Structure, size, powers and election of Presidency, VP. (Debating)

[Senator Cris]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

As I said in the Regional thread, we really need to wipe the slate clean before rebuilding the government. I therefore propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Senator Cris]

Delegates have 24 hours to object:

As I said in the Regional thread, we really need to wipe the slate clean before rebuilding the government. I therefore propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Just get rid of the Vice Presidency for f**ks sake.

[Lumine]

Just get rid of the Vice Presidency for f**ks sake.

I'd like to second this. We will need to streamline the cabinet, and at this point the Vice-Presidency is really not necessary.

[Senator Cris]

Honestly, I think we should keep the VP role. And I'll explain you why I'm in favour of keeping it.

First of all, I'm a big fan of American politics. And in American politics, the VP is an important moment of a presidential campaign. It might change a lot of things during campaign and I'm sure he might be a factor in Atlasia too, expecially in Atlasia considered the size of players.

But the important fact is that if the Presidency is vacant for some reasons (it happened in the past and I'd like to remember that the President can be impeached), who takes his role, his functions? The VP is the obvious response.

I also think the VP role has a great potential. Not only as an advicer to the President (and that's important) but also as a bridge between federal government and Senate by joining Senate discussions. About the Cabinet: the Constitution already says that the VP and Cabinet members (except GM) can serve in another Cabinet spot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Honestly, the VP is perhaps the most useless position in the federal government, and while we currently have two very qualified candidates running for the job in the upcoming election, there are many better uses for their talents than sitting around for four months waiting for the president to be banned. Literally every power help by the VP, both Constitutional and the traditional duties mentioned by Cris, could be fulfilled by a cabinet officer who would be less reliant on the president to give him or her an actual purpose. Even the effect of the VP on presidential campaigns (unity tickets, etc.) could be replicated by announcing cabinet picks before the election.

[Senator Cris]

The amendment has been adopted.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The VP should have a job if we form a bicameral government. If we don't go that route, eliminate it. Sure, picking a vp is always fun strategically, but the job is just awful and I hated it despite how much I love Marokai. It just was monotonous and boring.

[tmthforu94]

I'm sure it has been suggested before, but I am curious to hear the argument why people think it is a bad idea: why not let the Vice President lead the Senate?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm sure it has been suggested before, but I am curious to hear the argument why people think it is a bad idea: why not let the Vice President lead the Senate?

1. As it exists today, the VP is primarily a patronage office used to solidify electoral coalitions, and as such is chosen based on partisan credentials, not experience or activity.
2. Having the Senate President be a member of the chamber cuts down on the number of offices at a time when governmental bloating is a big problem.

[Oakvale]

The Vice-President doesn't need to have any duties. The whole point of the office is that people know who the President will be if the top of the ticket resigns. That's all. Why overcomplicate it?

[tmthforu94]

Here is why I do NOT support removing the Vice President...

While the governing factor is important, the primary thing that drives this game are elections. Having vice presidential candidates requires more strategy and generates more interesting elections.

If you think the position should have more responsibilities, then fine, give it more responsibilities. But removing the position as a whole will lead to less exciting elections, thus, a less exciting game.

I urge members of the convention to vote against any proposal eliminating the office of Vice President.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm fine keeping the VP, but I think the senate should govern and lead itself. The VP can continue to tie break votes but I never liked the idea of having the VP administer things a la the PPT.

I do think removing it would make elections more boring and take strategy out of it. Who says the VP needs a job anyway? They exist to stand in for the president should he disappear or be away for an extended period of time.

[Talleyrand]

Get rid of the position and have special elections when the presidency falls vacant. There are already countries that have special elections for the presidency, and the Senate can continue working in the short period of vacancy, and wait for the next president to enter office to sign any bills or the like.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Who says the VP needs a job anyway? They exist to stand in for the president should he disappear or be away for an extended period of time.

Given the current scarcity of active, competent players, I don't think purposefully creating placeholder offices is a good idea. In this scenario, you're either a) wasting the talents of an active player by putting them in a powerless position; or b) risking elevating an inactive player to the presidency in an attempt to avoid "a".

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While the selection of the VP is strategically interesting and adds to campaigns, the issue is that office itself is useless. As such, there is the critical aspect of balancing the election aspect with the government aspect, and catering to each.

     What if, instead, the Presidential candidate could preselect members of the cabinet? Suppose I were running for President and I named Lumine as my SoIA (just an example). There would be excitement in the naming and I could even have him appear on the ballot with me. You could name as few (at least one) or as many cabinet members as you like. There'd be loads of strategic value there.

[tmthforu94]

     While the selection of the VP is strategically interesting and adds to campaigns, the issue is that office itself is useless. As such, there is the critical aspect of balancing the election aspect with the government aspect, and catering to each.

     What if, instead, the Presidential candidate could preselect members of the cabinet? Suppose I were running for President and I named Lumine as my SoIA (just an example). There would be excitement in the naming and I could even have him appear on the ballot with me. You could name as few (at least one) or as many cabinet members as you like. There'd be loads of strategic value there.

I think the issue with that is bi-partisanship. Oftentimes individuals from all sides are appointed, so while an individual may feel strongly suited for a cabinet position, they ultimately aren't able to receive one because the candidate they supported didn't win, or because they chose not to support someone at all. It then puts things in predicaments if both sides say they would choose Homely for SoFE, as then it would appear that Homely is supporting both sides. There would have to be a lot of details worked out to make this work, and even then, I'm not sure it is something I could support. Good thought, though!

[bore]

The main issue is that, fundamentally, no one cares who the SoIA and SoEA are or what they do.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While the selection of the VP is strategically interesting and adds to campaigns, the issue is that office itself is useless. As such, there is the critical aspect of balancing the election aspect with the government aspect, and catering to each.

     What if, instead, the Presidential candidate could preselect members of the cabinet? Suppose I were running for President and I named Lumine as my SoIA (just an example). There would be excitement in the naming and I could even have him appear on the ballot with me. You could name as few (at least one) or as many cabinet members as you like. There'd be loads of strategic value there.

I think the issue with that is bi-partisanship. Oftentimes individuals from all sides are appointed, so while an individual may feel strongly suited for a cabinet position, they ultimately aren't able to receive one because the candidate they supported didn't win, or because they chose not to support someone at all. It then puts things in predicaments if both sides say they would choose Homely for SoFE, as then it would appear that Homely is supporting both sides. There would have to be a lot of details worked out to make this work, and even then, I'm not sure it is something I could support. Good thought, though!

     My thought is that the cabinet nominee would agree to show up on the ticket, much like the VP candidate does now. So Homely would only actually appear on the ballot with the Presidential candidate if he agreed to do so.

     The thing I was getting at was that you could name who you liked, rather than naming everyone. If there are particular persons in particular positions who are likely to generate interest (referencing the President's comment, perhaps someone in a more prominent position where there is more public interest in their work, like AG), then you can choose to name them.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Here is why I do NOT support removing the Vice President...

While the governing factor is important, the primary thing that drives this game are elections. Having vice presidential candidates requires more strategy and generates more interesting elections.

If you think the position should have more responsibilities, then fine, give it more responsibilities. But removing the position as a whole will lead to less exciting elections, thus, a less exciting game.

I urge members of the convention to vote against any proposal eliminating the office of Vice President.

I'm with tmth on this one. Plus I'll add one more thing. Line of succession. Do we really want to just give the head of the legislative branch a free shot at the presidency in case of resignation or removal of the president? Hence I call motion to reconsider the amendment just adopted should such motions be allowed in this convention.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think we should keep the VP. With the semi-Presidentialism, the VP can serve in another post simultaneously to the VP, so it is not like the talents are wasted. Second of all, the VP is only useless because the decision was made to remove its one area of responsibility in spite of over a year with the greatest number of active VPs seen in the history of the game (Mar 2013-August 2014). Four out of the five VPs in that time were active, engaged in debates and present figures in general.

With a bicameral legislature, you can restore a specific assignment. That would be keeping the two chambers working in an organized and productive fashion, and added to this you could retain the ability of the VP to also hold cabinet positions as well.

Finally, there is the possibility of seperately electing the VP, which would create a different set of standards for the office as well and demand more competence and activity.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Hence I call motion to reconsider the amendment just adopted should such motions be allowed in this convention.

All my amendment did was to strike the existing text so we can build a new government from scratch. It wasn't aimed at permanently abolishing the Vice Presidency.

In regards to what Yankee and others have said, I'm fine with keeping the VP if we give him/her an actual job to do, but otherwise the office needs to go. The current situation, where the office has next to no powers unless the president is hit by a falling piano, only encourages inactivity and wastes the talents of competent players who hold it. A separately-elected VP might be a good idea in a bicameral system, or if we allow them to vote on legislation (sort of like the Senator At-Large I proposed back in July).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It goes without saying that if we do not have any powers assigned to the office here, then the only wise course would be for us to abolish it. Our positions are practically one in the same on this Truman, but it is my hope that we will give it an important role, preferably the one included in the Duke plan.

[bore]

The VP is objectively more important than the SoIA, the SoEA, the GM and arguably the AG as well (because pretty much anyone can start any trial they want), at least as the game is currently played.

Not only is the VP the second in line to the throne which is very important in a country as prone to sudden resignations as atlasia, it also has what amounts to a vote in the senate. The other offices are largely about talking to themselves which is basically ignored by the rest of the population apart from when they are pretending to care to score a political point.

If we are abolishing cabinet offices (which we should) the VP should be one of the last to go.