As a further point — just skimming the TNP statement, it explicitly states that it was essentially a rebranding of an existing Cards Guild. I don't think constitutional rigidity has been the issue here; we just never had a community as passionate about cards as TNP did.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

Reply

I think competitive election to ministerial office is one of the best things about TSP and has allowed our region to grow and change organically. Some of our best Ministers would never have made it into office via appointment and changes like us becoming a Defender region probably wouldn't have come about without it.

That's what I mean when I say confirmation/challenge.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

some sort of challenge that allows citizens with a bold agenda to run the ministry themselves if they don't agree with the PM's appointment.

No. That defeats the point of the system. The PM should be elected with a mandate as chief executive to execute their agenda as they see fit. Allowing people to co-opt Ministries makes appointed Ministers completely worthless. Accountability via confirmation is something I can get behind, but not this.

Spoiler

Republic of Lansoon (Pacifica)

Reply

I think I lean towards Comfed's point of view but I'd be willing to entertain a draft/proposal on Jay's "challenge the appointment" idea.
 

maintaing direct election to constitutional ministries - foreign affairs & defense

Why are these Ministries so essential they must exist while others do not have to? I can imagine scenarios where neither Minister would be appointed. If the SPSF Officers are capable of jointly exercising authority and building the SPSF subject to the Prime Minister's decision making as head of government, then I think that's fine and there doesn't have to be a Minister of Defense (in this case, the Prime Minister is the civilian leader of the military, similarly to how the Minister of Defense is now). If the Prime Minister would like to handle high-level negotiations themselves, I can understand them not appointing a Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Some of our best Ministers would never have made it into office via appointment and changes like us becoming a Defender region probably wouldn't have come about without it.

It's hard for us to know what Ministers may have made it into office under which system. On the contrary, appointment systems can be beneficial because they allow mentorship and direct encouragement, instead of forcing PMs with Ministers they didn't choose or don't see as having a long-term future.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

we should instead codify specific responsibilities (related to game mechanics) that the Prime Minister or a duly appointed minister must fulfill.

I believe that this sort of procedural solution is viable as well, it's a simpler method as well. Fully agreed.

but what is the relationship between the prime minister and the delegate?

I believe that discussions regarding the Head of State and Delegate role should be a separate thread. After reaching consensus on the HoG and HoS is when it would be best to discuss the nature of their mutual relations. I think that putting all these topics on a single thread at the beginning is like us playing darts blindfolded.

A Prime Minister could choose to exercise foreign affairs responsibilities themselves.

I disagree with this. In this prism, it would make more sense for foreign affairs to be conducted by the Head of State/Delegate. I'm open to the idea of a collective 'Council' covering matters of Foreign Affairs though.

Ministry/SPSF to be done by the SPSF's Officers jointly

I strongly disagree with this. The SPSF should still have 'civilian control' in the form of a political body/office.

best left to the Assembly as a political and accountability question.

Yes, reporting on progress is a method of the Assembly holding the PM accountable, some systems introduce the procedure of the Legislative regularly asking 'questions' to members of the Executive within the report/briefing communication.

we should definitely include a confirmation system or some sort of challenge that allows citizens with a bold agenda to run the ministry themselves

The confirmation system is exactly what gave me the most issues when drafting proposals for changing the Charter. There are numerous methods of conducting this confirmation but they are very hard to simulate. I'm very excited to hear suggestions on how others would introduce confirmation of the PM Cabinet in detail.
I don't understand the latter part of the statement though. Citizens running Ministries but not being elected for them seems unnatural. Allowing the Assembly to recall specific Ministers defeats the purpose of appointment IMO.
Perhaps a good solution would be the PM presenting a ballot for his choice of Cabinet members, say 2-3 people for each Ministry. The Assembly would then vote on their preferred candidate from that list of candidates. This is what I originally had in mind but it seemed very impractical and convoluted.

The Orange Records | Viliakmon (Pacifica) | NationStates Account Main | Discord: genericsequencealias#0990

Reply

While I do support the idea of an appointment-based cabinet, my primary issue is letting new people a chance into an entry-level cabinet position like Minister of Culture or Engagement that lets them prove their worth to TSP. Personal experience tells me that the same 9 or 10 people will end up in the cabinet over and over again and new people won't have a chance to prove themselves. Working in a ministry consistently won't work with a fluid cabinet that changes every term, so they won't be able to show their dedication to a single ministry. And even then, I find it seriously unlikely that a new Prime Minister would look closely at the activity of all the previous ministries from the old cabinet to discover this new person.

But, yeah, I do generally like the idea of an appointment-based cabinet, it just has some flaws that need to be worked out before I believe it could really be put into practice.

"After he realizes this newfound power of his to override the hopes and dreams of republicans, he puts all of the united provinces under his control."
one time minister of culture

Reply

While I do support the idea of an appointment-based cabinet, my primary issue is letting new people a chance into an entry-level cabinet position like Minister of Culture or Engagement that lets them prove their worth to TSP. Personal experience tells me that the same 9 or 10 people will end up in the cabinet over and over again and new people won't have a chance to prove themselves. Working in a ministry consistently won't work with a fluid cabinet that changes every term, so they won't be able to show their dedication to a single ministry. And even then, I find it seriously unlikely that a new Prime Minister would look closely at the activity of all the previous ministries from the old cabinet to discover this new person.

But, yeah, I do generally like the idea of an appointment-based cabinet, it just has some flaws that need to be worked out before I believe it could really be put into practice.

This is where the challenge system comes in. I also think that PMs should have the option to call for ministerial elections in lieu of appointments for whatever positions they deem necessary.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 07-18-2022, 11:42 PM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

While I do support the idea of an appointment-based cabinet, my primary issue is letting new people a chance into an entry-level cabinet position like Minister of Culture or Engagement that lets them prove their worth to TSP. Personal experience tells me that the same 9 or 10 people will end up in the cabinet over and over again and new people won't have a chance to prove themselves. Working in a ministry consistently won't work with a fluid cabinet that changes every term, so they won't be able to show their dedication to a single ministry. And even then, I find it seriously unlikely that a new Prime Minister would look closely at the activity of all the previous ministries from the old cabinet to discover this new person.

But, yeah, I do generally like the idea of an appointment-based cabinet, it just has some flaws that need to be worked out before I believe it could really be put into practice.

Really, I think an appointment-based system would actually help solve this problem by allowing Ministers to be appointed based on merit and activity, with fewer political considerations (being well-connected, name recognition, etc...) coming into play.

Spoiler

Republic of Lansoon (Pacifica)

Reply

I also think that PMs should have the option to call for ministerial elections in lieu of appointments for whatever positions they deem necessary.

Why would this need to be codified into law? A PM could simply open a thread and then hold a poll. They could even ask someone else to do it on their behalf to create a sense of objectivity. A PM could also take open applications for Ministers. There's no reason to put that option into the text of the law.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

Why would this need to be codified into law? A PM could simply open a thread and then hold a poll. They could even ask someone else to do it on their behalf to create a sense of objectivity. A PM could also take open applications for Ministers. There's no reason to put that option into the text of the law.

Well, I don't want someone going around saying, "That's illegal. Why is the PM doing this?"

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply