DG4 Discussion - Const: Article E

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire


[sarcasm]
And of course thats exactly the roles the two branches have been performing in the past three games.

Oh wait, you mean the members of the Legislative branch were executing laws and policies? They were administering the affairs of the public? Heaven forbid!

Well, looks like we've been dumb for three games. Thanks for the education, our foolish minds have now been set straight on the path of righteousness.
[/sarcasm]

So we move the Governors to the Executive Branch, keep the People as a collective whole as the Legislature. Does that fall within the Government 101 definition?

-- Ravensfire

I'm glad someone has finally admitted how dumb some of our rules have been. Yes, your final paragraph falls within the GOV 101 definition.

 

[Cyc]

And then we can all move to Florida....wake me when yer done...

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig


I'm glad someone has finally admitted how dumb some of our rules have been. Yes, your final paragraph falls within the GOV 101 definition.

Or maybe, just maybe, we look at the Government 101 book, shrug our shoulder and toss the thing out the window. We then go on to use the terms as we see fit.

OR, we could point out that, in addition to their role as Governors, we have, in the past, given legislative roles to the Governors. Essentially, they have dual roles. Moving the slider control to the Legislature matches, to some extant, the format the US uses where Congress passes the budget each year, using requests from the other branches and citizens/citizen groups as sources of information. The Executive branch then functions within that budget.

Interesting diversion though - thanks for the break from work!

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Yes. ravensfires, I know that in the past we have given governors legislative duties. But if we take those tudies away it makes no sense what-so-ever to talk about governors / senators as being in the legislative branch. This comes into bearing in another article being debated (the one concerning the number of positions a citizen can hold). Are we going to leave governors / senators in the legislative branch simply so we can have a loophole allowing someone to be governor and foreign leader at the same time (as an example)?

GOV 101 would also say, *keep the government branches seperate*. If we choose to shrug and toss that idea out, so be it, but let's not redefine terms in the process. The words executive and legislative have agreed upon meanings (as in dicitonaries). Sticking to the agreed meanings will facilitate communication.

 

[FortyJ]

donsig

I wish you'd go to DC and explain to the boys and girls on the hill that the legislature has no business controlling where and how our money is spent. After all, as an executive function, that responsibility should belong to the President and assembly of governors within our nation, right?

If we are going to nitpick about the titles of our branches, then perhaps we should change to a 4 branch system of government with the Executive Branch (Pres, VP, Advisors) executing the game, the Legislative Branch (citizens) writing laws, the Judiciary Branch (judges) adjudicating those laws, and a Gubernatorial/Financial Branch (governors) governing their provinces and allocating government funds.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by FortyJ
donsig

I wish you'd go to DC and explain to the boys and girls on the hill that the legislature has no business controlling where and how our money is spent. After all, as an executive function, that responsibility should belong to the President and assembly of governors within our nation, right?

Are we trying to turn the demogame into a mini United States? Let's play America this time, guys! Since we're talking about the past, anyone remember when the domestic leader (in the EXECUTIVE branch) had the power of the purse? No one in this game ever claimed the domestic leader had anything to do with legislating. I don't care what we do in the US system, in the demogame system the power of the purse has always resided with the executive branch. Having the senators / governors spend our gold is no excuse for leaving them in the legislative branch.

We still have a three branch division of duties FortyJ: one body makes laws, one body ajudicates the laws the the other administers the laws. You're fourth division is only a division of the executive branch.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I couldn't care less if the Governors/Senators were moved to the Executive Branch or not. Since lawmaking has never been our strong point, I always looked at the division of branches as a division of duties. Governors were kept separate from Council members for clerical purposes.

Technically, Ravensfire has it right. The entire citizenry is the Legislative Branch. Anyone can write a law in this town. But why not keep the Senators over here, and the Council over there for organizations sake?

If it means renaming the Legislative Branch to fit an exact definition, then why not? Renaming one of the three branches(we didn't come up with those branch names ourselves, ya know) would be a nice way to distance ourselves from the "mini-US" establishment that hasn't really been an issue up to this point.

 

[donsig]

Donovan Zoi, governors were not kept seperate from the executive department leaders in the beginnning *for clerical reasons*. Way back in DG1 the council of leaders/advisors (which did not include governors) had certain powers they no longer have. One of these powers was the confirmation of constitutional amendments after said amendments were approved by the citizens in general. Governors were turned into Senators / governors when this legislative duty was taken from the council of advisors / leaders and passed to the Senators / governors. Admittedly, Senators / governors had both legislative and executive functions. If we take away all their legislative duties it makes no sense to leave them in the legislative branch. Simply renaming things as you suggest won't change anything (but the names). A rose by anyother name would smell as sweet and governors lumped in with the Congress in a branch (whatever you want to name it) stinks.

I do not see what all the fuss is about. Are you all opposed to having governors in the executive branch and if so, why?

 

[ravensfire]

donsig,

You're thinking something like this:

The Legislative Branch will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry.

Interesting - I can definitely live with it.

I know there is still the ongoing discussion about assigning slider control to the legislature, so as an alternate:

The Legislative Branch will be formed of two houses. The Senate will be formed of the Governors, and establish fiscal policy by setting the slider values. The Congress will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry who may propose, discuss, and vote on proposed legislation.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

@Ravensfire: Governors / senators can set the sliders and still be in the executive branch. The US Congress retains the power of the purse because they control the raising of taxes and the setting of import / export duties, etc. Sure, we could argue that that is similar to setting the sliders in Civ III, but as I pointed out earlier the setting of the sliders has always resided in the executive branch in the demogames.

What is the purpose of having the Senator / governors in the legislative branch? What do we accomplish here? There is talk of defining the term *leaders* in the executive branch article. Does it not make more sense to have our Senators / governors in the executive branch so as to be covered by any definition in that article? Does it not also just plain make more sense to have them there?

 

[ravensfire]

donsig,

I'm fine with that. There are two sources of inertia here - slider control in Executive, Governors in Legislature.

Personally, I'm fine with first version of Article E above.

Folks - is this an acceptable approach?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Donovan Zoi]

OK, discussion here died so let's pick it up again, shall we?

I somewhat like Ravensfire's proposal, and after further consideration feel that Governors/Senators should remain in the Legislative Branch. We should still allow the possibility that they may have Legislative powers. As of yet, we have not written the CoL, so we may see a need for that power.

For reference, here is the current wording of Article E:

E. The Legislative Branch will be formed of two houses. The Senate will be formed of the
Provincial Governors, each of whom are responsible for the care, management and use of
the cities and lands of a province in addition to legislative responsibilities. The Congress
will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry.

 

[ravensfire]

To repeat my proposal:

E. The Legislative Branch will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Cyc
I believe the entire citizenry should remain as the Congress. As far as the Senate, I like the idea of the Governors having this governmental entity to gather in and discuss the matters relevant to their provinces. If the Senate is given others powers, such as the purse strings, etc., then the Senate thread would be the place to discuss this also, before a decision was then posted in the budget thread, or elswhere.

As far as the Senate ratifying a law or amendment, I've moved away from that idea, and think rubber-stamping a Congressional vote is time-consuming and redundant.

I actually see nothing wrong with the wording of Article E because the issue of "legislative responsibilities" is not defined and can become what we wish in the CoL.

Just to reiterate, I think we can leave it as it is.

 

[Sarevok]

tweo houses... good idea!

 

[D'yer Mak'er]

i agree with some here. it doesn't make sense to have legislative govenors. govenorship and legislation doesn't have anything to do with eachother.
if legislation should be made by the entire citizenary, however, we need to define what should be considered a passed law. does it need to have a simple majority (51%) or a qualified majority? should we have a lower limit of # of participating votes needed to consider the poll representive?

one thing i would like to see is that a city should be able to govern itself independently from the govenor. this decentralized and managable political form has often proven to create enthusiasm and creativity, and often outmatch the monthly elected govenor.
yet there are no laws that guarantee the cities' independency (mayors and residents are just a custom). it is always up to the good will of the govenor. plus, because local instructions should pass through the govenor to make it to the TC thread, a political "bottleneck" often appears when the govenor is absent and the mayors/residents are not.
i suggest that we leave it to the residents of the city to decide their own policy on how the city should be managed, and that the cities themselves post their BQ's and worker instructions in the TC thread.

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by ravensfire
To repeat my proposal:

E. The Legislative Branch will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws.

-- Ravensfire

That sounds good to me.

 

[ravensfire]

You raised some good questions D'yer Mak'er, I'll try to answer a few from my viewpoint.

Originally posted by D'yer Mak'er
if legislation should be made by the entire citizenary, however, we need to define what should be considered a passed law. does it need to have a simple majority (51%) or a qualified majority? should we have a lower limit of # of participating votes needed to consider the poll representive?

You are exactly correct about this. The current plan is that we will have three books of Law, each one being more specific and easier to change. The Constitution is our broad statement of rights and principles. All other laws must exist within that framework.

Each book will have a clause stating what is needed to pass a law for that book. I think the current discussion for the Constitution is Article I.

one thing i would like to see is that a city should be able to govern itself independently from the govenor. this decentralized and managable political form has often proven to create enthusiasm and creativity, and often outmatch the monthly elected govenor.
yet there are no laws that guarantee the cities' independency (mayors and residents are just a custom). it is always up to the good will of the govenor. plus, because local instructions should pass through the govenor to make it to the TC thread, a political "bottleneck" often appears when the govenor is absent and the mayors/residents are not.
i suggest that we leave it to the residents of the city to decide their own policy on how the city should be managed, and that the cities themselves post their BQ's and worker instructions in the TC thread.

Personally - I don't think the idea would work. Too many problems, too much confusion. It has been proposed before - look back a few pages I think. It might have been in another thread - can't remember.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire
To repeat my proposal:

E. The Legislative Branch will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws.

-- Ravensfire

I vote for this one. Where's the poll?

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I vote for this one. Where's the poll?

Here is the poll. For the clarification of where our Governors should go, that is. I am not sending Ravensfire's proposal for ratification until that is determined that people wish to change the long-standing placement of Governors in the Legislative Branch.

Here's the poll:

Article D/E Clarification Poll: Governors