Should we bring back Cabinet elections?

I just thought this would be an interesting discussion topic.

Delegate Eluvatar brought in a scheme for the election of his executive council using a complex voting system that allowed in-game nations to vote for the cabinet. These elections would often see 10 + candidates for the five positions available.. the Delegate insisted that he also had to campaign for his own seat in his own cabinet and some people would campaign in-game. The calculating of results and the checking of IPs to make sure nobody had voted more than once would take a great deal of time and was rather annoying to do.

The system allowed for the region to elect people who they often knew very little about, people were elected based on whatever was in their campaign blurb and this could lead to disastrous results. When I was elected I eventually changed the system to make it TNP citizens/RA members only. Eventually I abolished the election process as it was frustrating executive policy, with those elected often being unable to work together. At the time it seemed as though it was a failed experiment.

The system did allow for people to have a greater chance at facing the electorate and winning their positions. It required people to campaign and present their ideas forwarded. However during that time frame, the negatives far outweighed the positives of the system. The region was simply not as mature and not as unified as I believe it is today.

Nonetheless - it offered the opportunity for new/inexperienced RA members to offer a platform and win an election victory. Establish a mandate and name for themselves and then build on that for future elections.


So lets vote.. and discuss! Just for the sake of it:

I always thought the idea of forum-side democratically-elected Cabinets to be quite an interesting and a very welcome idea. I wouldn't mind that, at all.

It is interesting ... but it does not really work. You can end up with a disfunctional cabinet of people elected on individual popularity or mandates, who may detest the delegate or one another.

You also end up with a never-ending cycle of elections.

I voted for delegate appointment and RA approval. So long as the RA approval is not a drawn out affair it seems to me to be the best of both worlds.

I think that I agree with Flem.
Like Olvern said, it would start up many ideas and it would be a very active aspect of our region, but like Flem and McM both said, it would be too much work to take care of and many issues might arise out of the system of that system of elections.

~Tomb

I think that it is really a case of weighing up the negatives and the positives of electing the cabinet. When it works it can work really well.. But when it doesn't it can be an absolute clusterfuck.

Btw Flemingovia, I don't think anyone would suggest that we return to elections every four weeks like it was with Eluvatar's system initially.

In addition to that, I believe that the delegate should be able to pick who he/she would like to work with so that his administration would run along smoothly and efficiently.

Initially I voted for elections, but having thought about it more I'd change my vote to Appointed with RA Approval, so minus one to the former option.

If these are traditionally 'appointed' positions, I don't see the point of elections or approvals. Give the Delegate the benefit of the doubt.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it is traditionally delegate appointment. As I understand it, it was initially elected.. then appointed for a while.. then elected again and now appointed.

yes, we have tried most things in TNP over the years.

I vote hell no to directly electing the cabinet. The cabinet is the team that carries out the vision of the delegate, and we don't need people coming in saying "I'm gonna do THIS and THAT" when that doesn't mesh with the over all vision for the administration. I think the executive should be hand-picked by the delegate to fit their plan for the region. I wouldn't strenuously object to a delegate allowing the RA an up-or-down vote of his nominees, but I've seen a little bit of the behind-the-scenes effort that goes into putting together a quality cabinet, and I think sometimes the delegate knows better than the RA who to put in each position.

Crushing Our Enemies:

I vote hell no to directly electing the cabinet. The cabinet is the team that carries out the vision of the delegate, and we don't need people coming in saying "I'm gonna do THIS and THAT" when that doesn't mesh with the over all vision for the administration. I think the executive should be hand-picked by the delegate to fit their plan for the region. I wouldn't strenuously object to a delegate allowing the RA an up-or-down vote of his nominees, but I've seen a little bit of the behind-the-scenes effort that goes into putting together a quality cabinet, and I think sometimes the delegate knows better than the RA who to put in each position.

Click to expand...

After thinking for a while, I think that assignment of high-profile roles (Defence and Foreign Affairs stands out for one) should definitely stay in the domain of the elected Delegate.

I think del appoint is fine. but if ppl wanna elect the cabinet I guess that is fine too - but I just fear it could become a popularity contest - and not nessicarily on who can do the job well. And it would add an extra process (presumbably 5 days to nominate and 5 days to vote) so 10 days total extra. When those ppl could be already going to work.

For added realism tho. I like RA Approval on apointees. And have voted for that in the poll. Like hypothetically we could make it where the Delegate has to make all their appointments by X day in office and the RA has X amount of time to approve them or deny them. If the RA fails to come to an agreement by majority vote by the end of that time then the Cabinet Appointments are to be presumed approved and may tend to their appointed duties.

I voted for RA approval. I'm okay with the system I have now, but I would also be okay with a straight yes/no vote on the entire cabinet (but definitely not a yes/no vote on each appointee).

Most of the time, I don't see RA approval as having any teeth. The RA is unlikely as a whole to vote down an entire cabinet because some members don't like one choice, so it will, in my opinion, mostly be a rubber stamp.

Where it might have some actual teeth is in enforcing a recall. As it stands now, the RA can recall a minister but the delegate can freely reappoint them. If appointments require RA approval, a recalled (or resigned-to-avoid-recall) minister would be unlikely to achieve the necessary votes to retake their position.

I think it should be left entirely up to the Delegate. That's not to say the Delegate can't decide to have his selections subject to RA approval. Or have the region-at-large do the picking. The process ought to remain within the scope of his power.

I voted for RA approval. I'm okay with the system I have now

Click to expand...

Freudian slip there IRCabal leader SillyString?

Silly String:

Where it might have some actual teeth is in enforcing a recall. As it stands now, the RA can recall a minister but the delegate can freely reappoint them.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying but.. has that ever happened? It's getting to the point where the RA is involved in electing/approving everything a bit too much. But, if the Delegate chooses to put his Cabinet choices to a vote, then so be it. I'm probably being over-sensitive, but there seems to be a lot of encroaching upon/chipping away of Executive Powers lately.

What's wrong with that? Powers aren't immutable, they can be changed!

The RA decides what powers the executive should have, and what freedom they should have to use them. We give the delegate the power to ban, but we also limit it. We give them the power to name their cabinet - but we also limit it, by requiring that that cabinet be members of the RA. We could limit it further by requiring RA approval, or take it away entirely and make ministers directly elected in their own right.

I have a hard time seeing merit in objections to altering the scope of executive (or legislative, or judicial) powers that are based in "chipping away" instead of on the likely effects. That is, I don't think directly elected ministers are a bad idea because that takes away power from the delegate, but because it's likely to lead to a cabinet that cannot cooperate or get anything done. The delegate doesn't have a right to those powers, so there's nothing inherently damaging about taking them away.

Silly String:

The RA decides what powers the executive should have, and what freedom they should have to use them. We give the delegate the power to ban, but we also limit it. We give them the power to name their cabinet - but we also limit it, by requiring that that cabinet be members of the RA. We could limit it further by requiring RA approval, or take it away entirely and make ministers directly elected in their own right.

Click to expand...

That's what I was getting at. I'm glad I'm not Delegate.

I agree with what you say about encroaching on executive power. I don't think we need to do it any more in this case. The RA approval was simply a discussion point & I agree with GBMs comment above.

I am strongly against directly electing individual Ministers. Everywhere it has been used or continues to be used, it has been a remarkable failure. It is a sure recipe for reducing the effectiveness of the Executive Government, and it strongly undermines the Delegate's ability to implement the agenda they were elected on.

I also do not agree with the argument that Cabinet elections are necessary for new members to find their way into the Executive Government. We have currently an excellent mechanism for providing new members with opportunities to get involved and gain experience in Ministries: the Executive Staff. Tomb is an excellent example of the effectiveness of the Executive Staff in that role, as that's how he got his job: he joined the Ministry, put in a lot of quality work, and eventually got promoted to Minister. Egalotir, Andrew, Malvad, and PaulWall are other good examples, all being promoted to Deputy Ministers.

Given that we already have recalls, I am neutral towards the suggestion for RA approval. Nomination-approval systems rarely prove effective: legislatures tend to approve all but for egregious appointments. Asta does bring up a good point, that approval of appointments would make Ministerial recalls have a stronger effect (the Delegate could not expect to re-appoint and have approved someone who just got recalled). But I think the chances that a Delegate would ignore the RA and re-appoint a recalled Minister are already really low with the current system.

I probably should have said have a greater chance at access to electoral politics, rather than executive politics. The executive staff has helped give them experience that is for sure.

I go off for afew hours and I miss so much. But anyways, I never knew TNP had Cabinet Elections...........very interesting. But anyways, I voted for how it is now, I haven't seen a major problem with the current system yet and, by what Mcm said, the elected cabinet system was a bad idea.

I have no opinion on this issue.

I voted No and not needing RA approval. Delegates should be allowed to pick their chief collaborators. We'll have better delegates that way, imo, if they can work with people they actually want to work with.

flemingovia:

It is interesting ... but it does not really work. You can end up with a disfunctional cabinet of people elected on individual popularity or mandates, who may detest the delegate or one another.

You also end up with a never-ending cycle of elections.

I voted for delegate appointment and RA approval. So long as the RA approval is not a drawn out affair it seems to me to be the best of both worlds.

Click to expand...

A agree with Flemingovia.

A Delegate should be able to form his own executive branch, so to speak, as a given Delegate can function more efficiently if the Cabinet members are on the same page as the Delegate.

Where I disagree is with RA approval of Cabinet appointments. I would think that a Delegate would be more qualified in determining who would best perform those particular jobs than the RA would. After all, the RA has already elected the Delegate, why should they have further say on his constitutionally permitted appointments? RA approval of Cabinet appointments would only give the Legislative Branch a second say on how the Delegate executes his job. Actually, it would give a third say over the Delegate by the RA because the RA also has the ability to recall a Delegate (or threaten to do so) if unhappy with the Delegate's appointments.

In this matter, I think, so far, that we already have a proper balance of power between those respective branches in such matters.