A Ministry of Roleplay, sub-Ministey to the Ministry of Regional Affairs!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wait that's not bad!

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

When I first read the Charter, the very provision that Awe mentioned in the other thread (Charter 3.2.3, regarding the Chair being liaison to the Cabinet) struck my eye immediately (and to see the actual Chair mention it made me feel better about my understanding). I agree that this line item, as well as 5.1.2 which calls the Chair into the cabinet, are not necessary and even counter-productive. 

Maybe I can offer another justification (founded in inexperience, though): The legislative must hold itself to a high standard (enforced and guided by the Chair) to write laws that are clear and unambiguous. Any ambiguities that do arise are, by definition and as defined by the Charter, cleared by the judiciary. The laws are public and should be understandable by anyone. So for that reason, a liaison shouldn't be necessary, because if the executive requires cooperation from an involved party (which is what the liaison language seems to imply), it should raise doubts on the semantics and/or syntax of the law in question.

So, yeah. I say remove the Chair from the Cabinet. Seems to be a consensus here anyway

Reply

Regarding the Cabinet — what if we elected Prime Ministers and "the Cabinet" on a ticket? I'm thinking this would be akin to a party system (theoretically), but with more flexibility. The "ticket" could be:

PM, MoRA, MoFA, MoA and a LC Liaison? Or ... depending how we swing it, the LC could work closer with the CoA — depending on how we decide to break this up. (Ie. if the forums get a vote in legislation, keep LC with the Assembly. Otherwise, include with Cabinet.)

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Regarding the Cabinet — what if we elected Prime Ministers and "the Cabinet" on a ticket? I'm thinking this would be akin to a party system (theoretically), but with more flexibility. The "ticket" could be:

PM, MoRA, MoFA, MoA and a LC Liaison? Or ... depending how we swing it, the LC could work closer with the CoA — depending on how we decide to break this up. (Ie. if the forums get a vote in legislation, keep LC with the Assembly. Otherwise, include with Cabinet.)

I have a few concerns with joint tickets in general:

• If people run on a joint ticket, it's reasonable to assume close relations and similar views. The Cabinet has powers that it may vote on, so if the entire Cabinet is from a single ticket, they are likely to vote in the same direction with little to no conflict, instead of a representative vote as is desired from a democracy.
  
• I'm not aware of how large the candidate base is (see disclaimer in sig). If it's large, then a joint ticket for the entire cabinet risks increased corruption in the executive for the reasons stated above.
  
• The joint ticket may also affect the fairness of the voting process (particularly with a smaller candidate base). If there's only enough candidates for N tickets, but there are more legitimate candidates than N for one of the positions, then the candidate that the majority would prefer may not be able to get onto one of the tickets and therefore would not be up for vote. Similarly, the candidate may not be able to get onto a "good" ticket (close relations and similar views again), effectively with the same result.
  

I also have concerns over the double ticket of Delegate and Vice-Delegate, in case that the Prime Minister position is not created. If a Prime Minister position is created, though, then the double ticket makes sense for representative reasons, I think.

Regarding the LC liaison's placement, I don't have arguments either way right now but intuitively it would make sense in the Assembly.

(This post was last modified: 04-09-2016, 03:09 PM by Roavin.)

Reply

Regarding the Cabinet — what if we elected Prime Ministers and "the Cabinet" on a ticket? I'm thinking this would be akin to a party system (theoretically), but with more flexibility. The "ticket" could be:

PM, MoRA, MoFA, MoA and a LC Liaison? Or ... depending how we swing it, the LC could work closer with the CoA — depending on how we decide to break this up. (Ie. if the forums get a vote in legislation, keep LC with the Assembly. Otherwise, include with Cabinet.)

Regarding the Cabinet — what if we elected Prime Ministers and "the Cabinet" on a ticket? I'm thinking this would be akin to a party system (theoretically), but with more flexibility. The "ticket" could be:

PM, MoRA, MoFA, MoA and a LC Liaison? Or ... depending how we swing it, the LC could work closer with the CoA — depending on how we decide to break this up. (Ie. if the forums get a vote in legislation, keep LC with the Assembly. Otherwise, include with Cabinet.)

I have a few concerns with joint tickets in general:

• If people run on a joint ticket, it's reasonable to assume close relations and similar views. The Cabinet has powers that it may vote on, so if the entire Cabinet is from a single ticket, they are likely to vote in the same direction with little to no conflict, instead of a representative vote as is desired from a democracy.
  
• I'm not aware of how large the candidate base is (see disclaimer in sig). If it's large, then a joint ticket for the entire cabinet risks increased corruption in the executive for the reasons stated above.
  
• The joint ticket may also affect the fairness of the voting process (particularly with a smaller candidate base). If there's only enough candidates for N tickets, but there are more legitimate candidates than N for one of the positions, then the candidate that the majority would prefer may not be able to get onto one of the tickets and therefore would not be up for vote. Similarly, the candidate may not be able to get onto a "good" ticket (close relations and similar views again), effectively with the same result.
  

