 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
Not long ago, a poll about embassies was created, whether we should begin them or not. The majoriy voted aganst them. For many, this is a clear sign of the people's whishes. BUt I think it is also a blow agaist our chosen way of government, bad for the future, an simply, unconstitutional (or must be). Why?
We elect ministers to advise the president , which means, of course, that the ministers decide what to do, since rarely does the president refuse to carry out the advice of the ministers (if the president CAN is an interesting question). Thus, the ministers are the ones that make the everyday decisions of their posts. No one posts a poll about how our military commander should move the troops. There was never a vote on Plan Pink, it was simply viewed as wise, and carried out. Why then should the Foreign Minister be shackled against taking an action that is clearly in the perview of their office? Because it uses money? Then we will have to poll whenever we want to rush something. That is obviously not going to happen. Whether we have embassies or not is, and must be, solely the discretion of the Foreing Minister and the President. Why? What is the point of electing officials if they have no real power, if when anyone posts a poll, their power is sapped away? No, we elect officials, give them power and responsibility, and the way we hold them responsible is at the ballot box, or soon, with the courts. Both of these ways are fine and alllow the system to work: restricting the ability of ministers by POLL disrupts the system and creates havoc. We elected our ministers for a reason, most citizens never will go to a turnchat, which is just as well, and at turchat they make decisions. They must be free to act , free of polls, always knowing that they bear full resposibility (good or bad) for their actions.
The question then is, if direct polling is a bad way to restrict the acts of ministers, how can the average citizen, who again, will never be at turnchats, voice their views besides every two months?
We now have two branches of government, the executive, and the judicial. That leaves a third out, the legislative. We supposedly had a Dem Game senate, but that fell apart and has no power. Just as we have created a court system, we need to create a legislative system also. On what laws will the court judge? Just the constitution? How wil we handle future constitutional changes? will the executive continue to be the one to handle that too? Up to a point, since most people are only halfway involved, it gives the ministers too much power. Since polls are a terrible way to counter this power (we never were a direct democracy, ets not imagine we are), we need the third branch of government, the legislative.
Of course, this leaves big huge question open. What powers, what size, what lenght of terms, method of election?, so forth. But I think it is an important conversation to start. As we progress, the questions will only get tougher, so we might as well handle them now, and not three admins from today.
I wul finally add that a legislative branch may hopefully allow for greater participation, by giving more official posts to more citizens, making them part of the system, hopefully making them more present to the game we ar all trying to construct together.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
If people feel that we are too few for a codified group (elected), we still need to create a system, and laws, about where the powers of minsters stop, and the ability of things to be decided by polls begin. If I sarted a poll baout whether the persian warrior should a. continue wandering, b. head back home, woul Uber, or any future War minister have to feel they are bound to the results?
The embassie poll was not carried out by the Foreign Minister. How then could it be valid? and if the Foreign Minsters decides to forget the pol, and make embassies anyway because they trully believe it will help the game , could they be held guilty (impeached) for this act? and who wil make all the laws about were misterial powers end and citizen rights begin? There are many things unanswered. Perhaps if we cut back the number of ministers, by reorganizing cabinets and merging many into more rational entities, and then took the extra folk an created a mini legislature, we could move on.
I see no reason why we shoul have more than 7 in the executive branch, Prez, VP, and 5 ministers, which really, is about how many show up to turchats anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sheik
|
|
This is very interesting. I believe however that the one thing keeping everything in check is the peoples power of impeachment and the fact that no one has anything to gain by acting in an inappropriate manner.
quote:
I agree that right now, the ministry is weak, beyond being able to make suggestions that are usually widely accepted. Should an unpopular but wise decision be allowed to pass? Sure-- but it never will if it's always put in front of the entire populace. We vote people into office for a reason, and it would be nice to see this reason realized.
|
Everyhting either must be put to vote in front of the entire populace or the legislative branch must include everyone that is decided to be active by the president. This is what I suggest:
If we where to have a legislative branch then every citizen that is said to be active by the president must be allowed to be part of it. If every active citizen isn't part of it then why would anyone stay? The people who are nothing but citizens wouldn't have any say and there would be no reason for them to keep playing therefore:
quote:
I wul finally add that a legislative branch may hopefully allow for greater participation
|
Unless everyone active in the game can participate in the legislature then participation would be made greater for some but far less for others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain
|
 |
by Divine Right
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
We are the legislature.
I know the COL doesn't say it, but that is in effect what we are. De facto. Fait accompli.
