Organization of the Convention

[Verily]

Okay. Everyone (except Rocky, which is a special case I has been dealing with) has signed in as a delegate. We can therefore assume that all delegates are reading this forum and will be keeping up-to-date with the goings-on of the Constitutional Convention.

Now, before we really delve into how to construct an ideal Constitution, we need some semblance of order around here. Most of us have all sorts of ideas, some great and all in need of attention, but we can't just post them all over the board and expect this Convention to stay orderly. There needs to be some structure.

First off, we need to select someone to be in charge of the Convention; that is, someone to keep everything organized and running smoothly. This position (Presiding Officer of the Convention?) seems sufficient to keeping order. But we need to have some rules governing what the PO can and cannot do before we choose one, so I thought we should discuss that here.

Basically, I envision the position of PO as a guiding force for the Convention. We have all sorts of issues to tackle. (To name just a few: bicameral legislature v unicameral, presidential v parliamentary systems, universal participation in government or restricted participation, the electoral system, region reform, which enumerated rights the Constitution should contain, etc.) The PO should open and lead discussions on each topic as well as compiling proposals made by all of us. The PO is of course not solely responsible for raising important topics, but he would at least work to get discussion started and continuing. It would also be the duty of the PO to alert delegates to important decisions being made and also to keep the public informed of the goings-on at the Convention. In other words, I imagine it as a big job.

Anyone have any suggestions as to how we might better guide a Presiding Officer, or whether we should even have a Presiding Officer at all (or some alternative)?

[Verily]

I think we should have a PO holding basically the same powers as the PPT in the senate

I considered that, but the Senate and this Convention have very different natures. We're not going to be introducing proposals and then shortly thereafter voting on them. Most of our energy will be directed towards discussing difficult issues before any proposals are put forward. That means the Presiding Officer needs to have both more and less discretionary power than the Senate's President pro tempore.

[Verily]

I'm thinking about it more and thinking other than for a few housekeeping ideas, why do we need a PO?  It seems like there will not be a lot of voting going on until much later in the convention.

I wish to formally nominate Verily for the position at this time

I am not so concerned with voting. Rather, I think it is important that the Convention tackle the issues systematically. Smid's proposal (and there are probably others out there as well) is all well and good for a starting point, but multiple proposals means a massive synthesis project which would take longer and ultimately come out messier than building a Constitution from the ground up. Possibly with much of the heavy lifting coming from proposals like Smid's.

Anyway, I'm flattered that you all support me for PO. Don't feel obliged to do so just because I'm suggesting it...

[Verily]

Should we hold a vote on PO, then?