Well, I'm not the one supporting a continued federal union and successions of dictators. One could mistake such a person for an American Lincolnite infiltrator.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
*Sigh* Why is it Mudslinging is always used in these situations? Why can't we all just be gentlemen and settle our problems as such? WITH CAVALRY DUELS!!!
600 PACES AND A CANNON!
Whoever dies first wins.
600 PACES AND A CANNON!
Whoever dies first wins.
From the actual rulebook of the boardgame Imperium Romanum (paraphrased):
If there are any rule disputes, refer to one of the following methods:
1. Roll a die.
2. Arm yourselves and settle your dispute like true Romans. (West End Games does not bear any responsibility from injuries or death caused by this.)
3. Write us a letter and we'll tell you.
The important line (the one about the melee) is a direct quote.
If there are any rule disputes, refer to one of the following methods:
1. Roll a die.
2. Arm yourselves and settle your dispute like true Romans. (West End Games does not bear any responsibility from injuries or death caused by this.)
3. Write us a letter and we'll tell you.
The important line (the one about the melee) is a direct quote.
First of all, I would like to once again urge those of you proposing detailed legislation to be part of the constitution to think about the difference between a constitution and legislation. In my opinion, a constitution should only regulate the framework for the political (and possibly legal) system, not the contents of it.
Now, I'd like to ask if we should have something about the Comintern and the international relations of the VSVR in the constitution? Also, since most factions seem to agree that council communism has a future in the VSVR, should the councils be put in the constitution? On rights, I think that social and economic rights should have a place in the constiution, such as the right for every citizen of the VSVR to collectively own all the proprety, and the right to healthcare, education, food, shelter and employment. Depending on what electoral system the constitutional congress decides upon, the right to vote in it should be included.
Now, I'd like to ask if we should have something about the Comintern and the international relations of the VSVR in the constitution? Also, since most factions seem to agree that council communism has a future in the VSVR, should the councils be put in the constitution? On rights, I think that social and economic rights should have a place in the constiution, such as the right for every citizen of the VSVR to collectively own all the proprety, and the right to healthcare, education, food, shelter and employment. Depending on what electoral system the constitutional congress decides upon, the right to vote in it should be included.
The more i think of it, the more i think the constitution should only deal with the government of the VSVR and not with Human Rights which should only be dealt in law. Let me explain myself.
If we get a constitution like the US constitution or French Declaration of the rights of Men and Citizens, we will have a supreme court to check the validity of the new laws with the constitution. If we take the minimalist way, hate speech will not be banned as total freedom of speech is accepted and any law restricting it we be banned by the supreme court. So we won't be able to do a thing against hate speech. If we took the maximalist way, it will not be a constitution and more of a law, and everything not explicitly banned is authorized so it's crap. And i think a small group of professional lawyers should not be able to override the will of the people.
So my proposition for a government
The Central Comitee
The Central Comitee consist of 15 people. 10 are elected by the Party in a proportionnal way. We have 3 additionnal people who are the head of state by rotation. One is a member of the most important faction in the Party, he is the Party's Chairman. One is the Speaker of the Quorum, member of the largest bloc in the People's Quorum. One is elected by the Comintern Assembly, he is the Representent for the Comintern. The last two members are the Speaker of the Unions and the Speaker of the Supreme Soviet.
The People's Quorum (i like that name too^^)
The People's Quorum is elected by the people of the VSVR, in a proportionnal way. It's Speaker is a member of the Largest bloc in the assembly.
The Supreme Soviet
The half of the Supreme Soviet is composed by one (or more but the same number of representent per soviet) member per Regional Soviet in the VSVR, the other half being elected in proportion with the population of each Regional Soviet
{this mecanism is here to prevent the big Soviets to gain to much power, but without the small soviet to be overrepresented (think of it as a mix of American Senate and House of Representent each with the same number of people)}
The House of Unions
The Unions of each Profession are represented here in the same way than the Soviet in the Supreme Soviet.
For a Law to be passed, it must have the majority in the Central Comitee, the People's Quorum, the Supreme Soviet and the House of Unions. If one Component of the legislature is against it, the other bodies can vote the law with a two third majority in each body. If two bodies are against it, the last two can pass the law with a three quarter majority. The central comitee can veto a law with a three quarter majority against three other body, or two third against two other body. Any body can propose a law. A law can also be proposed to vote by a petition of 5% of the VSVR population. The central comitee can organise a Referendum for any law (it can only be a two way referendum), the decision of this referendum is unvetoable. A law can't be modified for a period of five years.
Any representent of a body can be recalled by it's electors. 10% of the members for the Soviets and the Unions, 33% for the People's Quorum (the entire Quorum is recalled), and 33% for the Party (33% of the last number of votes).
If there is a draw in the Party, the head of the factions not elligible are to decide who is the chairman (the are locked in a room for as long as it needs to get a chairman).
If there is a draw in the Central Comitee, the current head of state cast a additionnal vote.
If there is a draw in any Assembly (People's Quorum, Supreme Soviet, House of Unions), the Speaker cast the deciding vote. The Old Speaker is acting as Speaker in the vote for the new Speaker.
The Comintern Assembly
VSVR members are elected in a proportionnal election, where popular vote, party vote, soviet vote and union vote are each representing a quarter of the vote. The Representant of the Comintern in the VSVR is elected in the VSVR members of the Comintern Assembly.
We encourage other comintern nations to use the same governing system as us.
If something is note clear tell me.
If we get a constitution like the US constitution or French Declaration of the rights of Men and Citizens, we will have a supreme court to check the validity of the new laws with the constitution. If we take the minimalist way, hate speech will not be banned as total freedom of speech is accepted and any law restricting it we be banned by the supreme court. So we won't be able to do a thing against hate speech. If we took the maximalist way, it will not be a constitution and more of a law, and everything not explicitly banned is authorized so it's crap. And i think a small group of professional lawyers should not be able to override the will of the people.
So my proposition for a government
The Central Comitee
The Central Comitee consist of 15 people. 10 are elected by the Party in a proportionnal way. We have 3 additionnal people who are the head of state by rotation. One is a member of the most important faction in the Party, he is the Party's Chairman. One is the Speaker of the Quorum, member of the largest bloc in the People's Quorum. One is elected by the Comintern Assembly, he is the Representent for the Comintern. The last two members are the Speaker of the Unions and the Speaker of the Supreme Soviet.
The People's Quorum (i like that name too^^)
The People's Quorum is elected by the people of the VSVR, in a proportionnal way. It's Speaker is a member of the Largest bloc in the assembly.
The Supreme Soviet
The half of the Supreme Soviet is composed by one (or more but the same number of representent per soviet) member per Regional Soviet in the VSVR, the other half being elected in proportion with the population of each Regional Soviet
{this mecanism is here to prevent the big Soviets to gain to much power, but without the small soviet to be overrepresented (think of it as a mix of American Senate and House of Representent each with the same number of people)}
The House of Unions
The Unions of each Profession are represented here in the same way than the Soviet in the Supreme Soviet.
For a Law to be passed, it must have the majority in the Central Comitee, the People's Quorum, the Supreme Soviet and the House of Unions. If one Component of the legislature is against it, the other bodies can vote the law with a two third majority in each body. If two bodies are against it, the last two can pass the law with a three quarter majority. The central comitee can veto a law with a three quarter majority against three other body, or two third against two other body. Any body can propose a law. A law can also be proposed to vote by a petition of 5% of the VSVR population. The central comitee can organise a Referendum for any law (it can only be a two way referendum), the decision of this referendum is unvetoable. A law can't be modified for a period of five years.
Any representent of a body can be recalled by it's electors. 10% of the members for the Soviets and the Unions, 33% for the People's Quorum (the entire Quorum is recalled), and 33% for the Party (33% of the last number of votes).
If there is a draw in the Party, the head of the factions not elligible are to decide who is the chairman (the are locked in a room for as long as it needs to get a chairman).
If there is a draw in the Central Comitee, the current head of state cast a additionnal vote.
If there is a draw in any Assembly (People's Quorum, Supreme Soviet, House of Unions), the Speaker cast the deciding vote. The Old Speaker is acting as Speaker in the vote for the new Speaker.
The Comintern Assembly
VSVR members are elected in a proportionnal election, where popular vote, party vote, soviet vote and union vote are each representing a quarter of the vote. The Representant of the Comintern in the VSVR is elected in the VSVR members of the Comintern Assembly.
We encourage other comintern nations to use the same governing system as us.
If something is note clear tell me.
I'm not sure we should be changing everything so much, guys. Remember, this is a very fragile situation and getting all the factions to agree will be difficult as it is. We should define how things currently work with a few minor tweaks, have a bill of social and political rights (like the excellent international proletarian manifesto on the previous page), not change the fundamental structure of the government. That is for another, more stable day.
On a purely personal note, I don't like the name "People's Quorum". A quorum is the minimum number of people present required to conduct business, not the name of a legislative body.
On a purely personal note, I don't like the name "People's Quorum". A quorum is the minimum number of people present required to conduct business, not the name of a legislative body.
I agree with Communard, we mustn’t change everything to radical, for now we must solve only existing major problems of organization, an then we can make all other reforms that will be needed.
This gets my vote instantly.
On the other hand, making too many changes (even if good ones) could lead to an unstable situation which, with the UK and other reactionary governments still breathing, we don't want. In overall the votes on law are a bit overcomplicated in Zakharovs proposition.
