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 : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

26 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:21 pm

Othelos wrote: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.
Precisely.

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.
You're right that the president does not represent each region. Which is why he shouldn't be given powers that affect all regions and are decided by all regions such as the legislature.

As for the rest of your proposals, i can't say i really find it very practical. Too much bureaucracy and work. Though perhaps we could look into a veto limit, even if I'd still prefer we get rid of the veto altogether.

View user profile

27 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:01 pm

Federation of Zera wrote: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.
 

It strikes me as unnecessary for the president to have a veto power at all, since the legislature is more representative. It also eliminates the possibility of a lame duck presidency, which bogs down the system.

If the government is going to be truly representative, the President shouldn't have the power to veto.



@everyone: Is there going to be a court? Because they could handle things in case the legislature passes something unconstitutional.

View user profile

28 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:58 pm

Without the power to veto, I honestly don't see the point of having a president. I think that the president should be given 3 vetoes and no more. These vetoes can be overridden by the Legislature. The law's constitutionality would be determined by a court as Othelos proposed. An example of this would be, the Legislature passes a law, the President uses one of his vetoes. The Legislature overturns the veto. But, the President or a member of the IRG, can make an appeal to the court, who could then prevent the passing of the law. That way the President is given enough influence to be relevant but not be tyrannical. If the President is not given the power of veto, then I think we should completely get rid of the position.

View user profile

29 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:59 pm

@Xin Prussia: Starting all the way at the top of your first post, once again.

You noted that the president would be disliked by people in some regions and liked in others. My point was that nobody you elect, in ANY way, is going to be disliked by some people. No matter if you use proportional or majority voting, whoever is elected WILL have opponents; that's a given, whatever system you use. Furthermore, and more importantly, you are assuming a set of rules that are by no means unchangeable. For one, you are assuming that, due to the IWU's larger population, it will have more active people and thus more voters. That is incorrect, because the IWU has about 15 active people, while the INU has over 25. That means that, in a vote, the INU would have a larger say than the IWU. Furthermore, you are assuming that the INU's population will always be subordinate to the IWU. That too is incorrect, given the current rates of recruitment for the INU and the IWU, comparatively, especially since the interregional gov't won't go into operation for at least another month. The term length is also 4 months long--that's enough time for a good recruiter to pull in 200 people. Influences can change rapidly within a term, which means it is almost impossible for the IWU to hold more than the first term or two, unless everyone in all the regions likes their candidates. Next, you are also assuming a proportional trend in regional voting, that almost everyone in a region will vote for their region's candidate. That too is rather unlikely; while the majority will probably choose someone from their region, it won't be anywhere near all of them, because every candidate will have opponents in their region. That means that, say, an IWU candidate might get 15 of 25 votes from their region. But say that the IWU voters really like the INU candidate, who has 10 of 15 votes. Say that 6 of the remaining IWU voters like the INU candidate--that would put the INU candidate ahead, without a large majority even at home. Vote results are fluid--they don't always move the same way, which means that the IWU will likely win a similar number of presidencies to any of the other regions.

Second, tell me this.. if the legislature has ultimate power over the president, how does he/she become a dictator? The only influential power he really has is to say "No, I don't like this bill, vote on it again." And the legislature can put the bill back on the table and override the veto if it's popular enough. The president has NO authority to order around regional leaders or anything--the most he can do related to that is tell a region "Hey, this law's not being enforced. Do something about it." The only way that would become a dictatorship would be if all the regions liked the president so much they decided to make him in charge of everything, which would be a virtually impossible event. You are ALSO assuming that ridiculous orders by the president will be followed mindlessly--if the president abuses power, it's already been proposed that he can be recalled, and if not that, then nobody's going to listen to him if he goes bad. On top of that, you seem to be assuming that every president is going to be a power-hungry dictator. There are bad people out there, no doubt--but you forget that people are electing them, which means they are responsible enough to earn the majority approval of 200 people.

About the veto being beneficial, it is, for the reason I stated: it weeds out the less-popular bills and protects the more-popular ones. I will give a real-life example, as well, for you. I served in the IWURC, the IWU's first legislature, when Fenburg was president. We passed two bills, one to expand the intelligence group and the other to modify what the ambassadorial committee could do. On, we had 6/10 votes for, the other, we had 7/10 votes for (a simple majority was require for their passage). They were passed together--however, Fenburg vetoed them. We needed 8/10 to override the veto; we had a quick debate, then voted to try and override the veto. The first bill went all the way to 8/10 and the second to a full 10/10. Vetoing does not neuter legislation unless the legislators have no motivation to do their work and persuade others to approve of the bill. Those that are approved by the president or his/her veto was overridden for are appreciated enough that more people will like them--those that fail, should have, because it means they wouldn't have been accepted widely enough in the regions themselves.

About morphing opinions, I never said everyone can always change everyone else's minds--but if someone is dedicated enough and the idea they support is LOGICAL enough to make sense to others, then others will change their minds. Also remember that everyone doesn't need to change their mind for the legislation to override the veto--only a few are needed, which, if the bill is good, wouldn't be hard to achieve. For another example, I took a sample opinion from the IWU about the defense organization from 8 people before I wrote the defense plan to see what I was up against regarding public opinion. All of them were against the idea. Then I wrote the plan and presented it to them--it was logical, thorough and complete, and it convinced half of them to change their minds in favor of it. The same thing can be done for ordinary legislation.

About the president having the right to veto, you miss the point. You are against it, Xin, because you fear the president will abuse authority. You retain that idea because you think that the president is always going to be corrupt and abusive; I've never seen a single abuse of power my entire time in NationStates. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, no--but, first, it is rare enough to where we shouldn't chain up the president because we fear him, and second, we have Othelos' proposal of recalling the president, which essentially fully cuts the possibility of a successful abusive term.

Regarding legislation being popular, as I've stated, legislation that has a power check and is forced to be reviewed and thought out is by default more complete and thorough than legislation without. If the president cannot veto, there's no motivation to really debate, to think critically, to challenge, and to analyze. That means that the legislators only need to come up with something enough to convince half the legislature--it needn't be any better. However, when there is another authority who can analyze, review and order the legislation be redone, it makes the legislators more thorough and thoughtful. Anything that is produced by a system of review will be a better law than something without any review.

About my scenario, once again you assume that opinions are rigid and cannot be changed. People can be persuaded, and if an idea is worthwhile, it isn't hard to do. For example, I LED the opposition when we voted on political parties in the IWU; I was strictly against it, and I was successful--we voted them out. After being here, though, my mind changed, and I supported the idea. Another good one is the defense organization--I thought it would be risky whenever it was first proposed on the INU's RMB two months ago, but now I am a fierce supporter of it and have devoted hours to writing the 15-page plan and a 3-page speech of sorts to present to the IWU to convince the region to join it. Going back to my scenario, just like I said--if the legislature votes 70% to pass the bill but it's vetoed by the president, it's easily possible for someone to convince that 10% needed to override the veto with 80%.

On the cabals, you didn't answer what I pointed out--nobody will vote for someone who is irresponsible enough to form a coalition to rule the government. You, for example, would be a prime candidate. Your standard of responsibility and activity would be that of a presidential candidate. So, then, Xin, would YOU form a cabal and cheat on 200 people? I don't think you would, unless you wish to argue against that. You are also assuming that those elected to the legislature would be irresponsible enough to join such a group, enough so for a fifth to jump in. So imagine you are president and Othelos is in the legislature; the other legislature candidates would be like Othelos. They'd be active, responsible and involved, like he is. So would Othelos join a cabal? I don't think he would. Those who are trusted and approved of by 200 people aren't going to be underhanded, corrupt dictators--they won't form cabals. They know they need to work cooperatively and responsibly, and that's what they'll do if they are, once again, responsible enough to have the majority of 200 votes.

About the officials being corrupt, there can and may be elected people who become corrupt. But you are assuming that a whole FIFTH of them is going to turn rotten. You may have 2 or 3 bad officials in the lot, but you aren't going to have a whole 15 of them teaming up to rule over everybody.

On to the password protection, that is something we agree on. It isn't the president's job to lock up the regions. We founders may or may not be on often, but since the delegates will likely do a bit more later, we focus on them. It's more fair to the regions as well, since the founders are based in the IWU.

With regards to the president representing everyone, what I meant by the fact that he didn't represent everyone was that he does not impose his ideas on them. The legislature's job is to be the thinktank that makes the laws for the people--the president is there to ensure that the legislation is acceptable.

On the fact that the IWU will hold all the presidencies, I will refer to what I said earlier. Assuming the IWU will always control the others is assuming a truckload of other trends that are not even currently true, all of these I spoke of near the top of this post.

About the activity levels, the reason the INU is so active is not due to the fact that it's new--it's due to the way I recruit. Take the IAU and ISU, for example. The ISU seldom has two people that do anything, and it has nearly 35 people. The IAU's active people comprise of two puppets from the IWU and a nation founded in 2005. The INU, by sharp contrast, has an active population of almost 50%; again, this is due to the fact that I only send my invitations to involved, active, and large nations. It's a trend that will continue provided I continue with my strategy.

Moving on to the population comparison, yes, there is no way to prove that--just the same way that you cannot prove that they will not. I am basing what I stated from the rate of recruitment right now; the INU has grown 10 nations in population in the past two days, while the IWU has lost two. The ISU and IAU didn't change, but they will because the negotiations won't start until they are large enough. The IWU will need at least 120 nations, but that's assuming we lose a large chunk of the INU's population. Each of the three sister regions needs at least 40 nations, but given the INU's growth rate, we will likely have closer to 65 by that point, which pushed the number up to 145. Given that nobody is doing any recruitment whatsoever for the IWU, that number isn't going to be achieved.

About who I would vote for, that would depend. My idea is that the presidents will give a personal statement, which would allow the people to see their positions before voting. That would give voters at least a considerable idea of who is up for candidacy. And, also, you are assuming that I would vote for someone just off my knowledge of them. Here's yet another example: my political rival in the IWU, Vizindolf, will almost certainly run for the presidency. He's responsible and trustworthy, but I disagree with a lot of his opinions. As a result, since I will vote via GROSS Independency, I would almost certainly vote for a candidate of one of the other regions, even though I've worked with Vizindolf for nearly a year now.

Now, you stating that the fact that people can be convinced is "factually untrue" is simply... untrue. Here's another good example of this. In the 2012 US presidential election, the state of Ohio was going to vote for Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate. Ohio is currently almost 80% Republican, and by default one would assume the state would certainly go for Romney. However, Barack Obama, who won the election, gave several speeches in Ohio, and he received 60% of the votes from Ohio and won the state. Obama turned 40% of the opposing votes in his favor. After that short story, how is it factually untrue that a candidate cannot sway the opinions of the opposition?

On proportional voting, that means that whoever has the highest percent majority of their region gets the presidency. In standard voting, the winner will always have more the 50% of the total votes. For proportional voting, here's another example. Say the IAU has 20 members, and the IWU has 200. In the presidential election, the IAU candidate gets 18 of his region's 20 votes. But the IWU candidate receives 150 votes. The IAU candidate has the higher proportional percentage, so he wins the presidency. How is that fair? Sure, it improves representation of the tiny IAU, but what about those 150 people who voted for their person? The IAU candidate will only have received 8% of the total votes but still won the presidency over the IWU candidate, who had 68% of the votes. That is denying the voice of the 150 people in favor for the 18. By contrast, in direct voting, the IWU candidate would have won, because he fairly earned the approval of 68% of the total population. THAT is fair.

Regarding your experiment, if Region A voted entirely for Candidate A, he would have 50 votes, right? Being generous, we'll assume the Region B gave Candidate B all of its 45 votes and Region C gave Candidate C all its 40 votes. Not allowing candidate A to win would be unfair, because although he doesn't have over half the total votes, the other candidates have fewer than he does. That means he was more accepted than the other two were. In proportional voting, by contrast, Region C's candidate could win in a different situation with even LESS of the total vote, because more of his region liked him than the candidates of the other two. Even though more people approve of, say, Candidate B, he can't win because the percentage of his region wasn't more than Candidate C's. That boosts the representation of Region C, sure, but at the same time it slashes the representation of Regions A and B.



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

30 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:07 pm

@Othelos: If the president can't veto, then where's the representation for those who disapprove of the proposal? The legislature could just pass what the majority liked, ignoring the opinion of the rest. With a president there to review and veto when necessary, it would push legislation to be more acceptable than without. Having a president doing his job would bog down the system a lot less than would 30% of the people in the regions creating tensions because the last bill was disliked.

Regarding a court, a separate position would make this look even more like the US government. I suggest something like this: the General Assembly votes and passes a bill, right? Then it goes to the president. After it gets through him/her, the Senate votes to decide if it is acceptable and constitutional (once we have one written).

@Zera: I think your idea would be a reasonable compromise, although we have yet to hear an answer from Xin about Othelos' idea of recalling the president, which I believe would be more fair and effective. If the recalling idea is unpopular, though, while the veto limit is, then I would recommend the limit be done by percentage (for example, the president could veto 50% of legislation passed in the term).

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

31 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:17 pm

How about if the debate of Constitutionality ever arises, we knock it over to a popular election. I would figure that if the bill passed in the General Assembly then it would have to pass in the Senate. In the result of a tie in the Senate, the VP would break the tie. Also, a bill proposed in the Senate would have to pass in the General Assembly as well.

View user profile

32 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:33 pm

@Zera: Popular vote for that is an option, but an interregional referenda would be pretty overwhelming, seeing as we have to worry about elections as it is. About the bill passing in the Senate, I think the Senate's vote should count for the constitutionality of it; that way if the bill passes, it's already been cleared, so no further issues will arise. We also shouldn't have to worry about a tie; if the VP can vote, we'll just keep an odd number there, so that a tie cannot occur. That or we can raise the majority above a simple >50%. Lastly, I think the General Assembly should be the only one to form the laws--if the Senate was proposing laws at the same time, it would be chaotic. We should stick to having a set order of votes, with the General Assembly proposing the laws and initially voting on them, then the president reviewing them, and then the Senate voting to accept them. That would keep the bureaucracy from becoming too tied-up.

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

33 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:38 pm

Zwotstyg wrote:@Zera: Popular vote for that is an option, but an interregional referenda would be pretty overwhelming, seeing as we have to worry about elections as it is. About the bill passing in the Senate, I think the Senate's vote should count for the constitutionality of it; that way if the bill passes, it's already been cleared, so no further issues will arise. We also shouldn't have to worry about a tie; if the VP can vote, we'll just keep an odd number there, so that a tie cannot occur. That or we can raise the majority above a simple >50%. Lastly, I think the General Assembly should be the only one to form the laws--if the Senate was proposing laws at the same time, it would be chaotic. We should stick to having a set order of votes, with the General Assembly proposing the laws and initially voting on them, then the president reviewing them, and then the Senate voting to accept them. That would keep the bureaucracy from becoming too tied-up.
Who would keep the Senate checked though?

View user profile

34 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:40 pm

Zwotstyg wrote:@Othelos: If the president can't veto, then where's the representation for those who disapprove of the proposal? The legislature could just pass what the majority liked, ignoring the opinion of the rest. With a president there to review and veto when necessary, it would push legislation to be more acceptable than without.
That would only be during a lame duck presidency. Anyway, if the majority is high enough, the legislators would overrule the veto anyway.

Democracy inherently favors the majority. There's no way to adequately represent both sides except through filibuster (which is essentially what a veto is).

Zwotstyg wrote:Having a president doing his job would bog down the system a lot less than would 30% of the people in the regions creating tensions because the last bill was disliked.
This could happen even if the president had a veto power.

