Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
bing

Administration

Founder: Culture of Life (IND)
Viceroy: Aawia (CFP)


Presidential Cabinet

President: Imperii Ecclesia (CFP)
Army: The RCS (CFP)
Foreign: Roman Catholic Federation (RTF)
Interior: Cocles (RTF)


Executive Commissions

Library Commission (dormant)
News Commission (dormant)




REGION OF RIGHT TO LIFE
Established June 1, 2011




Current Population: nations
Record Population: 193 nations
Regional Power Rating:


23rd Senate

Speaker: New Missouri (RTF)
Senator: New Waldensia (CFP)
Senator: Catholic State of Eire (CSP)


High Court

Chief Justice: New Dolgaria (LLC)
Justice: Roman Catholic Federation (RTF)
Justice: Phydios (CFP)


Right to Life Army

Successful Missions: 48
Last Mission: July 11, 2018

Welcome to the official offsite forums of Right to Life, the premier pro-life region on NationStates. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forums as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board, and there are some features that you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections and use many member-only features, such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Click here to join our community!

If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 7
Reforming the Constitution; Three Ideas from the Founder
Topic Started: Wednesday May 24 2017, 01:30 AM (837 Views)
Culture of Life
Member Avatar
William F. Buckley

Posted Image
The June 2017 election is almost here. As I mentioned on the regional message board, I think the 19th Senate should consider reforming the regional constitution. Here are my three ideas:
  • An Independent Delegate: Since 2012, the President and the WA Delegate of Right to Life have been the same person. In 2012, this made a lot of sense because, in the game, the Delegate was the only nation with whom the Founder could share executive powers. As you might recall, NationStates added regional officers in October 2015, forever changing the dynamics of regional management. Our constitution has not been adjusted to account for this major change, and I've been wondering lately whether it might be a good idea to separate the presidency and the delegacy. The President would be elected forum-side and would continue to serve as the head of government. The Delegate would continue to be elected game-side and would focus exclusively on matters related to the World Assembly -- resolutions, endorsements, etc.

  • An Independent Executive: Related to the proposal above, it also might be reasonable to take the President out of the Senate, thereby separating the executive and legislative branches. Of course, this has been proposed several times in the past. Removed from the legislative process, the President could focus his attention on making Right to Life a better, more active region through various programs, initiated and carried out by himself and his ministers. The role of the Founder would continue to be primarily administrative -- keeping the region peaceful and orderly and enforcing its laws (with the needed assistance of moderators and other officials).

  • A Flexible Senate: A perennial issue in regional politics has been the size of the Senate. Right now, the Senate has three members: the President and two senators. In the past, the Senate had five members: the President, a Vice President, and three senators. The five-member Senate was abandoned, and we returned to the three-member Senate because there were simply not enough players willing to run for the extra two seats. If the second proposal above were adopted, there would be three senators, elected once every four months. I think three is a good number for a region our size, but we should provide for the Senate's expansion for the times when activity and interest are unusually high. My recommendation: the Senate will have three members, unless more than six candidates run. If more than six candidates run, the number of senators elected will be equal to one-half of the number of candidates, fractions rounded down. To prevent tied votes, if the number of senators is even (e.g., a four-member Senate), we could give the President a casting vote.



Of course, the main concern would be staffing -- getting enough players to fill all of the offices:
  • Executive Council
    Founder
    President
    Delegate
    Foreign Minister
    Interior Minister

  • Regional Senate
    Senator
    Senator
    Senator

  • Independent Officers
    Bank Director
    Cartographer
    Justice of the Peace
    News Director
The only possible solution that I see would be to minimize the number of restrictions on citizens serving in multiple offices. In my opinion, the only necessary restrictions would be the following:
  • The Founder may not serve as the President, a senator, or the Justice of the Peace.
  • The President may not serve as a senator or the Justice of the Peace.
  • A senator may not serve as the Justice of the Peace.
Consequently, all 12 regional offices could conceivably be staffed by as few as six players. For example:
  • Executive Council
    Founder -- A
    President -- B
    Delegate -- B
    Foreign Minister -- C
    Interior Minister -- D

  • Regional Senate
    Senator -- C
    Senator -- D
    Senator -- E

  • Independent Officers
    Bank Director -- E
    Cartographer -- F
    Justice of the Peace -- F
    News Director -- A
Edited by Culture of Life, Wednesday May 24 2017, 01:43 AM.
The Christian Democratic Nation of Culture of Life
------------------------------------------
Pope Saint John Paul II
 
Saint Teresa of Calcutta
 
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Replies:
Culture of Life
Member Avatar
William F. Buckley

United Massachusetts
Thursday May 25 2017, 05:35 PM
I'm in favor of the proposals, though it causes me to think that the Presidency will be essentially worthless. What would a President really do?
I'd like to see the President take an active role in promoting in-game and forum activity. Under a revised system, he would be in charge of appointing all officers and would advise the Founder on the exercise of the veto power. Also, the Senate could give him a special bank account, from which he could spend public monies for promoting various causes. I'd like to see him do a little bit of everything.
The Christian Democratic Nation of Culture of Life
------------------------------------------
Pope Saint John Paul II
 
Saint Teresa of Calcutta
 
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Free States
Member Avatar

Can't the president hold veto power himself?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Culture of Life
Member Avatar
William F. Buckley

Free States
Thursday May 25 2017, 06:20 PM
Can't the president hold veto power himself?
It's possible that he could have a veto too. Right now, I use my (absolute) veto power only on extraordinary occasions -- once every six years.

In your opinion, what would be the benefit of letting the President (head of government) have a veto, versus the Founder (head of state) using his own veto on the advice of the President? Also, what if a bill were supported by the entire Senate; should the President still be allowed to veto?

Example: The Senate passes a bill 2-1 and sends it to me. I ask the President what he thinks, and he tells me to veto it. I veto it and return it to the Senate. The Senate considers the President's objections and passes a new version of the bill 3-0. The President tells me to veto it again. Assuming that the bill is constitutional and that it does not violate anybody's rights, should I veto it or sign it?
The Christian Democratic Nation of Culture of Life
------------------------------------------
Pope Saint John Paul II
 
Saint Teresa of Calcutta
 
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Free States
Member Avatar

I think the senate with an unanimous vote could overturn a veto.
Personally I think the founder shouldn't hold much formal power within the government, but that's just my view on how regions should be run.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
United Massachusetts
Member Avatar
Archbishop Óscar Romero

Culture of Life
Thursday May 25 2017, 06:32 PM
Free States
Thursday May 25 2017, 06:20 PM
Can't the president hold veto power himself?
It's possible that he could have a veto too. Right now, I use my (absolute) veto power only on extraordinary occasions -- once every six years.

In your opinion, what would be the benefit of letting the President (head of government) have a veto, versus the Founder (head of state) using his own veto on the advice of the President? Also, what if a bill were supported by the entire Senate; should the President still be allowed to veto?

Example: The Senate passes a bill 2-1 and sends it to me. I ask the President what he thinks, and he tells me to veto it. I veto it and return it to the Senate. The Senate considers the President's objections and passes a new version of the bill 3-0. The President tells me to veto it again. Assuming that the bill is constitutional and that it does not violate anybody's rights, should I veto it or sign it?
I'd support giving the President a veto.
Edited by United Massachusetts, Thursday May 25 2017, 06:55 PM.
United Massachusetts
Former Foreign Minister and Senator, Current Director of News
Proud Member of the Liberals for Life Coalition
A Believer in the Consistent Life Ethic
But Most Importantly, A Catholic Christian
We are still stronger together

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Dwight Eisenhower

The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.
-Mother Theresa
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stellonia
Member Avatar


Culture of Life
Wednesday May 24 2017, 10:39 PM
I like proportional representation (PR) and acknowledge that it would be the best system in theory. In practice, however, STV would be impossible to implement. Random ballot allocation would be arbitrary, and fractional ballot allocation would be very difficult and very confusing to citizens. There are, of course, other PR systems; but all of them discriminate against independent candidates. I think we should consider [wiki]cumulative voting[/wiki] (a semi-proportional system).
What are your thoughts on [wiki]range voting[/wiki]?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Culture of Life
Member Avatar
William F. Buckley

Free States
Thursday May 25 2017, 06:36 PM
Personally I think the founder shouldn't hold much formal power within the government, but that's just my view on how regions should be run.
If foundership is like monarchy, I'm not an absolutist nor a republican. I believe in constitutional, or limited, monarchy. I know that [region]the Allied States[/region], for instance, has a founder without any power. Other regions have founders whose power is nearly unlimited. For example:
  • [region]Equinox[/region]: "The Hierarch is at their own liberty to create and remove Staff of the Hierarchy and Judiciary as they see fit. . . . The Hierarch maintains the ability to override decisions and policies of the government as well as taking control of the executive and legislative branches in times of inactivity or emergency. . . . The Hierarch has the ability to disband Guilds and dismiss the Chancellor, Speaker, and Guild Masters. . . . The Hierarch maintains the ability to dissolve the Constitution of Equinox during times of extreme emergency that is determined by the Hierarch."