If a constituency is disatisfied by the rule of his delegate, a petition with enough participant could trigger a recall election. Example, article 72 of the Venezuelan Constitution :
As we only have proportional representation, this means the entire assembly should be dissolved, so a high number of petitionners should be met.
One of the reasons I didn't include the right of recall in my version was that I couldn't see a way for it to work in a pure PR setup like the assembly. I like your idea, but do you think it's very likely that the people will vote for the entire chamber to be dissolved? It wouldn't allow people to get rid of one bad delegate. Perhaps we should move to an STV type system? I'm wary of proposing major change in the constitution though, for reasons I mentioned above.
Much as we would like to include things like human rights, the freedom to assemble, and a much needed law allowing plebiscites (to reduce the artificial size and representation of the VSVR in the international Comintern world assembly) for the constitution it should really only focus on election rules.
I propose this simple addition:
1) Once a vote is cast it can not be rescinded.
2) A chairmen will only be elected if he has more votes then any other candidate AND has claimed 40% of the total votes.
3) If the above has failed to happen a second vote shall occur in which only those candidates who received at least 26% of the total vote shall be eligible to vote for.
4) If the second vote fails to resolve in a clear result, the assembly shall choose the new chairmen from any candidate who received at least 30% of the vote in the second election.
I propose this simple addition:
1) Once a vote is cast it can not be rescinded.
2) A chairmen will only be elected if he has more votes then any other candidate AND has claimed 40% of the total votes.
3) If the above has failed to happen a second vote shall occur in which only those candidates who received at least 26% of the total vote shall be eligible to vote for.
4) If the second vote fails to resolve in a clear result, the assembly shall choose the new chairmen from any candidate who received at least 30% of the vote in the second election.
"Berlin is the testicle of the National Communists. When I want the Nacis to scream, I squeeze on Berlin." - Trotsky explaining Marxist electoral strategy.
Also, I still say that making the existing three branches separate yet equal is a less dramatic change and simple way to set up ways to deal with emergency situations like this one than a complete restructuring of government, with a supreme court and the rest.
This could be done Committee versus Assembly versus Party, Chairman versus Assembly versus Committee, but I still like my proposal of dividing the Committee between the three rather than making the Assembly the equal of the Committee directly. Unfortunately the road block I've encountered with the elegant solution of a permanent non-triumverate-but-instead-separate-duties-portfolios thing is that it would require messy changes to how Party Secretaries are selected. I mean in concept matching the Chairman, Party Secretary, and Speaker of the Assembly against each other sounds good, but the nuts and bolts of how it would work would require big changes too so I don't think it's probably going to happen.
But comrades, I essentially urge you to look for balancing among the Committee itself and the way Committee members are selected, rather than in making the General Assembly and some new third body like a Supreme Court the equal of the Committee.
The flexibility and adaptability of the communist system has served us thus far, why would we want to slow down our decisions and create corruption like exists in bourgeoisie republics by adapting a completely bourgeoisie system?
Also, I still say that making the existing three branches separate yet equal is a less dramatic change and simple way to set up ways to deal with emergency situations like this one than a complete restructuring of government, with a supreme court and the rest.
This could be done Committee versus Assembly versus Party, Chairman versus Assembly versus Committee, but I still like my proposal of dividing the Committee between the three rather than making the Assembly the equal of the Committee directly. Unfortunately the road block I've encountered with the elegant solution of a permanent non-triumverate-but-instead-separate-duties-portfolios thing is that it would require messy changes to how Party Secretaries are selected. I mean in concept matching the Chairman, Party Secretary, and Speaker of the Assembly against each other sounds good, but the nuts and bolts of how it would work would require big changes too so I don't think it's probably going to happen.
But comrades, I essentially urge you to look for balancing among the Committee itself and the way Committee members are selected, rather than in making the General Assembly and some new third body like a Supreme Court the equal of the Committee.
The flexibility and adaptability of the communist system has served us thus far, why would we want to slow down our decisions and create corruption like exists in bourgeoisie republics by adapting a completely bourgeoisie system?
I agree with Rogov, retaining the flexibility and revolutionary nature of the government is key. We must not allow ourselves to get bogged down in procedure, we must simply set clear limits, powers and functions. I mean, one of the proposals had four different legislative bodies! We need to retain the simplicity of our current governmental system. Plus, like I said, getting all the factions to agree on anything other than a minor change will be nigh-impossible.
The one thing that always have buggered me in the Constitution debate is that we basically try to lay down rules and regulations for the Revolution, something that really shouldn't be bound to procedure. The Revolution need to be alive and adjust to the need of the Proletariat as well as the strategies of the bourgeois to stop us. A Constitution could theoretically prevent us from taking necessary measures in a crisis situation.
- Status