I also have concerns over the double ticket of Delegate and Vice-Delegate, in case that the Prime Minister position is not created. If a Prime Minister position is created, though, then the double ticket makes sense for representative reasons, I think.

Regarding the LC liaison's placement, I don't have arguments either way right now but intuitively it would make sense in the Assembly.

I would not like to see group tickets at all, like Roavin said, they seem a bit risky just looking at it from the outside.

I feel that the Delegate and Vice Delegate would need to be on one ticket, and (maybe) each delegate candidate chooses their running mate. The Prime Minister in real life has usually been elected through an assembly, so it makes sense to do it here, though I could support wither one.

Any cabinet position I feel should be elected by the Assembly, We have to remember that the cabinet falls under the executive branch. The new delegate should be able to shape is government just a little bit.. since he did win public support for their "policies" in the election.

Anything I missed?

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

Reply

I would not like to see group tickets at all, like Roavin said, they seem a bit risky just looking at it from the outside.

I feel that the Delegate and Vice Delegate would need to be on one ticket, and (maybe) each delegate candidate chooses their running mate. The Prime Minister in real life has usually been elected through an assembly, so it makes sense to do it here, though I could support wither one.

Any cabinet position I feel should be elected by the Assembly, We have to remember that the cabinet falls under the executive branch. The new delegate should be able to shape is government just a little bit.. since he did win public support for their "policies" in the election.

Anything I missed?

Just to be clear, the delegate would be separate. My personal preference is for all seats to be elected separately, but some people had floated the idea of appointing Cabinet minister. If *that* were the case, I'd sooner voting be done on a full ticket than not.

Also — I don't know what powers "the Cabinet" would have exactly after this reconfiguration?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I would not like to see group tickets at all, like Roavin said, they seem a bit risky just looking at it from the outside.

I feel that the Delegate and Vice Delegate would need to be on one ticket, and (maybe) each delegate candidate chooses their running mate. The Prime Minister in real life has usually been elected through an assembly, so it makes sense to do it here, though I could support wither one.

Any cabinet position I feel should be elected by the Assembly, We have to remember that the cabinet falls under the executive branch. The new delegate should be able to shape is government just a little bit.. since he did win public support for their "policies" in the election.

Anything I missed?

Just to be clear, the delegate would be separate. My personal preference is for all seats to be elected separately, but some people had floated the idea of appointing Cabinet minister. If *that* were the case, I'd sooner voting be done on a full ticket than not.

Also — I don't know what powers "the Cabinet" would have exactly after this reconfiguration?

I would imagine just what their department covers, and the cabinet would also not be able to make laws.

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

Reply

Also — I don't know what powers "the Cabinet" would have exactly after this reconfiguration?

Well ... the Charter in 5.1.6 currently states:

The Cabinet may adopt Executive Policy in cases where no law exists; Executive Policy may not conflict with the Charter, Bill of Rights, or Code of Law.

That's quite a power, really and I don't see how that changes with the Prime Minister reconfiguration...


I also think it's a good idea to leave that in for things that need to be done quickly, but it's quite a broad definition. It's probably impossible to define explicitly should or shouldn't be allowed. So my suggestion is to have executive policy (that is, anything the Cabinet decides that is not already part of its responsibilities) time-limited to a reasonable amount (maybe 2-4 weeks), upon which it expires and must be enacted into law by the assembly if it's supposed to stay in place.

(This post was last modified: 04-10-2016, 04:02 PM by Roavin.)

Reply

Also — I don't know what powers "the Cabinet" would have exactly after this reconfiguration?

Well ... the Charter in 5.1.6 currently states:

The Cabinet may adopt Executive Policy in cases where no law exists; Executive Policy may not conflict with the Charter, Bill of Rights, or Code of Law.

That's quite a power, really, and I don't see how that changes with the Prime Minister reconfiguration...


I also think it's a good idea to leave that in for things that need to be done quickly, but it's quite a broad definition. It's probably impossible to define explicitly should or shouldn't be allowed. So my suggestion is to have executive policy (that is, anything the Cabinet decides that is not already part of its responsibilities) time-limited to a reasonable amount (maybe 2-4 weeks), upon which it expires and must be enacted into law by the assembly if it's supposed to stay in place.

Agreed. But, historically, we've had issues where the Cabinet wasn't able to agree on something and there was *a lot* of infighting.

Again, if we're going to keep elections for everyone — great. If not, I'd sooner know the entire slate prior to voting.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Agreed. But, historically, we've had issues where the Cabinet wasn't able to agree on something and there was *a lot* of infighting.

That's the kind of history I'm not really familiar with, being the complete n00b I am. Is there a place to view an archive of executive orders, to get a feeling for how often and what kind were done in the past?

Again, if we're going to keep elections for everyone — great. If not, I'd sooner know the entire slate prior to voting.

Oh yeah, I'm absolutely with you - if appointed, then I'd like to know beforehand, but I strongly prefer separate elections.

Reply