General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Apulita on Thu Jul 24, 2014 1:57 am

Alright, my citizen expulsion worries have mostly been sated.

How about the Chief Justice is appointed by the Senate or something, to serve a six month term? That way we're not holding public elections meaning a Chief Justice will have to go vote-hunting rather than justice-hunting. Further, I think it should be legal to serve more than one term. If the current Chief Justice is clearly the most adept, proven by their merits, there would be no reason other than the constitution not to re-appoint them.

Now Frederick William II has made some good points, on which I agree. A council of representatives serving as the executive rather than one person having considerable sway over all Warzones helps stop corruption and makes it hard for a single figure to dominate politics. Though I believe the cabinet should still be open to all members so we can appoint the best people for the job.

I have also had private worries on the topic of the Astarialn Empire. The crown currently has the legal ability to veto legislation, something I have been working hard to see removed. In any case, I've been delegate for two thirds of a year now roughly and we still have yet to legally pass the regional constitution, majorly because of disagreement between legislators and the crown. It will most definitely not be easy to see the UWR Constitution in it's current state passed through Warzone Europe laws.

In case it's not clear, my vote is still nay until all issues are addressed.

Apulita

Posts : 8
Join date : 2014-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Llamas on Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:36 am

Frederick William II wrote:My biggest concern is how much power the Prime Minister has.  I can easily foresee a Prime Minister fabricating a threat (such as convincing another region to use the threat of invasion or war), and then using that threat to pass whatever legislation he wants under the pretense that it's necessary for security reasons, and due to those circumstances this "necessary" legislation would have an easier time of getting through the ULA and Senate without being repealed.
Not really. In fact, you have it almost backwards; I purposely made the PM weak, which is quite noticeable in the following:
1. I purposely made sure that the PM is able to be quickly and easily appointed or removed from power. The PM is appointed through the use of legislation, meaning that if he abuses power, he can quickly be removed from power by a majority vote. It's modeled after the modus operandi of the vast majority of European democracies, which are parliamentary democracies meant to take into account the concept of "Fusion of powers" that makes executive corruption practically impossible and make the branch incredibly accountable to the people, at the cost of some degree of executive independence.
2. When the PM announces a state of emergency, either house of the legislature can repeal legislation by majority vote. You see, in order to be passed, a bill needs majority approval from both houses of the legislature. Let's just flip that backwards, now: this means that if either house of the legislature does not like a bill, they'll reject it. That's literally what's going on here. The inclusion of emergency powers does not mean that legislation can be passed that otherwise wouldn't be able to, in any way, shape, or form. It just means that legislation passes more quickly and will then be undone if it is against the wishes of the Senate or the people. However, if I find that Apulita himself has an objection to the existence of the clause which allows the PM to call for a state of emergency, I'll remove it.
3. In these cases that the PM fabricates a threat, he would be investigated by the IWC. I'm fairly certain that the IWC would be capable of discovering evidence of wrongdoing and prosecuting him for the crime.

Frederick William II wrote:To have all seven Warzones be open to such facile manipulation by one person seems preposterous to me.
There's six warzones. Smile Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia, Airspace, Sandbox. And quite the contrary, I purposely sacrificed independence of the executive in order to make it nearly impossible for the PM to be able to abuse his power. I've made the PM almost a slave to the people and the Senate because I was aware that you and maybe one or two others would complain about the office if I gave it any more power. I'm a bit annoyed that this is what you're complaining about; there are other possible ways to criticize the constitution, but giving the executive too much power is definitely not one of those points that you could criticize the constitution on.

Frederick William II wrote:In my opinion, it would be better to divide the responsibilities of the Prime Minister amongst the Delegates, have the job be done by a council of the Delegates, and have the Delegates also assume the various responsibilities of the Cabinet.  They would just divy up the Cabinet positions, and stagger elections to avoid having completely new leadership after each election.
Firstly, we don't have "elections" in the real meaning of the word. The reason why is because PM's are appointed or dismissed through the use of legislation, passed by the ULA and the Senate. As I mentioned earlier, this is meant to be similar to the modus operandi of European Parliamentary democracies. When you want a new PM or a new cabinet member, you write a piece of legislation that replaces them. The ULA isn't elected, it replenishes and changes itself slowly as people come and go, as it is the people. Finally, whether or not senators are elected is up to each individual warzone.

Secondly, The reason why this isn't done is because it would reduce government accountability, make leadership change more dramatically than it currently does, and increase corruption. Let me explain this:
1. Changing delegates is more difficult than changing the executive as is currently is. Do you want to change who the PM is? Vote that way in the Senate or the ULA. On the other hand, changing the delegates of six different regions, one by one, would probably turn out to be much more difficult.
2. This would increase corruption by making it impossible for the PM to streamline the process of cabinet-running and forcing many in the executive to operate without a head. I assume you've heard the saying, "Cut off the head of a snake, and the body will die?" That's what you'd effectively be doing. When the entire executive lacks a head, it will thrash and flail without being able to agree on a course of action to take and keep.
3. The composition of the Cabinet would change frequently, and every time that a delegate of a warzone was replaced, so would one-sixth of the cabinet. One-sixth of an executive is capable of making or breaking a coalition between multiple parties. On the other hand, the current system says that a member of the Cabinet will only be replaced if the ULA or Senate feels a need to replace them. Thus, good members of the cabinet will be held over, ensuring a smoother transition.
4. The Executive would no longer be accountable to the legislative. The current system is designed to be flexible and allow for quick movement to change something if there is a problem in the legislative.
5. This system would fail to give any power to the people of the UWR. Under the current system, the ULA and the Senate have equal power over cabinet appointments. The opinion of the people and the rights of individual Warzones are equally respected. However, under this proposed system, the people can want one thing in the executive and not have any say in it. Let me repeat that again: The people would have no control over the executive whatsoever.
6. You'll end up with a set size for the cabinet. It has to have 6 people, one per region. No more, no less. This could be a problem, as you might need more as the UWR grows and less while it's new and unable to put up as many people for all these different positions.
7. I'd like to point out that someone can be delegate of a warzone and still be in the Cabinet or be PM, meaning that this idea is partially implemented because it has a few upsides, but I avoided complete implementation because it would be a major problem.

Trust me on this. I've had a lot of experience as an NS statesman, and I took into account all possibilities of abuse of power by the executive. The current system is practically airtight, as the executive is checked so as to make sure that both the people and the regions are properly protected from and can influence the government.

Frederick William II wrote:I find it especially disconcerting that there is no specific method of selecting the Prime Minister delineated in the constitution.  Potentially, the Prime Minister could be selected without involving the common citizens of the Warzones.  With a council of the Delegates in charge of the entire UWR, there is much less chance for abuse of power, and the people in charge are much more accessible and visible to the inhabitants of the Warzones.
Erm... I don't think you read the constitution all the way through. Or even through the first two articles. The Prime Minister is selected by majority vote of the ULA and Senate, and that's clearly noted. I already noted why this idea would reduce accountability of the executive above.

Frederick William II wrote:My other big concern applies only to Warzone Europe, though it affects the outcome of this convention.  How are we (Warzone Europeans) supposed to legally ratify this constitution, or be a part of a body whose laws supersede our own, when we are part of the Astarialn Empire?  After all, we had a lot of difficulty attaining the assent of the Empress for our own regional constitution because of confusion over the role of the Crown.  What do you think the odds are that she'll assent to just giving up Warzone Europe?  Either the laws of the UWR cannot supersede the Warzones' (or at least Warzone Europe's), or Warzone Europe must leave the Astarialn Empire.  I think the latter is extremely unwise and highly disrespectful of the several times the Empress has not only protected our region from invasion but also allowed us to free up troops to defend the other Warzones.
Ah, I think I have the solution to that. We declare Astarial to be Duchess, or Lady, or Countess of the Warzone European province, and you can then give her as much power as she wants or needs over the local government of Warzone Europe.
avatar
Llamas

Posts : 118
Join date : 2014-05-05
Age : 18
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Llamas on Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:54 am

Apulita wrote:How about the Chief Justice is appointed by the Senate or something, to serve a six month term? That way we're not holding public elections meaning a Chief Justice will have to go vote-hunting rather than justice-hunting. Further, I think it should be legal to serve more than one term. If the current Chief Justice is clearly the most adept, proven by their merits, there would be no reason other than the constitution not to re-appoint them.
The problem with that is that most regions will probably decide to allow their Senators to be elected. But seeing as how we're making compromises, I'm willing to go ahead with this if we limit judges to serving two terms.

Apulita wrote:Now Frederick William II has made some good points, on which I agree.
We should probably call him Fritz. We need a shorter name for him that Friedrich Wilhelm der zweite, honestly.

Apulita wrote:A council of representatives serving as the executive rather than one person having considerable sway over all Warzones helps stop corruption and makes it hard for a single figure to dominate politics.
It sounds that way in theory, but quite the contrary; I know this from my experience and time in multiple regional governments. Large governments filled with many people where there is no head tend to be ineffective and weak. They are usually incapable of making decisions that they will stick to, and even worse, they tend to be mired in backroom politics which are hidden from the public's view and are used to seize de facto power in a way that is much less democratic than a vote by the people and warzones. Corruption and centralization of power is already stopped by the fact that the ULA or Senate can dismiss the PM, combined with the IWC's ability to declare executive actions unconstitutional; I purposely designed the government in this way so that it would be difficult for the executive to seize power for itself.

Apulita wrote:Though I believe the cabinet should still be open to all members so we can appoint the best people for the job.
It's already open to anyone the ULA and Senate choose to appoint to the job.

Apulita wrote:I have also had private worries on the topic of the Astarialn Empire. The crown currently has the legal ability to veto legislation, something I have been working hard to see removed. In any case, I've been delegate for two thirds of a year now roughly and we still have yet to legally pass the regional constitution, majorly because of disagreement between legislators and the crown. It will most definitely not be easy to see the UWR Constitution in it's current state passed through Warzone Europe laws.
I can talk to Astarial, if that's what you need. I believe that if we make it clear that she will still have a respectable degree of power over WZ Europe, she will accept. She could, for example, be granted the ability to choose WZ Europe's senator, if you feel that is prudent. However, there is another alternative if you are left no other recourse. A declaration of independence by WZ Europe from Astarial, should you feel that she has violated your rights and that you must secure your own sovereignty, would be almost certainly supported by the rest of us.
avatar
Llamas

Posts : 118
Join date : 2014-05-05
Age : 18
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Minister Ismailiyah on Thu Jul 24, 2014 1:38 pm

