Proposed Constutional Ammendment

AlHoma

AlHoma

TNPer
Proposed ammendment to Article III Section 3
To insert
7) If a person elected in the general elections resigns their position before the entirety of the term is up, they shall attain credit for having served a term in office for the purposes of this section.
Click to expand...

My reasoning is thus...

We have had a enormous turnover in terms of our cabinet during this term. The cabinet was originally chosen by the people in the general election and therefore has the most weight in terms of representing the will of the people. In addition there is the election period in which the candidates are relentlesly asked questions. With a mid-term replacement the deputy minister (someone nobody voted for) gets the ministerial position and potentially the downside to having to take over the position.

I would like to make it more of a concern for candidates to forecast 3 months into the future to see if they believe that they can adequateley budget their time so that their ministry does not fall into a state of disarray.
 
Point of clarification:

Are you suggesting this amendment in order to curb Cabinet officials resigning and then running for election at a later date in hopes that this will add to their term limits for any given year or two year period (depending on the position)?
 
I'm puzzled at all the resignations this term seeing as Flem has pointed out that the citizens of TNP vote only for the most experienced and qualified members of our region when electing their representatives!!

As for the proposal, I believe that those that resign during their term should be counted as having served that term regardless of whether they served 2 months or 2 minutes!!
 
While I agree with Polts' view of this amendment, this whole thing feels rather like attempting to stop a tap dripping just after the water tank has burst.

Dicovering why Government Ministers repeatedly fail to do the job they were elected to do and fixing that would seem rather more pressing.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Point of clarification:

Are you suggesting this amendment in order to curb Cabinet officials resigning and then running for election at a later date in hopes that this will add to their term limits for any given year or two year period (depending on the position)?
Click to expand...
That is one of the point, the additional point is to have the candidate consider if they have the necessary allocation of time to do the position they are running for.
 
Cathyy:
While I agree with Polts' view of this amendment, this whole thing feels rather like attempting to stop a tap dripping just after the water tank has burst.

Dicovering why Government Ministers repeatedly fail to do the job they were elected to do and fixing that would seem rather more pressing.
Click to expand...
It has been my experience in this region and in others that most people run for position because A. they believe it will give them power B. they believe it will give them prestige or C. they oppose someone else that is running for the position and run out of spite to keep that person/nation from possibly getting A or B.

Most of the people that run tend to forget D. it is a lot of damn work, and that is the primary problem.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Cathyy:
While I agree with Polts' view of this amendment, this whole thing feels rather like attempting to stop a tap dripping just after the water tank has burst.

Dicovering why Government Ministers repeatedly fail to do the job they were elected to do and fixing that would seem rather more pressing.
Click to expand...
It has been my experience in this region and in others that most people run for position because A. they believe it will give them power B. they believe it will give them prestige or C. they oppose someone else that is running for the position and run out of spite to keep that person/nation from possibly getting A or B.

Most of the people that run tend to forget D. it is a lot of damn work, and that is the primary problem.
Click to expand...
You forgot the last one... they actually *like* doing it.
 
The problem is that there is the potential for RL extenuating circumstances taking priority. Unfortunately, the random nature of such circumstances has no regard for the beginning or end of terms of office.

I tend to aggree with Polst and Cathyy on this one with the reservation that someone doesn't simply resign with the intent of putting someone in a cabinet position that otherwise would not be elected. I would rather have RA confirmation hearings for those appointed as Deputy Ministers than have such an amendment as proposed.

R
 
If you were to go with RA approvals, why not get the RA to approve the Deputies at the beginning, it'll save the arsing about when the cascade of Cabinet resignations begin!!
 
Poltsamaa:
If you were to go with RA approvals, why not get the RA to approve the Deputies at the beginning, it'll save the arsing about when the cascade of Cabinet resignations begin!!
Click to expand...
That's actually a good idea, Polts. Give the Ministers a certain amount of days to confirm deputies (would have to have legal guidlines as to reasons not to confirm) after they are elected or take office.

R
 
Poltsamaa:
If you were to go with RA approvals, why not get the RA to approve the Deputies at the beginning, it'll save the arsing about when the cascade of Cabinet resignations begin!!
Click to expand...
Are we really going to try to elect double the cabinet? :blink:
We already face quite a few problems electing the cabinet itself. Let alone deputies. (although I already know who I want to be deputy for :noangel: )
 
I didn't say I agree with RA confirmation of the Deputy but, if it were the path we were to tread, then it'd be best to get the confirmation over and done with in the beginning!!

Personally, I'd prefer not to have RA approval of Deputies!! I'd prefer we were more vigilant in electing our Cabinet members!! All well and good voting for your friends or against people you do not like or have been told not to vote for but, as we have seen, this leads to mass resignations/inactvitiy because the people elected do not have the time and/or desire to fulfil their job once elected!!

Sure, RL plays a role but I do not think this is a major cause of absenteeism and resignations!! The jobs people are elected to do are often tedious and largely thankless!! It is all well and good to get elected and have a nice new title but the reality of the matter is that most of the jobs are not that exciting!!

A pseudo-election for Deputies will probably just add another hurdle to the course without really offering anything positive or new!! Deputies should only become an issue on rare occasions, so perhaps dedication, reliability and competance should be criteria people look for, not only in a candidate for Cabinet, but also in the Deputies they appoint!!
 
I'm sure this will be shot down in flames but nevertheless it is my view.

It is simply unnecessary to elect the Cabinet. It is proven that it is an ineffective means of choosing the Government - resignations, inactivity etc.

During my own Delegacy I inherited a group of people as Ministers who didn't even believe it was necessary to talk to me or each other before announcing quite sweeping changes - although I will give them that at least they did something!

After the elections in my Delegacy I was left with a group of Ministers at least half of whom had been elected to push an external body's goals, not TNP's.

I believe a far more sensible model is one ini which the Head of the Executive appoints people to do particular jobs.

If necessary it could be made mandatory that this group of people was announced prior to election of the head of the executive or once announced that the list was subject to RA approval.

In the UK we do not elect the Chancellor of the Exchequor, the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary. Instead we elect a party, whose leader, aka the Prime Minister then selects people to do the various jobs (albeit they've also been elected but that would equate to a pre-selected Executive Group being elected as I've suggested above).
 
This is something I have long advocated, but have given up on as it does not seem to have much favour within the region as far as I can tell!!

I do agree it is a more effective way of forming a government and having the redetermined Cabinet run as a team under the banner of the Prime Ministerial candidate makes sense to me!!

The Prime Minister should also have the ability to reshuffle the Cabinet if they deem this to increase the effectiveness of the government!!

However, I think such an idea is not really in the scope of TNP!! What you mention Cathyy and what I have long hoped to see set up somewhere, someday is more in line with setting up a region with a diverse and vibrant political scene!! TNP seems to want to play "house" where everyone has a turn at playing certain roles even if that is not quite what happens here!!

Maybe, if new people come to the region with a bigger vision of what the region can become then that may change, but at the moment the same old people with the same old ideas prevail!!

The CPP that myself and a few others formed is the closest we have come to a political party system and running with a preassembled Cabinet!!
 
Thought...

Theres about a 10 or so really active RA members who participate in duscussions frequently. Perhaps a re-definition of the Security council to make one of their responsibilities to confirm deputy appointments would be in order. In therory they are supposed to be available on 24 hour notice, Usually are the the most informed. This would allow the electorate at large to know who's being deputized and what their stances are if they became the minister of that division.
 
Over time I have observed that people enjoy running for office. They like campaigning, and they like the idea of a contest to see who will win the most votes. An elected cabinet provides the opportunity for a lot of people to engage in the fine art of political campaigning. An appointed cabinet would not. Sure, you could campaign for the party or for a ticket, but, practically speaking, it isn't as enticing as saying, "Vote for ME!"

Plus, with a system that provides for a slate of candidates, there would be a whole lot more "cozying up to" the PM contenders, and a whole lot less diversity. Case in point: Would Tresville have chosen Fedele as a minister?

Finally, as GM pointed out, holding office can be be a lot of work. It's certainly more work than campaigning. And it frequently turns out to be more work than than the minister can handle. I think it would serve our purposes better if we discussed some positive solutions to this fundamental problem, rather than looking at punitive ones.
 
I don't see my solution as punitive. It's a system that works very well in The Lexicon.

I agree with you that people prefer the 'thrill' of being elected rather than the 'work of the job' but I don't think it's a desirable outcome for the region as a whole, even if it does feed a few egos...

In fact the only 'punitive' effect of my suggested system would be towards those who now take part in campaigns with no real intention of actually doing the job they're elected to.

Regarding diversity with enough candidates for PM there is every chance that people would be selected for someone's 'Cabinet'. Tresville almost certainly wouldn't have picked Fedele (I personally wouldn't support a PM who picked their Cabinet based on prejudice), but Polts might have picked Fedele...

Even should a PM get elected whose Cabinet were not 'up to the job' then, much as now, we might hope that if the PM didn't do his job he wouldn't get re-elected...
 
It seems pretty obvious that the Cabinet system needs to be reworked. Multiple resignations are the norm every term. In that light, Cathyy's suggestion is something I would support (and one Poltsamaa suggested over a year ago, and one that I was willing to agree with even then). We have too many elected positions. Every election, there are one, two, or, rarely, three candidates for each spot. This hardly lets us elect the person that is truly the best for the job. People should not run for an office because they enjoy the running for office, but because they believe themselves to be the best option for the position.

If we vote for the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister appoints their cabinet, then we will have much greater competition for the spot, and, consequently, a greater chance of getting the best person for the job. The best person for the job will then be likely to choose qualified candidates for the Ministries. More importantly, he will choose people he knows he can work well with. A cabinet should not be a collection of people, so much as a team that is capable of working together efficiently. A team of the most talented individuals available is useless if they can't work together. I imagine that the RA would approve each proposed Minister.

I would also like to see the Prime Minister with more power, since it seems that Prime Minister has served more as the Cabinet Spokesperson than an actual Head of Executive.
 
I wouldnt support the merging of the Prime Minister with the Dellegate but i would support some other mergers

Arts and Entertainment + Culture and Education + parts of communications = Minister of Internal Affaries

Parts of Communications + External Affaries = External Affaries

Justice + Defence + Security Council = Department of Security

just some basic ideas on mergers
 
I think merging the PM and the Delegate makes sense here. I don't quite see the reason why the PM shouldn't be trusted to be able to cope with both roles. As he has been elected to become the leader of the Region, why not in both a IC sense (in terms of being elected PM) and the OCC sense (being Delegate of the region). Also by having an Delegate that isn't PM (and no offence to any Delegates present ;)) they also have the chance of shaping policy with this power, even though they perhaps shouldn't have that big a say.

The Arts and Culture could be merged into the Internal Affairs Department which would make sense. However Communications should be left seperate as it is a big job and I believe befits an independent area.

Justice must kept seperate on its own in my opinion for reasons of Justice ;)

Defence and Security Council could be merged if so desired, I can't see a problem with that.
 
Prime Minister is a nothing position in its current guise!! It has less scope to influence the region that other cabinet level positions because it has no portfolio!! Prime Minister is nothing more than a figurehead position with a vote in Cabinet and the RA!! Combining it with the Delegate would give the position more in-game clout but no more power within the regional government!!
 
Well one could argue that the Government is his portfolio and that he really should have his finger in every pot as it were.
 
After reading some of the arguments, I think they should be merged into one position, there is really no point in a figurehead job like the PM, we should have one leader of the region, not two.

I also like what posul said before

The Arts and Culture could be merged into the Internal Affairs Department which would make sense. However Communications should be left seperate as it is a big job and I believe befits an independent area.

Justice must kept seperate on its own in my opinion for reasons of Justice

Defence and Security Council could be merged if so desired, I can't see a problem with that.
Click to expand...
 
I believe it is common for the role of Delegate and Head of Government to be merged in most places, and it makes sense here just as much.
 
Posul:
I believe it is common for the role of Delegate and Head of Government to be merged in most places, and it makes sense here just as much.
Click to expand...
The problem is, some of us have an inherent aversion to that now. After a couple of occasions where the "reason" your region was allowed to drastically veer off course was because the delegate/PM had all the power or at least said they did, you get a little leery of making that situation possible again. Right now, if the delegate goes rogue, the PM is still the nominal head of government. If the two positions were merged, it'd be possible for the PM/Delegate to give themselves some credibility for whatever they had planned.

I'd much rather give the PM more powers to lead their cabinet and actually *do* something as opposed to merging the two positions. Let the PM declare who they want their cabinet to be before they run (although maybe they too have to be elected?) Frankly, I think we already kindof do that given the low election turnout. We have a fairly stable group of people who simply push around the positions and the work.

Decreasing the number of ministers could also help a bit, although I think it's nice sometimes to have more voices on a Cabinet discussion then fewer.
 
Posul:
However he has nothing to back up his claims, for the Delegate holds the region.
Click to expand...
You do realize everything back on this forum is made up, yes? PM doesn't *need* anything to back up his claims. If he is given the authority, he'll have it from the membership. Besides, what do you expect a PM/Delegate to do? Kick the offending Minister or RA member? :eyeroll: That does nothing to the offsite management of the region.
 
Very good points FEC, if one Nation was to become admin, and delegate, basicly they would have power over the entire region. One rouge person could have power over the whole tnp
 
dont pick it up:
Very good points FEC, if one Nation was to become admin, and delegate, basicly they would have power over the entire region. One rouge person could have power over the whole tnp
Click to expand...
He or she doesn't necessarily need to be red.

Regardless of the arguments for or against the only way the issues will ever be addressed properly will be by vote.

I will write up three or four separate amendments this evening using most of the suggestions given here.

Primarily they will be first to amend the Constitution to combine the duties of the Prime Minister as head of government with those of the Delegate position and second to combine some of the extraneous Cabinet positions so that the upper levels of government can be more streamlined and manageable.
 
Now, regarding the current amendment on the floor, and I am not attempting to usurp the position of the Regional Assembly Speaker, but are there any further comments pertaining to the topic or should this move to a vote?
 
Every system has its plus points, however I feel that the one proposed has more benefits and gains to be made then merely keeping the current one.

We have a chance to make the Prime Minister a much more powerful role and to make the whole system a little more centralised and efficent. At the moment I think we a little more wayward then perhaps we should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top