To get the ball rolling...
Thinking about it, while my proposal's suggestion for the election of PM is more along the lines of Westminster systems, Hashemite's suggested options are probably easier to administer - probably the STV option is what I'd prefer (I forget which number that one was). Hashemite, would you perhaps put forward your ideas on electing the PM here again.
I still am in favour of motions of no confidence first to trigger a vote for PM, and I think motions of no confidence and elections of the PM should be limited to the Lower House and that the PM should be a member of the Lower House.
I agree.
The Scottish Parliament elects a First Minister. Party leaders will put their case to the parliament and decide who becomes First Minister through a vote. It has always (so far) been the leader of the largest party who has been elected First Minister often due to abstentions etc. It makes for better government for the First Minisiter to be the head of the largest party. In a universal system, that means that everyone votes for the position. So it certainly workable, both in our context and within the context of a parliamentary system.
As such, as Smid has suggested, the PM should
always be a member of the lower house, as his duty as PM is to that house. I also support, as I've argued before a 'no confidence' system. We have to remember that PM's and governments in most parliamentary systems can rise and fall without elections - our game should reflect that and allow it to happen, not routinely, but if and when it is needed so that if the game is being run by people without much interest or committment to it, they can be turfed out before the full term is over (if such a move has support)
Moving on a little, a Cabinet can be drawn from both Houses. This should be larger than it is now giving people portfolios on finance, defense, welfare etc.