A Flexible Government?

I've recently been just writing up some test governments in Notepad to try out some different options we have. One thought I had was the adaptability of our government, or more specifically, the leaders, and how dynamic they are through the game. One thought I had was sort of a 'hierarchy', or maybe a more complex (I hate to use that word in this situation) deputy system. It's not really a deputy, per se, and it's not really complex. It's just ... different.

Most of the government (Judicial + Legislative) was kept the same: 3 judges, and governors (who can appoint mayors (who can have town assemblies -- good for early game fun, when there aren't many cities. Expansion is slow in Civ4). This is just one example of a 'hierarchy'). The only branch I fiddled with was the Executive Branch.

In previous Demogames, we had set positions throughout the game - a culture advisor was sometimes unneeded in the first term, or a trade advisor had no role early on (ie; in Civ4, you cannot trade until a bit into the tech tree, at Alphabet). Similarly, a science advisor wouldn't have much to do when the game was pretty much in hand, or we turned science off as we rushed for a domination victory. Early in other DGs, one proposal was to have the officials change with our government in-game. I thought that would become too hectic. One solution I came up with: seperate the branches of the Executive Branch into two: Internal Affairs and Foreign Affairs. (There is still a President).

Each Affairs branch would have its own 'leader' (ie; Internal Affairs Leader or FA Leader). However, how they wanted to customize this branch would be up to them. For example, early in the game, the FA Leader might not have many helpers (maybe only a Secretary of Exploration or such). The IA Leader might have a Secretary of Expansion and a Secretary of Technology. Once they were elected (there would be 3 elections for the Exec. Branch: Pres, IA, FA), they would appoint their fellow officials as needed.

As the game progresses, say we build up a military, become able to trade technologies, and build a stable economy. The IA Leader could then abolish the Secretary of Expasnion, as all available land disappeared. They could start the positions of Secretary of the Treasury and of War, now more important than Expansion. Inside the Secretary of War, they could have sub-positions, like General of the Army. As we build a navy and an air force, those could be accomadated too. All the officials could have sub-officials, and so on. Later, there could be a Secretary of Espionage for the FA, etc, etc. You catch my drift now.

How would elections be done, then, if positions are constantly changing? Well, as I wrote, there are three major positions in the Exec. Branch: Pres., and the IA and FA Leaders. President would be regularly elected in terms, as would the IA and FA Leaders. However, all the Secretaries would be appointed by their respective Leader, and could have term threads, and start all the usual discussions. This allows the government to adapt to the progress of our nation.

I realize this gives an enormous amount of power to the IA and FA leaders. Perhaps we could have a system to check + balance their power (or two systems). (1) Make all appointments be approved by the President, or (2) if the citizens don't like an appointment, one could start a poll that would require X% of voters to overturn the appointment, and make them choose someone new.

Why would this system be better than an old one? In our old system, deputies had no real 'role'. This gives them a clear-cut role. Rather than be 'Deputy of War', you could be 'Secretary of War Planning' (ie; strategies + war plans) or 'General of the Army' who would give advice on how to use the army. With the old system, you didn't really have a job to do, unless the real leader couldn't effectively continue because of time constraints. Also, it doesn't limit our positions, creating useless positions in the early game that later will become productive, and early one ones that are important, but then fade. This one eliminates deputies, and gives them a more meaningful position.

Lastly, as seen with the Civ3 DG, participation always drops at the end of games. This would be a way to deal with it: as people disappear, you can consolidate positions to fit in with the # of people. Thanks for reading this proposal. I realize it was really long, and it might've taken awhile. I truly feel this could be a good idea, however, and welcome your input.

I'll make comments on the specific proposals later when I have more time, but I would like to see these other proposals, you have my email address so could you please send them to me.

The Triumvirate government already includes some ideas and will include more in its next incarnation.

-the Wolf

Only one is actually done - it is basically this government. I have some other ones just in my mind, that I will try to write up soon. I'll send it.

As you requested, comments to the Government you sent me:

1. You have three members of the national government and governors; I would like to see more offices.
2. I think military plans should be under the office of Foreign Affairs since to paraphrase Karl von Clausewitz "War is nothing more than the continuation of diplomacy by other means."
3. You did say who the members of the Legislative Branch, so I'll state my position: I believe that to keep our government true to our Democratic Principles it MUST involve all of us citizens in a brand of Direct Democracy. To that end I believe that the Legislative Branch must include all citizens not holding an office.
4. As for the Judicial Branch I like what you have set.
5. I very much like that the President is the DP for reasons I'll go into later on my government thread.
I'll get off my soapbox now.

-the Wolf

I do like the flexible positions idea, as it mirrors the idea of the U.S. Cabinet. Whether to elect them or not is a tricky question; too many elections reduces interest, but too few elections reduces control. How about this?

1. When a Leader first makes a post, he appoints someone to it.
2. The citizens can ask for a vote to make a post elected.
3. If it passes, the next post holder is elected.

With all the offices defined in the Code of Laws, it is easy to add and subtract offices even mid term. A majority approves it, and the change is made. You will note that I made the term in the draft Constitution "a predetermined period" instead of either months or turns. This allows us to define a new office in the middle of the month, hold a special election, and have that citizen serve until the next general election.

I kinda have the same comment here as in the Triumvirate government thread. Too few top level elected offices sounds dangerous, limiting it to just 3 is downright scary. A President plus 4 or President plus 6 seems to work pretty well.

Ok, so using this as a starting point it comes to:

• Having a set list of advisors throughout the game.
• Having the advisors in the game be decided by the officials as we progress.
• Having the advisors in the game be decided by the citizens as we progress.

It seems like doing the first one would be sort of counter-productive at points, and the second might give a couple of officials (we wouldn't have to use my example) too much power. However, I see #3 as something that would take a lot of time. I guess it's now a debate between #2 and #3.

DaveShack: I'm just worried about the time we have. By the time we agree to create the position with a poll (assuming 6 days) and we nominate + have an election (6 days), that's already 1/3 of the term over, assuming we started in the beginning of the term sequence. If we started this halfway through, there would be little to no time for them to serve. Having the officials create it is (a) more realistic and (b) faster, I would think.

I am very much in favour of a flexible government. As I have said elsewhere I'm a pragmatist, and this is very practical.

The problem is indeed: elections or appointments (again...) when an office is created. In this instance, to speed things up, if a new office is created the responsible leader should be able to appoint someone to hold office. This person then functions as holder of said new office, unless the people object (I imagine this in a poll as in 'do you agree with person X holding this office? yes/no/abstain') If a majority votes no the person has to be replaced, otherwise the person can remain in office until the end of his term.

In effect, this is a combination of election and appointment, and slightly topsy-turvy. A leader appoints someone to an office who has all the powers that come with that office, unless the people object.

Good idea? Comments?

Ginger_Ale said:

I realize this gives an enormous amount of power to the IA and FA leaders. Perhaps we could have a system to check + balance their power (or two systems). (1) Make all appointments be approved by the President, or (2) if the citizens don't like an appointment, one could start a poll that would require X% of voters to overturn the appointment, and make them choose someone new.

Click to expand...

OK, i have a suggestion to lower their power. A parliment or some sort of peoples body of elected representatives, call it a congress or parliment or even a senate. it would be quite small, 5 or 7 people. they would decide if someone could be in office or not.

OK, an example: say that person A is hired by the FA leader to be Minister of Trade. the previous term s/he was MoT but messed up and made some very bad deals that were ruioning our economy. The people dont want him/er again this term in fear of the same thing happening. so a concerned citizen would contact parliment and inform them about their worry. if parliment decided that it was substantial (as to avoid people saying, i think that Saladin may ask us for a trade and s/he would turn it down and ruin the economy even if the MoT hadnt done anything like that in the past, so basically superstition on no grounds), then they would set up a poll and if 10-15 people said that hey feared that the MoT would make the same mistake due to past work, then the parliment would disuss, for 48 hours whether or not the MoT was fit for the job. they would announce their verdict and the FA would have to act accordingly.

i know this is similar to the poll idea, Ginger Ale, but this way you have some focused citizens disscussing it, as opposed to a lynch mob with their adrenaline flowing.

Why bother having a 'senate' at all when you could just poll the citizens? A citizen could make a complaint to the President, the President puts up a poll, simple. No need to have 5 or 7 more officials who might not have any activity.


Gloriana: That is what I was thinking. People in the FA department will be appointed by the FA Leader (or their head -- a General of the Army would be appointed by the Secy. of War), but if the citizens feel it isn't a good idea, they can challenge the appointment and try a 'recall'.

Ginger_Ale said:

Why bother having a 'senate' at all when you could just poll the citizens? A citizen could make a complaint to the President, the President puts up a poll, simple. No need to have 5 or 7 more officials who might not have any activity.

Click to expand...

because the people might turn into a lynch mob. by having focused indivuals study the problem we can stop that. plus, it creates jobs

And the whole purpose of this is to not have unnecessary jobs, if you read the post (specifcally the last post).

The people won't all turn into a lynch mob, if at all. How do you know the 5 or 7 senate people won't all be 'lynch mobbers' 'out to get you'?? That is a broad generalization that won't happen. If the citizens feel someone should be kicked out, the citizens should get their say.

Ginger_Ale said:

And the whole purpose of this is to not have unnecessary jobs, if you read the post (specifcally the last post).

The people won't all turn into a lynch mob, if at all. How do you know the 5 or 7 senate people won't all be 'lynch mobbers' 'out to get you'?? That is a broad generalization that won't happen. If the citizens feel someone should be kicked out, the citizens should get their say.

Click to expand...

they would ge thteir say, the parliment would be a control valve that would know what they wanted since they could be contacted and complained too. if a few citizens get angry and make bloated accusations then you might have other citizens believe the accusations and a lynch mob is born. the senate wouldnt be a lynch mob since it would need 48 hours to discuss this and would have lost lynch mobness by then

Using your logic, could we just have the citizen discussion last for 48 hours or more so the lynch mobs go away? I doubt that will work.

If a few citizens get angry, so be it. That is their right, and they can share their opinions. You can't make it so that there are no unhappy citizens in this game. You are using hyperbole and stretching the trust - what you are writing will most likely never happen, and if it does, how can we stop it? Having a group of 5 or 7 citizens vote is no different than having a group of everyone - so why limit it? The citizens should have the right to vote out something that isn't doing their job if they want to - period. It shouldn't have to be decided by officials themselves.

Ginger_Ale said:

Using your logic, could we just have the citizen discussion last for 48 hours or more so the lynch mobs go away? I doubt that will work.

If a few citizens get angry, so be it. That is their right, and they can share their opinions. You can't make it so that there are no unhappy citizens in this game. You are using hyperbole and stretching the trust - what you are writing will most likely never happen, and if it does, how can we stop it? Having a group of 5 or 7 citizens vote is no different than having a group of everyone - so why limit it? The citizens should have the right to vote out something that isn't doing their job if they want to - period. It shouldn't have to be decided by officials themselves.

Click to expand...

In my idea, the citizens would decide, they would decide if they wanted to try someone as unfit. it works like a jury, they use reason and facts to decide. if the decisions made in the previous term were unpopular but good the person would still be kicked out

Regarding RoboPig's idea, we have tried a Senate with members being the Governors and most of the time it doesn't work well because we had trouble getting enough senators to participate on a regular basis. Using a smaller body like that doesn't necessarily speed things up, nor is it inherently more fair than having everyone vote. Since neither of the potential reasons to do it that way is a real benefit, I don't think we should do it.

Our Presidents have been underpowered in previous games. How about giving the President the role of creating an office if needed. In the US this is how it actually works in practice. We have an Office of National Drug Control Policy because it was created by executive order. Ok, some people may not be fans of that particular office, but it's a good example. Some other cabinet departments were created the same way.

I still want to start with at least 4 departments, so with the President that means at least 5 executive offices.

I love this idea actually...
But why not put the governors under the Internal Affairs Leader? The citizenry can be the legislature...
Because this goes along with your idea, early when we have only 1 city, do we really need a governor? The IA leader can handle this city for awhile...

Also The Secretary of Military would go under Foreign Affairs Leader...

Overall this is a great idea, it makes elected officials more scare which is needed, having 3/4 of the citizenry elected isnt how a government works

DaveShack said:

Regarding RoboPig's idea, we have tried a Senate with members being the Governors and most of the time it doesn't work well because we had trouble getting enough senators to participate on a regular basis. Using a smaller body like that doesn't necessarily speed things up, nor is it inherently more fair than having everyone vote. Since neither of the potential reasons to do it that way is a real benefit, I don't think we should do it.

Click to expand...

allright, but we need a safety valve of some sort, to make sure all the facts are true.

How about giving the President the role of creating an office if needed.

Click to expand...

you want this because you have a guarentee on being voted in first term

RoboPig said:

you want this because you have a guarentee on being voted in first term

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm thinking Chief Justice instead of President.

It's kinda getting old being the one to create the game every time. Satisfying to say the least, but perhaps one of the highly active newcomers could take on that role given it's a completely new game.

Oh, by the way it's time to make final arguments on this prior to a poll to decide where we should concentrate.

Here is some sample language which would enable the government to be flexible, on a fast schedule, and allow the people a check/balance capability.

The [insert name of chief executive office] may adapt the government to changing conditions by proclamation, by following the following procedures.

• A new position may be created to address an area which is not coveredy by existing offices by appointing a citizen to the office and declaring what the duties of the office are.
  • The duties of the new office may include part of the duties of other offices, with the approval of the current holders of those offices.
• An existing position may be eliminated by requesting the current office holder, if any, to step down, or by announcing that a vacant office will be eliminated instead of appointing a citizen to the office.
  • Duties of the eliminated office may be distributed among existing offices, with the consent of the existing office holders.
  • Some or all duties of the office may be assigned to the default holder of unspecified duties, as specified by law.
• The duties of the existing positions may be rearranged by requesting the current office holders to modify their areas of responsiblity, provided all affected office holders agree.
• Any citizen may request the people to disallow a change by posting a non-approval poll within 48 hours of the appointment.
• Any changes made under this provision affect the current term only. If the people wish the changes to persist beyond the end of the term, they must codify the changes as amendments to the relevant laws.