We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Moving to an appointment-based Cabinet
#61

(08-25-2022, 12:55 PM)Pronoun Wrote: 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?

Good point. It just seems, you know, weird. 

Let's say your running for Prime Minister against The Haughterlands and the United States of Vietnam. Let's also say they're on your shortlist for your Cabinet. Let's have you think that TH would be the best Minister of Foreign Affairs for your Cabinet, and US of Vietnam would be the best Minister of Engagement for your Cabinet. But they're running against you. And it seems as if TH's campaign has gained way more traction than yours, however, you still believe you can win. Then, you come up with your final Cabinet while on the campaign trail. Let's say it is Purple Hyacinth (MoC), The Haughterlands (MoFA), US of Vietnam (MoE), and your OWL Director would be HumanSanity. Let's just have at that. Then you announce it. The Haughterlands is running against you, however, they'd be in your Cabinet. Running against people that, if you won, would be for sure (because of the public announcement) in your Cabinet just feels...off. And weird. 

I understand what I wrote may have just made absolutely no sense. And I'm sorry to the nations used for the Cabinet and PM election! If you don't want to be in here, please tell me! I'm 100% open to swapping you out.
maluhia
minister of culture
ambassador to lazarus
roleplayer

 
 
#62

A couple of quick notes:
  • I don't think it's all that 'weird' to list one of your opponents as your intended nomination for a Cabinet position. It's perfectly reasonable to share similar viewpoints with someone in one particular policy area, but different viewpoints in others — or even to share similar political opinions but promise differing leadership styles.
  • I'm open to the Cabinet nominations announced during the campaigning period not being 'final' — I think there would be a political cost to swapping out what people voted for without a satisfactory explanation, and I'm sure it would come up in confirmation votes.
[Image: flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg] Esfalsa | NationStatesWiki | Roleplay | Discord

[Image: rank_officer.min.svg] [Image: updates_lifetime_2.min.svg] [Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg] [Image: detags_lifetime_3.min.svg]
#63

(08-25-2022, 05:04 PM)Pronoun Wrote: A couple of quick notes:
  • I don't think it's all that 'weird' to list one of your opponents as your intended nomination for a Cabinet position. It's perfectly reasonable to share similar viewpoints with someone in one particular policy area, but different viewpoints in others — or even to share similar political opinions but promise differing leadership styles.
  • I'm open to the Cabinet nominations announced during the campaigning period not being 'final' — I think there would be a political cost to swapping out what people voted for without a satisfactory explanation, and I'm sure it would come up in confirmation votes.

I've changed my mind a bit on this. I will only support an appointment-based Cabinet if we establish committees in the Assembly and have Cabinet be approved by the Assembly, and are subject to a hearing (via discord) in the specific committee that pertains to their Minister role. Kind of like the US with the Cabinet, and being confirmed by the Senate.
maluhia
minister of culture
ambassador to lazarus
roleplayer

 
 
#64

(08-25-2022, 05:11 PM)The Lile Ulie Islands Wrote:
(08-25-2022, 05:04 PM)Pronoun Wrote: A couple of quick notes:
  • I don't think it's all that 'weird' to list one of your opponents as your intended nomination for a Cabinet position. It's perfectly reasonable to share similar viewpoints with someone in one particular policy area, but different viewpoints in others — or even to share similar political opinions but promise differing leadership styles.
  • I'm open to the Cabinet nominations announced during the campaigning period not being 'final' — I think there would be a political cost to swapping out what people voted for without a satisfactory explanation, and I'm sure it would come up in confirmation votes.

I've changed my mind a bit on this. I will only support an appointment-based Cabinet if we establish committees in the Assembly and have Cabinet be approved by the Assembly, and are subject to a hearing (via discord) in the specific committee that pertains to their Minister role. Kind of like the US with the Cabinet, and being confirmed by the Senate.

Cabinet approval by the Assembly has always been a part of my proposal. That always would include "confirmation hearings" or Q&As, generally conducted via forum thread. Why do you think Committee-specific interview/confirmation is an important step to include in that? Why are Discord-specific hearings an important part of that?
Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

[Image: rank_general.min.svg] [Image: updates_lifetime_3.min.svg] [Image: detags_lifetime_4.min.svg] [Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg]

[Image: ykXEqbU.png]
#65

(08-26-2022, 09:36 AM)HumanSanity Wrote:
(08-25-2022, 05:11 PM)The Lile Ulie Islands Wrote:
(08-25-2022, 05:04 PM)Pronoun Wrote: A couple of quick notes:
  • I don't think it's all that 'weird' to list one of your opponents as your intended nomination for a Cabinet position. It's perfectly reasonable to share similar viewpoints with someone in one particular policy area, but different viewpoints in others — or even to share similar political opinions but promise differing leadership styles.
  • I'm open to the Cabinet nominations announced during the campaigning period not being 'final' — I think there would be a political cost to swapping out what people voted for without a satisfactory explanation, and I'm sure it would come up in confirmation votes.

I've changed my mind a bit on this. I will only support an appointment-based Cabinet if we establish committees in the Assembly and have Cabinet be approved by the Assembly, and are subject to a hearing (via discord) in the specific committee that pertains to their Minister role. Kind of like the US with the Cabinet, and being confirmed by the Senate.

Cabinet approval by the Assembly has always been a part of my proposal. That always would include "confirmation hearings" or Q&As, generally conducted via forum thread. Why do you think Committee-specific interview/confirmation is an important step to include in that? Why are Discord-specific hearings an important part of that?

Well specific committees are focused solely on one or a few issues relating to each other. That’s kind of like all of our Ministries. Specific committees can work because those interested in that specific topic or topics can join that group.

For Discord, that was the first thing that came to mind. To my knowledge have a convention hall channel, that is rarely used after the Assembly abolished the Ministry of Media. We could hold hearings there, but Q&A on the forums works perfectly too.
maluhia
minister of culture
ambassador to lazarus
roleplayer

 
 
#66

(08-26-2022, 09:41 AM)The Lile Ulie Islands Wrote: Specific committees can work because those interested in that specific topic or topics can join that group.
Alternatively, any legislators interested in that specific topic or topics can voice their opinions.

(08-26-2022, 09:41 AM)The Lile Ulie Islands Wrote: Q&A on the forums works perfectly too.
Indeed, it works better. The Assembly is and has always been located on the forums; it's where past discussions are archived so that they can be referenced in the future and where formal Assembly debate already takes place.
[Image: flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg] Esfalsa | NationStatesWiki | Roleplay | Discord

[Image: rank_officer.min.svg] [Image: updates_lifetime_2.min.svg] [Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg] [Image: detags_lifetime_3.min.svg]
[-] The following 2 users Like Pronoun's post:
  • Comfed, maluhia
#67

My current plans for this are to put up a few different versions of the proposal (which I have not yet had the time to draft yet):
  • The current version--full PM discretion on appointments, no defined portfolios.
  • A version with PM announcing portfolios/appointments before the voting period, with those being non-binding.
  • A version with PM being able to appointed a Cabinet but mandating certain specific portfolios exist--i.e. less flexibility in terms of the Ministries, but still flexibility on appointing Ministers.
Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

[Image: rank_general.min.svg] [Image: updates_lifetime_3.min.svg] [Image: detags_lifetime_4.min.svg] [Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg]

[Image: ykXEqbU.png]




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .