1 hour ago, Capt Wolf said:

Regarding size of the Colonial Council, I have to agree with Bregir: the size is too big for the player base. I think 1 seat for each TC instead of 2, and 1 seat for independent traders instead of 3, would work better. Additionally, 1 seat for each region of colonies (currently 3, but presumably will grow). That gives us 7+, which would be about half of the 12-15 active players in the faction right now.

This sounds rather good to me - we definitely need to limit the number of seats so that only about half of the active members are on the council at any given time, or else it will be altogether far too large for the member base   Those seven members (Kai's idea) could have as many in-game characters in the council as their heart could wish, but each of the seven members would get only three votes.  This would add a layer of depth to the council and expand it into the larger representative assembly we want it to be, instead of being a tiny little group of about seven elitist fellows - plus it would add the possibility of playing your own characters off each other, and let their own in-game views affect their voting.  All in all I think it an intriguing idea! 

Oh, and of course, the Prime Minister.  My ideas as to that would be the following, let's here what you all think of it:

Every so often (bi-yearly, maybe?  We'd decide this when all the terms are decided) we would run a Prime Minister building and campaigning contest, the winner of which (decided by a general vote) would receive the situation, and would receive five votes, as opposed to the other members' three.  A member of the Council would of course be able to run, but whoever wins the Prime Minister position would have to give up their other seat.  The other requirement would be a stock of at least, say, 500 PIPs (personal influence points, and it only makes sense to play them in here), of which 100 PIPs would be spent upon being voted into the office.

As some of you all might know, a similar Prime Minister campaign is run in GoH's Mitgardia (though of course, a little less complicated ), and I really like the idea of making it a contest and vote.

1 hour ago, Capt Wolf said:

I actually think the Premier Magistrate shouldn't be controlled by leadership, nor set policy, but should be able to prompt the councils to consider issues if necessary. The colonial council (with strong TC representation) will be the real power (and the continental council is leadership's check on the players). The PM would be beholden to the councils, so couldn't actually set policy and such, but would be able to carry it out with a cabinet of characters from other players. Something to consider: in this scenario, would a player/character be able to fill both a cabinet role and a seat in the council?  

This exactly   I'm afraid the whole cabinet thing might make it a little overly complicated if we allow members to be in other members' cabinets, so I'd say that every member of the Council (and the Prime Minister, of course) could have their own cabinet if they please, but that the seats of the Council should be enough positions, just to avoid this thing growing to an unsustainable size! 

@All you outsiders,   Glad to hear we're entertaining you all!    Fire away with any suggestions you've got!

And @Kwatchi, Oh, I'm pretty sure all the scheming will come naturally enough once we get there!   The two party system of Royalists and Republicans is a very interesting idea - we'll have to think on that a bit and how it might be able to play out! 

On another note, two pages already!?  I'll have to update the first post with the current lookout pretty soon so as not to get to far gone!   Will try to do that some time later today if possible!

@Kwatchi and @Kolonialbeamter - you've got a good point about setting things up so TCs can play off against each other.  I also like the Republican vs. Royalist concept.  Part of me though is scandalized at the idea of trying to build blackmailing, bribing, and intrigue into a system.  

I very much like Capt Wolf's basic idea - one seat for a member from each TC (the TCs can decide how to elect/appoint that member on their own), an "independent trader" (elected by vote among all non-TC Eslandians? though I don't know who would be doing the voting...  ) and then 1 member from each of three regions.  Those last three could be chosen by the other four?  It doesn't make much sense to vote for them, and voting can be a pain.  Then on top of that, I agree with Garmadon that we should have a Eslandola-wide vote for Prime Minister, incorporating the fact that this is a building game.  We would require at least one build presenting the campaign, and possibly to be elegible a member should have 500+ FiPs (so that we don't exclude new members, but don't leave it open to someone who's only just joined).

Each member of the council, as Garmadon mentioned I suggested, could have 3 votes, just for fun.  Those could be divided between a player's NPCs if desired... you could even have two NPCs that lean towards say Republican and play another as a Royalist.   Maybe the Prime Minister should get 5 votes?

7 minutes ago, Kai NRG said:

1 member from each of three regions.  Those last three could be chosen by the other four?

Wouldn't it make sense for those regions to chose their own representatives? If there is only one builder, he would obviously pick himself...

I don’t see the need for multiple votes per council member, or multiple characters for each player in the council. It all seems like an unnecessary layer of complication to it. The players will either make this interesting or not with what we do with it (building, creating stories, etc) and I don’t think this makes that any more likely. Let’s keep things simple. (And involving 7 out of 15 players doesn’t sound very elitist to me! That’s half the active members of the faction in the council! And those seven would be representatives of constituencies that can tell their own story in builds – and replace them at the first opportunity – if their rep isn’t doing what they want.)

And while I like the idea of incorporating building into a campaign for PM, I wouldn’t want the position decided on quality of build. Ultimately, the players should choose the PM in some fashion, and there should be builds involved to tell the story, but pegging it all on a build-off will, in my opinion, drive DOWN participation, not increase it. (See my idea below for how to incorporate building into this process.)

Also, until PIPs and FIPs are actually used in the game, I think we should keep all mention of them out of this process. Essentially, they don’t exist yet (at least as a usable entity). Furthermore, emphasizing PIPs and FIPS will drive this toward an elitist system that we’re trying to avoid.

As for how often there would be elections or whatnot, by “bi-yearly” do you mean twice per year or once every two years? I would object to the latter; I would say it should be no more than a year between elections.

Elections themselves could be simple polls of the faction members. Trade company members would vote for TC reps to the council, and mayors/governors would vote for reps from their region. Players who are not mayors/governors could simply choose which region they are most connected to and vote in that poll. I’d throw the other council position open to the faction citizenry at large. However, to be eligible to receive votes for any council seat, a player would have to build a campaign MOC of some sort. As for the PM, this could either be a faction-wide vote, or a vote of the colonial council. Personally, I think the latter adds a level of intrigue and will get the TCs maneuvering against one another moreso than anything else.

Edited November 15, 20168 yr by Capt Wolf

For the Colonial Council seats number, I was only referring to proportional population representation. Player control of responsibilities had nothing to do with it. The reason I went with the larger numbers was to allow for fractional division within the various parties. The TCs could be divided among its members on a particular issue, and it also gives room for lobbying among the independent seafarers as well as the islands' representatives.

About player control, I do think MOCs are a good way to apportion the how the Colonial Council votes.

14 minutes ago, gedren_y said:

<snip>

About player control, I do think MOCs are a good way to apportion the how the Colonial Council votes.

@gedren_y, I'd like to hear more about how you'd use MOCs with regard to Council votes. Would this be for all votes or just certain votes? Build-offs or just storytelling required before the vote can happen?

Periodically a bill goes before the Colonial Council, and will need a certain number of votes to pass. There should be some players that represent Council members for the vote, which in total should be less than the number needed to pass a vote. A build off with the interested factions, multiple builders on each side. Team score wins votes for the faction, and the top score from each faction casts the votes how they see fit. That way there is room for the 'faithless elector' that can choose to vote against party.

The builds themselves should be thematic to the bill, but still be period.

This format also lends to the larger Council numbers.

2 hours ago, Capt Wolf said:

I don’t see the need for multiple votes per council member, or multiple characters for each player in the council. It all seems like an unnecessary layer of complication to it. The players will either make this interesting or not with what we do with it (building, creating stories, etc) and I don’t think this makes that any more likely. Let’s keep things simple. (And involving 7 out of 15 players doesn’t sound very elitist to me! That’s half the active members of the faction in the council! And those seven would be representatives of constituencies that can tell their own story in builds – and replace them at the first opportunity – if their rep isn’t doing what they want.)

Well, my own personal opinion would be that it would add quite enough to the council to make up for the small amount of complications it would entail.  And, no, of course I didn't mean that 7 (or 8) out of 15 players was an elitist approach!   In fact, I entirely agree with you on the number of members we should have and how they should be apportioned - but what I meant was that seven in-context characters meant to represent all the hundreds or thousands of Eslandolans in the New World does seem a bit elitist.  The three votes/characters for each member would be meant entirely for story propagation and to in-game people the Congress up into a more representative assembly.  Let's see what the others think about that, anyways 

2 hours ago, Capt Wolf said:

And while I like the idea of incorporating building into a campaign for PM, I wouldn’t want the position decided on quality of build. Ultimately, the players should choose the PM in some fashion, and there should be builds involved to tell the story, but pegging it all on a build-off will, in my opinion, drive DOWN participation, not increase it. (See my idea below for how to incorporate building into this process.)

