knew about me a few months ago. I was Delegate if a user-created, then-minuscule region. Here I come to The South Pacific, not knowing a single nation here. Only a few months later, bam, elected to the Cabinet as Minister of Culture. Now, I’m not saying I’m a “wonderful leader,” but there could be nations who would do a fantastic job at leading a Ministry, but wouldn’t make the vetting process on the appointments to the Cabinet.

I like Elections. I love elections. We’re a democratic region. Let’s keep it that way.

(08-13-2022, 12:24 PM)The Lile Ulie Islands Wrote: I like Elections. I love elections. We’re a democratic region. Let’s keep it that way.

To be fair, we're more of a direct democracy. Elections are useful if you're in a representative democracy, which we also are. That's kind of why I made this whole thread in the first place. This hybrid system leads to different understanding of what our collective, baseline values and methods of achieving them are.

(08-13-2022, 10:32 AM)Qaweritoyu Wrote: I don't see why an appointment-based cabinet will make a difference, if the sitting Minister is under pressure in their role, they're still going to resign, elected or not, the only benefit I see is that the replacement process will be much quicker but that, to me, is hardly a reason to bring this up in a Great Council debate, what am I missing?

Expediency of the appointment process is a relatively small part of the argument in favor of this. The agenda-setting power of the Prime Minister is a far larger part of the argument, as explained above. This proposal didn't emerge due to irritation over needing to replace Cabinet-members via elections. If that was the only issue, we could simply eliminate the half-term threshold for Cabinet appointing a replacement and make it so that the Cabinet appoints a replacement throughout the term.
 

(08-13-2022, 12:24 PM)The Lile Ulie Islands Wrote: Now yes, there are many wonderful candidates who are skilled in different fields of each Ministry, but I feel like the exact same people will be in the Cabinet. For instance, let’s take me. Many probably didn’t know about me a few months ago. Let me rephrase that. Barely any of you knew about me a few months ago. I was Delegate if a user-created, then-minuscule region. Here I come to The South Pacific, not knowing a single nation here. Only a few months later, bam, elected to the Cabinet as Minister of Culture. Now, I’m not saying I’m a “wonderful leader,” but there could be nations who would do a fantastic job at leading a Ministry, but wouldn’t make the vetting process on the appointments to the Cabinet.

I do understand why this experience would make you support an election process over an appointment process, but it doesn't actually result in agenda cohesion. It also doesn't set you up for success as a Minister, really, because it sets young Ministers up to come into office without mentorship or support. Yes, it gets people into office, but does it set them up to succeed in office? Does it set the region up to succeed, given they're often elected to fulfill disparate and random goals relative that aren't in coordination with other Cabinet Ministers?

Just being a Minister is honestly worthless. It's what people do with it that count. Appointed Ministers are in a far better position to actualize goals.
 

(08-13-2022, 12:24 PM)The Lile Ulie Islands Wrote: I like Elections. I love elections. We’re a democratic region. Let’s keep it that way.

This is just stating something. It doesn't actually explain why elections at every single level, for almost every position, are good. My proposal retains TSP as a democratic region, the only difference is where and how democratic accountability is applied.

I've thought about it more and I'm more open than I was to Pronoun's suggestion that the PM announce their initial Cabinet in the campaign phase. I may do a redraft on that concept in a few days when I get time

(08-20-2022, 11:22 AM)HumanSanity Wrote: I've thought about it more and I'm more open than I was to Pronoun's suggestion that the PM announce their initial Cabinet in the campaign phase. I may do a redraft on that concept in a few days when I get time

Eh. I’m not too open to that. Well, firstly I’d rather have elections than appointments but that’s a different story. Yes, it could attract more voters for one candidate than another, however, there maybe some really good Cabinet prospects who are running the Prime Minister race. For instance, I’m going to use the July 2022 MoC Special Election. After winning, I was immediately tasked with appointing my bureau chiefs, or my “Cabinet inside the Ministry.” My Deputy Minister, Murelia, is hands-down, the best Deputy I could ask for. We found ourselves having an alike vision for the Ministry, and we wanted to partner together so we could put forward our visions. But if I was running in the Prime Minister election, let’s say against Griffindor and Murelia, I would miss out on appointing two wonderful candidates who would be stellar Ministers! Something for me just isn’t clicking, however, as I write this post, I feel more supportive of an appointment-based Cabinet and announcing your Cabinet beforehand. Hmmm…

That's one of the reservations HS brought up when I first raised that point, yes, but what's the problem exactly with Prime Ministerial candidates listing some of their opponents as their choice for Minister positions?