[Ombrageux]

Given that key leaders (Paradigm, Nets) are missing, we won't be having a government for a while and discussion is moot.

In the meantime, it would be good to discuss what being a minister would mean in practice in terms of the game.

I am thinking:
* The Prime Minister proposes various legislation and the parliament votes. On major pieces of legislation, loss would mean a vote of no confidence for the government, requiring new elections and a new government.
* The various relevant ministers proposes projects and responds to developments, criticism by the opposition, the articles and questions of journalists etc.
* The source material for this criticism and topics can be directly based on real events. For foreign policy, we can literally react to real news about elections in other countries, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.
* The source material can also be inspired from real events. So, someone might report, inspired by the financial crisis, that New Clausewitz banks are non-viable and Maxim, Litvninov and Brothers will have to be closed down. Or the POP might have a fit over the arrival of a recent boat of Todolundese illegal immigrants..

I am not sure how we would police reasonable use of the last point. At one point I think we will eventually need an actual Game Master to rule on these things. On the other hand, I would hope that we could RP this stuff reasonable, and if our made-up stories are plausible and compelling enough, we won't need to turn to the GM too often.

[Zyx]

# Prime minister
# Finance minister
# Foreign minister
# Defence minister
# Information minister
# Interior minister
# Education minister
# Environment minister
# Health minister
# Justice minister
# Culture minister
# Agriculture minister
# Transport minister
# Commerce minister
# Energy minister
# Inland revenue minister
# Public works minister

(From Wikipedia)

Dole them out.

I do not know the Parliamentary system but seeing that list and knowing the American, I'll say that laws can only be proposed through the subordinate ministers (non-Prime) and the Prime Minister will order when each debate or vote takes place. That'd be fair.

Essentially, each minister should have an "Office" where issues are taken to that minister on that subject.

The ministers are from the majority coalition, of course--which is a shame, since, it looks like SN is not in that and there goes my chance (although I never had one) of being Energy Minister.

Either way, for the sake of this explanation, suppose that there is a thread called "Office of the Energy Minister" and I am the creator (hence it is my office.)

People will come with Environmental news etc. and I'll listen or tell some to shut up or whatever. After a while, I'd write up a bill and tell the PM that this is exigent. The PM will respond back that XYZ or it'll expect me to debate it on the Parliamentary Floor, etc. and I'll move accordingly. Finally, there will be a debate, a vote by the whole of Parliament, and I'll either go back to the drawing board or start a new legislation.

I think that this system seems rational, reasonable and r-----.

Btw, I love my laid back style of typing. Isn't it cool? I stop using words and just make up patterns--meh, I'm tired and should be in bed. Gl.

[Donna]

That seems to be too much, Zyx. Perhaps we can combine a few functions and duties.

[Zyx]

We as in "you and I."*

Umm, if you say so. You are free to suggest combination, I merely took the list from Wikipedia. We can, lol, make the topics the same as the topics on the forum--no, that wouldn't make sense and I only thought of it because I saw "Health and Education."

Umm, do you agree with the system at least? Of offices and what not?

I do disagree with being locked out of the Ministry positions. I mean, I never had a chance, but being locked out is different than not having a chance, you know.

*Ok, I should stop doing this word play stuff. Supposedly women (and other people) hate it.

[dilpill]

On major pieces of legislation, loss would mean a vote of no confidence for the government, requiring new elections and a new government.

Is this how most legislatures operate outside of the US?

I think motions of no-confidence, and motions to call elections should be completely separate from the failure of a piece of proposed legislation. If this was how our Parliament operated, most sessions of Parliament would last about 2 days before new week long elections were required.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

They should also require a 2/3 majority in order to go through.

[dilpill]

I would agree for motions to call elections. I also think that motions of no-confidence should have to be paired with either a government proposal or a motion to call elections so that we wouldn't have periods without operating governments other than right after elections.

All of this would probably have to be a constitutional amendment, which would require a 2/3rds majority...

Which brings me to a big question for pretty much anyone to answer. Does the Constitution have to be ratified, or is it already considered valid and working since the rules for the election were based off of it?

[Ombrageux]

Cheesecake - What? Why? That makes no sense. Only constitutional amendments (if anything) should require that kind of super-majority.

dipill - In parliamentary systems that is usually how it works. The government has a program, if it fails to pass that program, the government has failed and must be replaced by one with the confidence of the people (or the parliament, in any event). We might have a more lenient system so we don't have to replace the government because of minor legislation. But I do think on major pieces and policy planks, a failure to pass legislation is a vote of no confidence in the government's program. This might include pieces like: whether to adhere to foreign alliance or organization, whether to intervene in another country, the budget, welfare reform, fundamental defense strategy and so forth.

The U.S. is different in that it is not 'governed' in any traditional sense by the federal government/administration. You have the states doing most of the day-to-day stuff and a president (the executive) cannot dictate what Congress wants to pass (fairly often, his power is nil).

[Oxymoron]

If we want this to work, and to actually have fun with it we cannot dissolve goverments every time things get voted down. Lets try to make it realistic but more importantly we need to actually make it work or this will be another PoFo barbeque.

[Ombrageux]

And, thinking allowed, on the other hand, nothing prevents us from having a US-style or French-style system wherein the executive (say, an elected president) and the legislature (parliament) are separate and discrete entities.

That might make things pretty complicated though.

[ingliz]

Does the Constitution have to be ratified

Yes by 2/3 majority and all questions have to be answered concerning the exclusion of certain members from the process under the interim constitution, VfV's disallowed vote isn't going away.

ingliz, SN(R)RF: Official note

[Zyx]

How is my ministry office idea, anyway?

Is there a competing ministry arrangement? Link me, please.