Wow...um,I can see WZEU are going to disagree on this constitution. I myself have few objections, and vote aye. I think that declaring independence from Astarial would not be the wisest course of action, as they are a powerful ally. We just need to convince them to support the UWR. I propose we send a delegation to negotiate with them. As for the other issues, I believe llamas has explained them clearly enough for me.
avatar
Minister Ismailiyah

Posts : 42
Join date : 2014-03-25
Age : 17
Location : South West England

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Llamas on Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:17 pm

Minister Ismailiyah wrote:Wow...um,I can see WZEU are going to disagree on this constitution. I myself have few objections, and vote aye. I think that declaring independence from Astarial would not be the wisest course of action, as they are a powerful ally. We just need to convince them to support the UWR. I propose we send a delegation to negotiate with them. As for the other issues, I believe llamas has explained them clearly enough for me.
Sorry about the Astarial independence thing, it was a terrible idea. It was late at night and I was really tired because I'd just written this. <The word this is a link, btw.
avatar
Llamas

Posts : 118
Join date : 2014-05-05
Age : 18
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Chancellor Campbell II on Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:55 pm

Llamas wrote:
Minister Ismailiyah wrote:Wow...um,I can see WZEU are going to disagree on this constitution. I myself have few objections, and vote aye. I think that declaring independence from Astarial would not be the wisest course of action, as they are a powerful ally. We just need to convince them to support the UWR. I propose we send a delegation to negotiate with them. As for the other issues, I believe llamas has explained them clearly enough for me.
Sorry about the Astarial independence thing, it was a terrible idea. It was late at night and I was really tired because I'd just written this. <The word this is a link, btw.
I saw that, and your messages on the Lazarus chat box. Nice work.
avatar
Chancellor Campbell II
Admin

Posts : 204
Join date : 2014-03-24
Age : 19
Location : Northeastern United States

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Arekrya on Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:20 pm

Forgive me if I'm missing something, but just to clarify, can any citizen be appointed PM?
avatar
Arekrya

Posts : 22
Join date : 2014-06-22

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Frederick William II on Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:24 pm

Oh boy.

I put it all in a spoiler to avoid the eyesore:

Llamas wrote:
Frederick William II wrote:My biggest concern is how much power the Prime Minister has.  I can easily foresee a Prime Minister fabricating a threat (such as convincing another region to use the threat of invasion or war), and then using that threat to pass whatever legislation he wants under the pretense that it's necessary for security reasons, and due to those circumstances this "necessary" legislation would have an easier time of getting through the ULA and Senate without being repealed.
Not really. In fact, you have it almost backwards; I purposely made the PM weak, which is quite noticeable in the following:
1. I purposely made sure that the PM is able to be quickly and easily appointed or removed from power. The PM is appointed through the use of legislation, meaning that if he abuses power, he can quickly be removed from power by a majority vote. It's modeled after the modus operandi of the vast majority of European democracies, which are parliamentary democracies meant to take into account the concept of "Fusion of powers" that makes executive corruption practically impossible and make the branch incredibly accountable to the people, at the cost of some degree of executive independence.
2. When the PM announces a state of emergency, either house of the legislature can repeal legislation by majority vote. You see, in order to be passed, a bill needs majority approval from both houses of the legislature. Let's just flip that backwards, now: this means that if either house of the legislature does not like a bill, they'll reject it. That's literally what's going on here. The inclusion of emergency powers does not mean that legislation can be passed that otherwise wouldn't be able to, in any way, shape, or form. It just means that legislation passes more quickly and will then be undone if it is against the wishes of the Senate or the people. However, if I find that Apulita himself has an objection to the existence of the clause which allows the PM to call for a state of emergency, I'll remove it.
3. In these cases that the PM fabricates a threat, he would be investigated by the IWC. I'm fairly certain that the IWC would be capable of discovering evidence of wrongdoing and prosecuting him for the crime.

I understand everything you said, and while I am unsure as to whether or not you fully understood my concern, I am unwilling to press the issue any further.

Llamas wrote:
Frederick William II wrote:To have all seven Warzones be open to such facile manipulation by one person seems preposterous to me.
There's six warzones. Smile Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia, Airspace, Sandbox.

My bad.  It was a long day at work yesterday    Sad 

Llamas wrote:And quite the contrary, I purposely sacrificed independence of the executive in order to make it nearly impossible for the PM to be able to abuse his power. I've made the PM almost a slave to the people and the Senate because I was aware that you and maybe one or two others would complain about the office if I gave it any more power. I'm a bit annoyed that this is what you're complaining about; there are other possible ways to criticize the constitution, but giving the executive too much power is definitely not one of those points that you could criticize the constitution on.

I'm not so much opposed to the Prime Minister's powers as I am opposed to the idea of there being a body whose powers and laws supersede those of the Warzones themselves.  But, as I previously stated, I am no longer willing to press the issue.

As for being annoyed, you're going to have to deal with it.  You should be welcoming all complaints and criticism as opportunities to improve the constitution, instead of trying to have it be rubber-stamped.  I would have thought that someone with as much experience as an NS statesman as you claim to have would have been a bit more open to the concerns of a fellow delegate and native of a Warzone.

You are not the "brilliant mastermind behind this plan," as you have previously stated.  Talk of the creation of a Pan-Warzone Union has been going on for months - in fact, the earliest mention of it that I can find is in a post I made 187 days ago when I was serving as an Internal Minister of Warzone Europe, and made the suggestion for the creation of a Pan-Warzone Union for mutual protection with the other Warzones.  It is only now that some action is being taken.  I thank you for your service to the Warzones, but I must say that you have come across to me as rather stiflingly arrogant.

Llamas wrote:
Frederick William II wrote:In my opinion, it would be better to divide the responsibilities of the Prime Minister amongst the Delegates, have the job be done by a council of the Delegates, and have the Delegates also assume the various responsibilities of the Cabinet.  They would just divy up the Cabinet positions, and stagger elections to avoid having completely new leadership after each election.
Firstly, we don't have "elections" in the real meaning of the word. The reason why is because PM's are appointed or dismissed through the use of legislation, passed by the ULA and the Senate. As I mentioned earlier, this is meant to be similar to the modus operandi of European Parliamentary democracies. When you want a new PM or a new cabinet member, you write a piece of legislation that replaces them. The ULA isn't elected, it replenishes and changes itself slowly as people come and go, as it is the people. Finally, whether or not senators are elected is up to each individual warzone.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your use of the phrase "outlined through the use of legislation" (I am looking at Article I, Section 2).  Does this not mean that the process for determining members of the ULA (i.e., for becoming a Citizen) will be decided through the passage of later legislation?  Why does it have to be later?  Why can't it be delineated right now in the constitution?  Or if I am in fact misinterpreting it... what the hell does it mean? Question 

Llamas wrote:Secondly, The reason why this isn't done is because it would reduce government accountability, make leadership change more dramatically than it currently does, and increase corruption. Let me explain this:
1. Changing delegates is more difficult than changing the executive as is currently is. Do you want to change who the PM is? Vote that way in the Senate or the ULA. On the other hand, changing the delegates of six different regions, one by one, would probably turn out to be much more difficult.

Wait, so you're saying that elections would make leadership change more dramatically, but then you're saying that changing the delegates is more difficult than just changing the Prime Minister.  Isn't changing the Prime Minister a more dramatic change than changing some of the delegates?

In the former, you end up with completely different leadership, whereas with the latter you end up with anywhere from a single new delegate (which wouldn't be very difficult to do) to six new delegates (which is quite unlikely and difficult to do).  Instead of ending up with completely new leadership every time the Prime Minister is changed, you would instead have varying degrees of change which would better reflect the peoples' desire for change in their government... assuming they are allowed to vote and are privy to the knowledge of how the delegates vote in the execution of their executive powers.

Llamas wrote:2. This would increase corruption by making it impossible for the PM to streamline the process of cabinet-running and forcing many in the executive to operate without a head. I assume you've heard the saying, "Cut off the head of a snake, and the body will die?" That's what you'd effectively be doing. When the entire executive lacks a head, it will thrash and flail without being able to agree on a course of action to take and keep.

Sure.  Except the way I see it, with a council of delegates being the executive instead of a single Prime Minister, you end up with six heads instead of one.  Perhaps it would slow things down, but you would have the multiple opinions of the people directly in charge of the Warzones (the delegates) backing the executive decision.  That, one would think, lends much more validity to the decision than the approval/veto of a Prime Minister who could, as I understand it, feasibly have never served in any sort of leadership role.

Let's say a Prime Minister is selected.  He is a very active person, and has served in the ULA for quite some time... but that's it.  How are we supposed to expect that this "snake," to use your analogy, will have a good and effective head when this person has never served in a leadership role?  How can we expect that person to be able to be the leading executive authority of six inherently vulnerable regions, when he has never led even one?  You can't say that this situation will never happen because it could happen - insofar as I can tell, there are no prerequisites for being a Prime Minister besides simply being chosen.  That is very scary.

As for the supposed increase in corruption, I fail to see how the government/executive not being streamlined increases corruption.  I can see how it can increase inefficiency (which, in my opinion, is not a bad thing - provided the discussion is intelligent and focused, it is much more preferable to me that laws take longer to pass because of intelligent discussion and controversy than that they be passed quickly without much thought).

Llamas wrote:3. The composition of the Cabinet would change frequently, and every time that a delegate of a warzone was replaced, so would one-sixth of the cabinet. One-sixth of an executive is capable of making or breaking a coalition between multiple parties. On the other hand, the current system says that a member of the Cabinet will only be replaced if the ULA or Senate feels a need to replace them. Thus, good members of the cabinet will be held over, ensuring a smoother transition.

Well, I would assume that if the members of the Cabinet (i.e., the delegates) are doing a good job in the eyes of the people, then naturally they would remain in office.  But perhaps, as has been stated in an earlier post, it is best to keep the Cabinet and the delegates separate.

Llamas wrote:4. The Executive would no longer be accountable to the legislative. The current system is designed to be flexible and allow for quick movement to change something if there is a problem in the legislative.

I don't quite understand.  Why is it desirable for the Executive to be accountable to the legislative?  And what problem could there possibly be in the legislative that would necessitate changing the Executive?  Do you mean that if the Executive is being obstinate and continues to veto a law, and the legislative is unable to garner enough votes to override the veto (if that's even possible - I can't tell if the "repeal of legislation" described at the end of Article II, Section 2 applies in all cases or just in cases of an emergency), then the legislative can just do away with the Executive and get a new one to rubber stamp their law?  I hardly see that as being desirable.  If that's the case, what the hell is the point of having an Executive in the first place, if the legislative can just get rid of an Executive they don't like whenever they want and replace him with one they do like?  Perhaps I am misunderstanding.

Llamas wrote:5. This system would fail to give any power to the people of the UWR. Under the current system, the ULA and the Senate have equal power over cabinet appointments. The opinion of the people and the rights of individual Warzones are equally respected. However, under this proposed system, the people can want one thing in the executive and not have any say in it. Let me repeat that again: The people would have no control over the executive whatsoever.

What?  In the system in the constitution, the ULA and the Senate choose the Executive.  The ULA and the Senate are comprised of the Citizens.  So in essence, the Citizens choose the Executive.  In the system I've proposed, the Citizens vote on the delegate of the Warzone in which they reside.  How do they not have control over the Executive?  The Executive is held accountable to the people, in the same way they are held accountable to the legislative people (because they are the same thing) in the system in the constitution.

Llamas wrote:6. You'll end up with a set size for the cabinet. It has to have 6 people, one per region. No more, no less. This could be a problem, as you might need more as the UWR grows and less while it's new and unable to put up as many people for all these different positions.

I agree.

Llamas wrote:7. I'd like to point out that someone can be delegate of a warzone and still be in the Cabinet or be PM, meaning that this idea is partially implemented because it has a few upsides, but I avoided complete implementation because it would be a major problem.

Trust me on this. I've had a lot of experience as an NS statesman, and I took into account all possibilities of abuse of power by the executive. The current system is practically airtight, as the executive is checked so as to make sure that both the people and the regions are properly protected from and can influence the government.

Perhaps I am being a bit harsh on you, and I apologize for that.  I have trusted far too many promising individuals in this game who have then turned around and destroyed entire regions, or forums.  Too many of my own regions, both that I've been a part of and that I've founded myself, have been destroyed by trusting the wrong person.

Llamas wrote:
Frederick William II wrote:I find it especially disconcerting that there is no specific method of selecting the Prime Minister delineated in the constitution.  Potentially, the Prime Minister could be selected without involving the common citizens of the Warzones.  With a council of the Delegates in charge of the entire UWR, there is much less chance for abuse of power, and the people in charge are much more accessible and visible to the inhabitants of the Warzones.
Erm... I don't think you read the constitution all the way through. Or even through the first two articles. The Prime Minister is selected by majority vote of the ULA and Senate, and that's clearly noted. I already noted why this idea would reduce accountability of the executive above.

Oh... I misinterpreted "the PM shall be selected through the use of legislation, approved by the majority of the Senate and the ULA" (Article II, Section 2) to mean "the process for selecting the PM shall be decided at a later time through the use of legislation."  My apologies.

Llamas wrote:
Frederick William II wrote:My other big concern applies only to Warzone Europe, though it affects the outcome of this convention.  How are we (Warzone Europeans) supposed to legally ratify this constitution, or be a part of a body whose laws supersede our own, when we are part of the Astarialn Empire?  After all, we had a lot of difficulty attaining the assent of the Empress for our own regional constitution because of confusion over the role of the Crown.  What do you think the odds are that she'll assent to just giving up Warzone Europe?  Either the laws of the UWR cannot supersede the Warzones' (or at least Warzone Europe's), or Warzone Europe must leave the Astarialn Empire.  I think the latter is extremely unwise and highly disrespectful of the several times the Empress has not only protected our region from invasion but also allowed us to free up troops to defend the other Warzones.
Ah, I think I have the solution to that. We declare Astarial to be Duchess, or Lady, or Countess of the Warzone European province, and you can then give her as much power as she wants or needs over the local government of Warzone Europe.

Well, she already has final authority over Warzone Europe.  She gave us the privilege of having our own native government, provided she retain her absolute power (which she uses sparingly) over the region.  My guess is that she is not going to like the idea of having absolute-authority-which-can-be-superseded over the region. Wink

Frederick William II

Posts : 6
Join date : 2014-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Llamas on Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:48 pm

Frederick William II wrote:I am unwilling to press the issue any further.
I'm good with that.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:My bad.  It was a long day at work yesterday Sad
'Tis OK. Everybody has bad days sometimes, and I hope you feel better today. :-)

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:As for being annoyed, you're going to have to deal with it.  You should be welcoming all complaints and criticism as opportunities to improve the constitution, instead of trying to have it be rubber-stamped.  I would have thought that someone with as much experience as an NS statesman as you claim to have would have been a bit more open to the concerns of a fellow delegate and native of a Warzone.
I'd like to say that I'm sorry and admit that I was wrong to get annoyed at your complaints. I should indeed have been more welcoming to criticism, and I acted this way probably because it was past midnight and I was tired when I wrote this. My sincerest apologies. However, I'm fairly certain you're not a delegate... O.o

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:You are not the "brilliant mastermind behind this plan," as you have previously stated.  Talk of the creation of a Pan-Warzone Union has been going on for months - in fact, the earliest mention of it that I can find is in a post I made 187 days ago when I was serving as an Internal Minister of Warzone Europe, and made the suggestion for the creation of a Pan-Warzone Union for mutual protection with the other Warzones.  It is only now that some action is being taken.  I thank you for your service to the Warzones, but I must say that you have come across to me as rather stiflingly arrogant.
That quote was meant to be a joke. Wink This is a common annoyance to people who don't know me well, and have only seen me over the internet; I sometimes appear to be self-aggrandizing and arrogant when I'm attempting to make a joke because tone doesn't exist on the internet. As you come to know me, you'll know that I say this kind of stuff a lot, but it's because I'm trying to appear humorous, not because I actually believe this.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:Perhaps I am misunderstanding your use of the phrase "outlined through the use of legislation" (I am looking at Article I, Section 2).  Does this not mean that the process for determining members of the ULA (i.e., for becoming a Citizen) will be decided through the passage of later legislation?  Why does it have to be later?  Why can't it be delineated right now in the constitution?  Or if I am in fact misinterpreting it... what the hell does it mean? Question 
Outlined through the use of legislation means that the naturalization process is going to be, well, determined by legislation. This is the norm for nearly every country on the planet. However, your pointing out of this does make me realize that there needs to be a way to become a citizen before there are any citizens in the UWR. Thanks.  Wink 

