Special Election to the Presidency (Opinions)

[Lumine]

As many of you know, I've been stating for quite a while my belief that the Vice-President is not a vital office and could be removed for the sake of coherence. As it stands that certainly doesn't seem like a majority opinion (or not one popular enough to be ratified), so I've decided to switch my approach to reforming one of the areas I do not like regarding the Vice-Presidency. Though a long shot perhaps, I'm very much interested in hearing the views of the citizens regarding this concept, and the same applies to the reasons people would have to dislike the idea.

Essentially, I'm not a fan of the concept of the unelected presidency, the idea that a Vice-President can simply take office and serve through an entire term as a full President (John Tyler in 41' style) despite not having been directly elected for the office, considering that even though the Vice-President is elected on a ticket, the people vote clearly for the Presidential candidate to assume the office with an actual mandate. So rather than focus on eliminating the office, I've decided to experiment with the concept of a "special election" to the Presidency in certain cases of a vacancy.

My new proposal is still an amendment that may or may not be accepted, but the relevant part of the Constitution would now look as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Essentially, it makes it clear that only a President elected via popular vote with a mandate can be considered a full President. Any vacancy in the office would necessarily make his successor an Acting President, ascended into office via accident and not by the will of the citizens. And therefore, a new President would have to be elected if a new election is feasible.

I've decided to set a target of three months tops because the last month will feature an election anyway and it would be pointless to hold two Presidential elections within a single month. However, this would give a newly elected President via Special Election anywhere from one to three months to govern, which is rather substantial considering how time passes in Atlasia and the realistic timing of presidential rule.

I could offer a far longer explanation and argument, but I don't want to bore people either. The question is this, does the pubic agree with the concept of Special Elections to reduce the role of an unelected Presidency? And if not, why is the present system preferable?

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

I like this idea. More elections! More democracy!

[_]

I'm supporting this in the Senate, and I highly encourage the House to back this if we end up passing it.

[OneJ]

I think this is a great idea. Hopefully, more energy can be poured into the game should the President vacate the office and it improves democracy. I also like the inclusion of a letter of declaration to the Leaders of the Congress. I encourage the Senate & House to pass this.

[windjammer]

I honestly don't understand the problem with the VP becoming President if the presidency becomes vacant. He was elected on the same ticket than him, as a potential replacement for it. Where is the legitimacy problem?

[Lumine]

Quoting from the Senate:

I don't understand the problem with the Vice President becoming President. He was elected on the same ticket than him as the first in line of succession. Why should there be an another election then?

Well, I am of the opinion he doesn't have a mandate to govern as a full President for an entire term.

Part of the ticket or not, the public votes for the Presidential candidate above all, and I believe the mandate to govern belongs solely to him. A similar debate can be argued to have emerged the first time there was a Presidential vacancy in the old United States in 1841, where it was clearly uncertain whether the then Vice-President could be considered a full President. Congress didn't agree, but the particular Vice-Presidency's sutbborness won over, and that's a precedent I don't think we should blindly follow.

If there is few time remaining on the term, sure, a Vice-President should stay as Acting President. But if the President resigns shortly after the term has begun? Or even half into the term? Why shouldn't the citizens of Atlasia choose a new President in a full election rather than be stuck with a President they did not vote for through the majority of a Presidential term? Seems rather unfair to me, and I think measures such as this can have a positive impact in terms of a more transparent and democratic system, instead of the Senate and a Presidency (elected or already inherited) technically having the power to pick a VP, confirm him and elevate him to the Presidency without there being an actual election by the citizens.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I honestly don't understand the problem with the VP becoming President if the presidency becomes vacant. He was elected on the same ticket than him, as a potential replacement for it. Where is the legitimacy problem?

I agree with the Chief Justice. Compared to real life, terms in Atlasia are not so long that a veep who takes over following a death or resignation seems illegitimate. I'm not a fan of changing the constitution over non-issues just to say we did something.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

I'm not a fan of changing the constitution over non-issues just to say we did something.

I sure am! It seems like a fun idea, plus, few people really vote for the Vice President on AFE or in real life, so I don't believe that a Vice President would have a legitimate mandate to govern if they entered office suddenly. Plus, terms in AFE are like three months, no? I think that's a very long time, considering the nature of the forum.

[Lumine]

I honestly don't understand the problem with the VP becoming President if the presidency becomes vacant. He was elected on the same ticket than him, as a potential replacement for it. Where is the legitimacy problem?

I agree with the Chief Justice. Compared to real life, terms in Atlasia are not so long that a veep who takes over following a death or resignation seems illegitimate. I'm not a fan of changing the constitution over non-issues just to say we did something.

Well, if you consider a more democratic system to be a non-issue...

Why shouldn't it be preferrable to have the Presidency more closely associated to a mandate by the people when there's a vacancy (and we've had several in our history) rather than continue by inertia with the present system? I've always been critical of the idea of changing things for the sake of changing them  without having a clear purpose, but I fail to see the main problem with this particular concept other than it changes a status quo we've had for a while (without said status quo being necessarily the best).

I, for one, would certainly prefer to give the public a say in an open election (which can be of a stimulating nature for public interest and even debate) over the potential of a President resigning even early into his term and seeing an unelected (in case of nomination or confirmation) or indirectly elected (via election in a ticket) Vice-President govern for a full term without the stronger, clearer mandate a directly elected President has.

[Lumine]

I'm not a fan of changing the constitution over non-issues just to say we did something.

I sure am! It seems like a fun idea, plus, few people really vote for the Vice President on AFE or in real life, so I don't believe that a Vice President would have a legitimate mandate to govern if they entered office suddenly. Plus, terms in AFE are like three months, no? I think that's a very long time, considering the nature of the forum.

Four months, actually! This would make it so that there's no Special Election in the last one (because we would already have a regularly scheduled election), but the first three months would require an election.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'm not a fan of changing the constitution over non-issues just to say we did something.

I sure am! It seems like a fun idea, plus, few people really vote for the Vice President on AFE or in real life, so I don't believe that a Vice President would have a legitimate mandate to govern if they entered office suddenly. Plus, terms in AFE are like three months, no? I think that's a very long time, considering the nature of the forum.

Ewww. I mean, only 2 weeks at most to run a presidential campaign is pretty weak. Thats like no time to put together a platform and get out the vote unless your platform is literally just "im progressive and will do progressive things. Vote for me."

This idea really seems like an answer in search of a question here, motivated by some sort of loathing that we werent dumb enough to have a parliamentary model of governance.

[windjammer]

Mr Reactionary and Razze, it appears there is a problem with your quoting function.
(I will answer you all tomorrow, now it's time to work!)

[Lumine]

Ewww. I mean, only 2 weeks at most to run a presidential campaign is pretty weak. Thats like no time to put together a platform and get out the vote unless your platform is literally just "im progressive and will do progressive things. Vote for me."

This idea really seems like an answer in search of a question here, motivated by some sort of loathing that we werent dumb enough to have a parliamentary model of governance.

Really not sure why you need to get off topic with personal criticisms  - which are not only out of place, but misleading and misinformed - rather than actually address the issue and showcase why exactly the present system is better than a proposed and tentative alternative.

If that's your idea of how to better debate constitutional issues, Mr. Secretary, I'm not impressed.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Ewww. I mean, only 2 weeks at most to run a presidential campaign is pretty weak. Thats like no time to put together a platform and get out the vote unless your platform is literally just "im progressive and will do progressive things. Vote for me."

This idea really seems like an answer in search of a question here, motivated by some sort of loathing that we werent dumb enough to have a parliamentary model of governance.

Really not sure why you need to get off topic with personal criticisms  - which are not only out of place, but misleading and misinformed - rather than actually address the issue and showcase why exactly the present system is better than a proposed and tentative alternative.

If that's your idea of how to better debate constitutional issues, Mr. Secretary, I'm not impressed.

Im not trying to "impress" you. Im trying to stop pointless constitutional changes. There seems to be a lot of those creeping forward of late.

[Lumine]

Ewww. I mean, only 2 weeks at most to run a presidential campaign is pretty weak. Thats like no time to put together a platform and get out the vote unless your platform is literally just "im progressive and will do progressive things. Vote for me."

This idea really seems like an answer in search of a question here, motivated by some sort of loathing that we werent dumb enough to have a parliamentary model of governance.

Really not sure why you need to get off topic with personal criticisms  - which are not only out of place, but misleading and misinformed - rather than actually address the issue and showcase why exactly the present system is better than a proposed and tentative alternative.

If that's your idea of how to better debate constitutional issues, Mr. Secretary, I'm not impressed.

Im not trying to "impress" you. Im trying to stop pointless constitutional changes. There seems to be a lot of those creeping forward of late.

Well I do believe the public does deserve something better than that sort of response. After all, it has been remarked that there should be more and better informed debate. Alas, that's an entirely different point.

Again, why exactly is it pointless to allow the public to elect a new President (with an actual mandate) to complete a term? I certainly want to hear an opinion on why the present system is better, and why we shouldn't have special elections for the Presidency (when we have those for almost every other elected office) beyond stating that it is "pointless" and resorting to criticisms that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I object to your use of the phrase "turned into" Siren.

Once again, the VP was always suppose to run the Congress, even pre-reset. The PPT was suppose to be a stand in, when the VP was on LOA. Fritz was the one who called out everyone for violating the Constitution, in Jan 2010. So we amended the rules to comply with the constitution and the VP had first right of refusal, which every VP promptly refused until I convinced Duke to split the Senate with me Mar 2013. Windjammer was the first and only Vice President who actually did the job as the second/third constitution intended, running the whole Senate for the entire month of July 2014, and because it was so unusual, people hated him for it.

Chamber administration is tedious, there is no way around it. The more active a chamber is, the worse it gets. But unless you want a free for all, someone has to do it and do it well otherwise the Congress basically doesn't exist and we have an elected dictatorship. Eliminating one of the Triumvirate, merely makes the remaining two jobs that much more difficult.

So to return to my first point, nothing was "turned into anything". We actually read the damn constitution and started following it.

Fourth Constitution (June 9, 2016 - )

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Third Constitution (Oct 24, 2010 - June 9, 2016)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Second Constitution (April 28, 2005 - Oct 24, 2010)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First Constitution (unknown - April 28, 2005)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol, the first constitution didn't even elect the PPT until the VP was absent.

[Pericles]

Well I can see where Lumine is coming from. The most attractive part of this idea to me is the potential for more elections, which would spur greater interest in Atlasia and activity(and also make office-holders be on their A-game all the time, rather than just when election season flips around). I haven't firmly made up my mind yet and am open to persuasion either way on this, but the idea is very interesting and more elections would be a good thing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If anything we have pulled the VP back dejure from running the Congress post reset, since the PPT/Speaker are not stand-ins, while increasing its defacto involvement by actually having it do something, namely what you refer to as "Secretary work".

Ironically, there are times I feel like a Secretary updating the House, as Speaker. And the same applied to when I was PPT for, like ever back in the day. But by doing this, it means that the other members can focus on pushing the legislation and ideas they like without being stalled by confusion, incoherence or incompetence.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As for the underlying question, since it was buried in the large post above. I would support having special elections to the Presidency, if we moved towards and separately elected President of Congress, in lieu of the present VP elected on a ticket. That way PoC is entirely legislative in nature, and people will be elected to it based on their activity and competence, not their popularity with a certain block of voters regardless of other factors (though the culture around the VP selection process has been shifting already, thanks to the past year of VPs actually needing to do stuff).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I guess this is the least offensive of the "reform" amendments introduced in the last few weeks, though I do agree that two weeks is a rather short period for a national campaign. I actually rather like Yankee's idea of having the VP as a separately-elected office, though I don't know that very many people would be interested in running for such a post.

I will say, though, that I am very alarmed by the sentiment that we should amend the Constitution 'just because:' while that doesn't seem to be what Lumine is saying with his post, that is a uniquely horrible argument—and extremely frustrating to those who spent the better part of a year creating a logical, consistent document based on the lessons of experience, rather than ideology or some vague notion of generating activity by legislative fiat. When discussing changes to our constitutional framework, the burden of proof is always on the proponents of change to demonstrate how their idea would actually and practically improve the game—and I'm yet to read a convincing argument to that effect. 

[Lumine]

I will say, though, that I am very alarmed by the sentiment that we should amend the Constitution 'just because:' while that doesn't seem to be what Lumine is saying with his post, that is a uniquely horrible argument—and extremely frustrating to those who spent the better part of a year creating a logical, consistent document based on the lessons of experience, rather than ideology or some vague notion of generating activity by legislative fiat. When discussing changes to our constitutional framework, the burden of proof is always on the proponents of change to demonstrate how their idea would actually and practically improve the game—and I'm yet to read a convincing argument to that effect. 

It does cut both ways though. There's certainly always a burden and a duty to whomever proposes change to showcase arguments, the necessity of such a proposal and why is it better than the status quo, and over the years I've made a point of opposing what I see as being change for the sake of change. However, when it comes to Constitutional matters in particular I also see a necessity, even a burden from those who rightfully and strongly oppose a particular reform to also showcase why the status quo is better, or why the present constitutional mechanisms work better or are preferable to a particular proposal.

To give an example, the Vice-Presidential debate. Many people wish to retain the office, and I respect that, but I constantly asked to hear why. Inertia alone is no reason to hold onto a particular constitutional mechanism unless that mechanism works in a given manner. Yankee was kind enough to actually provide a detailed historical, political and philosophical outline on why he believes the Vice-Presidency is a relevant office, but he was  one of the exceptions, not the rule. There were many who preferred to keep the office, but there wasn't a powerful case as to why the status quo did work better than what was proposed.

[Lumine]

To follow up on that, since I believe that Constitutional documents are never perfect and can always be improved to the benefit of the nation, I do indeed take a look at either potential, current or past problems so they can be addressed, even hypothetically if it seems important enough given how far we've pushed the constitutional boundaries in times of crisis. Our current Constitution is no exception: it is a fine document, born out of effort, hard work and bravery, but it is also not infallible, and if we can improve it in a particular sense then I believe we should.

What I identify here is what I see as a problem, which is that I believe the Presidency works better when it has a popular mandate behind it and is more accountable before the people rather than more indirect methods, particularly when Vice-Presidents fully inherit the office even for a long while without even being elected on the ticket. The follow up, based on precedent and in other constitutional frameworks, would be do implement what we already have for all other elected offices: special elections. The practicality I grant is up for debate, particularly if we are to correct the finer details (for example, a longer campaign process if needed be), but I don't see something unworkable or devoid of merit. If I did, trust me, I would not waste my time nor the time of the Senate.

Bottom line being, if these measures are controversial then great, let us have a good, healthy debate on our Constitution and system of government. But let us have an informed, detailed one that benefits the nation, and not fall into the trap of either pursuing change for the sake of it or dismissing a given proposal as pointless without much further arguments.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I was just stating my opinion about the Vice Presidency and a truthful story about why I've never run for president. If you want to get offended about that, it's all up to you.

I wasn't responding to you, Siren; my sincere apologies if my post came off that way.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Bottom line being, if these measures are controversial then great, let us have a good, healthy debate on our Constitution and system of government. But let us have an informed, detailed one that benefits the nation, and not fall into the trap of either pursuing change for the sake of it or dismissing a given proposal as pointless without much further arguments.

That's fair enough. As I said, I don't think this is absolutely a terrible or unworkable idea—but I worry when I see people jumping on the reform bandwagon because it's the thing to do, without considering the long-term consequences of these changes. That phenomenon in itself doesn't discredit the proposal, though, so it will be interesting to see what the Senate has to say on the matter.

[Lumine]

Bottom line being, if these measures are controversial then great, let us have a good, healthy debate on our Constitution and system of government. But let us have an informed, detailed one that benefits the nation, and not fall into the trap of either pursuing change for the sake of it or dismissing a given proposal as pointless without much further arguments.

That's fair enough. As I said, I don't think this is absolutely a terrible or unworkable idea—but I worry when I see people jumping on the reform bandwagon because it's the thing to do, without considering the long-term consequences of these changes. That phenomenon in itself doesn't discredit the proposal, though, so it will be interesting to see what the Senate has to say on the matter.

Oh, agreed! The most important point is avoiding people to either fall in line without considering it or denounce it "just because". Perhaps the public doesn't prefer special elections to the status quo, and perhaps after much debate we don't find it as workable as I currently think it may be. But having the debate is crucial, and I hope people will at least think about it and consider and vocalize their own reasons for supporting or opposing it.