FT 6-CA1: The Parliamentary Executive Amendment

[DFL]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: DFL

[DFL]

Ok, this is a big one.

In Fremont we call ourselves a Parliamentary system, but still separately elect our First Minister. In reality, our system is very much like a gubernatorial system, but with a few extra checks on the power of elected officials. Our current system also suffers from confusion and bleeding of the roles of FM and Speaker of Parliament, as well as a general lack of accountability of the First Minister to the Parliament.

How do we fix this? We follow the traditional Parliamentary model and make the FM an elected Member of Parliament. Once MPs are elected, they vote for an FM much like they would for a speaker, and the FM appoints a deputy FM. The FM's power is thus built off of the confidence of his/her MPs, and the FM is thus likely representative of the ruling party or coalition. If a Parliament fails to elect an FM, new elections are called.

I get this is a big change from where we are now -- I want to see what y'all think of it. Please ask questions, propose amendments to this, and give your criticisms. I think no stone should be left unturned to make Fremont better.

I intend, if this system passes, for it to be implemented for the next Parliamentary elections in May.

(If this passes, we must hold a public referendum for it to be voted on, just FYI).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Glad as I am the cause of constitutional innovation remains alive and well in the House of Commons, I am not certain I agree with all your reasoning, first minister. To begin, the first minister is already an elected member of parliament, this being plainly stated in Article I§2 ("The first minister and the whole body of Members shall together compose Parliament.") Under our Fremontian system, the first minister is chosen in separately from the rest of parliament from a single-member constituency created for that purpose; it so happens the State of Israel had a similar arrangement for near a decade and was no less a parliamentary democracy for it, so I do not see how the Fremontian Constitution is not "truly" parliamentary on this count.

It is just as inaccurate to state that the first minister is not accountable to parliament; for should parliament ever suffer for want of confidence in the government, they may pass a motion to that effect removing the first minister and calling for fresh elections under their constitutional powers established by Article I§7.

Yet my most serious objection, all arguments about the semantics of what constitutes "true" parliamentary democracy aside, is that abolition of the first minister's constituency without equitable changes to the system of parliamentary apportionment could easily lead to the installation of an unrepresentative government. You will be aware that, under the current system, the number of seats in parliament increases with each election in proportion to the number of candidates for office, according to a formula set forth in Article I§3. You may be less aware of that which those of us with years of experience behind us are more familiar with, that the partisan and ideological composition of the candidature is frequently unrepresentative of the electorate. I have seen many an election in days past where conservative candidates outnumbered liberals in regions where the voters' preferences were the inverse; so have I seen elections where there was a liberal majority amongst the candidature despite a conservative majority in the region. In a system with no upward bound on the number of seats in parliament, this could well pose a problem if the legislature is to form the government: for it is easy to imagine a situation where the minority is ensured a majority in parliament by virtue of fielding the greater number of candidates. Under the present system, we balance this by having the first minister elected from a single-member constituency, thus ensuring that the first minister will always be chosen by a majority of the voters. Abolish that constituency, and require the first minister be chosen with respect only to the partisan composition of parliament, and we greatly increase the chance that a government opposed by the majority of the people will be installed by a minority party gaming the system and stacking the ballot with candidates.

Quite possibly there is room for compromise between my position and your own, and I would be happy to speak with you or with any member of parliament who wishes to discuss this matter further. I wish it to be known, however, that the proposal brought by the first minister was indeed considered when the Second Constitution was drafted; and was discarded by what I considered then, and still consider now, to be serious and practical reasons. I am certain, if of nothing else, that these reasons will be taken into account and given all the attention they are due, and no more.

NB–Furthermore, in response to remarks regarding the "bleeding" of the roles of speaker and first minister: this is very true, and very much intentional. The first minister has the authority to assume the powers of speaker as needed, and vice-versa, because it has been observed on countless occasions over the last several years how a strict separation of powers can bring a government to its knees if even one officer falls absent. Had I not had these powers at my disposal when I served as prime minister, parliament would have fallen into horrid before the Constitution saw its second month; as it was, these provisions allowed parliament to continue to function even after the elected speaker ceased participating in debates. A strong executive with the power to act swiftly in the face of crisis is absolutely essential to the health of our constitutional system: that is not a matter of pretty theory or ideological purity, but a practical reality borne out by years of experience working under a myriad of constitutions federal and regional, some of which functioned seamlessly, others of which did not.

[DFL]

I do remember you explaining this to me previously now that you bring it up again. I guess the debate here ultimately rests on whether the Commonwealth should have an extra safeguard in place to ensure activity, or a more defined and restrained range of responsibility for whomever presides over and mediates Parliament. As I said in my Office thread, thank you for voicing your concerns -- I know as a new player there's a lot of nuance I'm missing here, and figured I'd offer this thing up for the hell of it to see what debate emerged.

[YE]

In Fremont we call ourselves a Parliamentary system, but still separately elect our First Minister. In reality, our system is very much like a gubernatorial system, but with a few extra checks on the power of elected officials. Our current system also suffers from confusion and bleeding of the roles of FM and Speaker of Parliament, as well as a general lack of accountability of the First Minister to the Parliament.

I think in the long run this needs to be addressed more so than the entire amendment itself (ie give more defined roles between the Speaker and FM), but then against Truman's explanation makes a certain amount of sense.

[DFL]

In Fremont we call ourselves a Parliamentary system, but still separately elect our First Minister. In reality, our system is very much like a gubernatorial system, but with a few extra checks on the power of elected officials. Our current system also suffers from confusion and bleeding of the roles of FM and Speaker of Parliament, as well as a general lack of accountability of the First Minister to the Parliament.

I think in the long run this needs to be addressed more so than the entire amendment itself (ie give more defined roles between the Speaker and FM), but then against Truman's explanation makes a certain amount of sense.

I think for two active administrators like ourselves who are both willing and eager to administer, a personal agreement would be good to work out on management of Parliament. Otherwise I certainly see the merits of Truman's argument about this, though I believe in instances like ours where our government is readily active it does cause sparring between the two persons given the official ability to administer. I know there is clarification in the Standing Orders regarding this (if the Speaker hasn't acted in 36 hours or something like that), but there is still definitely a blending of roles here.

YE, how do you want to divide up the job of administration? I know we've thus far been working in parallel, but I want to make sure it gets addressed before we start working in contention.

[YE]

In Fremont we call ourselves a Parliamentary system, but still separately elect our First Minister. In reality, our system is very much like a gubernatorial system, but with a few extra checks on the power of elected officials. Our current system also suffers from confusion and bleeding of the roles of FM and Speaker of Parliament, as well as a general lack of accountability of the First Minister to the Parliament.

I think in the long run this needs to be addressed more so than the entire amendment itself (ie give more defined roles between the Speaker and FM), but then against Truman's explanation makes a certain amount of sense.

I think for two active administrators like ourselves who are both willing and eager to administer, a personal agreement would be good to work out on management of Parliament. Otherwise I certainly see the merits of Truman's argument about this, though I believe in instances like ours where our government is readily active it does cause sparring between the two persons given the official ability to administer. I know there is clarification in the Standing Orders regarding this (if the Speaker hasn't acted in 36 hours or something like that), but there is still definitely a blending of roles here.

YE, how do you want to divide up the job of administration? I know we've thus far been working in parallel, but I want to make sure it gets addressed before we start working in contention.

Unless I'm more than 10-12 hours behind, then in that case, feel free to do it for me, I'll do all the procedural work, but please close votes, however.

[DFL]

In Fremont we call ourselves a Parliamentary system, but still separately elect our First Minister. In reality, our system is very much like a gubernatorial system, but with a few extra checks on the power of elected officials. Our current system also suffers from confusion and bleeding of the roles of FM and Speaker of Parliament, as well as a general lack of accountability of the First Minister to the Parliament.

I think in the long run this needs to be addressed more so than the entire amendment itself (ie give more defined roles between the Speaker and FM), but then against Truman's explanation makes a certain amount of sense.

I think for two active administrators like ourselves who are both willing and eager to administer, a personal agreement would be good to work out on management of Parliament. Otherwise I certainly see the merits of Truman's argument about this, though I believe in instances like ours where our government is readily active it does cause sparring between the two persons given the official ability to administer. I know there is clarification in the Standing Orders regarding this (if the Speaker hasn't acted in 36 hours or something like that), but there is still definitely a blending of roles here.

YE, how do you want to divide up the job of administration? I know we've thus far been working in parallel, but I want to make sure it gets addressed before we start working in contention.

Unless I'm more than 10-12 hours behind, then in that case, feel free to do it for me, I'll do all the procedural work, but please close votes, however.

Can I run the noticeboard then? Mine is pretty and I like doing that (I can make an amendment for the Standing Orders about that)

[YE]

In Fremont we call ourselves a Parliamentary system, but still separately elect our First Minister. In reality, our system is very much like a gubernatorial system, but with a few extra checks on the power of elected officials. Our current system also suffers from confusion and bleeding of the roles of FM and Speaker of Parliament, as well as a general lack of accountability of the First Minister to the Parliament.

I think in the long run this needs to be addressed more so than the entire amendment itself (ie give more defined roles between the Speaker and FM), but then against Truman's explanation makes a certain amount of sense.

I think for two active administrators like ourselves who are both willing and eager to administer, a personal agreement would be good to work out on management of Parliament. Otherwise I certainly see the merits of Truman's argument about this, though I believe in instances like ours where our government is readily active it does cause sparring between the two persons given the official ability to administer. I know there is clarification in the Standing Orders regarding this (if the Speaker hasn't acted in 36 hours or something like that), but there is still definitely a blending of roles here.

YE, how do you want to divide up the job of administration? I know we've thus far been working in parallel, but I want to make sure it gets addressed before we start working in contention.

Unless I'm more than 10-12 hours behind, then in that case, feel free to do it for me, I'll do all the procedural work, but please close votes, however.

Can I run the noticeboard then? Mine is pretty and I like doing that (I can make an amendment for the Standing Orders about that)

I mean nothing's stopping you from doing so so sure

[DFL]

I mean nothing's stopping you from doing so so sure

Just checked -- no amendment needed for this! It's already in the standing orders, lmao

[DFL]

Here's a question for the floor:

Do y'all think we need more roles/positions in Parliament?

[DFL]

I'm gonna take that as a no.

If there is no more ideas or areas of debate on this in about 24 hours, I'll go ahead and resign my sponsorship to get this off the floor.