DG4 Discussion - Const: Article D

[GenMarshall]

Originally posted by ravensfire
With regards to the idea of having the Senate control the purse strings - I really like that idea. It has been correctly pointed out that should we go with such an option, we will need to have at least three members of the Senate at all times.

To do this, I would propose that we immediately elect 1 Provincial Governor. They would control all cities built during that first term of office, assuming no new provinces were created. In addition, a new position, Governor-at-large, would be created.

We would elect either 1 or 2 Governors, enough to assume that, at the beginning of the term, there would be an odd number of Senate members. As new provinces were created, instead of mid-term elections, the at-large Governors would take over, using total votes to determine seniority.

Comments?

-- Ravensfire

Hmm, I would like this idea. . At least the Senator-at-Large can be resurected into a govenor .

@Ravensfire - Please respond to my apology PM. I am terribly sorry for my actions in the MSDG .

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc
My point remains basically the same Ravensfire. You want to include "whatever" in the poll. Whatever has not been discussed in this thread.

It has been 36 days since you first posted about putting together a DG4 Constitution. 36 DAYS. So for we are down to Article D and trying to figure out how many Leaders we should have in DG4.

Do what you want.

As with you, my point remains the same. You want to remove any discussion of ideas that might be produced in the future.

Your timeline comment is interesting. As should be obvious, it was decided to take a different approach to creating our ruleset than I proposed. This decision was to base it on DG2, making changes from that. Due to that, and to a massive time crunch, I've pretty much backed off, especially with DZ keeping an eye on things.

As you so eloquently put it, we are down to Article D, and getting into one of the most important sections - our leadership structure. We've recently brought what will be Article E into this - the Legislature. We've had a variety of proposals, and the concepts keep changing.

Yet you would silence anyone who just might possible think outside the current proposals. Fine. Go ahead, do as you wish. Poll the 6 or 3 or abstain. At this point, I want to know if the People wish to change the current system or not. I know my preference, but do you know the general preference?

-- Ravensfire

 

[zorven]

Just some more food for thought....FortyJ proposed that we fold the Culture and Science Depts into Domestic and Trade. If we choose to get rid of those 2 offices, we could fold those into the President's office or give those responsibilities to the Senate.

 

[Octavian X]

Here's another idea.

Why should we continue to think as the departments lead by singular leaders? In real life, this responsibility is divided up among groups of people.

So, why not elect a small council to fill the duties of a smaller number of departments? The highest vote-getter in an election would head the committee, with the next few vote getters following his lead. This little council would share the responsibilities of the department.

I envision three councils, each consisting of three people. The three departments these three councils would run would be the Domestic Department (an amalgamate of domestic, science, and culture), the Foreign Affairs Department (an amalgam of FA and Trade), and the Defense Department (consisting of miliatary).

Just a thought...

 

[zorven]

Octavian X - With your scenario we would go from 6 elected positions to 9. I would be afraid that we would not have enough participants to be able to do this.

 

[FortyJ]

Now we seem to finally getting to the core of this issue: do we want to increase or decrease the number of elected positions in the demogame?

Current numbers:

Executive Branch: 14 people (Pres, VP, 6 advisors and their deputies)

Legislature: 0-20 (governors and deputies - depending on the number of provinces)

Judiciary: 3 people

If we assume a maximum number of governors of 7, then we currently need 31 people to fill all the positions available with no duplication of offices. Removing deputies (which can also serve in other offices), we would still need a minimum of 18 people to fill the leadership positions. And then there's the mayors of the cities....

Simply reducing the executive council to 4 people would reduce this participation requirement to 27 (minimum of 16). Replacing the governors with a fixed senate of 3 members reduces the participation requirement drastically - 16 people (minimum of 12).

Mayors will still present a problem due to the large number of cities we will inevitably control. To solve this, we would need to allow mayors to hold other offices (and possibly even govern multiple cities).

Placing mayors in the legislature might encourage participation in this important office as well. Citizens that wish to participate in the demogame but are shunned from the recent elections will still be able to participate in various levels of the government as mayors (by controlling production and improvements within their city of choice and by serving on the legislature writing important legislation for our nation).

 

[Octavian X]

Originally posted by zorven
Octavian X - With your scenario we would go from 6 elected positions to 9. I would be afraid that we would not have enough participants to be able to do this.

Not necesairily. For one, as I had planned it, they'd have no deputies. Secondly, as I also saw it, the head of the council (or President) would be able to remove deadbeats after a relatively short period of unannouced activity. Shorter allowable periods of inactivity would allow for a more effective leadership. Third, three would be set as a maximum number for that council. If not enough people were elected, that department could still function without a few council, even if the responsibilities are temporarily concentrated on one person.

 

[donsig]

@FortyJ: I'm still not sure where governors / senators fit. I'm inclined to view them as executive with the legislature being comprised of the citizens. I don't like the idea of governors / senators having to ratify laws.

That said, the point about the number of elected officials is great. I'm a big proponent of giving mayors the power of their city's build queue, and a believer in elections but think local elections should be held for mayors. Mayors should be allowed to *rule* only one city but there is no reason a mayor cannot also hold a national office as well.

I also suggest that citizens be allowed to hold one - and only one - national level office. I also suggest citizens be allowed to run for only one national level office at a time.

We could do away with the VP job if we use the Chain of Command. We could further reduce the number of participants needed at first but not having deputy governors. If we are to have 3 governors to begin with - when we have only one province or provinces with only one or two cities - can we not work something out so that they can back each other up?

So, are we any closer to making any decisions on this article?

 

[ravensfire]

For the purposes of this discussion, I would suggest tabling the entire issue of deupties, including the VP, and push that off to a later, seperate discussion. Same with the CoC stuff.

We've now got a variety of proposals, can we draw a conclusion from this that there is general support for a change in the structure of Article D?

-- Ravensfire

 

[FortyJ]

Originally posted by donsig
@FortyJ: I'm still not sure where governors / senators fit. I'm inclined to view them as executive with the legislature being comprised of the citizens. I don't like the idea of governors / senators having to ratify laws.

I would do away with governors altogether. Put the senators in charge of the allocation of funds, and let the mayors run their cities. Any ungoverned cities would fall under the jurisdiction of the Internal Affairs Advisor and his/her deputy.

That said, the point about the number of elected officials is great. I'm a big proponent of giving mayors the power of their city's build queue, and a believer in elections but think local elections should be held for mayors. Mayors should be allowed to *rule* only one city but there is no reason a mayor cannot also hold a national office as well.

I also suggest that citizens be allowed to hold one - and only one - national level office. I also suggest citizens be allowed to run for only one national level office at a time.

I have no problem with this.

We could do away with the VP job if we use the Chain of Command. We could further reduce the number of participants needed at first but not having deputy governors. If we are to have 3 governors to begin with - when we have only one province or provinces with only one or two cities - can we not work something out so that they can back each other up?

If we do away with governors, then there will be no need for deputies either. With a fixed senate in charge of the budget, confirmation votes, and legislation, and with mayors in charge of build queues, the role of governors becomes somewhat redundant - not to mention the elimination of provincial borders makes the cartographers job that much easier.

So, are we any closer to making any decisions on this article?

God, I hope so.

 

[GenMarshall]

I am against the idea of having citizens running for only one office. This is exactly like in Demogame 1 where a citizen can only run for one office weather or not he was an incubant Leader. I am also against the Idea of removing the Vice President's Office.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I like this approach:

3 initial governors, with the number to grow as new provinces are created. Governors would be responsible for the sliders and budget allocations. The governor of a province is responsible for any build queue in a city without a mayor.

Mayors, with local elections, control the build queues of their own cities. Some sort of override for national emergencies would be necessary.

The VP position is eliminated. The exec branch is President/DP, Foreign Affairs, Military, Domestic (include Culture), and Science/Trade.

Based on initial numbers, the Exec, Legislature, and Judiciary would be relatively equal in numbers and voices. it will not stay that way obviously, but by the time we reach four provinces, the key decisions in the game have been made.

 

[Cyc]

Darn it, Bill. I was hopin' we could reach the three day mark without any replies. j/k

I like this plan.

 

[Bootstoots]

As far as the local elections for mayors go, wouldn't it be easy for someone to proclaim citizenship of a city and immediately declare themself mayor before anybody else could move in? I would favor a system where the governor appoints mayors with citizen approval, and is obligated to ask for applicants for mayorships.

 

[GenMarshall]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
The VP position is eliminated.

I am totaly Against Removing the VP. I would like to see the VP possition to remain as it is, untouched.

 

[naervod]

I agree with CG, the VP should stay, in fact, I would like to see more power added to that position, to give it somewhat more importance.

 

[FortyJ]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
As far as the local elections for mayors go, wouldn't it be easy for someone to proclaim citizenship of a city and immediately declare themself mayor before anybody else could move in? I would favor a system where the governor appoints mayors with citizen approval, and is obligated to ask for applicants for mayorships.

If we are going to allow mayors to govern their own cities, then I strongly disagree with the idea of allowing governors to appoint mayors. There is no incentive for the governors to appoint them expeditiously.

Besides, allowing citizens to "move" to a new town in the hopes of governing that city should result in a dramatic increase in participation across the board. It could be quite possible for everyone to be directly involved in the course of the game.

Finally, your concern about immediate declarations can easily be solved by mandating a 48 hour waiting period between the time the town is established/captured and the time that local elections can be held.

 

[Octavian X]

I think some more suitable system of mayoral election can be made. A new citizen moves to a town, the first one there. He must call for town mayor elections, which occur 48 hours after the initial annocement. This gives some time for people to move in and try to run. New elections for mayor could be called again in, say, 2 weeks. There would no set term for a mayor, who's term would only end when a citizen calls for mayoral elections.

As for the VP, I'd be in favor of making that positon it's own independently elected position. Give him Presidential back-up powers, as well as allowing him to preside over the Senate. We would need someone to break ties and to organize the Senate, anyway.

 

[GenMarshall]

Originally posted by Octavian X
As for the VP, I'd be in favor of making that positon it's own independently elected position. Give him Presidential back-up powers, as well as allowing him to preside over the Senate. We would need someone to break ties and to organize the Senate, anyway.

I am willing to accept this as a compremise to keep the Vice President possition.

 

[FortyJ]

No offense to Octavian and CG, but this is a terrible idea for the demogame.

Essentially, the role of the VP would be to serve as a backup for the President. Who better to hold that spot than the person receiving the 2nd most votes in the Presidential Election? This proposal would instead annoint someone to this spot that didn't even want to run for President in the first place.

In fact, the only reason for allowing the VP to run in a separate election is to accommodate a running-mate type election with a pair of individuals running for Pres and VP as a team. I doubt that I need to remind anyone here what the general consensus is on that idea.

I say No to this idea. I do prefer that we have a VP for the purpose of continuity and backup for the Pres (in case of absence), but let the runner-up in the Presidential Election hold this office.

EDIT: I have been reminded that the VP is rather redundant due to the Chain of Command. However, I would suggest that requiring an Executive Council Member to not only fulfill his/her duties, but to also fill in for the President in the event of absence or for some other reason may be too much to handle. Another concern may be that it would be too much power for a single individual to wield.

The VP may not be needed often, but if the President must retire in mid term or take a leave from the forums for a brief period of time, it may prove quite useful to have a VP that can step in and do the job without sacrificing the responsibilities of the office to which he/she was elected.