Discussion in 'Model Parliament' started by Ball Lightning, Jul 2, 2007.
More yes votes then no
I think thats part of the constitution now, btw who voted no?
Or we can define it in the constitution as 50% + 1.
The reason I think it needs 2/3 is because of the power of ministers to put forward bills.
If a party has a small majority then they can create many junk positions to advance their agenda.
Also I think a deputy PM is an unneeded position.
Because the deputy PM would have nothing to do.
I don't think such a obviously bad bill will pass and if it does we have more to worry about then the problem due to the fact that over half of the people are ruling the show. Besids, creating the postions would cost them acts and the bill they put forward must be on position topics.
We could always call the amount of bills one could present as (sorry, Dubya) "political capital."
Change it so that he/she could take over temporarily if the PM needs to be away, perhaps?
The pres should only get like five bills or something, thats how we did it before anyways. Or was that three bills?
The Deputy Prime Minister would most likely also have another cabinet post, like Foreign Minister or Defense Minister. That is usually the way that it is done in order to give them something to do.
Well in the Parliament system the PM decided who and how many Minister positions he/she would like. Like Canada's current government the PM wanted to have a small government so he had less Ministers. If you want a big government you have more Minister.
I agree with this, for example in Canada right now our Deputy Prime Minister is also our Minister of Foreign affairs
I agree, as we could have more ministers as we get more people.
Well, we can all agree that there will be no proxy voting, right?
Acutely Canada doesn't have a Deputy Prime Minister this time. No one was appointed to the position which some people thought it was odd. But if someone was to be appointed yes I am sure it would have been the Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Mackay.
Yeah, that blew.
Are we going to include a clause on how to ratify the constitution?
I say, can we do the parts about the powers of government after we set up the way government works. Those parts are political and the first part isn't.
I think there should be able to be a vote to remove a GM. 3/4 is good IMO.
That should be extraconstutional.
Separate names with a comma.