Vice Presidential Reform
- Thread starter Octavian X
- Start date
Shaitan
der Besucher
That sounds nice but is not very realistic. If the choices are YES and NO and half want each there is no option for compromise. This is precisely why the VP holds the tie-breaker in the US Senate and also why the Pres holds the tie-breaker in the Fanatikan Council.
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
another idea:
* to simplify the game, the DP only has to go through the instruction thread. anything not written down at the time a moove is done is noneexistant and up to the DP to decide.
* as many decissions are based on things put into the instruction thread, we need an instance which can put instructions in there if a leader does not or forgets to put them there. therefor, the VP now gets the duty to pay attention to a) the citizen subforum b) the departmental forums and especially c) the polls and d) the presidential forum and has to ensure all up-to-date discussions and polls are summarized in the instruction thread (not in detail, but a rough overview and link will do). this will server the DP as reference so he does not miss any information which the leaders missed to enter into the instruction thread.
and again: it should be defined explicitly that if something is not in the instruction thread, the DP is to decide it on his own!
* to simplify the game, the DP only has to go through the instruction thread. anything not written down at the time a moove is done is noneexistant and up to the DP to decide.
* as many decissions are based on things put into the instruction thread, we need an instance which can put instructions in there if a leader does not or forgets to put them there. therefor, the VP now gets the duty to pay attention to a) the citizen subforum b) the departmental forums and especially c) the polls and d) the presidential forum and has to ensure all up-to-date discussions and polls are summarized in the instruction thread (not in detail, but a rough overview and link will do). this will server the DP as reference so he does not miss any information which the leaders missed to enter into the instruction thread.
and again: it should be defined explicitly that if something is not in the instruction thread, the DP is to decide it on his own!
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
to the tie-breaker in the council:
each term, the senate could hold a senate vote on whom of the senators is the "head of the senate". this person then has a tiebraking vote in addition to his normal vote.
examples:
senate=4 senators, A,B,C,D... A is voted head of senate
* now in a vote, A and B decide for yes, C and D for no... in this case A could cast his tie breaking vote as head and pull the decission to yes.
* other example would be A wants yes, B,C and D want no. in that case, A can not cast his tie breaker, as it is no tie... as such NO wins.
each term, the senate could hold a senate vote on whom of the senators is the "head of the senate". this person then has a tiebraking vote in addition to his normal vote.
examples:
senate=4 senators, A,B,C,D... A is voted head of senate
* now in a vote, A and B decide for yes, C and D for no... in this case A could cast his tie breaking vote as head and pull the decission to yes.
* other example would be A wants yes, B,C and D want no. in that case, A can not cast his tie breaker, as it is no tie... as such NO wins.
Donovan Zoi
The Return
Using this example, A would get to vote twice. I would favor an impartial party, preferably the VP, to preside over Senate tie-breakers. This would also be useful in "head of the Senate" votes. Say, in our current situation, such a vote ended up 4-4. There would not yet be a Person A to break this tie. Since the President has the tie-breaker in council votes, I think it would be fair to give Senate tie-breakers to the VP.
Now, the question is......what is there that the Senate needs to vote on?? Question for another thread.....
dis, I do like your ideas about getting the VP involved in the Forums to pick up some of the lost pieces of turnchat instructions. These are the kinds of checks and balances Fanatika needs to stay on a smooth course.
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
As a note, Donavon, the Senate casts votes only on Constitutional amendments. But that's a different thread...
But, back to disorganizer's idea. Something like a universal deputy, I would guess. If a leader failed to post instructions, the VP would go through the forums to determine public opinion, and post those opinions as instructions. I like that idea. It goes on my list of reforms...
Back to the tie-breaking. The only way a seprately chosen Senate head could act fairly would be to take away this vote completely, and only allow him to vote in the event of a tie. This would be completely unfair to the citizens of the province he represents.
The last option would be to call a tie vote on thing or another. In the event of a tie, the vote would automatically fail, with another option of making the tied vote automatically pass. This pracitce would be unfair, and a route we don't want to go on.
But, back to disorganizer's idea. Something like a universal deputy, I would guess. If a leader failed to post instructions, the VP would go through the forums to determine public opinion, and post those opinions as instructions. I like that idea. It goes on my list of reforms...
Back to the tie-breaking. The only way a seprately chosen Senate head could act fairly would be to take away this vote completely, and only allow him to vote in the event of a tie. This would be completely unfair to the citizens of the province he represents.
The last option would be to call a tie vote on thing or another. In the event of a tie, the vote would automatically fail, with another option of making the tied vote automatically pass. This pracitce would be unfair, and a route we don't want to go on.
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
so if the senate is only voting on constitutional ammendments, it is even worse to have a executive body break the tie. this means that the executive body gets 2 chances to vote for those...
so why not just define that in a case of a tie the ammendment has to go through a 7 day additional discussion period in which changes can be made and then through a complete revote?
this would equal a declined senate vote but with a shorter repoll delay.
if we have a tie on a constitutional ammendment, there must be something wrong with it and as such we should not be passing it on one persons vote!
so why not just define that in a case of a tie the ammendment has to go through a 7 day additional discussion period in which changes can be made and then through a complete revote?
this would equal a declined senate vote but with a shorter repoll delay.
if we have a tie on a constitutional ammendment, there must be something wrong with it and as such we should not be passing it on one persons vote!
Shaitan
der Besucher
@disorganizer - The Executive Branch has absolutely no say in Constitutional matters. Having the VP be the Senate tie-breaker would actually involve that branch of the government in constitutional law for the first time.
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
thats what lead me there... what do they vote on?
btw:
the vice could keep track of worker ownership if we assign workers to the provinces, for example...
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Disorganizer has come up with two very good ideas in this thread. There first, having an issue that comes to a tie vote in the Senate be re-discussed and then another vote taken. That makes perfect sense. Obviously, if an issue has split the house 50/50 then there is a problem that needs to be worked out. The second was his last one. We're trying to find something interesting for the VP to do, plus we're having a problem of worker allocations. Perhaps the VP could monitor the Governors instructions for worker actions and see that the work done in their Provinces reflectes those instructions. Maybe gathering instructions from the different Provinces and putting together a short list of priorities for each of them. The VP wouldn't be determining the priorities himself, unless there were no instructions from a Province. His short lists would reflect the wishes of the Governors and be posted in the Turn Chat Instruction thread for easy reference. If a worker pops up near Taliesin, the DP checks the short list for Taliesin and sees that the tile South of Dacula needs irrigating. The Dp sends it there. Another worker pops up near Kyoto, the DP checks the short list for Hafen Land and sees that a mountain tile by Plexenburg now needs a road to it and then be mined. There would be no need to click on workers, as they would only need assignment when they popped up. Also the situation could arise where a worker pops up in the North Province and the DP checks the short list for that Province and finds that the three priorities for that Province have been taken care of. In that case the DP would look at other projects that may need work in that Province or consider moving the worker to another Province. This plan would lessen the workload on the DP, give the VP the work he's looking for, and satisfy the worker action instructions from the Governors. Everybodies happy.
donsig
Low level intermediary
I don't see the point in having the VP duplicate what the governors put in their turn chat instructions. Or would the governors no longer be posting worker instructions? Would they only tell the VP their worker instructions? I'm sorry but it seems as though we generating more paperwork and adding another level into the governor - DP communication link. The direct link doesn't function well enough as it is. 
This proposal also doesn't seem to help provinces like MAG get any tiles improved (unless the DP decides to move some workers over there). There is also no incentive to recruit more workers.
This proposal also doesn't seem to help provinces like MAG get any tiles improved (unless the DP decides to move some workers over there). There is also no incentive to recruit more workers.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
All good points. I just thought I'd throw it out there. There also seems to be some dissension from the Governors in the Senate Forum about this plan. Oh well. The earmarking proposal is still afloat there.
