Vice-Presidential Election Amendment [At Final Vote]

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Fritz

[Marokai Backbeat]

I see no reason for this. It needlessly institutes a major shift in Presidential elections and cripples parties.

Ultimately, while some of you might be on the lookout for some deep debate on the pros and cons of such a thing, the argument, from my side, essentially comes down to "this is unnecessary, prove to me the problem it fixes."

[Psychic Octopus]

This doesn't seem right. While I like how we made the choice more democratic, but I do not support this as I find this would be a particularly useless election.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This doesn't seem right. While I like how we made the choice more democratic, but I do not support this as I find this would be a particularly useless election.

Not to mention it would basically get rid of all the debate and tough positions for candidates to take and essentially devolve the system into a "who's the most popular and likable" for both positions, which could potentially result in hilariously bad governments conflicting with one another.

[tmthforu94]

I'm more of a toss-up on this. I think it's a fresh idea, and I thank Frittz for bringing it to the table.
This is just a suggestion, not saying I support it, but what would others think of having the Top 2 candidates for President become President and Vice President?

[Alexander Hamilton]

I'm more of a toss-up on this. I think it's a fresh idea, and I thank Frittz for bringing it to the table.
This is just a suggestion, not saying I support it, but what would others think of having the Top 2 candidates for President become President and Vice President?

Let's ask the Adams administration.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm more of a toss-up on this. I think it's a fresh idea, and I thank Frittz for bringing it to the table.
This is just a suggestion, not saying I support it, but what would others think of having the Top 2 candidates for President become President and Vice President?

Can you imagine a Lief/PiT government?

[Purple State]

I'm more of a toss-up on this. I think it's a fresh idea, and I thank Frittz for bringing it to the table.
This is just a suggestion, not saying I support it, but what would others think of having the Top 2 candidates for President become President and Vice President?

Can you imagine a Lief/PiT government?

I think there is merit to allowing the possibility of having a fierce critic in a prominent position. Someone who may disagree ideologically with the President could potentially lead to greater accountability.

However, I don't agree with the "Top 2 candidates" approach, as I do believe they should be distinct if this is done.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I'm more of a toss-up on this. I think it's a fresh idea, and I thank Frittz for bringing it to the table.
This is just a suggestion, not saying I support it, but what would others think of having the Top 2 candidates for President become President and Vice President?

Can you imagine a Lief/PiT government?

Any different from a PiT/HW? Probably not.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm more of a toss-up on this. I think it's a fresh idea, and I thank Frittz for bringing it to the table.
This is just a suggestion, not saying I support it, but what would others think of having the Top 2 candidates for President become President and Vice President?

Can you imagine a Lief/PiT government?

I think there is merit to allowing the possibility of having a fierce critic in a prominent position. Someone who may disagree ideologically with the President could potentially lead to greater accountability.

However, I don't agree with the "Top 2 candidates" approach, as I do believe they should be distinct if this is done.

I just have these crazy ideas that the executive branch shouldn't consistently undermine itself.

Accountability is what we have a Senate for.

[Psychic Octopus]

I admire your idea, Ike, but I don't think that would work well.

I'm more of a toss-up on this. I think it's a fresh idea, and I thank Frittz for bringing it to the table.
This is just a suggestion, not saying I support it, but what would others think of having the Top 2 candidates for President become President and Vice President?

Let's ask the Adams administration.

Hamilton beat me to it. 

[HappyWarrior]

I'm more of a toss-up on this. I think it's a fresh idea, and I thank Frittz for bringing it to the table.
This is just a suggestion, not saying I support it, but what would others think of having the Top 2 candidates for President become President and Vice President?

It isn't a fresh idea at all, its been proposed before when it got passed the Senate but then failed when it reached the people.

[Purple State]

I'm more of a toss-up on this. I think it's a fresh idea, and I thank Frittz for bringing it to the table.
This is just a suggestion, not saying I support it, but what would others think of having the Top 2 candidates for President become President and Vice President?

Can you imagine a Lief/PiT government?

I think there is merit to allowing the possibility of having a fierce critic in a prominent position. Someone who may disagree ideologically with the President could potentially lead to greater accountability.

However, I don't agree with the "Top 2 candidates" approach, as I do believe they should be distinct if this is done.

I just have these crazy ideas that the executive branch shouldn't consistently undermine itself.

Accountability is what we have a Senate for.

The Senate is constructed in a way so as to impede it from exercising a bully pulpit, whereas the executive offices, including the Cabinet, have an immense opportunity to define the debate.

This goes both ways. At the moment, a ticket allows for interesting mixes that lead to coalition cabinets and a mix of voices at the top; on the other hand, this proposal would prevent the real possibility of a monopoly on the bully pulpit.

Again, I don't necessarily support this measure outright, but I do think it is worth, counter to what you stated, to actually have the discussion. Of course, I'm a game reform nut and I recognize that we can't all be me.

[Fritz]

I think this gives more freedom to the voters.  It enables them to split their votes, if they so choose.  Really, that is the only thing this changes.  I'm sure that parties will continue to nominate/endorse a "ticket", meaning a candidate for each office.

[Devilman88]

I like the idea, it throws a twist into things.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I think this gives more freedom to the voters.  It enables them to split their votes, if they so choose.  Really, that is the only thing this changes.  I'm sure that parties will continue to nominate/endorse a "ticket", meaning a candidate for each office.

It's a major change that could result in hugely screwed up tickets getting elected and ruin the very idea of voting for a team of people because of certain issues or qualities they both have, and turn the system into something people vote for people that are more popular or likable.

If we instituted these changes, we could end up with something like President PiT and Vice President Bacon King. Or President Bgwah and Vice President Afleitch. Tmth's ideas are even more random and potentially unbalanced, as I said, can you imagine President Lief and Vice President PiT? It doesn't add action, it just actively screws things up.

Random and unnecessary changes that pointlessly throw a cog in the wheels for the sake of "spicing things up" are not proper changes. If there is no specific problem with our current system and no specific way this will solve those problems, this is another case of change just for the sake of change.

[Јas]

Amendment

1. The office of Vice President is hereby abolished.

2. On such occasions when the office of President shall fall vacant, a special election shall be held no fewer than 7 and no more than 14 days after the vacancy arises, to complete the remainder of the Presidential term.

3. Between the arising of a vacancy in the office of President and the swearing-in of a new President, the powers and duties of the Presidency shall be vested in the Governors of the Atlasia as a whole, said powers and duties being exercisable by majority vote.

4. A special election shall not be necessary where a vacancy in the office of President arises after such time as the election of a new President-elect has been certified or where it arises fewer than 14 days prior to the election of same. In such circumstances, the new President-elect may swear-in immediately.

5. Whenever the President transmits to the Senate President pro tempore his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Governors of the Atlasia as a whole, said powers and duties being exercisable by majority vote.

6. Whenever a majority of the Cabinet and a two-thirds majority of the Senate sign a declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Governors of the Atlasia as a whole, said powers and duties being exercisable by majority vote. Thereafter the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office upon his declaration that he is capable of discharging the said powers and duties, or when the Cabinet and Senate annul their previous declaration.

7. On such occasions as ties may arise in the Senate, the measure at vote shall be deemed to have failed.


Unconvinced as I am by the need for a VP, the above amendment proposes the abolition of the Vice-Presidency. Comments are encouraged.

[Alexander Hamilton]

As DWTL and Ebowed argued last time this was pulled, this is irresponsible and unnecessary.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't much like the idea of abolishing the Vice Presidency, and I like even less the idea of just letting something fail if it's tied. I'll give debate on Jas' proposal a day or so before it goes for a vote.

[Јas]

I don't much like the idea of abolishing the Vice Presidency,

Why not? It's an unnecessary office that serves little function. What's it's justification?

and I like even less the idea of just letting something fail if it's tied.

Again why not?
I'd note that I'm open to considering amending the proposal as necessary. There are a number of possible alternatives available in deciding what to do for tied votes. It's important to remember that ties in the Senate are fairly rare occurances anyway - and I do not feel they can justify the existance of the office of the VP.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't much like the idea of abolishing the Vice Presidency,

Why not? It's an unnecessary office that serves little function. What's it's justification?

Well first of all, it does serve a government purpose. The VP is essentially a back-up for two positions, the PPT and the Presidency. If you eliminate the Vice Presidency, you have to re-write Senate rules for who takes charge during new sessions, or PPT vacancies in general, and if the President is removed from office or is inactive for a certain period of time, you would either be without a President (as seems to be the case in your proposal on both counts) or would just have to find someone else to replace him.

I'll talk more about it's role in the Senate lower.

It also serves a political purpose. Ticket races have been a staple of the game since it's inception, as far as I know, and allows for balanced tickets, or unity tickets, that improve the electoral aspect of the game, instead of turning it into a personality contest of sorts.

Thirdly I'd just say there's no reason to remove it. There's no particular problem removing the Vice Presidency solves and the VP has taken an active role when necessary to fill the gaps when they appear. I see no reason to remove a prominent political office and hurt part of the elections side of the game simply because it only uses it's power sparingly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again why not?[/quote]

The Senate is a finicky body, and it's positions are easy to win over through certain electoral tactics. A tie in the Senate is not necessarily representative of the general public's opinion on a piece of legislation. We have the VP to cast tie-breaking votes during these instances to act as a further representative of the people when necessary.

It would seem to me to be grossly unfair to let a potentially important bill fail simply because it came to a deadlock. Many important (and sometimes unfortunate, but still infamous) things have passed in the United States through the use of a tie-breaking vote, it's an important tool that should be reserved for when needed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would actually contend that the reason tied votes are rare is because of the existence of the Vice President. If the Senate realizes that a tied vote will likely break one way or another, it provides an incentive for business to keep moving and for debate and amending to continue.

For example, the national health care bill earlier in Lief's administration was not without it's controversy. Despite the fact the bill itself passed with a solid margin in the end, if the Senators with concerns (Franzl, Tmth, or others) didn't realize that a 5-5 tie would go to the pro-national health care side, they could have hardened their opposition and killed the bill, despite the public voting for an agenda that approved of it.

If you remove the "safeguard" of sorts against tied votes, Senators will realize they can kill legislation simply by coming to a 5-5 split, with nothing to stop that conclusion.

[afleitch]

I tend to agree with Marokai here; particularly regarding the fact that the Veeps 'tie breaker' tends to discourage the Senate from being deadlocked. It's one of those 'you'll miss it when it's gone' scenarios.

As for the initial bill in splitting the ticket and therefore the election, I can see the attraction. But what would a VP candidate campaign for? They are a constitutional necessity; it's a low key and often thankless position. However with any executive office holder, the VP has the authority to be an active participant in Senate affairs.

I could only envisage a split being beneficial if we developed the VP into a 'head of government' with the President as 'head of state'...but I'm sure we've had that discussion in the past

[Јas]

I don't much like the idea of abolishing the Vice Presidency,

Why not? It's an unnecessary office that serves little function. What's it's justification?

Well first of all, it does serve a government purpose. The VP is essentially a back-up for two positions, the PPT and the Presidency. If you eliminate the Vice Presidency, you have to re-write Senate rules for who takes charge during new sessions, or PPT vacancies in general, and if the President is removed from office or is inactive for a certain period of time, you would either be without a President (as seems to be the case in your proposal on both counts) or would just have to find someone else to replace him.

But neither back-up is necessary.

The proposal I've put forward allows for the election of a new President within a relatively short period of time - and provides an interim executive until that election is certified. Atlasia would not be without an executive.

As to the Senate, even under the current rules, another back-up already exists - the Dean. If this is unsatisfactory, the Senate may amend its own rules to suit itself.

It also serves a political purpose. Ticket races have been a staple of the game since it's inception, as far as I know, and allows for balanced tickets, or unity tickets, that improve the electoral aspect of the game, instead of turning it into a personality contest of sorts.

I don't see how they improve the electoral aspect of the game - but that's plainly a matter of personal opinion, so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Thirdly I'd just say there's no reason to remove it. There's no particular problem removing the Vice Presidency solves and the VP has taken an active role when necessary to fill the gaps when they appear. I see no reason to remove a prominent political office and hurt part of the elections side of the game simply because it only uses it's power sparingly.

My contention is simply that it's a waste of a potentially useful Atlasian - who is being applied as a Constitutional band-aid to fulfill very occasional duties that could just as easily and efficiently be carried out by alternative means.

and I like even less the idea of just letting something fail if it's tied.

Again why not?

The Senate is a finicky body, and it's positions are easy to win over through certain electoral tactics. A tie in the Senate is not necessarily representative of the general public's opinion on a piece of legislation. We have the VP to cast tie-breaking votes during these instances to act as a further representative of the people when necessary.

It would seem to me to be grossly unfair to let a potentially important bill fail simply because it came to a deadlock. Many important (and sometimes unfortunate, but still infamous) things have passed in the United States through the use of a tie-breaking vote, it's an important tool that should be reserved for when needed.

I disagree that having someone to very occasionally cast an 11th vote means that it increases the representation of the people. If the Senate isn't representative of the people, then having the rarely arising ties sorted by an outside party doesn't really solve what would be a fundamental problem with the system.

As I've said before, the deadlock fail proposal is a suggestion. In many parliamentary assemblies tied votes lead to the measure failing. I'm not to suggest that any of them are less democratic for not at that point calling on a fairly random other official to break the deadlock. Anyway, as I've stated before I'm open to reasonable amendments.

It's important to remember that ties in the Senate are fairly rare occurances anyway - and I do not feel they can justify the existance of the office of the VP.

I would actually contend that the reason tied votes are rare is because of the existence of the Vice President. If the Senate realizes that a tied vote will likely break one way or another, it provides an incentive for business to keep moving and for debate and amending to continue.

For example, the national health care bill earlier in Lief's administration was not without it's controversy. Despite the fact the bill itself passed with a solid margin in the end, if the Senators with concerns (Franzl, Tmth, or others) didn't realize that a 5-5 tie would go to the pro-national health care side, they could have hardened their opposition and killed the bill, despite the public voting for an agenda that approved of it.

If you remove the "safeguard" of sorts against tied votes, Senators will realize they can kill legislation simply by coming to a 5-5 split, with nothing to stop that conclusion.

My above comments apply here also.
If this comes down to how the Senate breaks ties, then I'll be amazed if the Senate's opinion on the best possible solution is that we should continue to elect a substitute President to fill that purpose. It's bizarre.

[Јas]

I tend to agree with Marokai here; particularly regarding the fact that the Veeps 'tie breaker' tends to discourage the Senate from being deadlocked. It's one of those 'you'll miss it when it's gone' scenarios.

A generally agreed principle in represntative democracies is that matters should only become law with the support of a majority of the members - the American/Atlasian VP is an oddity in this regard.
 
Would you or Marokai support giving the American VP a tie breaking vote in the US House of Representatives, or someone external of the House of Commons splitting ties there. It makes no sense. And even if one does prefer an external person for this function, why is the Vice President the best person to fulfill this function?

However with any executive office holder, the VP has the authority to be an active participant in Senate affairs.

How does he have that authority any more than any citizen?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The obvious solution to the ties problem is to increase the size of the Senate to 11 seats. And give the PPT the casting vote (ie; in the event of a tie, his vote would count twice. This happens in local government organising votes in England and Wales, fwiw). Problem solved.