Some of you think I'm crazy, and if not you think I'm stupidly bold, but here goes:

This act mostly establishes the structure of government and only touches briefly on governmental powers. The powers of the Prime Minister and ministers can be decided later.

Constitution Act 4000 BC

Article I. The Legislature

Section 1. All legislative power of [country name] shall be vested in the Chamber of the People, which shall be composed of all citizens of the Demogame.

Section 2. The Chamber of the People shall have the power to elect the Government of [country name] and the Speaker of the Chamber of the People, as well as all other officers of [country name], as it sees fit.

Section 3. The Chamber of the People shall have the exclusive power to:

Declare war;
Make peace;
Change civics;
Change the state religion;
Begin construction of a Great or National Wonder;
Begin construction of a Project;
Alter tax rates; And--
Determine the locations of new cities.


Section 4. The Chamber of the People may by law grant the Prime Minister the right to change the tax rate up to 30% independently in the event of emergency.

Section 5. Decisions of the Chamber of the People shall be made by floor vote. Floor votes shall be simple polls, requiring that more than one half of all votes be in favor unless otherwise specified.

Section 6. Any member of the Chamber of the People may begin debate or a vote on a particular bill by posting a thread or poll.

Section 7. The Government shall be required to enforce all Acts of the Chamber of the People, regardless of whether or not the Government agrees with it.

Section 8. Any member of the Chamber of the People may motion to make a bill he or she believes is changing the structure of government a Constitutional Question. The Speaker may determine whether the bill in fact is a Constitutional Question; the Chamber may override the Speaker's decision with a simple majority vote. Bills that are Constitutional Questions require a two-thirds majority to pass.


Article II. The Government
Section 1. The executive power of [country name] shall be vested in the Government of [country name], which shall comprise the Prime Minister [or cool civ-specific title] of [country name] and his or her Ministers.

Section 2. The Prime Minister of [country name] shall be elected from the body of the Chamber of the People. The Prime Minister must command a majority of the members of the Chamber of the People; thus, the Prime Minister shall be elected by a runoff.

Section 3. The Ministers shall be chosen in the following manner:

The Chamber of the People shall elect three candidates for each ministerial position in a manner as it sees fit.
No person shall be a ministerial candidate who has obtained less than 30% of the vote. If no person has obtained at least 30% of the vote, a runoff must be held.
The Prime Minister may then select the Minister from the three ministerial candidates.*


Section 4. The Government shall be dissolved automatically after 30 days and new elections held.

Section 5. The Prime Minister shall be required to retain a working majority of the Chamber of the People.

Section 6. The following shall be construed as a denial of a majority for the Government:

The passage of a Motion of No Confidence in the Chamber of the People.
The failure of a Motion of Confidence introduced by the Government in the Chamber of the People.
The failure of a bill introduced by the Government designated a Measure of Confidence.
The failure of a bill introduced by the Government on the subject of taxes, religion, or civics, unless a plurality of citizens shall have indicated that they have not lost confidence in the government; that is, the poll reads:

No, and I have lost confidence in this government
No, but I have not lost confidence in this Government
Yes
Abstain

and the largest number of people vote either "Yes" or "No, but I have not lost confidence in this Government."


Section 7. If the Government loses the confidence of the Chamber of the People, then the Government is dissolved and new elections must be held immediately.

Section 8. The Chamber of the People may initiate a Motion of No Confidence in any individual member of the Government other than the Prime Minister. In the event that the motion passes, there will be a simple runoff election for the post, and the Prime Minister shall play no part in the selection of the minister in question.

*This bit needs polishing.
----------------------------------

Article I. The Legislature

Section 1. All legislative power of [country name] shall be vested in the Chamber of the People, which shall be composed of all citizens of the Demogame.

In simpler language: You are all part of the Chamber of the People, and the Chamber of the People has final say in everything.


Section 2. The Chamber of the People shall have the power to elect the Government of [country name] and the Speaker of the Chamber of the People, as well as all other officers of [country name], as it sees fit.

In simpler language:The Chamber of the People (that is, everybody) elects all the positions. The most important are the Prime Minister and the Government (see below), and the Speaker of the Chamber.

Section 3. Any member of the Chamber of the People may motion to make a bill he or she believes is changing the structure of government a Constitutional Question. The Speaker may determine whether the bill in fact is a Constitutional Question; the Chamber may override the Speaker's decision with if two other members second the motion. Bills that are Constitutional Questions require a three-fifths majority to pass.

In simpler language: If you think a bill will change the Constitution, say that it should be called that. If the Speaker agrees, then it is considered on automatically. If he/she doesn't think so, just get two others to agree with you. It would then need a three-fifths majority to pass.

In one sentence: A more elaborate version of the existing rule: "If it changes the constitution, it needs three-fifths."

The extra words are mostly there to prevent sneaky attempts to change the Constitution without actually doing so.

Article II. The Government
Section 1. The executive power of [country name] shall be vested in the Government of [country name], which shall comprise the Prime Minister [or cool civ-specific title] of [country name] and his or her Ministers.

In simpler language: The chief exec is called the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the other ministers is called the Government.

Section 2. The Ministers shall be chosen in the following manner:

Candidates will declare their candidacy.
If there are three or fewer candidates, then the ministers shall be elected without interference from the Prime Minister, according to the established runoff system.
If there are more than three candidates, the Prime Minister shall select the three he or she believes will be best for the government. The Chamber of the People shall then vote on the ministry position according the the established runoff system.
If there are more than three candidates, the Prime Minister may post a poll to find public opinion. He or she must explicitly state whether the poll is binding or nonbinding. If it is binding, the Prime Minister is obliged to designate the top three candidates in the poll as the official candidates for the ministry position.


In simpler language: If more than three people want to become a minister, then the PM gets to pick three candidates to run. The PM can--and probably should--post a poll to find who the people think is best for the job. The PM has to say whether the poll is binding or non-binding. If it's binding, the PM has to nominate the top three vote-getters to be the actual candidates. If this is too complicated, say so. I'm a good law writer, but explanations are not my bag.

Section 3. The Government shall be dissolved automatically after 30 days and new elections held.

In simpler language: The standard term is 30 days.

Section 4. The Government must retain a majority in the Chamber of the People. The following shall be construed as a denial of a majority for the Government:

The passage of a Motion of No Confidence in the Chamber of the People.
The failure of a Motion of Confidence introduced by the Government in the Chamber of the People.
The failure of a bill introduced by the Government designated a Measure of Confidence; a bill introduced by the Government on the subject of taxes, religion, war/peace or civics is automatically considered to be a Motion of Confidence. However, if a plurality indicate that they have not lost confidence, then this is not the case.


In simpler language: This bit needs explaining. Basically, there are three ways that the government can be dissolved.

First, a citizen can introduce a Motion of No Confidence. If it passes, we kick the bums out and we have new elections. If it fails, things go on as normal.

Second, the government can introduce a Motion of Confidence. If it fails, we kick the bums out and we have new elections. If it passes, things go on as normal.

Third is "loss of supply." That means that a Very Important Bill that a Minister wrote and the PM endorsed has failed. This one is the trickiest, and the one I'm most likely to cut out.

A bill can become a Very Important Bill in one of two ways: the Government declares it one, or it is one automatically. Only bills about changing civics, taxes, or religions, or about making peace or declaring war are automatically Very Important Bills, on the theory that if the people and government can't agree on those, what can they agree on? However, there is something in the text that allows a Government to survive such a failure.

When a Very Important Bill is voted on, the poll options are:

No, and I have lost confidence in this government
No, but I have not lost confidence in this Government
Yes
Abstain


If a the largest number of people (not necessarily a majority) who don't abstain vote options two and three, then the government survives.

For obvious reasons, I am likely to cut out the third bullet point altogether.

Section 4. If the Government loses the confidence of the Chamber of the People, then the Government is dissolved and new elections must be held immediately.

In simpler language: If any of the things described in Section 3 happen, then we need to have new elections.

Section 8. The Chamber of the People may initiate a Motion of No Confidence in any individual member of the Government other than the Prime Minister. In the event that the motion passes, there will be a simple runoff election for the post, and the Prime Minister shall play no part in the selection of the minister in question.

In simpler language: If somebody is pissed off at one Minister (other than the Prime Minister), but is otherwise OK with the government, then he or she can say "let's just kick this minister out." If that passes, then we hold a special election for the newly-open ministerial position, and the Prime Minister can't do anything about it (except vote, of course).


In addition:

Article D, Section 1 of the Constitution shall be amended to read:

Terms of service of all elected and appointed offices shall be determined in advance of the beginning of such term, unless otherwise required by the Constitution. All such determinations shall be defined by law.

In simpler language: Resolving a legalistic dispute with DaveShack.

With that, I open this constitution fragment for comments, praise, and (most likely) patronizing ridicule.

Section 3. The Ministers shall be chosen in the following manner:

The Chamber of the People shall elect three candidates for each ministerial position in a manner as it sees fit.
No person shall be a ministerial candidate who has obtained less than 30% of the vote. If no person has obtained less that 30% of the vote, a runoff must be held.
The Prime Minister may then select the Minister from the three ministerial candidates.*


The underlined is the part I'm unsure about. Should that instead state "If no person have obtained at least 30%...? After all, if no one attains 30% than we would not have any candidates.

The underlined is the part I'm unsure about. Should that instead state "If no person have obtained at least 30%...? After all, if no one attains 30% than we would not have any candidates.

My bad, will edit.

Link posted in main government structure thread.

-- Ravensfire

Per DaveShack's suggestions in the main thread, the following will be elected in the first elections:

-Prime Minister (or cool variant)
-Ministers of the Interior, Finance, and Defense
-Governors (not addressed)
-Is the judiciary elected? If yes, the judiciary.

Judiciary is always elected - see the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire

Oh, and you elect the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies. Forgot that one.

Overall I think it looks fairly good, but I didn't read it indepth, yet.

If I see anything that I've got a problem with I'll point it out, but thus far, looks good.

Though I wish we could come to some sort of concensus as to what "ministers" to include have at start if any...:undecide:

Section 4. The Chamber of the People may by law grant the Prime Minister the right to change the tax rate up to 30% independently in the event of emergency.

This one irks me... If the Prime Minister has to get special permission to adjust the tax rate 'in an emergency', how is that different from attempting to change the tax rate with a normal bill? It isn't quicker (And that speed is of the essence is the only reason for having emergency powers)...

Section 3 of article two also bothers me a little... What's the purpose of electing them if the PM gets to over-rule the choice anyway?
(Although, I suppose, that actually electing three candidates would generally be unlikely to happen?)

This one irks me... If the Prime Minister has to get special permission to adjust the tax rate 'in an emergency', how is that different from attempting to change the tax rate with a normal bill? It isn't quicker (And that speed is of the essence is the only reason for having emergency powers)...

Section 3 of article two also bothers me a little... What's the purpose of electing them if the PM gets to over-rule the choice anyway?
(Although, I suppose, that actually electing three candidates would generally be unlikely to happen?)

I have to agree on both points...

Particularly the second one, let's just elect the ministers straight off. No PM selection process. We're also not garenteed to get 3 candidates.

What if only 3 or 2 people run? then the people really have no choice in the matter, it's all the PM's choice.

Both the PM and Ministers should be elected strictly on who gets the most votes in a poll for each position to choose between the candidates.

On point one:

Essentially, I was saying that the Chamber of the People could permamently grant the PM the right to adjust the tax rate in times of "emergency" and then define "emergency." Sorry for the confusion.

On point two:

I said that that bit needs polishing. I think I'll end up amending the section to say that if three or fewer people run for minister, then the PM must accept the one with the most votes in the base poll.

In any case, I was planning on setting it up as a runoff where the top three candidates get to the second round, and then have the second round be single transferable vote (i.e. there will be three polls, one for first choice, another for second choice, and another for third choice, and then the numbers would be tabulated according to standard STV methods; it would take a while, but I'm a high-school senior with a full-ride scholarship to a good university...I have nothing better to do...) That way, all candidates will be able to command a majority of the vote, if things work right.

The idea was that the PM should be able to work well with his/her government.

Here's a legal analysis of the 1st post, with respect to the Constitution, and some comments on things which evoke bad memories of DG1 problems.

Generally speaking, for this audience it's bad to be overly complex. I've marked some sections as redundant because saying the same thing more than once in a ruleset can cause complications, especially when they say the same thing using different words. ;)

I Section 1 and 2 are redundant to the Constitution.

I Section 3 and 4 is something we had a lot of trouble with in DG1. I think it's a very bad idea to prevent officials from making obvious, generally accepted decisions without a poll.

I Sections 5-7 are redundant to the Constitution.

I Section 8 contradicts the Constitution by requiring a 2/3 majority. Con. G.1 sets a 3/5 majority for amending the Constitution, and C.4.B limits the required percentage on any poll to no more than this number.

II Section 2, the runoff clause is redundent to the Constitution D.3.1

II Section 3 is overly complex. Isn't this really saying that all positions other than the PM are appointed positions?

II Section 5 lacks a definition of working majority (which is provided in Section 6? Maybe it would be better to combine these sections)

II Section 7 contradicts the Constitution, Article D. There is no allowance for the term to end prematurely.

II Section 8 is rather interesting. Would that be an interim election instead of a runoff election?

Would you like to rename this thread to something like "parlimentary structure", to make it stand out a bit more from the existing executive structure thread(s)? If so, feel free to post a rename request here, or in the "needed things" thread in the main forum, specifying what to change the name to.

Some contradictions and redundancies can be resolved by accepting the constitution's recommendations; I forgot to consult the constitution while drafting this. Sorry.

However, Art. II, Sec. 7 is key to the entire idea of this system. For that, we can amend the original Constitution. I think it would be fair to say that passage of this plan would override the original Constitution.

II Section 3 is overly complex. Isn't this really saying that all positions other than the PM are appointed positions?

Not really. I wasn't thinking straight when I wrote that section. Here's the process in clearer language:

1. We hold an initial election to find the top three candidates.
2. We hold elections for first, second, and third-place candidates, to find the true consensus of the community. I'm trying to figure out a better way to ensure that the minister has the confidence of the majority, but that's the best I can find.
3. The Prime Minister selects from among the elected candidates.

In one sentence:

The people elect the candidates; the Prime Minister picks the one he or she thinks will work best with him or her.

II Section 5 lacks a definition of working majority (which is provided in Section 6? Maybe it would be better to combine these sections)


Agreed.

I'll post a revised version sometime this weekend...

II Section 8 is rather interesting. Would that be an interim election instead of a runoff election?

I suppose. Either way, the point was that the Prime Minister has no choice in the matter when the Chamber loses confidence in a minister.

Not really. I wasn't thinking straight when I wrote that section. Here's the process in clearer language:

1. We hold an initial election to find the top three candidates.
2. We hold elections for first, second, and third-place candidates, to find the true consensus of the community. I'm trying to figure out a better way to ensure that the minister has the confidence of the majority, but that's the best I can find.
3. The Prime Minister selects from among the elected candidates.

In one sentence:

The people elect the candidates; the Prime Minister picks the one he or she thinks will work best with him or her.


This part in particular I still disagree with.

A.) From my experience 90% of the time you get 3-4 candidates for a position. In order for your system to have much meaning I feel we'd need on average at least 6, but preferably greater, candidates running for each position, which will rarely if ever happen. In fact, Civ III DG1 most of the terms there were only 2 candiates for Military leader.

B.) I feel each minister should be selected by the people, what if the citizens agree with the Prime Minister on everything except military policy? I don't really view it as the Prime Minister's Cabinet. It's the People's (Chamber's) Cabinet, and some people may not really feel it's "their government" because they didn't really elect all the leaders.

You could say elect a different Prime Minister, but what he/she is the option closest to the people's views.

In previous demogames (at least the ones I'm familiar with, early Civ III DG's), the president was elected by the people, and all advisors/leaders were elected by the people. And I never noticed any problems caused by Presidents and advisors/leaders disagreeing.

I wouldn't be completely opposed to leaders appointing deputies to help with their individual offices/departments, but the leader of each office/department should be elected.





Let's also look an example that combines the two concerns

Let's assume 4 people run for a ministry potion, citizens have confidence in the overall abilities and agree with policy of only 1 of them. So out of the 3 finalists 2 of the candiates will not have the citizen's support...

Now the Prime Minister, has 3 people to choose from, but only 1 of 'em has the citizen's support. But due to the 2nd and 3rd "place" system they were forced to select two of the other candidates which they don't have confidence in.

Now for one reason or another the Prime minister does not choose the 1 the citizens support (possibily due to personal friendship, or just closer agreement on policies and the person did get "second" place). That essentially leaves the citizens high and dry, with a Minister they don't support in office.

What can they do to fix the situation? With the current wording.... Completely abolish the government, requiring reelections for the Prime Minister again, and reelections for all the ministers. Because the citizens disagreed with the selection of just one minister. This turns into a legal debakle that can scare people away from running for office or participating in general.

On another point, I agree Art. I Sec. III covers a bit too much, though some things like declarations of war, should ALWAYS be polled.... change in taxes? ... not so much.. cause then instructions such as "Maximize research without losing money" would have to be polled.... every turn to be effective... unless that counts as one of your "emergency" scenarios.

But why should a simple 10% change be polled unless people have specific objections to it... in which case... they should be able to petition and start a poll against it.



Case and point... I feel, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, especially since I see potential some problems arising from this system.

A.) From my experience 90% of the time you get 3-4 candidates for a position. In order for your system to have much meaning I feel we'd need on average at least 6, but preferably greater, candidates running for each position, which will rarely if ever happen. In fact, Civ III DG1 most of the terms there were only 2 candiates for Military leader.

That's not exactly true any more. Once you get beyond 5-6 offices (including the Judiciary), you'll have 1 or 2 competitive races per term. The first term is usually an exception. Beyond that, it's really, really tough.

-- Ravensfire

That's not exactly true any more. Once you get beyond 5-6 offices (including the Judiciary), you'll have 1 or 2 competitive races per term. The first term is usually an exception. Beyond that, it's really, really tough.

-- Ravensfire

That's good, I'm glad tere were more Candidates for races recently. But, my concerns still hold, though calmed a bit.

You've still got exceptions to the rule which can pop up.

Addressing Falcon02:

I see your points.

On the issue of Art. I, Sec. 3, that needs editing anyway. I was simply putting it out there. I've never played a demogame before and I wasn't sure about the customs. Sorry.

As for the ministers, there are a few possible solutions:

1. Have cabinets run. That is to say, a group of people run as one slate for PM and ministries.

2. Reverse the situation. Have the PM select the three people from among the announced candidates, and then have the people vote among them. If there are only two or three announced candidates, then there's no difference from the old system. If there are more, then we at least guarantee that there's not going to be a conflict within the Government.

3. Do #2 but instead of having the PM select the candidates, have him or her endorse up to three candidates, essentially saying "this cabinet would work best." The election is carried out as before.

4. A system of appointed "bureaucrats" appointed by the PM working with the ministries. With this one, Yes Minister-type situations where the bureaucrat and the elected official butt heads could result, but I don't think it's likely.

I'm sure your concerns can be addressed, and even then, I doubt that any of this will be a problem.

I prefer more of the traditional federalist/presidential system that we have been going with.

I must say that I prefer Ravenfire's proposal, as it's simpler.

So it boils down to simplicity vs. the power of the people, does it? Why should we be saddled with a government of idiots for a whole month? And if they're not idiots, how is this any different from the old system?

This system is mostly like the old, with a few changes to allow us--the citizens--to get rid of the government when it's acting stupidly.

This system is mostly like the old, with a few changes to allow us--the citizens--to get rid of the government when it's acting stupidly.

Ravensfire's proposal has a solution for that too:
Officials may be removed from office by a Coup. To declare a Coup, any citizen may post a thread in the citizen forum declaring a coup against an official or group of officials. If two other citizens support the coup, a poll is posted asking if the citizens support the official(s) targeted by the coup. This poll is private, single-choice, and must be set to expire in 4 days.

I agree with Ravensfire's proposal .

So then what's the difference, except he has cooler names and I use more legal language?

So then what's the difference, except he has cooler names and I use more legal language?

Sadly thats what it comes down to sometimes. Just imagine if you were a newcomer, and you started to read the ruleset, with all this confusing legal mumbo-jumbo. Sometimes simplicity is the best policy.

"Sense and Simplicity" (Slogan of Philips)

Edited original post to address concerns. Please read and bring any problems to my attention.

A poll for choosing the proposal to use for our Government has been posted!

Please vote here! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206929)

-- Ravensfire

So then what's the difference, except he has cooler names and I use more legal language?

I used different names - I certainly won't say cooler!

The language concern I take issue with. I've been involved in creating quite a few rulesets for the DG. Most people who are in the DG don't want to see legal language. It's not easy to read, it seems awkward and stilted and tends to turn people off. People who don't read the rules can't understand them.

You've also got the reality that it's easier to miss something in a verbose ruleset - a comma missing, or misplaced. A word that's not quite right.

Ultimately, the "official" version is the only one that will be used if there is a rules question. Not the simpler version, or the interpretation provided by the author, but an interpretation from the Judiciary based on the original language. Sure, they might use or consult (or actually be) the author or provided interpretations, but there is no guarantee.

My belief is that these rules should be written in clear, straight-forward language. This helps everyone understand what they can and cannot do, and in some cases, how to do it. While not everyone who plays the DG enjoys the process side of the game (the laws, courts, etc), they are all affected by it. My personal belief is that anytime a player things "I don't understand that rule - it stinks!", it reflects poorly on the author, not the reader. I've caused that to be said more than once in the past, I try to avoid it from now on.

Laws are written for lawyers, rules are written for players.

[steps down off of soapbox]

-- Ravensfire

Specific comments:

I.1 - Good

I.2 - Defines Speaker and Government. Also allows offices that are not part of the Government? (I'm guessing this would be Judiciary, any others?)

I.3 - Okay, defines the passage requirements of a specific type of initiative (changing the government). Hmmm, the simpler language seems to imply that Constitution == Government. Not sure I agree with that, but okay.

II.1 - Defines PM and Ministers

II.2 - I don't like the process of handling > 3 candidates. Nothing about it. That smacks of elitism, and can be used to manipulate polls for certain offices.

II.3 - I don't like the fixed 30 days terms. 1 Month terms just make life easier for everyone. It's one extra day, and will reduce issues and headaches.

II.4 - A bit confusing on the third option, but okay.

(Need renumbering, II.5,6 and 7 are gone)

II.8 - So only the Government? Does this include the Speaker? Disagree about not including PM, as I might like the ministers, but think the PM is doing a poor leadership job.

Open questions:
-- How are the elections conducted? Elect PM, Speaker, Judiciary and DP first, then elect Ministers? Not clear from proposal.

-- Probably should include a catch-all phrase for PM "PM has all powers and duties not assigned by law to any other elected official" This is mainly to cover situations that we've missed (yes, it's happened in the past). Also, in case there is a territory dispute between ministers, give the PM power to resolve said disputes.

General comments: Nice job! It's a bit too complicated for my taste, but there's some interesting interactions here. I think with 40-50 people, this would be a very, very interesting government option!

-- Ravensfire

II.2 - I don't like the process of handling > 3 candidates. Nothing about it. That smacks of elitism, and can be used to manipulate polls for certain offices.

It was an attempt to assure the workability of a Government, since Governments are supposed to act as a unit. Perhaps we can make it possible for the citizens to force the PM to accept a candidate?


II.3 - I don't like the fixed 30 days terms. 1 Month terms just make life easier for everyone. It's one extra day, and will reduce issues and headaches.


Remember, governments can be dissolved. I'd love to have it with just a month and forget about it, but government dissolution doesn't make that possible. Elections can be held in the middle of the month, so that's that.


II.8 - So only the Government? Does this include the Speaker? Disagree about not including PM, as I might like the ministers, but think the PM is doing a poor leadership job.

The Speaker is mostly ceremonial, but I don't see why not. As for PM, I wrestled with this for a while. I think that because the Government is centered on the PM, getting rid of him/her should require new elections. That said, I think that I could add a provision that would request the Government oust the PM (i.e. we ask the Ministers to vote the PM out and have us elect a new one).

-- How are the elections conducted? Elect PM, Speaker, Judiciary and DP first, then elect Ministers? Not clear from proposal.

True, I didn't give it that much thought. I think that the Speaker should be an elections judge, so yes, your system is good.

-- Probably should include a catch-all phrase for PM "PM has all powers and duties not assigned by law to any other elected official" This is mainly to cover situations that we've missed (yes, it's happened in the past). Also, in case there is a territory dispute between ministers, give the PM power to resolve said disputes.


Aye.

General comments: Nice job! It's a bit too complicated for my taste, but there's some interesting interactions here. I think with 40-50 people, this would be a very, very interesting government option!


Thanks! We're nearing 100 citizens on the Citizen Registry. Granted, not all will be active, but it's fair to say that half will.

Thanks! We're nearing 100 citizens on the Citizen Registry. Granted, not all will be active, but it's fair to say that half will.
Last Dg we registered well over 200 members. At good times 20-30 citizens were active.

Last Dg we registered well over 200 members. At good times 20-30 citizens were active.

but we have more than 10 citizens who are active ;)

but we have more than 10 citizens who are active
But who is to say that the participation won't die down. It didn't take very long for the DG1 participation level to creep down to 7-10

But who is to say that the participation won't die down. It didn't take very long for the DG1 participation level to creep down to 7-10

Not to say that all of the pre-game discussion is bad, but actually getting the game started might keep more people participating.:)

But who is to say that the participation won't die down. It didn't take very long for the DG1 participation level to creep down to 7-10

OK but see below.


Not to say that all of the pre-game discussion is bad, but actually getting the game started might keep more people participating.:)

Yah! Come on start the game ASAP, before interest begins to wane!

Yah! Come on start the game ASAP, before interest begins to wane!

I'd have to disagree with hurrying the game up. I joined DG1 about the second or third term, and it seemed like everyone was always argueing over the laws and powers rather than playing the game. I recall the Censor at that time( BTW, I haven't seen him around lately) go crazy and start invalidating polls. RL was already very busy for me, but the constant bickering is the primary reason I left the game.

I'm afraid if we hurry this game up we're going to end up with the same thing. I'd rather take it slow and make sure we're all comfortable with the rules before jumping in. We may lose some because of this, but at least the rules will be more clear.

The Censors from DG1:
Octavian X Term 1
Swissempire Term 2 & 3
Ravensfire Term 4 & 5
Sigma Term 6
ice2k4 Term 7
DaveShack Term 8 & 9

The Censors from DG1:
Octavian X Term 1
Swissempire Term 2 & 3
Ravensfire Term 4 & 5
Sigma Term 6
ice2k4 Term 7
DaveShack Term 8 & 9

I'm just curious as to why you posted this? I recall exactly who the censor was during the time I played. I wasn't asking who the individual was if that is how you interpreted it.

I completely misread it. :blush:

Oh, well. I'll revive this when consensus determines we need more complex government.

Aren't we ready for a more modern governmental structure like a Parliamentary Government? I have the feeling we are reaching the end of the Tribal Government.

Let's examine the number of active citizens we have in context of a parlimentary style. We have few enough people that we could all be MPs and not lose anything. Then we all would choose a top person, the PM, and give that person the power to appoint all the other officials. So just one election instead of a bunch of elections.

If we wanted to have elections for MPs, we would need at least twice as many citizens as we have districts, which for the moment is not true.

Let's just stick with what we have. Changing it now is more likely to alienate some percentage of the current citizens who don't like that style, and we'll be worse off than we are now.

I see the trend, I saw this in DG 5, Civ 3 too, we are getting into a very political part of the demogame, where internal relations matter more than the game itself, so I think someone should go ahead and make a proposal.

In that spirit, I'm reviving this, officially, though I think I'll make all offices by PM appointment or some such...

Remember that the "parliamentary" in the title refers to votes of no confidence and the right of the PM to appoint.

There is no way I can support a demogame government style where the normal method of getting into office is by appointment.

Yes, I know it is contrary to how real governments work, but we should be electing our demogame officers (when there are enough people for there to be an election).

Lockesdonkey

Go ahead, we may need to have a system where people are accountable for their plans, and stand and fall by their failure or success. I think that will create a larger interest for this.

There is no way I can support a demogame government style where the normal method of getting into office is by appointment.

Yes, I know it is contrary to how real governments work, but we should be electing our demogame officers (when there are enough people for there to be an election).

I understand. I'm just doing the internet equivalent of thinking aloud...

Appoint out of a pool of DP's, that makes it more fair already.

Appoint out of a pool of DP's, that makes it more fair already.

I'm interested in this idea but confess I don't know what it means? Do you mean have the leader (Chieftain now, whatever name we give the office later) choose who plays each session?

No, we run elections for the DP pool as usually and then choose a PM from that pool. Once the PM is elected he (or she) will appoint members from the DP pool to certain jobs.

I think DaveShack touched the most important point: active citizens.

How many active citizens are in this game?

To answer it is needed to know what makes a citizen/player active:

To be an Officer (surely yes); to attend the online chats (I think yes); to post

about the game (I think yes); to post about the metagame, i.e. rules,

organization,role playing, and so (I think yes).

So, please, count the active players and see if a bigger,shorter, or same size

structure suits better.

Best regards,

What exactly would be the difference between this proposal and our current style?

