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

[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?

[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.

[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!

[tmthforu94]

Here's my simple concern, which I have stated before:
- As much as we would like to think this should be a government simulation, it is primarily an elections simulation. I have the belief that having a vice president adds an unique component to elections - it certainly helped for a while in the Mideast when we created it. Unfortunately, outside of that there isn't much proof arguing one way or another, since we have always had it one way.

I won't base my vote on the entire document based on whether it is eliminated. But if we eliminate it, this should definitely be considered as an "experiment," not a permanent solution.

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You always have to go on personal attacks.

Pot, meet kettle.

I second the motion for a principle vote on whether or not to have a Vice President. I think Griffin makes valid points on the lack of responsibilities the role has had - personally I would prefer giving it more power than abolishing it, but we'll see what the delegates decide.

[tmthforu94]

AYE