Government Structure Poll

[Aidun]

What government structure do you like to let the second SPDG/C3DG have?

• A President with Vice President and ministers(US)
• A President with Prime Minister and ministers(France)
• A President with Chancellor and ministers(Germany)
• A King with Prime Minister and ministers(England, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden)

It needs some debate how we deal with a King: does he need to apporve bills? Should the King appoint the Prime Minister like is common with the VP (but not self-evident)

Keep in mind that we can still change the system while playing, that was also done in the first C3DG with the confirmation of the New Constitution. We need however some structure to start with.

Also don't think that a Prime minister automatically gas different rights than a Vice president or Chancellor, whether he serves under a President or a King.

The rights we give to each official is another debate and should not affect this poll. This poll is solely for the TITLES we give to each official, though, it would be strange to ELECT the KING, we can state that in the constitution. It should however NOT be decided in this poll.

Again, this poll is ONLY for the TITLES of each official.

Aidun

[UnOrthOdOx]

I WANT MY VP ELECTIONS BACK!!!!

I fully understand the reasoning why it is currently appointed, though.

Though, please, educate me in what you are meaning in the different options a bit more. IE, what are your intended 'powers' given the Pres/VP (since they appear the only ones to change)

And, for the record, terms 3 and 4 ran pretty much like a monarchy at times...you don't neccessarily need to write in 'king'.

[Aidun]

Unortho, the only thing that the voters can vote upon is what structure they want.

Which functions should be appointed or elected is another discussion.

About constitutional monarchy vs. republic: I find it important to write down all rules in details because the members of the game then can simply look in the Code of Laws or Constitution what is right, what wrong, what is expected from officials and what not.

I agree that every head of state will do it on his own way, but it seems better to me that we state clearly how the government is structured.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Let me rephrase.

What is the difference whether we call it a Pres/VP or a Pres/PM or a King/PM?

Arent they all the same in the end. One plays the game, one backs him up, and the ministers listen to the people and make orders?

Are these more than simple naming structures (as it appears to me at this point)

[Aidun]

Yes it are simply naming structures and we can choose in a later poll what powers we want to give each.

As I stated above in the updated first post it would howver be strange to have an elected King, but even that is possible.

Later on we can decide whether we want to let the Prime Minister play the game, backed by another minister, while the King obey's, or thet the king plays while the PM backs him.

The same counts for the President if we choose tho have a president as head of state: the German President is almost powerless like a modern King: he obey's while the Chancellor is the most powerful official although he is not the head of state. If we choose this form, then we can decide later if we want the Chancellor be backed by a Vice Chancellor or just a minister.

I'll give an example of what we can choose in a later stadium. Imagine that the outcome of this poll will be a President with a Prime Minister (French model) we can then decide to give this priime minister the same rights as the Vice President has in the US and the President the Same rights as the President has in the US.

We can also decide to use the German system of rights (weak Prez with strong 2nd person) with the French titles (Prez and PM).

We can even decide to have the system of rights of the US while using the monarchy model. Outcome: Strong King and a PM to back him. We can even additionally decide to elect the King like the Prez in the US

All is possible.

Aidun

[GodKing]

I don't see why this is necessary. Let the officials choose their own title.

[UnOrthOdOx]

My official stance on Roleplaying, as this appears to be.

We should not include it into the constitution (or other governing document) for the following reasons:

First, it forces people into what role they will have to play. Perhaps someone would not wish to become a 'king' while other's would. Writing such a position forces the person into playing a specific role.

Second. It implies that Roleplaying is required to become a part of the demo game. If it is in the Constitution (Or other governing Document) it gives the impression that it is intended as an official part of the game. The constitution (OOGD) IMO should only be used to state the basic make-up and official IN GAME rules/limits for the governing body, court, and official polls.

There are some out there who would oppose the whole concept of Roleplaying. Why scare them off by writing rules governing that intertwined with the actual gameplay?

It is for these two reasons I am opposed to this whole concept being included in the Costitution (OOGD).

Personally, I want to just sit back and find a role for myself as well, not be forced into playing a King, PM, or other creation of an outside document. I am saying this would even be enough for me to never run for office if I felt trapped into playing along with such a thing. Leave it outside the constitution please.

I am also adamantly opposed to such a thing as a King if they were not subject to regular elections. This is not a volunteer forum like the Roleplay team in PTW, where we all agree to the concept and have plenty of choices if that is not what we want. This is an open forum for all. Im sure Togas keeps you all involved and informed in PTW, but I don't see such a system as friendly for new members out here.

[MrWhereItsAt]

/me is getting confused

Um..

Can we just have a President (who plays the game), a Vice President (who helps the President and plays if the Prez cannot), and Ministers (who poll on orders and tell the Prez/VP wht to do)? Having the choice of a Prez who has no power vs one who does have power is just a change in the names. Please let's stick to what we know.

There's nothing stopping anyone grom declaring their position something different for RP reasons. For example, when I was Minister of Defence in the Civ2 Demo game (waaaay back), I renamed myself first Minister of WAR and then Supreme Military Commander. This latter name has stuck around, but it is still the same job.

Let's just have in whatever Constitution we make up a reference to Prez/Vp/Ministers, and in the copurce of the game call them whatever we want. If the Constitution sticks to the naming conventions we have used so far, then we can use these names whenever we want to avoid confusion.

[joncnunn]

Neither the French nor German structure.

On the Consitional Monarchy idea:

That would give the King very little to do even though presumpoly it would be the same person the entire game. As I recall, in the UK, even the Queen's speach is pre-approved by the Prime Minister.

[Aidun]

The King can appoint decendants and we can limit the term of the King like we'll do for the other officials. We can give the King as much to as we wish.

The example from real life: the dutch King (currently a queen) is one of the post powerful Kings in Europe: The King has the power to appoint the leader of the formation negotiations, who becomes commonly after the negotiations Prime Minister of the new cabinet. The dutch King has also the the power to discharge individual ministers or the intire cabinet. These powers are but never by the dutch King, who fears for his (her) position if she would openly use these rights.
In cantrast, the Swedish king has no political power at all.

Aidun

[UnOrthOdOx]

ABSOLUTELY NO WAY AM I GOING FOR A KING WHO APPOINTS HIS OWN DECENDANTS!

Figures it is a member of the DIA that is looking for a way to cloud the minds of the people with roleplaying so they can have a permanant king over this game.

May I most humbly suggest that if you truly wish to rename our officials, we pattern those names after the civ we choose in game? After all, Prime Minister of the Celts doesn't really sound right, does it?

[Aidun]

And may I most humbly suggest that you guy's are trying to find the extremes of this? Unortho you have good points. But let me rephrase that this was designed to have some creativity in the game, The Prez VP combination seemed to me to become a bit dull though easy. I guess that the opposition is too big, I thank you for your polite comments.

Let's leave the issue, it's ceased.


Aidun

[MrWhereItsAt]

I didn't know this was so heated. Aidun - I'm still not 100% certain what you've been wanting to do - it certainly sounded interesting. My post above was just made in utter confusion.

If you really are giving your idea up here, try it out in the CityStates development - a more RP way of doing things may fit in perfectly there.

[UnOrthOdOx]

My objection is to a government position that is not subject to votes, IE a Monarch who appoints a replacement.

I think it would be a good idea to instead of voting this now, pattern the govt names after the Civ we pick as well, if we truly want to do that.

[DAVOUT]

May I ask if this is a true democracy game? I mean a game where democracy issues are as important as the game issues; or a game where the democracy aspect is neglected as soon as somebody says : I just want the game going on.

Both are possible, and fine, provided it is clearly established from the beginning. Perhaps a poll would help?