(07-19-2022, 02:14 AM)Pronoun Wrote: It doesn't seem like there have been significant arguments put forth in favor of an elected Cabinet, so I wanted to lay out a few of mine.

Let's fix that, shall we.

It allows a unified agenda. In TSP elections, we're used to hearing PMs say "we'll have a unified, published, super swag Cabinet agenda". It never happens. It's not because the PMs are always bad PMs, it's because the system structurally prevents you having a unified agenda. In regions, every function is interlinked. "Engagement" is ultimately promoting every other branch of government, "culture" exists in the context of foreign affairs events, foreign affairs serves the needs of the SPSF and vice versa, the SPSF relies on engagement to get new Soldiers, WA functions are essentially an outgrowth of FA ones, etc. As it is now, each Minister is elected with their own agenda, and even if the PM gives orders, the Ministers will generally prioritize their own agenda over the collective agenda for the region, in part because it's what they signed up to do. Any ability to move the region forward is lost.

It allows the government to meet the needs of the moment. The needs of the region's executive are constantly changing, far faster than the Assembly can (or should) move to change the structure of individual Ministries. If a PM runs on a unified vision for the region's government, and all its component parts, they can both select Ministers and Ministries to meet those needs. This avoids a situation where our Ministries are essentially stalled out, shackled by old responsibility sets, etc.

It's more efficient. There are always barriers to effective government in NS. Often times, they're in-game, and other times they're out-of-game factors influencing in-game events. Staying on top of things requires fast reactions and efficiency - the ability to say "this person isn't getting the job done, we need someone new". In the status quo, the PM doesn't have that power. Unless something extraordinary happens which rises to the level of a recall, the PM is stuck with the Minister and has to deal with their refusal to work towards the PM's actual agenda. This doesn't work, it costs the government valuable time, and demotivates government officials themselves.

Ministers are selected for the job they need to do, not another job. Right now, Ministers aren't selected for the job the PM needs them to do. They're selected for the job they chose to do. Only top-down selection-power over the Cabinet actually causes Ministers to think "do I want to do the job as the PM has outlined it in their campaign and deliver on those promises?" as opposed to "do I want to do this thing?".

It provides a focus for political energy. Right now, in order to hold any part of the executive accountable, the Assembly has to look seven different places, blame is shifted around, and there's frankly no one the buck stops with. Of course, we say the buck stops with the PM, but I don't think this is true in practice. Often, blame is deflected to every other official on the list except the PM, in part because the PM has no actual control. Having a unitary executive is actually better for producing a robust democracy because it provides a focus for player aspirations, attention, praise, and criticism. Right now, no election is genuinely exciting because the difference between the candidates is often a small difference in ideas rather than a sweepingly different vision, because there's only so much they can do. And, honestly, the limited power and capability of the PM probably explains why so few people want the job: it's basically a useless job that doesn't let you do anything. A difference of vision between candidates with comprehensive visions for the entire region is a better contrast for producing a healthy internal democracy and electoral cycle as well as interest in the position.

It's better for mentorship. Direct appointment is actually better for plucking new members out of obscurity and giving them a chance. In an elected system, a new player always loses to an incumbent. Or, no credible candidate runs, so the version of "giving a new player a chance" is to give the office to someone with likely no promise. Frankly, many new players who have promise are also skeptical of themselves, and won't believe in themselves unless someone points to them and says "you, yes you, should step up to the plate". Instead, new players who have little potential and lots of arrogance step up. Not only are new players with actual promise likely to become Minister but there's a structure for mentorship that they will feel more comfortable using, as reaching out to someone who has invested political energy into selecting you for office for help is far more likely.

The power of the lean. One of the best ways to get people in NS to do things is a direct personal ask. The abstract of the region wanting you to do a job is not the same as the direct ask or request of the PM saying "I want you for this job, here's why, and here's how I'll support you in doing that". It's better for properly staffing our Ministries and keeping people involved.

