Citizen Initiative: Parliamentary Government

Lockesdonkey

Lockesdonkey

Liberal Jihadist
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
2,403
Location
Why do you care?
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

Spoiler original version, for historical reference only :
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:
Spoiler :
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:
Spoiler :
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:
Spoiler :
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:
Spoiler :
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:
Spoiler :
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:
Spoiler :
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:
Spoiler :
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:
Spoiler :
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:
Spoiler :
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:
Spoiler :
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.
 
Lockesdonkey said:
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.*
Click to expand...

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.
 
Methos said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?)
 
Furius said:
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?)
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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)
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lockesdonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Falcon02 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
ravensfire said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

King Phaedron
Tier 1 Government Buildings in the Palace - New Tier 1 Building in the Government Plaza
Replies
0
Views
358
King Phaedron
King Phaedron
GoodEnoughForMe
Should the US Government Bring Back the Fugitive Slave Act?
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Klaus Hergersheimer
Klaus Hergersheimer
Hygro
Alternatives to hard money question mark
Replies
18
Views
497
Lexicus
Lexicus
V
Zohran Mamdani
5 6 7
Replies
133
Views
5K
danjuno
danjuno
Moriarte
  • Poll Poll
New search for MH370
Replies
12
Views
758
Perfection
Perfection
Back
Top Bottom