Also, until PIPs and FIPs are actually used in the game, I think we should keep all mention of them out of this process. Essentially, they don’t exist yet (at least as a usable entity). Furthermore, emphasizing PIPs and FIPS will drive this toward an elitist system that we’re trying to avoid.

As for how often there would be elections or whatnot, by “bi-yearly” do you mean twice per year or once every two years? I would object to the latter; I would say it should be no more than a year between elections.

Are you at all familiar with the Mitgardian Prime Minister races?  No, of course it would not be based exclusively on the build, and the voters would not be voting on a build-off, but rather on who they think the Prime Minister should be based on their story, character, promises, and general political outlook.  And on whose trash-talking they liked best,  

Perhaps you're right about the PIPs and FIPs - but we were just thinking, they're there, let's get some use out of them!   No, no, definitely not once every two years!!!  I was thinking something like twice a year for the Prime Minister, and quarterly for the Colonial Council - I really think that less more than that would be quite unwise and altogether not a good idea 

2 hours ago, Capt Wolf said:

Elections themselves could be simple polls of the faction members. Trade company members would vote for TC reps to the council, and mayors/governors would vote for reps from their region. Players who are not mayors/governors could simply choose which region they are most connected to and vote in that poll. I’d throw the other council position open to the faction citizenry at large. However, to be eligible to receive votes for any council seat, a player would have to build a campaign MOC of some sort. As for the PM, this could either be a faction-wide vote, or a vote of the colonial council. Personally, I think the latter adds a level of intrigue and will get the TCs maneuvering against one another moreso than anything else.

Well, you see, I really don't think that many polls are necessary - but if you other TCs can't agree on anything without a poll, I suppose that's all your problem!   Captain B and I should be able to handle the thing without them (and probably couldn't handle appointments with it! ).  Also, if you want to require a build for any player to be eligible, I definitely would limit that at least to the four seats based on regions and independents.  Interesting idea with the Prime Minister election being only decided upon by the Council - but given the trash-talk oriented sort of campaign I imagine, I'd probably prefer seeing it a general all Eslandola election (or even all BoBS election - which, I may remark to all of you who are giving me a blank stare just now, works perfectly well in GoH  )

Thank you, @Garmadon. The assembly size needs to be representative of the Eslandolan population they are representing. The characters who's votes get controlled by players should be limited. The remaining votes should be apportioned by some kind of MOC competition, however it is judged. How we decide who the controlling players are is another matter. However the decision is made, it should have to be redone every election cycle. You want to maintain power in the Colonial Council, you have to get reelected.

Unless there is a pressing matter, there should probably be only one bill before the Colonial Council a month, to minimize the load on the overall game play.

Elections for PM by MOC as well? Maybe if one of the criteria being story, and that it have a minimum of multiple builds.

3 hours ago, Capt Wolf said:

...And while I like the idea of incorporating building into a campaign for PM, I wouldn’t want the position decided on quality of build. Ultimately, the players should choose the PM in some fashion, and there should be builds involved to tell the story, but pegging it all on a build-off will, in my opinion, drive DOWN participation, not increase it. (See my idea below for how to incorporate building into this process.)...

Good point about not wanting the PM to be determined on the basis of building skills.  Simply requiring a campaign MOC doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.  I'm not sure however that a campaign MOC should be required for every seat.

I guess it does make sense for the regional seats to be elected by members deciding what region they belong to and voting thusly.  Garmadon has talked me over to quarterly as well.

As for the TC seats, each TC can decide how it wants to do those on its own.  If ETWC thinks a poll is pointless for them, well, I agree! 

Having the independent trader be elected by all Eslandola seems like the only way to have an independent trader actually being elected by more than... 3 people... or something like that.   But if we do it that way, then I like the suggestion of having the PM elected by the Council members (because the independent trader would be the popularly elected member).

44 minutes ago, Garmadon said:

...I'd probably prefer seeing it a general all Eslandola election (or even all BoBS election - which, I may remark to all of you who are giving me a blank stare just now, works perfectly well in GoH  )

'Course it can work in GoH, because who the PM is doesn't matter.   But I don't think we really want the Corries pumping votes towards a pro-Corry PM!

3 hours ago, Capt Wolf said:

I don’t see the need for multiple votes per council member, or multiple characters for each player in the council. It all seems like an unnecessary layer of complication to it...

But you wouldn't have to create multiple players if you didn't want to.  You could just have one character, and be counted three times.  But for those who would like to boost the quantity of people on the council, or just have some fun with more NPC characters, 3 votes would give them some options.

OK, you have persuaded me that multiple votes for each player on the council makes sense. And yes, I meant builds for the broadly elected seats, not the TC seats. As for frequency of elections, I'd be in favor of at least 6 months. Three months sounds like all we'd ever be doing is having elections, and I have trouble imagining that the council is going to have business before it every month. Now, that first term will be busy I'm sure, but I'd think things would calm down a bit.

I'd still love to find a way to work the old unfilled cabinet positions into the game in some way. Presumably we'd still need a minister of war, minister of trade, etc., that could act periodically at the behest of the council or PM.

I see what @Capt Wolf means about the bills and elections being more spaced.

I don't think the TC player controlled seats should always be automatic. The first round, yes, but after that all the 'seafarers seats' I described (including the independent seats) should be up for 'election', however we do it. Think of the TCs as the money backing the major political parties. Money in politics, that's Eslandola alright. The islands' seats control positions would be competed for by other TC members in any event.

The King's Port Advertiser might have something to say about all this.

If I were an independent trader, and you told me that the TC's would have a vote in electing my candidate, I would most definitely revolt! Isn't the whole point that this seat is to represent non-tc interests? The amount of voters isn't important. (Just like the TC with just two members)

 

9 hours ago, Capt Wolf said:

I'd still love to find a way to work the old unfilled cabinet positions into the game in some way. Presumably we'd still need a minister of war, minister of trade, etc., that could act periodically at the behest of the council or PM.

We could certainly grant meaningless titles for flair.   Suppose someone does a great job on a campaign, we could give him the title of "Minister of War."  And so on.

5 hours ago, Bregir said:

If I were an independent trader, and you told me that the TC's would have a vote in electing my candidate, I would most definitely revolt! Isn't the whole point that this seat is to represent non-tc interests? The amount of voters isn't important. (Just like the TC with just two members)...

If we have a faction-wide vote, than the point obviously will no longer be to support non-TC interests (but to support faction interests).

No, amount of voters isn't important in theory, but do we really want to set up a poll that only two people can vote on?   I suppose if several elections are held at the same time, that would be okay.

@Capt Wolf - yeah, 3 months is awfully short.

9 hours ago, gedren_y said:

I don't think the TC player controlled seats should always be automatic. The first round, yes, but after that all the 'seafarers seats' I described (including the independent seats) should be up for 'election', however we do it. Think of the TCs as the money backing the major political parties. Money in politics, that's Eslandola alright. The islands' seats control positions would be competed for by other TC members in any event...

So the TCs would have to find some way to convince the public to re-elect their candidate?  Hmm.  Sounds intriguing, but also somewhat complicated (more elections).  And we wouldn't really want a TC to be left out.

Kai, if the TC's are already represented by their own candidate, why would they need influence over the independent candidate? That way, the TC's could "coup" that election and elect someone who would support giving the TC's advantages over independents.

Likewise, no one outside the specific TC should have any say in which candidate the TC elects, or how this is done.

These are not IC or OOC, but simple principles of good governance. People select their own candidate, and let other select theirs.

If you want everyone to have a say in all candidates, then have a free election were unaffiliated and TC candidates all run independently for all positions rather than a system with a representative for specific interest groups. Don't mix them up - it is unlikely to work out well.

My point was that there are fewer actual players that are independent. Player controlled seats are more likely to be held by TC members than not. I am not talking about TC appointed players, but just people who wish to hold office that happen to be members of a TC. Whether or not the TC as a whole has influence on how these people exercise their control would depend on the player. That is why I think the total block of player controlled votes should be less than that needed to pass a bill.

2 hours ago, Bregir said:

Kai, if the TC's are already represented by their own candidate, why would they need influence over the independent candidate? That way, the TC's could "coup" that election and elect someone who would support giving the TC's advantages over independents.

Likewise, no one outside the specific TC should have any say in which candidate the TC elects, or how this is done.

These are not IC or OOC, but simple principles of good governance. People select their own candidate, and let other select theirs.

If you want everyone to have a say in all candidates, then have a free election were unaffiliated and TC candidates all run independently for all positions rather than a system with a representative for specific interest groups. Don't mix them up - it is unlikely to work out well.

Certainly, if the "independent candidate" is meant to be truly independent from the TCs, then the TCs should have no say (even through their members in a private capacity) in his election.  But, there still would be a difference between an Eslandian-wide elected candidate and a candidate elected or chosen by a single TC.  So it wouldn't be a meaningless seat.  A player unaffiliated with a TC would have a chance.

Average, ordinary Eslandians are meant to be represented by the regional candidates, who may or may not be members of a TC.  The TCs do have a huge power hold on the government, and why would they create a seat specifically for non-TC members?  TC members do have advantages over non-TC members, already (monopolies).  Presumably a member who chose not to be part of a TC did so knowing that the TCs were the politically active entities of Eslandola, and knowing that any independent politicians would have an uphill climb.  And, an independent can always join a TC at any time.

That would be sort of in-character reasoning for not having a truly independent seat.

On the other hand, out of character, we do want independents to be represented.  The chance of getting elected to a regional seat and the general election seat (former independent seat) may not be enough.  But the more I think of it, the more I think it is.  A politically savvy independent could play the TCs off each other, presenting himself as unaffiliated and unbiased, just out there for the common minifigure - taking advantage of whatever the current political situation is.  Plus, Eslandola is supposed to be set up to encourage its members to participate in a TC.  From the outset, participation in the government was meant to be a perk of TC membership (specifically MCTC and ETWC).  By giving a seat that automatically goes to an independent, any given independent will probably have actually a higher probability of being elected than a given TC member (unless you're an ETWC member, of course  ).  That doesn't make sense, since it's supposedly the TCs who have the vast majority of the control in their hands.

My two cents on this issue...

11 hours ago, gedren_y said:

I see what @Capt Wolf means about the bills and elections being more spaced.

I don't think the TC player controlled seats should always be automatic. The first round, yes, but after that all the 'seafarers seats' I described (including the independent seats) should be up for 'election', however we do it. Think of the TCs as the money backing the major political parties. Money in politics, that's Eslandola alright. The islands' seats control positions would be competed for by other TC members in any event.

The King's Port Advertiser might have something to say about all this.

@gedren_y, I think the TC seats should remain controlled by the TCs. They're not just the money backing the political parties; for the most part, they ARE the political parties. They are the major power brokers in Eslandola, and it is totally IC for us to create a government that recognizes that. Given that, I was in error re-labeling your proposed seat for independents as an "at-large" seat. That was an OOC consideration based on the small pool of independent players. I now fully support that seat being truly independent, elected only by players unaffiliated with a TC.

As for the King's Port Advertiser, how dare you mention that Mardier propaganda rag in polite company!

2 hours ago, Bregir said:

These are not IC or OOC, but simple principles of good governance. People select their own candidate, and let other select theirs.

@Bregir, you non-Eslandolans wanted political intrigue between the TCs in Eslandola; well, here you go. There's jostling going on to determine who will have power in the new government, and I think that, whenever possible, IC considerations should win out. That is why I'm now supporting @gedren_y's truly independent seat on the council. And "good" is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure King Fernando thought our previous setup was quite good!

@Kai NRG, well said. We posted at the same time. And while IC the TCs would likely not be wild about granting an independent seat on the council, if that satisfies a segment of the populace that could be problematic otherwise, it is a reasonable concession for them to make IC.

35 minutes ago, Kai NRG said:

My two cents on this issue...

Well, as a Corlander, I am simply trying to help you design the objectively best possible system, ensuring representation of all. Letting the TC's have a say is fine, but then you also have to accept that it is not a seat representing independent traders, but rather a wildcard seat open for all (although in praxis, the largest TC would probably control it - Maybe that is why Kai likes the idea? ). I don't like the idea of de facto not having independents represented though, but if you Eslandians want an oppressive, tendentious regime, be my guest!

Perhaps the true solution would be to have 1 seat for each recognised TC (3), 1 for independents, 1 for each region (3), and one for a president/prime minister.

That would give 7 votes, plus a president with 1 vote, 2 votes, or veto power and no vote, or whatever. The president could then be elected by general election and open up for lobbying for candidates, campaigns, Machiavellian schemes for power from the TC's, etc. Now, THAT would be fun!

33 minutes ago, Capt Wolf said:

As for the King's Port Advertiser, how dare you mention that Mardier propaganda rag in polite company!

 

I couldn't agree more!

Edited November 16, 20168 yr by Bregir

9 minutes ago, Bregir said:

Perhaps the true solution would be to have 1 seat for each recognised TC (3), 1 for independents, 1 for each region (3), and one for a president/prime minister.

That would give 7 votes, plus a president with 1 vote, 2 votes, or veto power and no vote, or whatever. The president could then be elected by general election and open up for lobbying for candidates, campaigns, Machiavellian schemes for power from the TC's, etc. Now, THAT would be fun!

Other than adding a seat in the council for the PM, that is precisely what I currently propose.

I am open to the PM being elected by the whole populace or by just the council.

If the PM were already on the council, in your plan would he then have 2 votes?

***

Edit: ok, almost what I currently propose, as I had voiced my support for each player on the council having 3 votes, representing other characters under that player's control. In that case, adding one more vote for the PM isn't too significant.

1 minute ago, Capt Wolf said:

Other than adding a seat in the council for the PM, that is precisely what I currently propose.

I am open to the PM being elected by the whole populace or by just the council.

If the PM were already on the council, in your plan would he then have 2 votes?

First, this is not a plan, just a bit of Corlander consultancy. Don't worry - I won't charge you much more than 1 % of all future income for the use of my idea!

I would suggest first electing the PM in a general election and then let each constituency (TC, independent, region,...) select their representative. The builder elected for president would not be eligible for the other seats. (Regardless of the order, though, no one should fill two seats)

I only suggested 2 votes to avoid having an even number of total votes, but as more regions are added, this may change. Another option was to take away his vote, but make him chairman of the council with veto rights for all decisions. Or any combination.

Electing him in a general election would be a good way to bring in some lobbying, campaigning, subterfuge, etc. I would love to see a PM-candidate promise a million different things in secret (PM's) to the different trade companies, only then to break these promises and run his own purposes!

Lastly, you should consider substitutes. If the PM isn't available, who is then acting in his stead? Someone appointed by him, or the candidate with the second most votes? Those two situations could be very different. Further, do each of the constituencies appoint their own substitutes?

In fact, you could let representation be entirely up to the different regions, tc's, etc. and let them decide themselves how often they want to change their candidate, and only keep a fixed period for the PM-elections. (2 or 3 times a year seems like the most sustainable).

Just remember that these positions will all have real power, so political agenda is much more important than moc-ing skills.

5 minutes ago, Bregir said:

First, this is not a plan, just a bit of Corlander consultancy. Don't worry - I won't charge you much more than 1 % of all future income for the use of my idea!

Actually, other than the PM having a vote, this was my plan first. Don't worry, I won't charge you.

6 minutes ago, Bregir said:

I would suggest first electing the PM in a general election and then let each constituency (TC, independent, region,...) select their representative. The builder elected for president would not be eligible for the other seats. (Regardless of the order, though, no one should fill two seats)

I've always imagined it the other way around: first the council is selected, then the PM. That might be influenced by the fact that I prefer a model where the council selects the PM, but regardless, I think the makeup of the council could influence who people want for a PM. And I have no problem with a member of the colonial council serving as PM simultaneously, especially if we go with the "each player on the council has three votes" model, where that player is already controlling multiple characters.

9 minutes ago, Bregir said:

Lastly, you should consider substitutes. If the PM isn't available, who is then acting in his stead? Someone appointed by him, or the candidate with the second most votes? Those two situations could be very different. Further, do each of the constituencies appoint their own substitutes?

I don't see why the PM wouldn't be available. New election if he isn't, or the council selects one until time for a new nationwide election.

11 minutes ago, Bregir said:

In fact, you could let representation be entirely up to the different regions, tc's, etc. and let them decide themselves how often they want to change their candidate, and only keep a fixed period for the PM-elections. (2 or 3 times a year seems like the most sustainable).

Just remember that these positions will all have real power, so political agenda is much more important than moc-ing skills.

As long as there are no term limits, I imagine that some seats (TC seats, certain regional seats) would likely simply re-elect their representative in many cases with little to no fanfare, so the frequency of elections wouldn't really effect those cases. But I like the idea of different seats having different election cycles (unless I have to pay for use of the idea ).

And, yes, we are talking real IC power here, and agenda should trump MOCing skill.

 

4 minutes ago, Capt Wolf said:

agenda should trump MOCing skill

3 minutes ago, Capt Wolf said:

Actually, other than the PM having a vote, this was my plan first. Don't worry, I won't charge you.

I'll split the 1 % 50/50 with you to avoid having to discuss who thought of it first!

4 minutes ago, Capt Wolf said:

That might be influenced by the fact that I prefer a model where the council selects the PM, but regardless, I think the makeup of the council could influence who people want for a PM. And I have no problem with a member of the colonial council serving as PM simultaneously,

Well, this would mean that you wouldn't get the whole campaigning, bribing, lobbying, and scheming part of trying to get your candidate elected in a general election...

While I agree that in praxis, this is not a very handy system for getting the best candidate elected (Go 'Murica!), it makes for very entertaining campaigns!

Of course, letting the council elect one of their own (or a third party) for the position (would then be prime minister, I suppose) is a very viable idea. Perhaps you should have both a president (selected through general election) and a prime minister (selected by the council) to get the best of both worlds? This would of course require some division of powers. Veto-rights for the president, and tie-breaking rights to the PM? Just brainstorming. (Free of charge!  )

10 minutes ago, Capt Wolf said:

I've always imagined it the other way around: first the council is selected, then the PM...

Why wouldn't we hold all the elections simultaneously?  Yeah, it might be nice to have election cycles, but then we're back to doing nothing but electing over and over. 

58 minutes ago, Bregir said:

Perhaps the true solution would be to have 1 seat for each recognised TC (3), 1 for independents, 1 for each region (3), and one for a president/prime minister.

Yes, that was sort of the initial suggestion that got the discussion on an independent seat going.  Well, I'm fine with granting independents a seat if the rest of you are, though I think it's a little odd in context and will be somewhat superfluous in practice.

In that case, the Prime Minister should be elected nation-wide, I'd think, rather than be chosen by the council.  And yes, no member should be able to hold two seats, but each seat can have 3 votes, and the Prime Minister can have 5 votes.  I'm not in favor of granting the PM veto power, because if we set up too many veto power's we're going to be constantly running into road blocks when members aren't available.

Or, if we want the PM to be elected by the council, my opinion is that we should ditch the independent seat and replace it with a nation-wide elective seat (similar to what Bregir was saying, only I don't think he should be called president, and I don't think we should have both that and an independent seat and a PM).

Bregir brings up a good point about what to do when the Prime Minister isn't available.  But after all if the PM's job is only to bring things up for discussion and to keep the ball rolling towards a vote, and if other members can do that as well (just that they aren't expected to do so as a job) then I don't think we need to make a provision for his disappearance, other than a different PM next election cycle.

I think bills should have a time cap as to how long they can remain under vote, say two weeks.  Also, we need to discuss what constitutes a pass - 51% of votes cast, or 51% of potential votes?  And in the case where a 2/3s majority is required, the same thing there.  IMHO it should probably be votes cast, to encourage participation.

So it sounds like we're leaning toward simultaneous elections, an independent seat on the council, PM elected nationwide, and no veto power for the PM. Votes for the PM still up in the air.

As for votes necessary to pass a bill, I think 51% of all possible votes is the way to go. Using a percentage of only cast votes actually encourages vote suppression, and if you use percentage of possible votes, no one can complain of hanky-panky in the process.

Is there any way the council could override a veto by the continental council? If there is, that's when a 2/3 majority would come into play.

12 minutes ago, Bregir said:

agenda should trump MOCing skill

My bad! I really didn't mean to bring that up, believe me!