International Northern Union Forum

This forum is dedicated to the International Northern Union.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Interregional President

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

1 Interregional President on Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:03 pm

This topic will be the discussion to decide on the duties of the interregional president.

Here is my proposal: I think the president must veto or approve interregional legislation. The president would also have authority to give orders to the defense minister (if everyone joins the interregional defense organization. If the defense minister disapproved of the order, he/she should be able to bring the order to the interregional legislature).

Please post any additional or alternative ideas you have, and/or your thoughts on this.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

2 Re: Interregional President on Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:11 am

I don't think the president should be able to veto Interregional legislation. I feel it's too antithetical to Regional Independence. If it passes with enough majority, it passes.

View user profile

3 Re: Interregional President on Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:03 am

The legislature could still override the veto. If the president isn't given any authority, what's the point in having the position? If he/she could only give orders to the defense minister, it's pointless, because the minister can order anyone else. It would simply be adding an unnecessary person on the top of command. The president needs to be given authority over interregional affairs. It also retains checks and balances, to ensure legislation is agreeable.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

4 Re: Interregional President on Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:02 pm

-President would be able to approve or veto legislature
-President would be able to give orders to Defense Minister and Intelligence Minister
-If under the threat of a raid, the president may password protect all regions
-President can propose laws,bills, and amendments to the Inter-regional Constitution
-President can call the legislature into order
-The president during election and in office, when asked, must provide clear answers on where he stands on the issue
-The president halfway through his term must state where he stands on all issues.
-The presidents purpose is to provide direction to the government, and make sure that all laws passed by the IRG are enforced.

View user profile

5 Re: Interregional President on Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:49 pm

@Zera: I like some of your list, but some of it should be modified. First, you may want to specify that the president could order that the regions be password-protected, as he/she won't have admin authority over the regions. Second, I think anyone should be able to propose something to the legislature, by sending a sort of request to the speaker, but the president should do that the same way anyone else would. Third, it is somewhat unnecessary to say the president can call the legislature to order; the legislature is active full-time, not seasonal like the US Congress. Lastly, forcing the president to state his mind would be, first, somewhat useless, and second, a bit oppressive to the president. He/she should only need to reveal their positions when they decide on IRG matters, and when he/she writes a personal statement for the interregional election (which is a feature of my idea for interregional elections).

With these edits, then, my version of your plan would be this:
--The President must approve/veto legislation
--The President could order the defense minister and intelligence minister
--The President may order password protection under certain circumstances (I believe that there should be a system for approving this, perhaps sending the idea to the Senate, so that the president can't just close off the regions at will. We also have little to worry about from raids, since all four of the regions have founders).
--The President is responsible for ensuring that interregional laws are enforced.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

6 Re: Interregional President on Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:02 pm

Zwotstyg wrote:@Zera: I like some of your list, but some of it should be modified. First, you may want to specify that the president could order that the regions be password-protected, as he/she won't have admin authority over the regions. Second, I think anyone should be able to propose something to the legislature, by sending a sort of request to the speaker, but the president should do that the same way anyone else would. Third, it is somewhat unnecessary to say the president can call the legislature to order; the legislature is active full-time, not seasonal like the US Congress. Lastly, forcing the president to state his mind would be, first, somewhat useless, and second, a bit oppressive to the president. He/she should only need to reveal their positions when they decide on IRG matters, and when he/she writes a personal statement for the interregional election (which is a feature of my idea for interregional elections).

With these edits, then, my version of your plan would be this:
--The President must approve/veto legislation
--The President could order the defense minister and intelligence minister
--The President may order password protection under certain circumstances (I believe that there should be a system for approving this, perhaps sending the idea to the Senate, so that the president can't just close off the regions at will. We also have little to worry about from raids, since all four of the regions have founders).
--The President is responsible for ensuring that interregional laws are enforced.
I was thinking that it worked similar to the US.  The people would message one of their representatives and the representative would then bring it up.  Also in regards to the password-protection, I believe that the maximum time the president's password-protection would last without congressional  approval would be one week.  Anything longer than that, would have to be approved by the General Assembly or the Senate.

To expand on that first part, at least a certain amount of members would have to petition either in the forum, or in a PM, for something to be done about a certain issue. Then, the representative would have to bring it up.

View user profile

7 Re: Interregional President on Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:59 pm

Again, completely copying the US system. Yes, it works, but it's a bit boring and not creative to have the government doing exactly the same thing as the government in RL.

Here is what I agree with:

--The President must approve/veto legislation
--The President may order password protection under certain circumstances, without approval for up to one week (in case of an emergency, the president needs to act fast, and the extra bureaucracy slows things way down).

That's it. I think the position should be more minor than it is in the US.



On these:

--The President could order the defense minister and intelligence minister

I disagree. The Defense Minister and Intelligence Minister should report to the Legislature, which is more representative of the desires of the population.

--The President is responsible for ensuring that interregional laws are enforced.

The Defense and Intelligence Ministers could easily enforce laws.

View user profile

8 Re: Interregional President on Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:32 pm

Othelos wrote:Again, completely copying the US system. Yes, it works, but it's a bit boring and not creative to have the government doing exactly the same thing as the government in RL.

Here is what I agree with:

--The President must approve/veto legislation
--The President may order password protection under certain circumstances, without approval for up to one week (in case of an emergency, the president needs to act fast, and the extra bureaucracy slows things way down).

That's it. I think the position should be more minor than it is in the US.



On these:

--The President could order the defense minister and intelligence minister

I disagree. The Defense Minister and Intelligence Minister should report to the Legislature, which is more representative of the desires of the population.

--The President is responsible for ensuring that interregional laws are enforced.

The Defense and Intelligence Ministers could easily enforce laws.
How about instead of being appointed by the President, the Defense and Intelligence Ministers get appointed by the legislature, but are overseen by the president. They report to the President, and the President reports to the legislature. As for enforcement, I suppose the Defense and Intelligence Ministers can handle it but, if the President or Legislature feels like they have enforced the laws poorly or unethically, they can request impeachment.

View user profile

9 Re: Interregional President on Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:41 am

@Zera: Referring to your first post (before Othelos'), a week is a bit long; that can majorly cut recruitment. The president alone should only be able to close up the regions for emergency purposes, not a blockade. About proposing something, I think that the people should start just by sending a request to the speaker and/or their representatives. If they ignore it, then maybe a petition or something could be used. About you most recent post, the defense and intelligence ministers are elected positions according to the 15-page organization plan we have. It would be more fair to keep the organization somewhat separate from the interregional government; after all, it doesn't have any bearing on legislation, it is simply a military venture to help defend smaller regions from raiders.

@Othelos: Having the legislature order the defense organization leaders would be more fair. I agree with you on that. However, it wouldn't be the defense and intelligence ministers' jobs to enforce laws. They are simply the head managers of the defense organization, which means they would have little to do with interregional affairs outside of defense operations. As a result, the president would be the most fit to enforce laws, especially since both organization ministers already have a ridiculous amount of things to do, as they are responsible for organizing new units, divisions, departments and intelligence teams.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

10 Re: Interregional President on Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:54 am

Zwotstyg wrote:@Othelos: Having the legislature order the defense organization leaders would be more fair. I agree with you on that. However, it wouldn't be the defense and intelligence ministers' jobs to enforce laws. They are simply the head managers of the defense organization, which means they would have little to do with interregional affairs outside of defense operations. As a result, the president would be the most fit to enforce laws, especially since both organization ministers already have a ridiculous amount of things to do, as they are responsible for organizing new units, divisions, departments and intelligence teams.
I feel like this idea is closer to what I was aiming for. I see your reasoning, and I guess I agree if you put it that way.

Imo the power of the president should be weaker than the President of the US, and having the legislature rather than the President in charge of the defense/intelligence depts. transfers a lot of the power.

So finally, is this alright with you guys?

--The President must approve/veto legislation
--The President may order password protection under certain circumstances, without approval for up to one week (in case of an emergency, the president needs to act fast, and the extra bureaucracy slows things way down).
--The President is responsible for ensuring that inter-regional laws are enforced
--The Legislature could order the defense minister and intelligence minister

View user profile

11 Re: Interregional President on Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:18 am

I like it. I'm a little iffy on a whole week for the password-protection, but I suppose if the president is abusive, he/she won't be elected again.

We'll wait a bit to make sure everyone else agrees with this idea. Should we specify what the president can do to enforce laws?

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

12 Re: Interregional President on Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:40 am

Zwotstyg wrote:I like it. I'm a little iffy on a whole week for the password-protection, but I suppose if the president is abusive, he/she won't be elected again.
It doesn't have to be a whole week. How about after three days, the part of the legislature with proportional representation has to start the process of voting?

Zwotstyg wrote:We'll wait a bit to make sure everyone else agrees with this idea. Should we specify what the president can do to enforce laws?
Like through departments?

View user profile

13 Re: Interregional President on Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:02 am

Three days sounds much better.

Secondly, no, I meant that we should decide on who the president can order to do what. So, for example, say an interregional law was passed, and it wasn't enforced in the INU. Could the interregional president order the delegate or the founder to do something, like form a new government position, to comply with the law?

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

14 Re: Interregional President on Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:04 am

Zwotstyg wrote:The legislature could still override the veto. If the president isn't given any authority, what's the point in having the position? If he/she could only give orders to the defense minister, it's pointless, because the minister can order anyone else. It would simply be adding an unnecessary person on the top of command.
You're right then, it's unnecessary. Or, he could do literally everything else proposed.

The president needs to be given authority over interregional affairs.
Not really, no. A president elected from one region should never have absolute power over a legislation made of several. The president is simply an administrator. Not a dictator. And while his veto's MAY be veto'd. You can't deny that it would require a larger majority and makes cabals a large possibility.

Othelos wrote:
Zwotstyg wrote:I like it. I'm a little iffy on a whole week for the password-protection, but I suppose if the president is abusive, he/she won't be elected again.
It doesn't have to be a whole week. How about after three days, the part of the legislature with proportional representation has to start the process of voting?
The president really shouldn't get a say in the password protecting of regions he isn't in. Absolutely not.

View user profile

15 Re: Interregional President on Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:32 am

@Xin Prussia: The President won't be able to administer anything if he can't DO anything. If he can veto, that doesn't make him a dictator, just like our Supreme Council isn't three dictators. That's because, first, he can be elected out, and second, the legislature has authority over him anyway. It would require a larger majority, but that's all the better if we want interregional legislation to be popular. About cabals, I fail to see how giving the president standard veto powers would form them. About password-protection, I can agree either way on that issue. It could be useful, I suppose, but we would only have to worry about raiders if we join the defense organization. And, if we do, the organization's plan already covers defense against raids (which allows the delegates to close of the region when WA members leave temporarily for a liberation), as well as against infiltration. With that, I suppose I will agree with you, Xin.

Back to some of the earlier things, would you propose a sort of council instead of a single leader, Xin? I would rather have a single president, simply because it encourages participation, activity and competition, but if we design it well I might agree with multiple leaders.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

16 Re: Interregional President on Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:18 pm

The President won't be able to administer anything if he can't DO anything.
If the President can't administer without a veto right, the role is worthless and should be scrapped.

If he can veto, that doesn't make him a dictator, just like our Supreme Council isn't three dictators.
If we take a good look at this comparison, we see that it only holds up in the most basic of lights. Firstly, The Supreme Council was elected by the INU to govern the INU; while the Interregional President CAN be elected even if the majority of the INU did not vote for him, as long as enough members of the other regions do. Giving him a veto right means that he will have control over legislation that will affect people who did not want him in office.

That's because, first, he can be elected out, and second, the legislature has authority over him anyway.
But what if the other regions vote for him while this one doesn't? Does that make it democratic or simply tyranny by the majority? How does the legislature have authority over him? If a legislature passes with a 75% majority and he vetoes it, he's effectively neutered it because it cannot gain the 80% support it need to overturn the veto.

It would require a larger majority, but that's all the better if we want interregional legislation to be popular.
I'd imagine it would be a lot more popular if a man on top wasn't able to neuter legislation.

About cabals, I fail to see how giving the president standard veto powers would form them.
If the President and 21>% of legislation are in cahoots. they can control what legislation passes and what doesn't.

About password-protection, I can agree either way on that issue. It could be useful, I suppose, but we would only have to worry about raiders if we join the defense organization. And, if we do, the organization's plan already covers defense against raids (which allows the delegates to close of the region when WA members leave temporarily for a liberation), as well as against infiltration. With that, I suppose I will agree with you, Xin.
It's sort of a useless function, as all the regions have founders.

Back to some of the earlier things, would you propose a sort of council instead of a single leader, Xin? I would rather have a single president, simply because it encourages participation, activity and competition, but if we design it well I might agree with multiple leaders.
The problem with a singular leader is that you elect a person from one region to represent regions he has never participated in or contributed to. A council is hardly an answer either, since it'll most likely dissolve into bickering. The overarching problem here is the vote structure. Under standard voting, the person who receives the most votes will win. What i see happening is a never-ending dominant spell of IWU-borne presidents. If we could go for proportional voting, I'd be a lot more agreeable on much of this.

View user profile

17 Re: Interregional President on Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:55 pm

@Xin Prussia: Starting at the top..

No official will have 100% support. Even here in the INU, people will have voted against the people in the Supreme Council. It is impossible to please everybody; the whole point of elections is so that you can please as many as possible. Any leader will have people who didn't want him in office; there is no difference between the SC and the interregional president. The interregional president would be elected by popular vote, just like anyone else; it's just like the leader of a large region, who most like and some do not. If he is elected, it means the majority of people in the regions appreciate him/her. Even legislation won't be fully appreciated; nothing will be. The president is no exception.

Giving the president veto powers also isn't tyranny. The president doesn't have dictatorial powers over anyone; he has influence, but that's all. If the president vetoes something, it's only neutered if the bill is unpopular enough that too few people like it to override the veto, and that's beneficial because it means those that pass will be more appreciated. Also, if the president vetoes something that had a lower majority vote than the required veto majority, that doesn't strictly mean anything; if someone really supports it, they have the ability to convince others. That's the entire point of debate--to morph opinions. Furthermore, you seem to assume the president will veto everything--they aren't in office to stick their tongue out at the legislature. People elect them to work with the legislature, and nobody's going to vote for someone who's ridiculously stubborn.

Now, third, saying that legislation would always be more popular without a veto power is rather illogical. Here's an example. Say a bill passed in the legislature with a 70% majority, but the president vetoes it. But then, the legislature votes 80% to override the veto; as a result, the bill will be supported by a higher percentage. But then, say, the legislature passes a bill with another 70% majority, and there's no president. That means that bill will only be supported by that 70%, not the 80% like with the veto power. Vetoes weed out the less-popular legislation and allow the better ones to pass.

About cabals, again, nobody's going to elect someone who simply sits to toss legislation. You realize that voters have minds--if someone is trusted enough to earn the majority of over 200 people, he or she will be responsible enough to cooperate and work intelligently. Someone that popular isn't going to form a coalition with a whole fifth of the legislature, and similarly, a whole fifth of the legislature isn't going to be underhanded slicks. They too are elected as popular nations, and if they're responsible enough to be placed into interregional office, they aren't going to form a cabal with the president to destroy legislation.

Regarding password-protection, it isn't useless, actually, because the delegates have admin powers. While a permanent raid is impossible, sabotage raids are, which means the raiders come in and eject everyone from the region and ruin it until the founder logs on again. That can seriously harm a region, because not everyone will be active enough or caring enough to return after such an event. But, again, as mentioned, there is no need for the president to do this, as the individual regions can handle password-protection as described in the organization plan (which, if anyone wishes to read it, I will send it to them).

Lastly, the president isn't a representative. All the regions have their say in the legislature--that's what it is for. The president is designed to lead the collective group, not sit on each region. I currently disagree with a council because it would take too long to act. And while the IWU is bigger than each of the sisters individually, that doesn't mean it's always going to have the presidency. That is for several reasons: first, the IWU has very few active members, second, by the time the interregional government is ready, the sister regions will rival its size (and the three combined will vastly outnumber the IWU). There is also the factor of competition--the whole point of an interregional government is to encourage the regions to work together. They aren't there to compete, to make their own region control the government. It's a union, and just because a president is from the IWU or INU doesn't mean the other regions will dislike them. An INU candidate, if he/she is dedicated, could easily earn the majority of the IWU votes, just like an IWU candidate could easily earn the majority in the INU. Proportional voting would be unfair because that would almost always mean a president elected who only actually earned 20% of the votes. That's despicable--THAT would be tyranny. With full interregional voting, someone could actually be elected whom the majority of people appreciated--a president with 70% of votes or so.





View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

18 Re: Interregional President on Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:50 pm

I agree that password protection powers isn't something the President should have. It's actually a bad idea, imo, and I doubt any emergency would spread over all four regions at once.

Thanks, Xin, for pointing that out.

Also, maybe a good compromise would be to be able to recall and/or impeach the President. Those together should keep him in check.

View user profile

19 Re: Interregional President on Sat Oct 26, 2013 5:09 pm

Recalling sounds like a fine idea, Othelos. Provided we give a safe majority, that would be an excellent way to keep things working. I suggest that the ability to recall the president should lay with the legislature.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

20 Re: Interregional President on Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:33 pm

Okay so the powers of the president would be:
-To veto or pass legislation
-To ensure that laws are enforced
-The president if believed to have been negligent, unethical, unlawful, or violating the constitution may be impeached by the Legislature.

As Xin has pointed out, the need for the president to be able to shut down regions is quite useless.

Also, expanding on impeachment, all offices with exception of appointed ones, unless proven that they were involved in the scandal, should be impeachable.

View user profile

21 Re: Interregional President on Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:55 pm

Federation of Zera wrote:Okay so the powers of the president would be:
-To veto or pass legislation
-To ensure that laws are enforced
-The president if believed to have been negligent, unethical, unlawful, or violating the constitution may be impeached by the Legislature.

As Xin has pointed out, the need for the president to be able to shut down regions is quite useless.

Also, expanding on impeachment, all offices with exception of appointed ones, unless proven that they were involved in the scandal, should be impeachable.
Yes. I agree with this.

View user profile

22 Re: Interregional President on Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:16 pm

I agree as well; let's wait so we can hear from Xin.

View user profile http://internorthernunion.forumotion.com

23 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 10:19 am

Zwotstyg wrote:@Xin Prussia: Starting at the top..

No official will have 100% support. Even here in the INU, people will have voted against the people in the Supreme Council. It is impossible to please everybody; the whole point of elections is so that you can please as many as possible. Any leader will have people who didn't want him in office; there is no difference between the SC and the interregional president. The interregional president would be elected by popular vote, just like anyone else; it's just like the leader of a large region, who most like and some do not. If he is elected, it means the majority of people in the regions appreciate him/her. Even legislation won't be fully appreciated; nothing will be. The president is no exception.
You've just countered an argument i never made, know your fallacies. The point was never about 100% popularity or anything similar. As I've already stated, the difference between the Interregional President and the leader of a large region is this: If we think logically, regions will usually vote for candidates who have originated in their region. If we continue on this train of thought, under majority vote, the region with the majority wins. Let's do a trial election, shall we?

IWU: 40 votes for Candidate A
INU: 29 votes for Candidate B
ISU: 23 votes for Candidate C
IAU: 9 votes for Candidate D

Here, Candidate A wins, even thouh the majority of people did not vote for him. The majority vote simply Does Not Work in this inter-regional enviroment. Even if we assume some people DO vote for a candidate outside of their home region, the results will be largely similar.

Giving the president veto powers also isn't tyranny. The president doesn't have dictatorial powers over anyone; he has influence, but that's all.
Unnecessary Influence leads to dictatorships.

If the president vetoes something, it's only neutered if the bill is unpopular enough that too few people like it to override the veto, and that's beneficial because it means those that pass will be more appreciated.
You act if neutering a bill with enough majority to pass is a good thing. As for being beneficial, what? I'd imagine vetoes leading to legislation not passing would be incredibly frustrating for legislators.

Also, if the president vetoes something that had a lower majority vote than the required veto majority, that doesn't strictly mean anything; if someone really supports it, they have the ability to convince others. That's the entire point of debate--to morph opinions.
Under that logic anyone with a strong belief in something is charismatic enough to change the views of other people.

Furthermore, you seem to assume the president will veto everything--they aren't in office to stick their tongue out at the legislature. People elect them to work with the legislature, and nobody's going to vote for someone who's ridiculously stubborn.
So you admit the president has the capability to veto everything. The argument isn't IF  he will do it. The argument is that he should never have the power to do it in the first place

Now, third, saying that legislation would always be more popular without a veto power is rather illogical.
I don't recall saying anything of the sort, but the assumption that legislation would be more popular with a veto is infinitely more so.

Here's an example. Say a bill passed in the legislature with a 70% majority, but the president vetoes it. But then, the legislature votes 80% to override the veto; as a result, the bill will be supported by a higher percentage. But then, say, the legislature passes a bill with another 70% majority, and there's no president. That means that bill will only be supported by that 70%, not the 80% like with the veto power. Vetoes weed out the less-popular legislation and allow the better ones to pass.
Except you scenario makes no sense whatsoever. Where did that extra 10% come from? They were voting against the bill before but now they're supporting it?. Here's what actually happens: Bill passes with 70% majority. Bill gets vetoed. 70% who voted for the bill voted to overturn the veto. 30% that voted against the bill, vote against the veto. Veto sustained, bill neutered.

About cabals, again, nobody's going to elect someone who simply sits to toss legislation.
He's not going to toss ALL legislation, just the ones he and his allies disagree with.

You realize that voters have minds--if someone is trusted enough to earn the majority of over 200 people, he or she will be responsible enough to cooperate and work intelligently.
Someone that popular isn't going to form a coalition with a whole fifth of the legislature, and similarly, a whole fifth of the legislature isn't going to be underhanded slicks. They too are elected as popular nations, and if they're responsible enough to be placed into interregional office, they aren't going to form a cabal with the president to destroy legislation.
Because democratically elected presidents and legislators have always been responsible and uncorrupt. :roll:Just because they are popularly elected does not make them uncorruptable. See Appeal to Popularity.

Regarding password-protection, it isn't useless, actually, because the delegates have admin powers. While a permanent raid is impossible, sabotage raids are, which means the raiders come in and eject everyone from the region and ruin it until the founder logs on again. That can seriously harm a region, because not everyone will be active enough or caring enough to return after such an event. But, again, as mentioned, there is no need for the president to do this, as the individual regions can handle password-protection as described in the organization plan (which, if anyone wishes to read it, I will send it to them).
It's worthless to give to the president, and i was operating under the assumption to founders would log on quite regularly. I'll have a look, send it to me.

Lastly, the president isn't a representative. All the regions have their say in the legislature--that's what it is for. The president is designed to lead the collective group, not sit on each region.
The president represents the collective group, which is composed of the regions. Therefore, the president represents the regions.

I currently disagree with a council because it would take too long to act. And while the IWU is bigger than each of the sisters individually, that doesn't mean it's always going to have the presidency.
Yes, it does. See: The problem with proportional voting. I've explained this above.

That is for several reasons: first, the IWU has very few active members,
Activity is only high in the new regions because they are new. Activity will drop down to comparable levels soon enough.

second, by the time the interregional government is ready, the sister regions will rival its size (and the three combined will vastly outnumber the IWU).
There's no way to prove the first claim. As for the second one, I've already explained the problem with the voting structure above.

There is also the factor of competition--the whole point of an interregional government is to encourage the regions to work together. They aren't there to compete, to make their own region control the government. It's a union, and just because a president is from the IWU or INU doesn't mean the other regions will dislike them.
Of course it doesn't. However, who would you vote for: Someone you've known for months who you know well in your region, or some complete stranger in another?

An INU candidate, if he/she is dedicated, could easily earn the majority of the IWU votes, just like an IWU candidate could easily earn the majority in the INU.
This is factually untrue.

Proportional voting would be unfair because that would almost always mean a president elected who only actually earned 20% of the votes. That's despicable--THAT would be tyranny.
Hogwash. How would someone with only 20% of the vote become president under a proportional voting system? Unless, of course...One region will control an incredible majority of the voting population. Buuuuut of course you said that was impossible...right?

With full interregional voting, someone could actually be elected whom the majority of people appreciated--a president with 70% of votes or so.
Thought experiment.

Region A has a voting population of 50.
Region B has a voting population of 45
Region C has a voting population of 40

Now let's assume that the regions vote mostly for the candidate originating from them. Region A will be able to control 100% of the members in the position (President) with 37% of the vote. This meaning 53% of the vote wanted someone else. Explain to me how this is democratic.

View user profile

24 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:34 am

So you're saying that the only thing necessary for the President to do is carry out laws? No veto at all?

Thinking about it, I actually like that idea. The representative legislature would be entirely in charge of legislation.

I think Xin does raise the valid point that people are probably a) going to vote for someone from their region, not a random stranger, and b) since the IWU is largest, it's likely that they'll get their way each time.

So I agree, and I think the Presidential position should mostly be ceremonial, but (s)he does have to execute laws. It also weakens the President further, which I have wanted from the start.

View user profile

25 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:21 pm

I don't think the president represents each region, I think s/he represents the nations who made up the region.  Also, we could limit the number of vetoes a president has each term.  To let's say a reasonable number like 3-5.  Also, just because a current president vetoes a law doesn't mean that the law can't be proposed again under a different administration.  As for the voting process, I think that a simple campaigning process would be easily eliminate this problem. Another idea, we split the regions into two groups, each group nominates a candidate for president (sort of like a primary). Then the nominees run campaign. Another way to solve this, would be inter-regional political parties.



View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum