| [Debate] Electoral reform 2020 |
|
To avoid getting off-topic on another thread, I'd like to discuss electoral reform. At present, we currently elect the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet. However, I'd like for us all to consider only electing the Prime Minister who, in turn, would appoint the rest of the Cabinet. The reason why I want us to consider this is because we often have to complain about a lack of candidates when elections come around.
If we solely elect a Prime Minister instead of the current election system, we could see more people run for PM who would then appoint someone from each ministry who merits an appointment as the head of their respective ministries.
Howdy folks. I have yet to develop my own opinion on these matters, but I would like to provide context on some of the regions who currently do this or something similar and what their electoral system is.
TNP: TNP's delegate serves as their head of government and state. They appoint all ministers and may have whatever ministries they wish but they must have a minister of foreign affairs, military affairs and internal affairs. They currently have seven Ministers. The delegate serves for four months with a limit of three consecutive terms. TEP: The delegate serves as head of state and government and appoints all ministers with whatever portfolios he sees fit. Currently, there are seven ministers with 2 chief ministers overseeing them. The delegate serves for four months Lazarus: the only other region on this list to have a Head of Government separate from their Delegate. They elect a Prime Minister who determines what ministries they will have and who will run them. They serve for four months. TRR: The delegate serves as head of state and head of government. There are four officers each of whom are given a portfolio by the delegate. The delegate is elected separately of their officers. The delegate is elected six months from the previous election while officers are elected every four months. 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
Initial reaction: I don't know if this would really encourage more people to run for PM - seeing as they wouldn't just need a PM agenda but would also need to say what their agendas would be for MA, FA, and RA. (And if they don't put forwards agendas on those or at least indicate who they would choose, then there isn't really much Assembly oversight on those.) I'd be interested in how many people tend to run for office in regions who do this, how experienced they are, and if they are disposed to picking older or newer players.
I strongly oppose this.
I have first-hand experience with this organization of government and it kills activity. My experience with this was in Balder for the last two years. The way Balder set up their government was the King was head of state while their Statsminister (prime minister) was head of government. Their Storting (assembly) elected only their Talman (Chair) and the Statsminister. From there, the Statsminister that won the election would go on to form a government usually consisting of a foreign minister, WA minister, military minister, and culture minister, and the option for further ministries being created as the Statsminister pleases. I was the WA minister, uninterrupted, for one full year before I left. The positions also tended to rotate between the same few people and not much got done since the cabinet was only accountable to the Statsminister and didn't have much incentive to actually work. Balder is also not a perfect example since it is very inactive, and there aren't enough people to get new people in office. I have found that elections are one of the most important drivers of activity in regions, and the more elections there are the more active the region. TSP could probably pull this off with its current activity levels, however, there is the risk that an elected Prime Minister with hidden motives could appoint a cabinet that runs away with the region. An entirely elected cabinet has a lower chance of that happening. -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 (04-22-2020, 11:14 PM)Griffindor Wrote: I strongly oppose this. We're TSP. We're a feeder and not a sinker. I'd also argue that TNP, who have been the top region for quite some time, have gotten away with having an elected head of government who appoints the Cabinet. (04-22-2020, 11:14 PM)Griffindor Wrote: I was the WA minister, uninterrupted, for one full year before I left. The positions also tended to rotate between the same few people and not much got done since the cabinet was only accountable to the Statsminister and didn't have much incentive to actually work. Balder is also not a perfect example since it is very inactive, and there aren't enough people to get new people in office. In our current situation, we have multiple elected Cabinet positions but few to even compete. As for incentives, I believe that we could reform each ministry's advisory council in a way that these advisors give the PM recommendations as to who is best to lead the ministry. With that being said, we'd have to change how advisors are appointed or use a form of intra-ministry democracy to determine who should lead. (04-22-2020, 11:14 PM)Griffindor Wrote: TSP could probably pull this off with its current activity levels, however, there is the risk that an elected Prime Minister with hidden motives could appoint a cabinet that runs away with the region. An entirely elected cabinet has a lower chance of that happening. There's always going to be risk-reward, but I feel like we have a Prime Minister position that is a tiger with no teeth, if I were to use a metaphor. With the current system, it makes more sense for the Cabinet to be a triumvirate between MoFA, MoRA, and MoMA.
This would reduce the political diversity of our government and centralise power in the Prime Minister. I'm not sure either of these is a desirable outcome.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
I've long opposed this for similar reasons to those stated. I understand the thought, but I'd also be concerned about the positions rotating between the same people/our government becoming more of an oligarchy.
As someone who was delegate when delegates needed to find a trusted vice delegate, that was difficult enough let alone trying to find a whole slate of people.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I'm opposed to this because many citizens make their name by running for election.
I'm also opposed to this for all of the reasons stated above. Aga/Eunopiar
Mostly does boring things.
Balder isn't a great example since it is the inactivity-themed GCR.
More seriously, however, I'm opposed as I think that our elected officers are an important part of our distinctive democratic culture. There may be room for reform, but appointments are too far from what makes TSP TSP. Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond! Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi. Salma 145:8
|
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |