Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)

[afleitch]

To get the ball rolling...

Thinking about it, while my proposal's suggestion for the election of PM is more along the lines of Westminster systems, Hashemite's suggested options are probably easier to administer - probably the STV option is what I'd prefer (I forget which number that one was). Hashemite, would you perhaps put forward your ideas on electing the PM here again.

I still am in favour of motions of no confidence first to trigger a vote for PM, and I think motions of no confidence and elections of the PM should be limited to the Lower House and that the PM should be a member of the Lower House.

I agree.

The Scottish Parliament elects a First Minister. Party leaders will put their case to the parliament and decide who becomes First Minister through a vote. It has always (so far) been the leader of the largest party who has been elected First Minister often due to abstentions etc. It makes for better government for the First Minisiter to be the head of the largest party. In a universal system, that means that everyone votes for the position. So it certainly workable, both in our context and within the context of a parliamentary system.

As such, as Smid has suggested, the PM should always be a member of the lower house, as his duty as PM is to that house. I also support, as I've argued before a 'no confidence' system. We have to remember that PM's and governments in most parliamentary systems can rise and fall without elections - our game should reflect that and allow it to happen, not routinely, but if and when it is needed so that if the game is being run by people without much interest or committment to it, they can be turfed out before the full term is over (if such a move has support)

Moving on a little, a Cabinet can be drawn from both Houses. This should be larger than it is now giving people portfolios on finance, defense, welfare etc.

[afleitch]

Strategy is important and of course in a parliamentary system so too are the party and alliance systems put in place. I believe that if this model is adopted all current parties should be dissolved. I'll explain exactly why; It is likely that the game will take its course and a left bloc and right bloc are established (with some centrists operating) but I think that new parties should be set up that are far broader in their appeal. Part of the strategy in this system will also involve factionalism within parties. That way the 'backbenchers'; the non ministerial, non high ranking representatives have the fate of their superiors in their hands.

I am wary or setting up a system and 'dropping' exisiting parties, alliances and rivalries into it. Likewise I'd like independents to join or at least caucus with one of the parties, particularly as they will as backbenchers have power in numbers.

[afleitch]

2(12) The Lower House may not conduct debate on any Bills or motions, except for a confidence motion if it does not have a Prime Minister.

As long as it is codified that a PM who has just lost a vote of no confidence, remains as PM until his successor is formally confirmed. And also that if the PM is incapcitated, a 'Deputy' (whether formal or nominated) can assume that position temporarily.

[afleitch]

I would prefer not to have a President; IMO, one of the strengths of the original proposal is that there isn't one.

The less this system looks like the United States, the more likely it is to fail. IMO... And lack of a President is a pretty glaring omission.

Doesn't seem to have affected things on here for the past 6 months...

(ducks)

[afleitch]

That's fine. I'm just telling you, as someone who is more representative of an average Atlasian, that a lot of your guys' proposals are not interesting at all and will fail to attract any significant number of people.

The elections are always what have been fun in Atlasia. Not this government-simulation-bullsh**t.

There is a division between those who participate in government and vote, and those who just vote, The latter will not see anything change; they still get to turn out and vote (regardless of the government system) Those who participate in government either are part of the ConCon already or follow it. So a game is being designed for those who actually want to play both sides of it; doesn't mean it will put anyone else off. Besides as we know it's easier to change voting systems than government systems - so any 'fall out' can be easily re-dressed through legislation (by those who play that side of the game )

[afleitch]

Oh, what a bunch of drivel... We saw the same people (Verin and a bunch of foreigners, among others) try their wacky ideas out in Antilla and it was a spectacular failure. And now the same people are trying to turn Atlasia into Antilla 2.0, and I'm simply pointing out that we should learn from past mistakes.

The simple fact that our current system has lasted, with minor changes here and there, for over five years should suggest that we're already doing something right. I highly doubt there are many other (if any) simulations out there that have lasted as long.

Drivel? You know why Antilla didn't work? Because as I've learned people don't have the time for two games on the one forum. It was created because at the time there wasn't a hope in hell's chance of anything happening on this game that remotely reflected the game people wanted. I've been playing it for 4 years and it's been immensely difficult to change (which is why we shouldn't rush this).

If you want to keep things as it, make a case for it. Simple as that.