Zwotstyg wrote:Regarding a court, a separate position would make this look even more like the US government. I suggest something like this: the General Assembly votes and passes a bill, right? Then it goes to the president. After it gets through him/her, the Senate votes to decide if it is acceptable and constitutional (once we have one written).
I would agree with this as long as the Senate isn't elected, because otherwise their decisions wouldn't be impartial.

So we'd go with a lower legislature elected proportionally. The President would approve/veto (I can agree on Zera's idea of a three-five veto limit as a compromise). Then the Senate, comprised of people appointed from each region (say, two from each), would check the constitutionality.

How's that?

View user profile

35 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:43 pm

@Zera: I imagine that the bill would be pretty good if three sectors of the government approved it, so most wouldn't encounter trouble. If they did, however, the legislature could always repeal it (or the next legislature could, when it was elected). If necessary, we can allow the referenda in certain situations, but we need to be sure that we have limits so we don't have overwhelming votes all over the place. I would recommend that a sort of "petition" be done, simply where residents post against the bill, and if one of the regions has 25% of the population post against it, there would be an interregional referendum. Sound fair?

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

36 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:43 pm

Federation of Zera wrote:
Zwotstyg wrote:@Zera: Popular vote for that is an option, but an interregional referenda would be pretty overwhelming, seeing as we have to worry about elections as it is. About the bill passing in the Senate, I think the Senate's vote should count for the constitutionality of it; that way if the bill passes, it's already been cleared, so no further issues will arise. We also shouldn't have to worry about a tie; if the VP can vote, we'll just keep an odd number there, so that a tie cannot occur. That or we can raise the majority above a simple >50%. Lastly, I think the General Assembly should be the only one to form the laws--if the Senate was proposing laws at the same time, it would be chaotic. We should stick to having a set order of votes, with the General Assembly proposing the laws and initially voting on them, then the president reviewing them, and then the Senate voting to accept them. That would keep the bureaucracy from becoming too tied-up.
Who would keep the Senate checked though?
The Senate would have final say on constitutionality. However, I think it should be possible for the legislature of each region to be able to impeach the Senator from their region with a 70-75% majority, just to keep things in check.

View user profile

37 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:44 pm

Othelos wrote:
Zwotstyg wrote:@Othelos: If the president can't veto, then where's the representation for those who disapprove of the proposal? The legislature could just pass what the majority liked, ignoring the opinion of the rest. With a president there to review and veto when necessary, it would push legislation to be more acceptable than without.
That would only be during a lame duck presidency. Anyway, if the majority is high enough, the legislators would overrule the veto anyway.

Democracy inherently favors the majority. There's no way to adequately represent both sides except through filibuster (which is essentially what a veto is).

Zwotstyg wrote:Having a president doing his job would bog down the system a lot less than would 30% of the people in the regions creating tensions because the last bill was disliked.
This could happen even if the president had a veto power.

Zwotstyg wrote:Regarding a court, a separate position would make this look even more like the US government. I suggest something like this: the General Assembly votes and passes a bill, right? Then it goes to the president. After it gets through him/her, the Senate votes to decide if it is acceptable and constitutional (once we have one written).
I would agree with this as long as the Senate isn't elected, because otherwise their decisions wouldn't be impartial.

So we'd go with a lower legislature elected proportionally. The President would approve/veto (I can agree on Zera's idea of a three-five veto limit as a compromise). Then the Senate, comprised of people appointed from each region (say, two from each), would check the constitutionality.

How's that?
I could agree with that. But who would appoint the Senators? The executives/Supreme Council of each region? Also, the Vice-President would be the head of the Senate with a vote I presume, in order to break a tie?

View user profile

38 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:51 pm

@Othelos: Yes, democracy does favor the majority--but as you stated, the only way to adequately represent both sides is a veto (but a filibuster is when someone speaks for a long time to prevent a vote... a veto is a rejection. They're pretty different). As a result, we should represent both sides by implementing the veto ability.

And, also as you said, the legislature would override the veto if the majority was high enough. That is exactly my point--a veto pushes back the legislation NOT popular enough to reach that majority. Those that can override the veto are obviously more popular, which allows the laws that pass to be more acceptable to the people.

About regional dislike for bills, yes, it could happen with a veto--but with a veto weeding out less-popular bills, it won't happen nearly as frequently.

On the Senate, you do raise an interesting point about being impartial. I don't think the Senate should be appointed because they too are representatives. Given what you stated about being impartial, I suppose we could form a sort of review committee. However, I think it should only be used if the people completed that 25%-of-the-regional-population petition thing I proposed. That way we don't have too long a line of bureaucracy facing a new bill.

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

39 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:04 pm

I believe that Senators should be popularly elected but, the candidates for the election shall be proposed by the Executives or the Supreme Council. Three will be appointed but the most popular two will go on to be Senators.

View user profile

40 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:16 pm

@Zera: Eehh. I still think we should keep the Senate a fully elected sector, and just make a separate council or something as a court, like Othelos proposed.

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

41 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:31 pm

Zwotstyg wrote:@Zera: Eehh. I still think we should keep the Senate a fully elected sector, and just make a separate council or something as a court, like Othelos proposed.
I believe so too but, I was trying to compromise with Othelos.

View user profile

42 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:35 pm

@Zera: I know. Let's wait to hear from everyone else.

Also everyone, I'll conduct a referendum for the existence of the interregional president, the ability for him/her to veto, the whereabouts of the interregional court/the Senate, and exposed voting soon if necessary. It doesn't appear that we are reaching an agreement on some of this, so if this debate continues in no particular direction, we'll hand it over to the regional vote.

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

43 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:38 pm

Remember the only way a government can get anything done, in NS and in RL, is compromise.

View user profile

44 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:44 pm

Okay, here's a compromise I think we can all agree on.

- The President will have a veto power, but limited to five times.
- A review committee will review bills if 10-15% of the population complains (25% is too high...usually regions don't have high enough activity). The bill can be rejected and invalidated if unconstitutional.

Is this agreeable?


On the process of legislation:

- A bill originates in the lower house, which has proportional representation.
- It moves on to the President, who vetoes/accepts it.
- Senate, with two elected reps from each region, reviews it for errors, complaints, and/or unconstitutional parts. If it finds those, it can send the bill back to the lower house for fixes (but not invalidate it). To prevent an endless cycle, this can only happen once. Otherwise, the Senate approves.
- A review committee can review a bill if 10-15% of a region signs a petition. The bill can be rejected and invalidated if unconstitutional.

This way the Senate and review committee can both judge on constitutionality. The Review Committee operates basically as an appeals court. Constitutionality can be taken care of right away.

The Senate can operate as a kind of check on the Lower House and basically register any complaints that the minority might have. It's important to keep its ruling after the President has signed it, because it's not involved in drafting the legislation, only reviewing it.

View user profile

45 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:48 pm

Othelos wrote:Okay, here's a compromise I think we can all agree on.

- The President will have a veto power, but limited to five times.
- A review committee will review bills if 10-15% of the population complains (25% is too high...usually regions don't have high enough activity). The bill can be rejected and invalidated if unconstitutional.

Is this agreeable?


On the process of legislation:

- A bill originates in the lower house, which has proportional representation.
- It moves on to the President, who vetoes/accepts it.
- Senate, with two elected reps from each region, reviews it for errors, complaints, and/or unconstitutional parts. If it finds those, it can send the bill back to the lower house for fixes (but not invalidate it). To prevent an endless cycle, this can only happen once. Otherwise, the Senate approves.
- A review committee can review a bill if 10-15% of a region signs a petition. The bill can be rejected and invalidated if unconstitutional.

This way the Senate and review committee can both judge on constitutionality. The Review Committee operates basically as an appeals court. Constitutionality can be taken care of right away.

The Senate can operate as a kind of check on the Lower House and basically register any complaints that the minority might have. It's important to keep its ruling after the President has signed it, because it's not involved in drafting the legislation, only reviewing it.
Agreed but, lower the number of Vetoes to 3 because, since legislation is a long process, I doubt that the President will see more than about 6-8 bills during his term. As for the review committee, will they be elected or appointed?

View user profile

46 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:56 pm

Federation of Zera wrote:
Othelos wrote:Okay, here's a compromise I think we can all agree on.

- The President will have a veto power, but limited to five times.
- A review committee will review bills if 10-15% of the population complains (25% is too high...usually regions don't have high enough activity). The bill can be rejected and invalidated if unconstitutional.

Is this agreeable?


On the process of legislation:

- A bill originates in the lower house, which has proportional representation.
- It moves on to the President, who vetoes/accepts it.
- Senate, with two elected reps from each region, reviews it for errors, complaints, and/or unconstitutional parts. If it finds those, it can send the bill back to the lower house for fixes (but not invalidate it). To prevent an endless cycle, this can only happen once. Otherwise, the Senate approves.
- A review committee can review a bill if 10-15% of a region signs a petition. The bill can be rejected and invalidated if unconstitutional.

This way the Senate and review committee can both judge on constitutionality. The Review Committee operates basically as an appeals court. Constitutionality can be taken care of right away.

The Senate can operate as a kind of check on the Lower House and basically register any complaints that the minority might have. It's important to keep its ruling after the President has signed it, because it's not involved in drafting the legislation, only reviewing it.
Agreed but, lower the number of Vetoes to 3 because, since legislation is a long process, I doubt that the President will see more than about 6-8 bills during his term.  As for the review committee, will they be elected or appointed?
Limiting anywhere between 3-5 is fine with me.

The Review Committee needs to be appointed, so that they remain objective.

Even so, they should be able to be impeached in case they aren't doing their job right, which will keep them in check.

View user profile

47 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:26 pm

Othelos wrote:
Federation of Zera wrote:
Othelos wrote:Okay, here's a compromise I think we can all agree on.

- The President will have a veto power, but limited to five times.
- A review committee will review bills if 10-15% of the population complains (25% is too high...usually regions don't have high enough activity). The bill can be rejected and invalidated if unconstitutional.

Is this agreeable?


On the process of legislation:

- A bill originates in the lower house, which has proportional representation.
- It moves on to the President, who vetoes/accepts it.
- Senate, with two elected reps from each region, reviews it for errors, complaints, and/or unconstitutional parts. If it finds those, it can send the bill back to the lower house for fixes (but not invalidate it). To prevent an endless cycle, this can only happen once. Otherwise, the Senate approves.
- A review committee can review a bill if 10-15% of a region signs a petition. The bill can be rejected and invalidated if unconstitutional.

This way the Senate and review committee can both judge on constitutionality. The Review Committee operates basically as an appeals court. Constitutionality can be taken care of right away.

The Senate can operate as a kind of check on the Lower House and basically register any complaints that the minority might have. It's important to keep its ruling after the President has signed it, because it's not involved in drafting the legislation, only reviewing it.
Agreed but, lower the number of Vetoes to 3 because, since legislation is a long process, I doubt that the President will see more than about 6-8 bills during his term.  As for the review committee, will they be elected or appointed?
Limiting anywhere between 3-5 is fine with me.

The Review Committee needs to be appointed, so that they remain objective.

Even so, they should be able to be impeached in case they aren't doing their job right, which will keep them in check.
I can agree to all of that.

View user profile

48 Re: Interregional President on Sun Oct 27, 2013 10:36 pm

Othelos wrote:Okay, here's a compromise I think we can all agree on.

- The President will have a veto power, but limited to five times.
- A review committee will review bills if 10-15% of the population complains (25% is too high...usually regions don't have high enough activity). The bill can be rejected and invalidated if unconstitutional.

Is this agreeable?


On the process of legislation:

- A bill originates in the lower house, which has proportional representation.
- It moves on to the President, who vetoes/accepts it.
- Senate, with two elected reps from each region, reviews it for errors, complaints, and/or unconstitutional parts. If it finds those, it can send the bill back to the lower house for fixes (but not invalidate it). To prevent an endless cycle, this can only happen once. Otherwise, the Senate approves.
- A review committee can review a bill if 10-15% of a region signs a petition. The bill can be rejected and invalidated if unconstitutional.

This way the Senate and review committee can both judge on constitutionality. The Review Committee operates basically as an appeals court. Constitutionality can be taken care of right away.

The Senate can operate as a kind of check on the Lower House and basically register any complaints that the minority might have. It's important to keep its ruling after the President has signed it, because it's not involved in drafting the legislation, only reviewing it.
I agree, but I wish to propose a few modifications. First, I propose the veto limit be done in percentages; that way, president's authority isn't nailed down with an increase in the number of bills. If it's percentage-based, his authority will shift along with the activity of the legislature. If it's agreeable, I suggest 50%, but if we're being more strict I can agree with 30% if necessary.

On the population percentage for the review committee to check a bill, I say 15%. That will help keep the review committee from seeing unnecessary issues. To specify on this committee, I propose that they be appointed by each region's delegate or perhaps the executive(s); each region should have, say, 2 committeepeople.

On the legislative process, we should have more than two senators per region. If we only have two, that means just 8 people in the entire Senate--that's more of an executive council than a legislature. I believe the number should be increased to 4, perhaps 5, per region.

Otherwise, I fully agree with the compromise.

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

49 Re: Interregional President on Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:22 am

- I think 40% is a good idea. So if there's 10 pieces of legislation, only 4 can be vetoed.
- agree on 15%, and two people is fine.
- I think to keep the number down, 4 is good.



Okay, so here is the updated plan we've agreed on/I'm proposing, so far:

- A bill originates in the lower house, which has proportional representation.
- It moves on to the President, who vetoes/accepts it. The president may only veto up to 40% of legislation that reaches his/her desk.
- Senate, with four elected reps from each region, reviews it for errors, complaints from the public/minority, and/or unconstitutional parts. If it finds those, it can send the bill back to the lower house for fixes (but not invalidate it). To prevent an endless cycle, this can only happen once. Otherwise, the Senate approves.
- A review committee can review a bill if 15% of a region signs a petition. The bill can be rejected and invalidated if unconstitutional. The people in the committee are appointed by the region's delegate or executive(s).
-Anyone in these positions can be impeached and/or recalled, to maintain checks and balances.

Should we call a vote? Xin hasn't said much...



Last edited by Othelos on Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:19 am; edited 2 times in total

View user profile

50 Re: Interregional President on Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:32 am

Othelos wrote:- I think 40% is a good idea. So if there's 10 pieces of legislation, only 4 can be vetoed.
- agree on 15%, and two people is fine.
- I think to keep the number down, 4 is good.



Okay, so here is the updated plan we've agreed on/I'm proposing, so far:

- A bill originates in the lower house, which has proportional representation.
- It moves on to the President, who vetoes/accepts it.
- Senate, with four elected reps from each region, reviews it for errors, complaints from the public/minority, and/or unconstitutional parts. If it finds those, it can send the bill back to the lower house for fixes (but not invalidate it). To prevent an endless cycle, this can only happen once. Otherwise, the Senate approves.
- A review committee can review a bill if 15% of a region signs a petition. The bill can be rejected and invalidated if unconstitutional. The people in the committee are appointed by the region's delegate or executive(s).
-Anyone in these positions can be impeached and/or recalled, to maintain checks and balances.

Should we call a vote? Xin hasn't said much...
Agreed. All of it sounds good to me. About holding a vote, let's wait for Xin. He usually isn't on much during the day for us; I believe he lives outside the United States, so his time is different from ours (if you're in the US as I am). I could be mistaken; that's my assumption, because he usually isn't on between about 5 PM and 2 AM EST. We'll wait until tomorrow morning/afternoon to give him a chance to read over everything and come to a verdict on the compromise. If he agrees, we probably won't need to vote; if he doesn't, then we will vote.

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

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

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