[quote="Jon Seattle":sa185en3]Way back when, in consultation with other members of the CSDF and the DPU, I was the person who added the Chancellor's veto to the executive bill that made it into the constitution. I see that some people are not clear on the purpose of what we did in that case, so I had better explain.
The Chancellor of the CDS is not a President in the US sense. The role was designed so that there was someone who would be effective in running the executive functions of government. At the time the RA was trying to be the legislature and also running the day-to-day operations of the CDS. My feeling, and that of many people, was that the RA was not very effective as an executive (it was far to slow and clumsy) and that these functions were getting in the way of the RA to work on policy.
The CDS has a process where people vote in the election for parties and then the parties' representatives hammer out our laws and policy. We do this because the legitimate power in the CDS does not come from above, but flows the people who turn in their ballots on election day.
The reason the Chancellor is elected by the RA and not the general public is that the Chancellor's job is to implement the laws and policy set by the representatives. A decent respect for the rights of the electorate would entail not using the office of Chancellor to set policy different from that of the RA, to impose the that Chancellor's personal opinion of the day on the elected representatives. If a Chancellor starts controlling the law making process that would mean taking away your and my right to vote and have our choices heard.
So the veto is very intentionally not designed to allow a Chancellor to control the RA or to threaten to. Why is it there? Its there only as a kind of emergency break. The RA, by the way, also has the right to remove a Chancellor. These mutual mechanisms are there to be used if there is a clear case of abuse of power. In particular a Chancellor or an RA that puts her / his / its own interests ahead of respecting our laws and constitution.
We ought never to elect a Chancellor who thinks it okay to impose minority politics on the legislature via the veto. Out of respect for the electorate, the veto should be kept in reserve for only the most serious situations. This would apply just as much to a CSDF Chancellor candidate in a majority DPU assembly as to a DPU candidate in the current mixed CSDF / Simple / Care assembly. Its the principle that matters.[/quote:sa185en3]
The section in question is as follows:
[quote:sa185en3]The Chancellor shall have the power to veto any act of the Representative Assembly, except any bill to remove the Chancellor from office. The Representative Assembly may override a veto with a vote by at least a two-thirds majority. In order to exercise the power of veto, the Chancellor shall post a public declaration of her or his intention to exercise that power, together with the name of the the Act in respect of which he or she seeks so to exercise, and the reasons for exercising it in respect of that Act, on the Confederation of Democratic Simulators web forums or wiki within seven days of the posting to the wiki of the Act in respect of which he or she seeks to exercise that power.[/quote:sa185en3]
Since this is directed at me, I think it needs to be moved to a forum that will allow discussion of the matter. I think this is a very important point. The Chancellor has much power, but also is vaguely defined. In this section, there is nothing that is said that the veto is only to be used in case of the RA overstepping its powers. In fact, it says nothing but the fact that the Chancellor has this power.
If we go with what Jon said, then what defines an out of control RA? With most other positions, a 2/3 vote is required to make a major step, yet the veto power resides within a single person. If a single person, that was appointed, not elected, decides that a law is bad, then he or she can veto it. Is this right? I am not sure. It basically will come down to what the people really want from the role of a chancellor.
The role needs to be clearly defined. As it presently is, as long as a chancellor is elected, and can please only 1/3 of the RA, he or she can direct the laws that will be passed. But is this really right for someone that is just appointed to the position?
As for what I was talking about, I never planned on using the veto unless it was necessary. Being as I am only an appointed position and not an elected, I wouldn't want to change the what the people want. But then with the CSDF controlling the SC and the RA, I just wanted it to be know that if I need to, I will exercise the power of the veto to keep a single party from passing laws at will.
What should the powers of the executive branch be? What do the people want? Do they want a direct election for a person to act as the President? Do they want the Chancellor to continue to have the power of the veto? Or is a new system needed to make it harder for a single person to run the show?