  • [region]Wintercrest[/region]: "The WA Delegacy shall be maintained by our revolutionary leaders [two co-founders]. . . . Decrees issued by our revolutionary leaders, containing both signatures, shall be enacted as law immediately upon issue and may supercede any contradictory law, and hold primacy over all other laws. . . . The revolutionary leaders may opt to dissolve an ineffective Government or any public position. . . . [T]he revolutionary leaders may enact a decree of banishment on an individual citizen, non-citizen, or foreign national."

  • [region]Wintreath[/region]: "The Overhusen [upper house] shall be comprised of no less than three and no more than five Peers appointed by the Monarch of Wintreath. . . . All Executive authorities and duties shall be vested in the Monarch of Wintreath. . . . The Monarch shall have the authority to delegate Executive powers and duties to subordinate officials and to create subordinate offices at his or her discretion. . . . The Monarch shall have the authority to serve as World Assembly Delegate of Wintreath or to delegate the authority to a subordinate official."
In the [region]10000 Islands[/region], there is a nine-member legislature: the founder, the delegate, three ministers, and four senators. All three ministers are appointed by the founder, so four-ninths of the legislature is unelected. The constitution also says that the legislature serves "at his need and pleasure."

In [region]Right to Life[/region], I believe the best path is moderation, similar to the constitution of [region]Europeia[/region] or the constitution of [region]Equilism[/region]. Have a founder who's moderately powerful. Leave appointments (of ministers) to elected officials, let the delegate and other major officeholders be elected, protect them from arbitrary removal by the founder, and have an independent judiciary. Right to Life's constitution specifies: "Judicial acts of the Senate cannot be vetoed by the Founder or any other official" (RTL Const. 4:9).
The Christian Democratic Nation of Culture of Life
------------------------------------------
Pope Saint John Paul II
 
Saint Teresa of Calcutta
 
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Free States
Member Avatar

I don't feel much strongly about this. Only thing that I believe is necessary is to have provisions for whenever the founder goes inactive.
On voting system, I prefer FPTP considering the low number of seats. If you had more seats, then proportional makes more sense.
Edited by Free States, Thursday May 25 2017, 07:54 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
United Massachusetts
Member Avatar
Archbishop Óscar Romero

Stellonia
Thursday May 25 2017, 07:48 PM
Culture of Life
Wednesday May 24 2017, 10:39 PM
I like proportional representation (PR) and acknowledge that it would be the best system in theory. In practice, however, STV would be impossible to implement. Random ballot allocation would be arbitrary, and fractional ballot allocation would be very difficult and very confusing to citizens. There are, of course, other PR systems; but all of them discriminate against independent candidates. I think we should consider [wiki]cumulative voting[/wiki] (a semi-proportional system).
What are your thoughts on [wiki]range voting[/wiki]?
I'm with cumulative voting. It's simple enough, will allow people to support opposition parties, and effectively solves the same problems that STV resolves.
United Massachusetts
Former Foreign Minister and Senator, Current Director of News
Proud Member of the Liberals for Life Coalition
A Believer in the Consistent Life Ethic
But Most Importantly, A Catholic Christian
We are still stronger together

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Dwight Eisenhower

The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.
-Mother Theresa
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Culture of Life
Member Avatar
William F. Buckley

Stellonia
Thursday May 25 2017, 07:48 PM
Culture of Life
Wednesday May 24 2017, 10:39 PM
I like proportional representation (PR) and acknowledge that it would be the best system in theory. In practice, however, STV would be impossible to implement. Random ballot allocation would be arbitrary, and fractional ballot allocation would be very difficult and very confusing to citizens. There are, of course, other PR systems; but all of them discriminate against independent candidates. I think we should consider [wiki]cumulative voting[/wiki] (a semi-proportional system).
What are your thoughts on [wiki]range voting[/wiki]?
I'm afraid it'd lead to "burying."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting#Burying
The Christian Democratic Nation of Culture of Life
------------------------------------------
Pope Saint John Paul II
 
Saint Teresa of Calcutta
 
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Senate · Next Topic »
Locked Topic
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 7

more Quotes

Edge created by tiptopolive from Zathyus Networks
(with modifications made by this board)