-
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.
That sounds good.
But how is the player/NPC proportion going to work? Will it still just be 9 PCs, or parties' entire lists make it into the Assembly, with no set PC/NPC ratio?
But how is the player/NPC proportion going to work? Will it still just be 9 PCs, or parties' entire lists make it into the Assembly, with no set PC/NPC ratio?
Here's what I'm thinking.
Say, for the sake of simplicity, we have a legislature with 100 members. When an election rolls around, whatever the percentage of the legislature vote a particular party gets is the number of legislators they win up with. So, for example, if ESA, UMP and CUE got 30%, 40% and 30% of the vote, they'd get 30, 40, and 30 legislators respectively. All very simple.
Each party would be required to pony up at least one legislator. Let's call this individual a "senior legislator", since this is a relatively important position, in the nature of a President or Minister -- someone you don't want disappearing for long periods of time. If that individual is the party's only PC legislator, they control the whole bloc for their party. Say Uncle Joe, O'Floinn and Forbes were the three senior legislators from our current spread of parties -- they would control, respectively, 30, 40, and 30 legislators in the example above.
Clearly, compromise politics is the order of the day. If O'Floinn wants to pass legislation, he needs to either get one of the other senior legislators on board, or write something that will appeal to enough legislators from ESA or CUE (or both) that they'll jump ship and vote against the bloc. I don't know how much detail the ModCorps is willing to go into, but this might include appealing to parochial interests -- it depends how these guys are elected, and how much flesh we want to hang on their bones. In any case, if we went this route, we would definitely return to a unicameral legislature, as the workload involved in figuring these things out is probably roughly the same as what currently goes into handling the Senate. (I don't think we'll hear much argument about that, as no one really seemed to like the Senate very much.)
Additionally, parties can put forth more than one legislator, if there's another player who's interested. The interested player would petition the ModCorps, and we'd split the bloc. This would allow different PC legislators to lead ideologically different blocs of the same party. For instance, we have come to understand that the ESA has large numbers of democratic socialists, but also some radical socialists and anarchists. In the example above, if another Cornelius Dank comes along and joins the legislature, the more radical members of Josephus's bloc might split off and become his bloc. Since the radicals make up a smaller percentage of the ESA, he might only get 5-10 of the 30 total ESA legislators. (Presumably he'd replace one.)
So, to answer your question, Phalanx, the system would be scaleable. In a theoretical sense, it can't be hamstrung as easily as the current GA setup. (Of course, if one of the senior legislators vanishes, we still have the same problem, but the idea is to make that fairly unlikely by making veteran players the logical choices for those positions. It may also be worth considering allowing party leadership to do what they can currently do, and replace PC legislators at will.) It allows players who like legislating to keep at it, and, in fact, allows a basically unlimited number of players who are interested to be legislators if they so desire, but it only requires as many players to be legislators as there are parties.
Any thoughts about that?
Say, for the sake of simplicity, we have a legislature with 100 members. When an election rolls around, whatever the percentage of the legislature vote a particular party gets is the number of legislators they win up with. So, for example, if ESA, UMP and CUE got 30%, 40% and 30% of the vote, they'd get 30, 40, and 30 legislators respectively. All very simple.
Each party would be required to pony up at least one legislator. Let's call this individual a "senior legislator", since this is a relatively important position, in the nature of a President or Minister -- someone you don't want disappearing for long periods of time. If that individual is the party's only PC legislator, they control the whole bloc for their party. Say Uncle Joe, O'Floinn and Forbes were the three senior legislators from our current spread of parties -- they would control, respectively, 30, 40, and 30 legislators in the example above.
Clearly, compromise politics is the order of the day. If O'Floinn wants to pass legislation, he needs to either get one of the other senior legislators on board, or write something that will appeal to enough legislators from ESA or CUE (or both) that they'll jump ship and vote against the bloc. I don't know how much detail the ModCorps is willing to go into, but this might include appealing to parochial interests -- it depends how these guys are elected, and how much flesh we want to hang on their bones. In any case, if we went this route, we would definitely return to a unicameral legislature, as the workload involved in figuring these things out is probably roughly the same as what currently goes into handling the Senate. (I don't think we'll hear much argument about that, as no one really seemed to like the Senate very much.)
Additionally, parties can put forth more than one legislator, if there's another player who's interested. The interested player would petition the ModCorps, and we'd split the bloc. This would allow different PC legislators to lead ideologically different blocs of the same party. For instance, we have come to understand that the ESA has large numbers of democratic socialists, but also some radical socialists and anarchists. In the example above, if another Cornelius Dank comes along and joins the legislature, the more radical members of Josephus's bloc might split off and become his bloc. Since the radicals make up a smaller percentage of the ESA, he might only get 5-10 of the 30 total ESA legislators. (Presumably he'd replace one.)
So, to answer your question, Phalanx, the system would be scaleable. In a theoretical sense, it can't be hamstrung as easily as the current GA setup. (Of course, if one of the senior legislators vanishes, we still have the same problem, but the idea is to make that fairly unlikely by making veteran players the logical choices for those positions. It may also be worth considering allowing party leadership to do what they can currently do, and replace PC legislators at will.) It allows players who like legislating to keep at it, and, in fact, allows a basically unlimited number of players who are interested to be legislators if they so desire, but it only requires as many players to be legislators as there are parties.
Any thoughts about that?
Brilliant.
On another note: I still think having elected Ministers would be an interesting change.
On another note: I still think having elected Ministers would be an interesting change.
That is a good idea, Hawk!
Having one or two legislators for every party in the GA would free players for other "uses".
Also Phalanx says a good thing. Why don't we put a "voto di fiducia" (i think the translation is vote of confidence, but i'm ot sure) on the Ministerial list? THe President present the list to the GA, and it must be voted to become active.
Having one or two legislators for every party in the GA would free players for other "uses".
Also Phalanx says a good thing. Why don't we put a "voto di fiducia" (i think the translation is vote of confidence, but i'm ot sure) on the Ministerial list? THe President present the list to the GA, and it must be voted to become active.
I'd rather see Ministers directly elected, to be honest.
I think it would provide for much more interesting elctoral politics. Especially since parties won't know exactly how they're going to do in the legislative election yet.
Just my opinion, though.
I think it would provide for much more interesting elctoral politics. Especially since parties won't know exactly how they're going to do in the legislative election yet.
Just my opinion, though.
But who would be electing ministers? The parties? The GA? The people as an addendum to the president elections?
Well, my idea was basically to replace Presidential elections with Ministerial elections. Then one them is elected Prime Minister, either by the Ministers themselves or the legislature.
It may seem a little outlandish compared to what we've been doing, but we are here to discuss changes.
It may seem a little outlandish compared to what we've been doing, but we are here to discuss changes.
The cabinet candidates would probably be appointed by the president, but would have to be confirmed by the legislature to be able to serve.
Elected ministers are an interesting thought. Here in Florida, we have something similar; the governor and lieutenant governor run on a ticket together, but cabinet members are elected separately rather than appointed -- and can be from opposition parties.
It would be create the opportunity for every party to stake out their own turf in an administration, rather than what generally happens now -- the President appoints people of his own party until he runs out of warm bodies, then fills the remaining slots with folks from the opposition (largely in relatively disliked Ministries, like MESA/MECT.)
I don't imagine this'll go over as well as the last suggestion, but how would everyone feel about doing away with Ministries altogether?
It would be create the opportunity for every party to stake out their own turf in an administration, rather than what generally happens now -- the President appoints people of his own party until he runs out of warm bodies, then fills the remaining slots with folks from the opposition (largely in relatively disliked Ministries, like MESA/MECT.)
I don't imagine this'll go over as well as the last suggestion, but how would everyone feel about doing away with Ministries altogether?
No! ministerial candidates will be proposed by the President, and will be voted on by the legislature.(A la United States)
Or we can require that the ministers, but not the deputy ministers, be a legislator (A la Great Britain).
Or we can require that the ministers, but not the deputy ministers, be a legislator (A la Great Britain).
Personally, I never liked the U.S system we use. Much prefer the Brit/Canuck system, where ministers are also legislators. This, of course, can not coexist with the new legislature plan Hawk suggested.
I never understood why MESA/MHES has always been something nobody really wanted to do. I always tried to make things happen when I was in charge of it. In fact, in a lot of ways, MESA has quite a bit of power, if only it were wielded...
Well part of it is the events happening around and the setting, when I was first speaker it put me in a position to make full use of the powers it had, currently the speaker has no requirement to be more then a vote-starter since the assembly is so 1-sided. Also having ministers elected and maybe for terms of 1.5 the lenght of current ones, so 4.5 year terms then?? unless the legislative calls for early elections, would lead to fun side issues since every election there is really 2 elections, thats part of what i like about the US system. So every election is still the assembly/prez or parliament whatever but every other one is the ministers or mix part of the ministers so 1/2 each election.Amric said:
No, we must have a system of checks and balances, the executive branch being countered by the legislature.
aussieboy said:
It's important to remember, in the course of this, that we're not talking about what would make the best or most democratic or most appropriate form of government; here we're talking about what form of goverment will make for the best game.
EDIT: Actually, I correct myself. We're talking, more generally, about how to make Eutopia a better game. What sort of government would aid that is important, but it's not the whole of the equation.
Last edited:
Josephus I said:
Well, ministers can be legislators currently. Actually, when Tilly was MDIS, I found it quite helpful to be able to propose legislation directly without having to go through anyone. I think, however, that being called on to serve in that dual-role has encouraged the inactivity of the legislature; most minister/legislators have chosen to focus on their ministry.
Certainly, I don't think wearing two hats is ideal. If we had as many players as the British have MPs (and room for as many legislators), I would have no problem with it, but as it stands we barely have enough warm bodies to fill the executive and the legislative branches.
How would you guys feel about maintaining the separation between legislators and ministers, but allowing members of the executive to propose bills in the legislature?
how about just for check/balance and fun political tastesThe_Hawk said:
they propose it to the speaker who *can* refuse it to be heard by the assembly? :rofl: