From the start, the Simplicity Part has been dedicated to the idea of CDS unity. This was a clear plank in our platform for our first election. It was less so in the last election. We need to discuss where we stand.
Personally, I favor some recognition of local difference within the larger federal unity of the CDS. I think that distinction is not division -- and that local representation can strengthen the whole by strengthening the parts. However, in my half term in the RA, I felt compelled to vote against local representation out of my duty to represent the Party and our platform, even if at variance with my own views, until and unless I could persuade our Party to change its position.
I think that we can still be for unity -- on a federal model -- while, at the same time, strengthening locality. The starting point for these changes is in our electoral system. A discussion setting forth the positions of the other two partes on this issue is available here:
[url:ut3j03fy]http://www.care-cds.com/forum/index.php ... sg39#msg39[/url:ut3j03fy]
I am personally inclined to support the CSDF proposal -- which provides for local representation within a unified national government and which does not increase the complexity of government by adding a second chamber (the DPU proposal). I am aware, however, that some citizens would feel a loss if we move entirely to local representatives and would argue that, in such case, there would be no representation of a national interest.
I think that there are three ways to address this -- two involving the executive and the third involving both the executive and the RA.
First, we could shift the executive to the US model -- and have the executive elected in a national election. (The CARE proposal.) This national mandate would give the executive the right to claim to represent the national interest, as opposed to the various local interests of the RA members. I think that this claim, along with the added powers and rights given to the Chancellor in CARE's proposal, would empower the executive too much. Freedom is best preserved where there is a weak executive government.
Second, we could move to the UK model. In such case, the "Prime Minister" could also claim to represent the national interest, having been selected by the national assembly. Any subordinate ministers could be similarly selected -- allowing for similar claims. However, as the first, popular election of these ministers was local -- there is still the possibility that local concerns might predominate, even in execution of a national office.
Third, we can, even without creating a second chamber, create two kinds of RA members -- local and national. Candidates could declare for one position or the other. The executive would be constituted on the UK model. In such case, we could set up a system in which all RA members had the same function and power with one exception -- only national RA members would be eligible for appointment by the RA to national office. This proposal would, I think, best resolve all concerns.
I would propose the numbers be as follows: 30% of the members of the RA would be national members (3 in a 7 member RA; 4 in a 9 member RA; etc.); the remainder would be local representatives. Local representatives would be distributed among the sims by population, combining low population sims together for election purposes if there are sims too sparsely populated to qualify for a RA member.
This proposal has some complexity -- and it might be objectionable for that reason -- but I think that it is scalable, and would be simpler than other alternatives as it scales up with population growth and sim expansion.
Beathan