We are the ones who vote in the COL, amendments, secondary laws, procedures, and policies. We do so by polling. Official polls are like "policies" that we have approved/ratified. Generally, we expect the government to follow them. (But note that our COL says that officials do NOT have to obey polls. The FAM was not required to obey the poll results, by law, he just felt it was prudent and put his opinion of what was best below that of what the public desired.)
So, in effect, we are the legislature. Sure we don't really represent anyone else, nor were we elected, but that's fine. We represent ourselves. We're a mix between a Direct democracy and a Republican form. That's the way this was set up, Some of it, we don't really have much choice in, that's the nature of the mechanics of a "democracy game".
Incidentally, the active citizenry is less than half the total membership. In a sense, we are lacking, since most legislatures have a way of a calling all members in to vote in emergencies or critical issues. But the "low" voter turnout in polls is fine, there are always legislators who are absent or away when government is in session.
I don't think we need a separate "legislature". The one we have now is fine. If the ministers feel hamstrung, they should familiarize themselves with the COL. Of course, they may not get re-elected later.., but such is the price of doing what you feel is right and abiding by your principles. Sacrifice for the nation. But hopefully, come election time, perhaps you can convince the public you were right.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Not long ago, a poll about embassies was created, whether we should begin them or not. The majoriy voted aganst them. |
This is untrue. Group 1 (Yes to embassies) got 32 votes summed up, Group 2 (No) got only 21. The grouping was clearly described in the initial post. The poll was closed with a clear 60% approval to open embassies without further polls.
On topic: I don't think we need more cluttering of the game. I would highly appreciate, if the ministers had the power to decide without polls, but I'm afraid, that many of our citizens wouldn't like this.
Again: No extra legislative. The people or Apolytonia are the senate.
Last edited by Sir Ralph on 24-07-2002 at 13:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
disorganizer
|
|
Bavaria (Fanatika)
Jun 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
You could see the citizenry in total as legislative.
We can consider running a citizen poll as a kind of "senate decission". Yes, it takes longer, but also yes, it will keep people at the game.
If you bring down in game decissions to just the ministers, nobody would ever be interested in playing this game (except the ministers, of course).
I would propose to all who wish this to wait for PTW if they want to play a 6-person game of civ3 ;-)
The sense of the demogame is to have discussions and polls about the game decissions. This also means even uncomfortable and maybe even senseless decissions for the game itself HAVE to be followed ;-)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
First, thank you Sir Ralph for clarifying on the embassy poll.
Second: to the issues of complexity and "we are the legislature":
We, the public, have no power to influence game decisions unless a minister creates a poll. We might discuss like a legislature, but in the constitutional framework, we have no real power, only the power a minister chooses to give the populace. We are like a senate, but without the ability to pass laws
On laws, and the constitution. I think it adds complexiy, not lowers it, to have every change in policy (law) have to be codified in the constitution. In no real system does the constitution spell every law out. Constitutions contain frameworks, legislatures create laws, which can change with time, regardless of the constitution. I find it far more tedious, slow, and complex to have to get a 2/3 apporval for every change in the 'law'. I think that a legislature would mak it easier, not harder, to create basic 'law' that can be followed over time (such as, should we upgrade the am to new patches, yes, no?) that probably has no need to be in the constitution.
I have been thinking of a simple system with three branches, an this is what I came up with, for a system with under 20 active participants, as compared to about 13-15 today (ministers and judges):
A smaller executive: 5 people , president and four cabinet member: War, State, Treasury, Interior. All the different cabinets would be integrated into those four. Historan wod stil be independent, but the historian is not really part of cabinet anyway.
The court: 5 people.
The legislative: 8 at most, with the VP being the head of the senate.
Division of jobs: The cabinet would act the same as today, making the turn by turn decisions in the turnchats. The legislative would take ove the role of polling and of making decisions like embassies or not, more ships, less ships, blahhh. They are the group that makes overal popupar decisions legally binding on the ministers, so that ministers would no longer control polling. This group also handles juridictional battles, like whether Trade should be under treausry or State, or who controls 0 attack units at what times, and who takes over when someone missing from turchats. These sorts of decisions can varry over time at the whimms of the people, as they should, since with time matters would change. The courts decide by looking at the constitution, when any of the other two groups have overstepped their powers, whether cerain actions can be demanded of ministers, certain polls were legal, how uch inof these gov. members must provide to the citizens, so forth.
