Interregional Government Discussion

I believe that for now, we should agree to have it. Then during the second phase, the actual discussion of what each position would do, we can decide if it's necessary or not. Because as it seems, we have a rough frame for the government already in mind.

Federation of Zera wrote:I believe that for now, we should agree to have it.  Then during the second phase, the actual discussion of what each position would do, we can decide if it's necessary or not.  Because as it seems, we have a rough frame for the government already in mind.

Alright. But later on I'll probably bring it up again. It just seems unnecessary to create it in the first place...

Ok, this is a lot to reply to, but...

@Othelos: All the way back up to your idea of the legislature, with your idea, do you mean the legislature should be unicameral, with an election system that is somewhat in between proportional and static representation?

Second, I agree with you about the IRG; I don't think any of the regions plan for it to make us so unified we're like the states. Each of the regions will keep their governments, so most of the administration will fall with the individual regions, but the IRG will be there to serve as the central power to keep the IU's working together. I see it as having just enough power to allow the IU's to act as one political unit, keep the regions working in unity, and greatly increase the influence of all four regions. I do agree with Zera that the regions shouldn't be able to repeal IRG legislation; that should be left only to other interregional administrations.

@Xin Prussia: I can agree to an appointment system for the VP. Should the president appoint him/her after being elected, or should we use a running mate?

I also agree that the minister of finance is without use. As money is entirely roleplay, that position wouldn't have any role in the government.

@Zera: I suggest we make the VP the vote counter for the Senate. The Speaker should be separate, as that position is going to take a lot of activity to keep so many legislators organized.

Zwotstyg wrote:Ok, this is a lot to reply to, but...

@Othelos: All the way back up to your idea of the legislature, with your idea, do you mean the legislature should be unicameral, with an election system that is somewhat in between proportional and static representation?

Second, I agree with you about the IRG; I don't think any of the regions plan for it to make us so unified we're like the states. Each of the regions will keep their governments, so most of the administration will fall with the individual regions, but the IRG will be there to serve as the central power to keep the IU's working together. I see it as having just enough power to allow the IU's to act as one political unit, keep the regions working in unity, and greatly increase the influence of all four regions. I do agree with Zera that the regions shouldn't be able to repeal IRG legislation; that should be left only to other interregional administrations.

@Xin Prussia: I can agree to an appointment system for the VP. Should the president appoint him/her after being elected, or should we use a running mate?

I also agree that the minister of finance is without use. As money is entirely roleplay, that position wouldn't have any role in the government.

@Zera: I suggest we make the VP the vote counter for the Senate. The Speaker should be separate, as that position is going to take a lot of activity to keep so many legislators organized.

That's what I was saying.  I think that the VP office is established seeing how we have 3 people saying it should be. Also, I think the VP should be appointed and used as a running mate. If the VP is elected, we risk having someone of different political ideology as chief adviser to the president! Also, if it's appointed after the election, who's to say that the candidate will be popular? If the VP is a running mate, that way the voters know what they're getting is what they want.

Zwotstyg wrote:@Othelos: All the way back up to your idea of the legislature, with your idea, do you mean the legislature should be unicameral, with an election system that is somewhat in between proportional and static representation?

That's what my idea was, but it seems like most people are into the bicameral system.

Zwotstyg wrote:Second, I agree with you about the IRG; I don't think any of the regions plan for it to make us so unified we're like the states. Each of the regions will keep their governments, so most of the administration will fall with the individual regions, but the IRG will be there to serve as the central power to keep the IU's working together. I see it as having just enough power to allow the IU's to act as one political unit, keep the regions working in unity, and greatly increase the influence of all four regions. I do agree with Zera that the regions shouldn't be able to repeal IRG legislation; that should be left only to other interregional administrations.

Exactly what I was thinking. We're all on the same page!

Federation of Zera wrote:

Zwotstyg wrote:Ok, this is a lot to reply to, but...

@Othelos: All the way back up to your idea of the legislature, with your idea, do you mean the legislature should be unicameral, with an election system that is somewhat in between proportional and static representation?

Second, I agree with you about the IRG; I don't think any of the regions plan for it to make us so unified we're like the states. Each of the regions will keep their governments, so most of the administration will fall with the individual regions, but the IRG will be there to serve as the central power to keep the IU's working together. I see it as having just enough power to allow the IU's to act as one political unit, keep the regions working in unity, and greatly increase the influence of all four regions. I do agree with Zera that the regions shouldn't be able to repeal IRG legislation; that should be left only to other interregional administrations.

@Xin Prussia: I can agree to an appointment system for the VP. Should the president appoint him/her after being elected, or should we use a running mate?

I also agree that the minister of finance is without use. As money is entirely roleplay, that position wouldn't have any role in the government.

@Zera: I suggest we make the VP the vote counter for the Senate. The Speaker should be separate, as that position is going to take a lot of activity to keep so many legislators organized.

That's what I was saying.  I think that the VP office is established seeing how we have 3 people saying it should be.  Also, I think the VP should be appointed and used as a running mate.  If the VP is elected, we risk having someone of different political ideology as chief adviser to the president!  Also, if it's appointed after the election, who's to say that the candidate will be popular?  If the VP is a running mate, that way the voters know what they're getting is what they want.  

The VP doesn't need to advise. It's not like the President is going to be managing thousands of people. Anyway, it seems more helpful to have advisers from each individual region, who know what is going on in their specific area.

It's really a useless position, even in RL.

@Othelos--Referring to Zera's post, the President doesn't HAVE to get advice. The VP would just be there in case the President had some trouble in a decision. Then he/she'd have someone to ask.

Ok then. I think we've cleared up the most part of this; so now we'll hold a quick vote to decide which positions we want to go with. Here are the proposed positions:

--President
--Vice-President
--Legislature (this can be unicameral, bicameral, whatever--this is only the idea of a legislature in general. The Legislature position includes the Speaker, as he/she is part of it)
--Minister of Foreign Affairs
--Minister of Finance

Simply vote yes or no for all of these positions; if you have additional ideas, propose them and they will become choices for vote as well. Once we have enough votes or the vote has continued long enough, we'll move on to discuss the whereabouts of each individual position.

President: Yes
Vice-President: Yes
Legislature: Yes
Minister of Foreign Affairs: Yes
Minister of Finance: No

Zwotstyg wrote:@Othelos--Referring to Zera's post, the President doesn't HAVE to get advice. The VP would just be there in case the President had some trouble in a decision. Then he/she'd have someone to ask.

Ok then. I think we've cleared up the most part of this; so now we'll hold a quick vote to decide which positions we want to go with. Here are the proposed positions:

--President
--Vice-President
--Legislature (this can be unicameral, bicameral, whatever--this is only the idea of a legislature in general. The Legislature position includes the Speaker, as he/she is part of it)
--Minister of Foreign Affairs
--Minister of Finance

Simply vote yes or no for all of these positions; if you have additional ideas, propose them and they will become choices for vote as well. Once we have enough votes or the vote has continued long enough, we'll move on to discuss the whereabouts of each individual position.

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

Zwotstyg wrote:@Othelos--Referring to Zera's post, the President doesn't HAVE to get advice. The VP would just be there in case the President had some trouble in a decision. Then he/she'd have someone to ask.

I know. But wouldn't it be more useful to have advisers from each region rather than one person?

President: Yes
Vice-President: No to a seperate position (Leader of the legislature would be VP as well)
Legislature: Yes
Minister of Foreign Affairs: Yes
Minister of Finance: No

President: Yes
Vice-President: Yes (Appointed)
Legislature: Yes (Bicameral)
Minister of Foreign Affairs: Yes
Minister of Finance: No

It's been two days since the start of the vote; as a result, we'll end it here.

The result of the vote, then, has turned out in favor of all proposed positions other than the Minister of Finance. This means that our plan for the interregional government will have a president, vice-president, legislature, and a minister of foreign affairs. Instead of discussing them here, I will make separate topics for each of them, so that the discussion is more organized and easier to handle.

I do have a question, though. Do all of you wish to discuss everything at once, since they'll be separated, or would you like to do them one by one?

Everything at once should be fine.

Xin Prussia wrote:Everything at once should be fine.

Agreed.