Informal Poll: Parliamentarianism?

In my current draft, I propose a semipresidential system, with a more easily replaceable Prime Minister who is head of government, but appointed and removable by the Delegate. Good? Bad?

I in fact strongly prefer the system we had under the last constitution; where the Delegate has duties of head of state and handles the WA duties, and an elected Prime Minister is head of government, with elected officers. The main difference I would see is that the number of officers elected to the Cabinet would be no more than three in addition to the Prime Minister.
If that were an option that is what I would support.

The option you should vote for then is Parliamentarianism. You might want to vote for 2 options but that is up to you.

Grosseschnauzer:

I in fact strongly prefer the system we had under the last constitution; where the Delegate has duties of head of state and handles the WA duties, and an elected Prime Minister is head of government, with elected officers. The main difference I would see is that the number of officers elected to the Cabinet would be no more than three in addition to the Prime Minister.
If that were an option that is what I would support.

Click to expand...

And how many coups was there under that? I lost count...

Under that constitution we had 2 coups.

The issue of coups and rogues is actually irrelevant to what I am referring to, and further, that question refers to situations that occurred prior to the advent of influence and the new mechanisms that have evolved to address usurpers and coups d'etat.

i voted for the semi presidential system

The delegate with no power is a bad idea, since they are holding the cards in game. To exclude them from the government entirely is a very bad idea. I like the idea of the Delegate selecting the Prime Minister, it gives the delegate power, but not supreme control.

IMO it needs to be "Presidential" - in that the Delegate is both Head of State and Head of the Government. It's the most efficient system and the most reflective of the simply realities of how the region functions.

Option 2 is a pointless halfway house, if the Delegate is going to hire and fire the PM then why not simply have the Delegate exercise that power instead. I know TNP tends to like creating additional hoops to jump through but I see no point to it at all.

Haor Chall:

IMO it needs to be "Presidential" - in that the Delegate is both Head of State and Head of the Government. It's the most efficient system and the most reflective of the simply realities of how the region functions.

Option 2 is a pointless halfway house, if the Delegate is going to hire and fire the PM then why not simply have the Delegate exercise that power instead. I know TNP tends to like creating additional hoops to jump through but I see no point to it at all.

Click to expand...

The point, in my mind, was to allow for a quick turnover in the position responsible for keeping the government on task.

A Delegate cannot be replaced on a regular basis, and while the buck does and should stop with them I do not think it optimal for them to be chasing around Ministers.

Well I don't see how it is optimal to not have the Delegate running their own government.

Because the Delegate's in there for several months; currently we have decided on 4.

That's a rather lengthy period of time for one person to be responsible for everything, without any competition for the role.

You don't see a problem with that?

A full parliamentary system is what we essentially had under previous constitutions and it largely worked fine but didn't give the delegate enough quick acting authority in defending the region in the event of an invasion.

Given the mechanics of the NS world, a full parliamentary system in which the Delegate is essentially a Constitutional Monarch and everything else is done by the legislature and Prime Minister is more practical. But, I like the idea of the Delegate having ultimate executive authority under the Constitution - and if the Delegate chooses to delegate that authority to others (like appointing a prime minister or having one elected from the RA) it would take some of the load off the Delegate.

Such a system would tend to create an environment where the Delegate is 'above politics'.

The disadvantage is that in the event of serious defense problems, the Delegate may end up restricted and delayed in that department without full executive authority.

Addendum:

Personally, were I Delegate, I would prefer to have someone like a prime ministers to handle the legislative issues and the day to day mundane government functions, and then rely upon the Cabinet acting in the capacity of 'advise and consent' on decisions that are solely the function of the Delegate.

This would imply a system in which the Delegate would rely upon the advise of the Cabinet in matters which involve checks and balances and other constitutional duties. This would leave the Delegate with chief executive authority with the concentration being on executing the Constitution and Laws as required of the Delegate.

This would somewhat give an element of a bicameral system with an additional element of checks and balances if the Cabinet is given over-ride authority like the RA. The question here is do you go back to an elected Cabinet or an appointed cabinet?

I vote presidential. TCC tried to make the delegate position seperate from the government. It didn't work, because everyone still wanted to be delegate and there wasn't enough reward for being the non-delegate head of government (the "ambitous" NSers continued to want to be delegate, as almost no one outside the region understood that the delegate wasn't the most important person and that HoG was an important position). So the elections for it went unchallenged and pretty much we ended up with whatever executive policies the one person willing to do the job wanted.. Which wasn't really how we intended the democratic system to work.

I'd prefer a presidential system because of that, or at least a semi-parliamentary.