I think it is all in the air, nothing is carved in stone yet.

First off, I don't think that the Judiciary should be changed at all. It breaks too much with tradition, and also needlessly complicates matters.

What I've been thinking about is that we go by a cabinet system whereby you elect the Cabinet as a whole, which then elects the Prime Minister, who then divvies up the offices among the elected Cabinet (in consultation with the people, of course). I see the Cabinet as comprising the following offices:


The Prime Minister
The Governors of the Aimags (formerly Chieftains--there are four as of now, right?)
The Minister for Defense (formerly the Warlord)
The Minister for Science and Technology (formerly the Science Officer)


With current numbers, that makes 7 members of the Cabinet.

As for how to elect the Cabinet, I propose:


Approval voting, ala DPs. All candidates for the Cabinet are running individually. A multiple choice poll is posted; each citizen can vote for six candidates. The six candidates who have the most votes (or we could make it meeting a threshold; whatever) win. I don't know how to enforce the six votes per citizen rule...but I'm sure we can think of it somehow.
Slate cabinets. Seven citizens form individual "proposed cabinets" without actually saying who would be what. The voters vote for the cabinet as a fixed slate. The slate that wins the runoff gets to be the cabinet.
Slate cabinets with proportional representation. Again, citizens form "proposed cabinets," but with this system the voting stops after the first round. The seven cabinet seats are split among the slates that got more than, say, 15% of the vote (slightly more than 1/7). Two advantages of this system over system 2 is that cabinet slates can be formed by less than seven citizens (the likelihood of a landslide is small), and that it gives you a better perspective of what the citizens want...especially if the slates differentiated themselves on policy.

In each case, the sole purpose of the Cabinet would be to find its Ministers. It has no decision-making power in and of itself.

I have another variation to this.

What about having five governors (Mongol "Noyan") being the representative base for the empire and then allow governors to pose in five different positions, according to polls if there should be disagreement. This would make the game more interesting, as the governors would be given a new dimension.

The most powerful governor (National capital province) would also be chieftain

The other four governors would be
Head Scientist (could be the most research oriented province, Great People)
General (could be the most militaristic province)
Steward (could be the most economy driven province, I want the finance minister back, this one looks into matters of commerce and wonders)
Chancellor (Foreign Relations and Civics)


The DPs should be kept out of this, as a DP could be a player just wanting to play the save, not post instructions.

I have another variation to this.

What about having five governors (Mongol "Noyan") being the representative base for the empire and then allow governors to pose in five different positions, according to polls if there should be disagreement. This would make the game more interesting, as the governors would be given a new dimension.

The most powerful governor (National capital province) would also be chieftain

The other four governors would be
Head Scientist (could be the most research oriented province, Great People)
General (could be the most militaristic province)
Steward (could be the most economy driven province, I want the finance minister back, this one looks into matters of commerce and wonders)
Chancellor (Foreign Relations and Civics)


The DPs should be kept out of this, as a DP could be a player just wanting to play the save, not post instructions.

I agree with the last statement, but I don't like the idea of combing governorships with administrative offices (though they should both be part of the Cabinet)...it reminds me too much of cumul des mandats, one of the few features of French government I do not like.

On that note, however, I do think that soon we have to add a Foreign Minister; I don't know about a Minister for Internal Affairs/Finance Minister, since the Noyans (Noyan is a good name, I'll take it) are doing a good job of that.

Some suggested titles for ministers:

"Erenkhyi Sayid" is the title of the Prime Minister of Mongolia.

"Chancellor" is a good title, I think, but not for a Finance Minister, but for the Prime Minister (like Germany).

Also, I think we should go to the "Formal Name" section in "Your Details" and officially call the country the "Free State of Yasutan."

I am against mixing DPs and officials. I for one currently do not have regular access to a pc running windoofs so I cannot commit to being a DP, but still can to Official stuff. At the same time there might be citizens who can commit on a couple seesions a term but do not want to hold office.
At the same time I am with Lockesdonkey on leaving the Judiciary as it is (or at least very similiar.
As for the rest of the government: My idea would be very similiar to Provolution's - make this a representative government by electing representatives for each province. But I'd go further:
Elect the whole cabinet with 4 governors and x ministers (eg. the 4 position Provolution proposed) and they shall elect the prime minister from their midst. The Prime Minister would be responsible for all things the chieftain is now - plus whatever post he holds in the cabinet...
I have done so before and do so now: I as a citizen would like to know for what post I elect a certain person - and I want to know what he plans to do before I cast my vote. Now of course with the number of people running for offices currently this is a theoretical thing, but hey ;)

Edit: Since we do not currently have a lot of people aiming for offices, I might also go along with Provolution's 5 posts - but would argue for election for those 5 with their responsibilities clear before the vote.

Having clear, predetermined offices kind of defeats the point of having the systems proposed. Obviously, some people are going to say that they would prefer to be such-and-such office, and that would influence the vote, but allowing this kind of fluidity makes it much easier for people to wear multiple administrative (and possibly gubernatorial, if necessary, though I must reiterate my dislike for cumul des mandats) hats while an election is held. It guarantees that a high official is always (well, almost always) elected to be something, so that problems of democratic deficit don't appear.

A slight advantage on the slate system would be that it might be possible--though not certain--that the slate could indicate "preferred positions" for each candidate, so you might know what you're looking for. This system would not work for a single multiple-choice poll.

nm stupid post.

cumul des mandats
English translation please?

I agree with DS, I don't like the thought of the PM appointed the officials. I believe that was just the poster thinking outloud, but I wished to express my disinterest in that topic.

Cumulation of charges.

Best regards,

Cumul des mandats English translation please?

While fed1943's translation is technically correct, it doesn't get at the heart of the matter. Cumul des mandats (wikilink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumul_des_mandats)) is the French practice of high officials holding office at different levels of government; for instance, while Jacques Chirac was Prime Minister in the 1970s and 80s, he was simultaneously Mayor of Paris. Likewise, Segolene Royal was both President of the region of Poitou-Charentes and member of the Chamber of Deputies for Deux-Sèvres (sort of like being the governor of a US state and a Congressman from it at the same time) during her election campaign.

I don't like this for several reasons, which I really don't have time to explain. However, I have to make it perfectly clear that a person holding multiple administrative offices (like Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, for instance) is NOT cumul des mandats, because they are on the same level of government.

Thanks for the translation. It would have been better to explain that in the first place since we're not all students of French politics. :D

Thanks for the translation. It would have been better to explain that in the first place since we're not all students of French politics. :D

I put a linky in my first response to Provolution, but perhaps I should have been a bit clearer. Sorry for the confusion.

'I support the idea of Parliamentarian Government, but for this perceived problem of mixed ranks. It is more like the Electorate of the Holy Roman Empire, with princes having each their portfolio, and electoral powers. This is very different from a French system of several 10 000 officials. This is 5 governors with unique portfolios. We cannot have more positions than candidates.

I think that the Judiciary and the DP pool should be kept the way they are now.

About a foreign minister: At the moment, our warlord is handling our foreign policy :devil:. When we meet the other continent, this position will have something to do, and I would agree with having one then.

I find all these suggestions very interesting, but I'm inclined to say that we've got a system that isn't broken, so why start fixing it.

'I support the idea of Parliamentarian Government, but for this perceived problem of mixed ranks. It is more like the Electorate of the Holy Roman Empire, with princes having each their portfolio, and electoral powers. This is very different from a French system of several 10 000 officials. This is 5 governors with unique portfolios. We cannot have more positions than candidates.

After a bit of consideration, I think that the best solution would be to allow governors to take portfolios as long as the average number of candidates remains low, but we should include a clause that allows us to forbid that by a simple statute, without having to amend the constitution.

I think that the Judiciary and the DP pool should be kept the way they are now.

About a foreign minister: At the moment, our warlord is handling our foreign policy :devil:. When we meet the other continent, this position will have something to do, and I would agree with having one then.

I find all these suggestions very interesting, but I'm inclined to say that we've got a system that isn't broken, so why start fixing it.

I'm thinking that it shows signs of weakness, though I haven't the time to go and explain them. Furthermore, I think that this system might spark interest...attract the OT crazies like me responsible for the Model Parliament who like discussions over this kind of issues.

Lockesdonkey

Go ahead you have my full support. Also from a "roleplaying" perspective, as we are to change our civics, a new law for the government and electorate would make perfect sense.

We migrate from Hereditary Rule to Representation for example.
Here the governors should be granted some rights (naming of units they produce, jointly proposing new civics - except for government civic, handling workers and electing the cabinet from themselves).

The governors are the crux to this, as we have to elect them anyways. Yet, 3-5 cities is not a big job, so I think we could create five cabinet positions for them.

Chancellor (handling settlers, wonders, civics and foreign relations)
Steward (handling finances, upgrades, allocating money to trades, funneling money where it has to be spent, keeping track of resources, forests and so on)
Alchemist (the "scientist" or representative for the Mongol intelligentsia, we are still medieval, handles research, great people, culture)
General (the present warlord, handles units, unit movements, promotions and renaming elite promoted units to fit the order of battle list)
Admiral (new position, handling all naval related moves, exploration, settling overseas territories and units going by ships, unless otherwise stated by the General that several units are to go by ship to invade a country)

The Chancellor would also be the governor in the capital province
The Steward would also be the governor in the most commercial province
The General would also be the governor in the province closest to the enemy
The Admiral would also be the governor in the province with the most maritime orientation
The Alchemist would be in the remaining province, not covered by the above

We should also have a poll mid term declaring provinces to be "Frontier Province" or "Maritime Province" or "Commercial Center Province", which would spark some interest into developing the provinces in their own right to qualify for these positions. This would also reflect regional representation in the ruling of the country. Just an idea outside the normal Demogame box.


The clause could be this simple, if we have more than 20 people in three polls in a row, we need to make cabinet positions by appointment to exclude governors, or by polls.

Just tell me when to vote against it. ;)