Firts, with less ministers, we can perhaps have less problems in the turnchats. It is a balance, since with only four, one missing is important. At the same time, it raises the standards for ministes, so that only the most dedicated will apply. Also, tunchats might go faster. Second, with polling removed from ministers and laced in the legislature, depending on how the legislature is structured, it might be easier for a citizen to be able to get a poll made official on matters they care about. It also opens up a new an different venue of debate which wll have an impact on the actual playin. It also more clearly defines the court, which at the current state might take on legislaive roles, since it full boundaries are unclear. I mean, we haven't even decided if the court should function under an Anglo-Saxon system of precedent or a more code based mode of decisions. A third branch might make it clear were all the powers lie. And finally, not that many more people would be needed. Is 20 max active participants too much to ask? I mean, that many rarely ever trn out for the turnchats anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
Godking: BY the very fact that ministers need not listen to us, the notion that we are the senate , or, a legislative body, is shown false. The Roman Empire had a senate, but it had no real power, and so to call the Roman empire a Republic would be false.
We can always elect people out for whatever reason. But, first, we don't have that many candidates, since we don't have enough active participants to trully always fill our posts and once the summer end, this will only get worse, and sesond, this does no address the simple question of LAW MAKING. Is the constitution the only code of law we will have? What then belongs in the constitution, and what does not. Just recently two new questions have been brought up: about a census, and about how many posters voting makes a post legal. Neither is addressed in the constitution. Wil we have to have a new official post to the constitution to decide? Why not then have a legislative body. We ant one to interpret law (court), but we don't want one to make law? remember that 'we' can't actually make law, no matter how much we debate, and only ministers can create officla polls. Two months might be too lon for some decisions to be made.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kloreep
|
 |
of the pillow
Jun 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
GePap, you keep saying that we the people (and also we the legislature, IMNSHO) do not make laws. Yet, we are the ones who have control over the passing of laws, even if your average citizen may not propose amendments. We are the ones who create laws. So long as it passed with a 2/3rds majority, we could rule that all members must attend turnchats. There's no way we could enforce it and nobody would follow such a law, but we do have the power to propose and pass any and all amendments we wish to. How, then, are we restricted from making laws?
As for the legislature, I think it would decrease participation. Aside from elections and impeachments/removals, amendments are the only other power the people have. And since elections only come once a month - and impeachments will hopefully come much less frequently - there would be nothing for the general citizenry to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
Jdjdjd: I agree with your comment about voting and citizenship. Another system, besides the one I explained earlier (thought I still think we need to shrink the cabinet down, no matter what) is to make al registered and accounted for members part of a Parliment. These individuals would have the vote. Lists of voters (though not of their choice) would have to be made public at anyones request to verify that only members voted, or if voting could be resricted to members that would be better.
But beyond voting is the issue of introducing legislation. Only legislation introduced can pass, which means that those that control the introduction of official polls control Law Making. I strongly believe that this cannot be left to the executive branch, and would also be wrong for the court to have this power. This leaves , in my view, two options: Either have a branch of gov. dedicated to this, or, allow for a mechanism in which all citizens can do it. I think the best way to have this second option would be one of official pettitions.
Anyone, and everyone (so elected officials can't act on their own in official poll creation) would have to come up with a thread labelled PETTITION: for whatever. In the first post, they explain their case, then, all posting in such a board is resticted to only signature: that means tat if you agree, you post a Yes, or agree, or another form of affirmative, without there being a simple poll vote. If ten citizens agree for any old matter, or twentyfive for a constitutional change, then the question automatically becomes an official poll and en official poll thread is begun. No pettition would be needed to start elections, which the president would contitnue to handle as was done before. Anyone could begin unofficial polls, following rulings of the court, to their hearts content. In this manner, we, the general group, would become what som claim we already are, the legislature.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
Well, the question no one has answered is: Is the constitution the only Law we have? All the issues on Polls and what constitutes a valid one, something like the embassy poll, or voting on war plans, so forth. I dont think any of that needs to be codified into the constitution: its a waste of time and space. At the same time, does this mean that the citizentry can only place limits on minister actions every two months (elections) or by changing the constitution? I think that we need another level of law, one more maleable, more responsive to the whimms of the public, but not set in stone. I mean, are we going to be ammending the constitution every week?
Some are comlaining that all we have up right now are constitutional debates and not enought about the game. Well, I would say that this is because we have to go out and change our whole system wen we wish to implement a minor change. What about then, creating a more fluid system in which all these legal questions can be answered as part of the game, not separate from it?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-07-2002 04:42
. 
wrong thread.
. So no 'list' should be necessary, and this would vioate the bill of rights (when it passes) too.
|