I'll also answer your arguments:

(07-19-2022, 02:14 AM)Pronoun Wrote: For a South Pacifican who, like many of us, discovers an interest in a particular area of government, an elected cabinet system provides greater confidence that they will be able to continue participating in that area. They know that the ministry they're interested in won't be abolished at the whim of a particular Prime Minister.

If an area of government proves itself helpful, it's unlikely to be abolished. And promising to abolish it would be a major campaign issue for the Prime Minister. It's a self correcting issue. If a PM starts abolishing Ministries on a whim, they will face huge outcry and likely recall by the Assembly. Lastly, a PM would still have to fulfill particular functions of government to maintain credibility, so at worst staff would be reorganized in most cases. Also, for internal functions, they can simply privatize the effort (as we've seen with the Ministry of Media).

(07-19-2022, 02:14 AM)Pronoun Wrote: They know that if they have significant ideas to move the ministry forward, they can make the case to their fellow South Pacificans directly. They know that they will remain accountable to their fellow South Pacificans through a consistent and predictable electoral process. In an appointed system, the opposite is true. They are directly accountable to the Prime Minister, who may be leaving office in a few months at most. They know that at that time, they may need to make their case to a new Prime Minister with very different plans for their ministry.

If a Minister is making progress in a Ministry, then a Prime Minister will likely retain them. If they aren't, then they won't. It's the same as under an election system, it only changes who they are accountable to to a more efficient system.

(07-19-2022, 02:14 AM)Pronoun Wrote: And they know that may be the case regardless of how satisfied South Pacificans are with their performance, because there will be many more issues at stake in the Prime Minister elections than a single ministry.

To some extent, this is actually a good thing. Right now, our government functions are too silo'd instead of being unified, which prevents PMs moving the entire region forward, as opposed to just some of its parts.

(07-19-2022, 02:14 AM)Pronoun Wrote: Cabinet elections offer clear pathways to retention. [...]

This is mostly a repetition of the previous point

(07-19-2022, 02:14 AM)Pronoun Wrote: This situation places greater emphasis on efficiency and unity in the Cabinet rather than on democracy. Cabinet elections are a deliberate electoral process with an emphasis on plans, goals, and hopes for different parts of our government. Cabinet appointments are a deliberate political process with an emphasis on building a Cabinet that works well together on a common agenda — which is subtly but notably different from building a Cabinet that accurately represents the views of South Pacificans.

On the contrary, a Cabinet elected individually doesn't represent South Pacifican views for comprehensive government. It represents what South Pacificans want for a predetermined set of individual parts. Frankly, it makes the choice for South Pacificans that they want a disunified government, which isn't necessarily the case.

Even beyond that, it begs why democratic input at that particular step is valuable. If democracy was our sole value, we would simply abolish the Charter as is and the Assembly would decide every issue by majority vote. But we don't do that, because practicality, security, efficiency, and effectiveness are all factors as well. Shifting where democratic accountability is applied doesn't eliminate that accountability.

Also, confirmations by the Assembly check any kind of runaway abuse by the PM.

(07-19-2022, 02:14 AM)Pronoun Wrote: Cabinet elections provide voters with more choices. While I'm sure someone will note the number of uncontested Cabinet races we've had, an appointed Cabinet just papers over the cracks. Even if we have more Prime Minister candidates, voters will essentially be choosing between omnibus packages. They may not agree with any Prime Minister candidates in every area, but they will be consciously weighing which candidate they disagree with the least; there is no guarantee the elected Prime Minister will represent the views of the region in each area within their purview. With an elected Cabinet, each individual voter may not see all of their favored candidates win election, but the elected candidates will represent the general will of voters within their particular area of responsibility.

Again, this assumes the region has discrete parts that operate entirely autonomously from one another instead of as a unified vision with individual parts. Sure, it decreases the amount of control that voters have over each part of the agenda, but it gives them a say in what the entire agenda should be, which is honestly more important for the long-term direction of the region.

As a related point of criticism, none of your justifications actually outline what the role of the PM should be under an elected Cabinet system.