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:Wait, so you're saying that elections would make leadership change more dramatically, but then you're saying that changing the delegates is more difficult than just changing the Prime Minister.  Isn't changing the Prime Minister a more dramatic change than changing some of the delegates?
Changing the Prime Minister would, indeed, be slightly more dramatic, although it would be balanced out by the fact that replacing other Cabinet members would be a less sudden change; these two should balance out, not lead to a smoother transition on average. So, my apologies, my brain did a llama derp at that time, probably because it was so late. However, what I meant to say is that dramatic changes will happen less often, as Cabinet members will only be replaced when they fail to do their job correctly, not whenever a single region changes its representative.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:In the former, you end up with completely different leadership, whereas with the latter you end up with anywhere from a single new delegate (which wouldn't be very difficult to do) to six new delegates (which is quite unlikely and difficult to do).  Instead of ending up with completely new leadership every time the Prime Minister is changed,
Whenever the PM is changed, you don't end up with completely different leadership, because the whole Cabinet won't be replaced, just a single member.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:you would instead have varying degrees of change which would better reflect the peoples' desire for change in their government... assuming they are allowed to vote and are privy to the knowledge of how the delegates vote in the execution of their executive powers
1. Because all WZ's would have completely equal representation in the executive, regardless of population, in this scenario, it's inherently undemocratic. The other method of choosing the executives, on the other hand, is meant to take into account the wishes of the people while simultaneously preventing WZ's with larger populations from dominating over the smaller ones.
2. "Assuming they are allowed to vote and are privy to the knowledge of how delegates vote in the execution of their executive powers." That's a pretty big caveat. Under this system, avoiding exactly that is a real possibility. On the other hand, the current system makes sure that all citizens have a voice in the ULA, at least.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:Sure.  Except the way I see it, with a council of delegates being the executive instead of a single Prime Minister, you end up with six heads instead of one.
When was the last time you saw a six-headed snake? Exactly. By definition, a head (Well, brain, really) is the part of the body that controls the rest of it in order to make sure that they cooperate and act together effectively.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:Perhaps it would slow things down, but you would have the multiple opinions of the people directly in charge of the Warzones (the delegates) backing the executive decision.  That, one would think, lends much more validity to the decision than the approval/veto of a Prime Minister who could, as I understand it, feasibly have never served in any sort of leadership role.
Not quite sure what you mean here.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:Let's say a Prime Minister is selected.  He is a very active person, and has served in the ULA for quite some time... but that's it.  How are we supposed to expect that this "snake," to use your analogy, will have a good and effective head when this person has never served in a leadership role?  How can we expect that person to be able to be the leading executive authority of six inherently vulnerable regions, when he has never led even one?  You can't say that this situation will never happen because it could happen - insofar as I can tell, there are no prerequisites for being a Prime Minister besides simply being chosen.  That is very scary.
This sounds like an argument against democracy itself. However, the easy way to respond to this is that usually, a PM will be good, (The majority of people tend to be right a majority of the time; it's an actual, statistical phenomenon called the wisdom of the crowd) and when a PM is good and not shackled and held back by the fact that he has to deal with five other people who are less competent than him, he can advance further. Thus, this makes it simply be a bit more risky. Occasionally, the people will make mistakes, but they'll do so less often than they'll make the right choice. Imagine that you were taking a ten-question test, and were told that you had the choice between every correct answer boosting your grade by .1 or .2 percent; but every question you got incorrect would lower your grade by that same amount. Because it is very rare to get less than 50% on a test, choosing .2 percent is logical; more good than bad will be done over time.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:As for the supposed increase in corruption, I fail to see how the government/executive not being streamlined increases corruption.
Rather simply, because it's more difficult to remove a corrupt man from power if there's less streamlining, and because getting a large amount of people to agree on the same thing at the same time usually requires at least some degree of corruption, favor-doing, and personal relationships coming into play.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:I can see how it can increase inefficiency (which, in my opinion, is not a bad thing - provided the discussion is intelligent and focused, it is much more preferable to me that laws take longer to pass because of intelligent discussion and controversy than that they be passed quickly without much thought).
Increasing inefficiency is definitely bad. I think you've confused inefficiency with the time it takes to make a decision. I would agree with you that yes, making people think decisions through for a longer period of time and having multiple opinions come into play is usually a good thing. That's why the Cabinet exists; it's there to advise the PM to make good decision, and to advise both houses of the legislature. However, one should not confuse increasing the amount of time usually used for decision-making with mandating that this always be done. When there is no PM, a whole group of delegates would be forced to come to a consensus, which can take days or even weeks. This will be especially problematic when there is a crisis that requires immediate action, which a PM would be capable of

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:I don't quite understand.  Why is it desirable for the Executive to be accountable to the legislative?
1. Far easier and faster to pass legislation, as the executive won't veto everything that it disagrees with.
2. More effective and whole-hearted execution of laws. The executive will usually agree with the legislative because they are chosen and accountable to it, and is thus more likely to do its best to execute laws rather than attempt to stop the law from being effectively implemented.
3. Able to make quick changes in power structure when necessary. If the executive ends up being incompetent or bad, it can quickly be substituted for another.
4. Splits power between the people and regions. Because the ULA and the Senate have equal power, a good compromise is reached.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:And what problem could there possibly be in the legislative that would necessitate changing the Executive?
You've got it quite backwards. There could be a lot of problems in the executive that would necessitate its change: corruption, inability to respond to a crisis effectively, mismanagement, inactivity, etc. All these can be fixed if a legislative can replace a bad executive.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:Do you mean that if the Executive is being obstinate and continues to veto a law, and the legislative is unable to garner enough votes to override the veto (if that's even possible - I can't tell if the "repeal of legislation" described at the end of Article II, Section 2 applies in all cases or just in cases of an emergency), then the legislative can just do away with the Executive and get a new one to rubber stamp their law?
What? Please reread the constitution. The executive does not have the ability to veto laws. If the executive could veto laws, though, I'd make sure not to make him be accountable to the legislature, or else precisely this scenario would occur.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:I hardly see that as being desirable.  If that's the case, what the hell is the point of having an Executive in the first place, if the legislative can just get rid of an Executive they don't like whenever they want and replace him with one they do like?  Perhaps I am misunderstanding.
The purpose of the executive is not to veto laws, it is to execute them. Vetoes are a product of presidential systems like the American one. While I do think that presidential systems are a good idea, this isn't the proper place to try implementing one, because having a compromise between giving the people and individual regions power would be rather hard in a legislative, unless we tried something like the Electoral College, a system that I believe would not really work appropriately in this scenario (Or in any, really) for a variety of reasons.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:What?  In the system in the constitution, the ULA and the Senate choose the Executive.  The ULA and the Senate are comprised of the Citizens.  So in essence, the Citizens choose the Executive.  In the system I've proposed, the Citizens vote on the delegate of the Warzone in which they reside.  How do they not have control over the Executive?  The Executive is held accountable to the people, in the same way they are held accountable to the legislative people (because they are the same thing) in the system in the constitution.
The reason why it fails to give power to the people is because your system fails to take into account the larger or smaller sizes of some Warzones over others. A larger Warzone should, indeed, have more power in accordance with the concept of legitimate government authority being derived from the mandate of the masses. However, I also recognize that larger Warzones should not be completely dominant over smaller ones, which is why I proposed that they be granted equal representation in the Senate.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:Perhaps I am being a bit harsh on you, and I apologize for that.  I have trusted far too many promising individuals in this game who have then turned around and destroyed entire regions, or forums.  Too many of my own regions, both that I've been a part of and that I've founded myself, have been destroyed by trusting the wrong person.
I know that feeling, and I empathize. I used to be the delegate of Khora, a region whose founder was controlled by a group of people who all knew the password. One day, one of the people went into the account and passworded the region before proceeding to eject half the population. The region was ruined, and the following day, the person who was the #1 suspect for having done this created a completely new region and asked everyone to move there. We're not really all that different.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:Oh... I misinterpreted "the PM shall be selected through the use of legislation, approved by the majority of the Senate and the ULA" (Article II, Section 2) to mean "the process for selecting the PM shall be decided at a later time through the use of legislation."  My apologies.
Ah, you made a simple mistake. I'll fix the constitution to be a bit more clear on this. When I said that the PM and the Cabinet will be appointed through the use of legislation, I meant that the Senate and ULA will write a bill saying, "Campbell will be the PM, Llamas will be Minister of the Interior, Fritz will be the Minister of Defense..." going on to name all positions and who will be appointed to them; I'm not saying that the ULA and the Senate will pass a bill saying, "Who holds the position of PM shall be decided through the use of a hot dog eating contest. Who holds the position of Minister of the interior shall be determined by having all candidates attempt to knock each other out by hitting other candidates on the head with a frozen baguette; the last person to be knocked out wins. Who holds the position of Minister of Defense will be decided by having all candidates jump out a window and counting how many bones they broke. He who has broken the most bones without dying shall win..." You know, actually, maybe we should do the frozen baguettes and videotape it. That would be a lot of fun.

Friedrich Wilhelm der Zweite wrote:Well, she already has final authority over Warzone Europe.  She gave us the privilege of having our own native government, provided she retain her absolute power (which she uses sparingly) over the region.  My guess is that she is not going to like the idea of having absolute-authority-which-can-be-superseded over the region. Wink
There's a good way to alleviate that: Make sure she understands she's not losing power, she's trading it. She may lose power over WZ Europe to the UWR, but she would have the ability to influence decisions of the UWR, by controlling a seat in the Senate; and, seeing as how the UWR is going to end up being more powerful than WZ Europe, she'd have more or less broken even. She'd have traded 90% of a small pie for about 15% of a giant one.
avatar
Llamas

Posts : 118
Join date : 2014-05-05
Age : 18
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Lady Sari on Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:24 am

I can't believe I missed this.

Overall I would like to say I am in favour, but would rather have this more decentralized.

If you guys need a forum, I just learned how to code ZetaBoards and other programs. I could set one up for you guys.
avatar
Lady Sari
Admin

Posts : 128
Join date : 2014-03-23
Location : Hakodate

http://warzoneasiaofnspr.forum-board.net

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Ancian on Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:13 pm

I agree with frederick. Completly. I was gonna present my opinion but he's covered it fairly well. I think this should be a looser thing like option 4.

Ancian

Posts : 25
Join date : 2014-06-12
Age : 17
Location : Tennessee

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Llamas on Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:49 pm

Lady Sari wrote:Overall I would like to say I am in favour, but would rather have this more decentralized.
That's what I expected from a lot of people, but that's the cool thing about this idea: The government can be as centralized or decentralized as we make it. The Constitution doesn't mention many specifics, so I expect 2 major political ideologies to emerge: one advocating for more sovereignty and independence for individual warzones, the other in favor of unity and togetherness for them.

Lady Sari wrote:If you guys need a forum, I just learned how to code ZetaBoards and other programs. I could set one up for you guys.
That'll be great, thanks! Very Happy

Ancian wrote:I agree with frederick. Completly. I was gonna present my opinion but he's covered it fairly well. I think this should be a looser thing like option 4.
In that case, could you present some arguments for this?
avatar
Llamas

Posts : 118
Join date : 2014-05-05
Age : 18
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Minister Ismailiyah on Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:16 pm

Personally I think we should give Llamas plan a trial run and see if it is feasible and can please all parties. Then we can make improvements and build on that.
avatar
Minister Ismailiyah

Posts : 42
Join date : 2014-03-25
Age : 17
Location : South West England

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Ancian on Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:42 pm

Ancian wrote:I agree with frederick. Completly. I was gonna present my opinion but he's covered it fairly well. I think this should be a looser thing like option 4.
In that case, could you present some arguments for this?[/quote]
Arguments for...option 4??? Or...

Ancian

Posts : 25
Join date : 2014-06-12
Age : 17
Location : Tennessee

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Llamas on Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:03 pm

Ancian wrote:Arguments for...option 4??? Or...
Arguments for your position, meaning why you dislike this constitution.

In addition, I would like to add that I would be glad to talk to anyone on here who still has doubts about this constitution over Skype. My skype name is carlos.d.parada81.
avatar
Llamas

Posts : 118
Join date : 2014-05-05
Age : 18
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Lady Sari on Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:36 pm

I will begin work on the new forum immediately.

If one of WZEU's objections is that Asta would lose her position, their could always be a compromise. I am sure she wouldn't mind being crowned "Empress of All Warzones". :p
avatar
Lady Sari
Admin

Posts : 128
Join date : 2014-03-23
Location : Hakodate

http://warzoneasiaofnspr.forum-board.net

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Minister Ismailiyah on Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:22 pm

She wouldn't, but I'm pretty sure most people would mind having an empress. We are meant to be an independent republic. Emphasis on republic.
avatar
Minister Ismailiyah

Posts : 42
Join date : 2014-03-25
Age : 17
Location : South West England

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Lady Sari on Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:24 pm

We have to make compromises in order for this to work. If that is what Astarial wants and that is what we need for WZE support, then we will have to make some sort of compromise along that lines.
avatar
Lady Sari
Admin

Posts : 128
Join date : 2014-03-23
Location : Hakodate

http://warzoneasiaofnspr.forum-board.net

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Lady Sari on Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:48 pm

http://w11.zetaboards.com/United_Warzone_Rep/index/

Here is the beginnings of the Forum!
avatar
Lady Sari
Admin

Posts : 128
Join date : 2014-03-23
Location : Hakodate

http://warzoneasiaofnspr.forum-board.net

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Llamas on Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:51 pm

Lady Sari wrote:I will begin work on the new forum immediately.
You should probably hold off. We don't even have a constitution yet.

Lady Sari wrote:If one of WZEU's objections is that Asta would lose her position, their could always be a compromise. I am sure she wouldn't mind being crowned "Empress of All Warzones". :p
The only way that this would be acceptable to me is if Astarial agreed to be a constitutional monarch holding little to no power.
avatar
Llamas

Posts : 118
Join date : 2014-05-05
Age : 18
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Lady Sari on Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:52 pm

That's what I meant. A Constitutional Monarch/
avatar
Lady Sari
Admin

Posts : 128
Join date : 2014-03-23
Location : Hakodate

http://warzoneasiaofnspr.forum-board.net

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Llamas on Sat Jul 26, 2014 12:33 am

Lady Sari wrote:That's what I meant. A Constitutional Monarch/
I don't think she'd go with that.
avatar
Llamas

Posts : 118
Join date : 2014-05-05
Age : 18
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Minister Ismailiyah on Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:31 am

Well instead of ifs and buts why don't we ask her?
avatar
Minister Ismailiyah

Posts : 42
Join date : 2014-03-25
Age : 17
Location : South West England

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Llamas on Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:32 pm

Minister Ismailiyah wrote:Well instead of ifs and buts why don't we ask her?
I believe that Apulita is already doing this.
avatar
Llamas

Posts : 118
Join date : 2014-05-05
Age : 18
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Crisisies on Sun Jul 27, 2014 9:50 pm

I must say that my people would not like being ruled by an empress. Airspace has been a free state for all of its existence except for when we were raided. A very lenient compromise would be needed to satisfy the residents of WZAI.

Crisisies

Posts : 18
Join date : 2014-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum