The New Article II - The Executive bill

Diderot Mirabeau · Post by **Diderot Mirabeau** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:47 am

[quote="Bromo Ivory":1dp6ivne]I like the improvements in wording - though even Aliasi spent most of her time approving placement of objects in CDS, issues with covenants - and authorizing some community events - so I feel it can't be ignored in this bill.[/quote:1dp6ivne]

Thanks for your comments Bromo. As to your concern that the text describes also the present day reality of our Chancellor's work I would point out the following:

In my opinion the Chancellor's mandate to issue permissions for temporary usage of public land, dispensations for covenant violations and so on is covered by the clause a under the section of "powers" namely that it is a power of the Chancellor to determine the use to which land in the CDS is put.

Personally I would want the Chancellor to use his/her powers only in accordance with the aim of fulfilling the mandate to ensure implementation and enforcement of the acts passed by our democratically elected body. If the Chancellor is to issue permission for staging events on public land or get dispensations for hosting rotating signs in the medieval city then I want such power to be justified with clear reference to a mandate given in an explicit act containing the principled decisions resulting from an inclusive and ideal debate at the RA. I wouldn't want the Chancellor to take decisions as the result of some sweepingly broadworded mandate hardcoded into the Constitution and therefore impossible to make more specific without endless discussions in the RA to try and unify all the factions to achieve the qualified majority necessary for an amendment. In the worst case scenario a maliciously intended Chancellor might be able to retain his broadly worded mandate by playing out the different factions against each other in various ways.

If one must seek inspiration from the RL sphere then I certainly don't see the experiences from there as recommending of an enlargement of unchecked executive power or the establishment of "wartime-like" short circuiting of timehonoured checks and balances to guarantee the citizens their constitutional rights. I have no desire for a mini-Putin in the CDS.

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:00 am

[quote:g1v0typp]I have no desire for a mini-Putin in the CDS.[/quote:g1v0typp]

I am sure no one else does - besides the fact that this would be impossible in a community with no means ot achieve the exclusive concentration of means of coercion and violence in the hands of one individual, since such means simply do not exist....

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:34 am

This proposal has had a thorough discussion on these forums now, unfortunately it still has few attractions. The reasons given for making the change don't seem convincing to me. Let's take one of Dnate's reasons:[quote="Dnate Mars":2w0hcsmd]Currently almost all the power of running of the CDS is in the hands of the RA. The SC has a veto, but only if the law goes against the constitution. It says nothing if the law is good or bad. Taking some of this power away from the RA is a way to help place back into the system on of the checks that removal of the AB.[/quote:2w0hcsmd]This is factually incorrect. The SC balances the power of the RA by vetoing, or suggesting amendments to, legislation and constitutional amendments as guardians of the Constitution. The Chancellor has the power to veto any act or constitutional amendment for any reason. Sure, the RA can remove the Chancellor with a 2/3 vote but... they can do that under Dnate's proposal. So what has changed?

It's also not true to say that rebalancing is needed now that the Artisanal Branch (the old Guild) has been abolished. The Guildmaster's veto was transferred to the Chancellor. If anything, this act weakened the RA by giving the veto to a functional part of government (the old Guild was, with the best will in the world, a largely vestigial organisation by the time it was abolished).

The proposal would certainly strengthen the Executive, but to what end? I think it is more likely this would lead to endless Executive-Legislative tussles as in the French political system. The experience of 'cohabitation' between a President and Prime Minister of the same party has frequently been a source of conflict, never mind what happens when they're from different parties! The French economy is in desperate need of reform, French society reeling from an inability to deal with its social problems and their constitutional setup makes this problem worse. We should be very wary of following the French model.

We have just elected our second Chancellor, to an office that is barely a year old. We should reassess the office in another six months or a year's time when we have had a chance to reflect properly and, perhaps, when the voters have had a chance to place their judgement on parties that support or oppose this type of proposal. This is not the time for making this change.

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:07 am

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":2wc54cds]Let's take one of Dnate's reasons:[quote="Dnate Mars":2wc54cds]Currently almost all the power of running of the CDS is in the hands of the RA. The SC has a veto, but only if the law goes against the constitution. It says nothing if the law is good or bad. Taking some of this power away from the RA is a way to help place back into the system on of the checks that removal of the AB.[/quote:2wc54cds]This is factually incorrect. The SC balances the power of the RA by vetoing, or suggesting amendments to, legislation and constitutional amendments as guardians of the Constitution. The Chancellor has the power to veto any act or constitutional amendment for any reason. Sure, the RA can remove the Chancellor with a 2/3 vote but... they can do that under Dnate's proposal. So what has changed?
[/quote:2wc54cds]
If of all, if you read the constitution, it very clearly states that the SC veto is only to be use if it violates the founding documents (sorry, not the constitution). "The Philosophic branch may veto or rewrite and resubmit a bill or constitutional amendment if it is in violation of any of the founding documents."

Second, you didn't read the removing form office section very carefully if you think nothing has changed. Under the new plan, with a bill has to be passed to remove the Chancellor from office, once that is done, the citizens will be called to vote for his removal. If 2/3 of the votes are for removal, then they are removed. It will shift electing and removing the Chancellor to the people and away from the RA. The heart of this bill is to change the election of a chancellor from the RA to the people. Unless the power of removing the Chancellor from office is moved away from the RA, the veto that you talk about is completely useless. If you are going to override a veto, why not just make it easy and remove the Chancellor, then you can elect someone that will toe the line of the RA. It tweaks minor things, but I don't think that you have objected to those parts of the bill, have you?

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:25 am

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":1uozhth7]

I'm afraid that if you want to propose amending our constitution and unbalancing the system of checks and balances between the branches of government in such a fundamental way, then you need to have good arguments for doing so. So far, I haven't seen any.[/quote:1uozhth7]

With a more independant Chancellorship, answerable to the people, you get more accountability right from the source of the RA's legitimacy.

And there isn't much in the way of a check on RA power - the RA could remove Chancellor after chancellor until they got one to perform their bidding - rather than have a check against a majorty in the RA. After all we would be lousy at defending minority rights in the case of a majority in hte RA - what better than a Chancellor with a real veto (rather than risking his position every time it was exercised)?

And as you find "no good reason to change" I find no good reaosn NOT to change.

While I do believe that Apathy is the biggest real threat against CDS, I do think an RA run amok is a close second. Once a majority is established by a party - law after law with no end in sight can be passed and there isn'ta thing that could really be done unless the Chancellor isn't beholding to the RA.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:45 am

Dnate

I hadn't understood the change in your proposal properly. When I read this bit "The Chancellor may be removed from office prior to the expiration of the term of office by a bill passed by the RA calling for the removal of the Chancellor. A vote will be held within 7 days of passing the bill lasting 7 days. If two thirds of the votes are for the removal of the Chancellor, the Chancellor will be removed from office immediately." I assumed the vote was of the RA members not of the citizenry. Thank you for making that clearer for me.

This is a really big change which fundamentally unbalances the constitutional order. The Chancellor, under this proposal, would be able to veto a bill passed by the democratically-elected legislature for any reason whatsoever and the only way to overturn that would be by a 2/3 majority vote of the RA. That's no different from the current situation but a Chancellor has to consider their use of this veto very carefully. If they use it for spurious reasons or on an issue which has cross-party support, the risk being removed from office by a 2/3 vote of the RA.

Under Dnate's proposal, the only way to get rid of a Chancellor who abused their veto would be by a 2/3 vote of the RA followed by a 2/3 vote of the citizens voting in a recall election! This makes an incompetent, or utterly partisan, Chancellor virtually impossible to remove from office.

Consider the following scenario: one party wins 3 out of 7 seats on the RA, the other four being split between two other parties. The Chancellor comes from one of the minority parties on the RA. The minority would not be able to stop a constitutional amendment they opposed from being passed in the RA but they could abuse the power of the Chancellor to veto such bills knowing that while the Chancellor might not survive the RA vote there is such a high barrier to removal by the electorate.

But Dnate, you haven't really answered my points. The Artisanal Branch (Guild) was virtually defunct by the time it was abolished. The Chancelllor has their veto, so does the SC for different purposes. We have checks and balances on the authority of the legislature. Why does the Chancellor need so much power right now and why do the checks and balances on the Executive need to be weakened in this way? Surely, given that Executive power is embodied in one individual, we need more checks not weaker ones?

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:49 am

[quote="Bromo Ivory":11rsgwcr]And there isn't much in the way of a check on RA power - the RA could remove Chancellor after chancellor until they got one to perform their bidding - rather than have a check against a majorty in the RA. After all we would be lousy at defending minority rights in the case of a majority in hte RA - what better than a Chancellor with a real veto (rather than risking his position every time it was exercised)?[/quote:11rsgwcr]Only with a 2/3 majority. And any party that gets a 2/3 majority in the RA is pretty likely to win the Chancelry as well. So the directly-elected Chancellor is no guarantor of minority rights at all. Pass this and we'll be worrying about the unrestrained power of the Executive before too long.

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:14 pm

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":1z61xwvt]Dnate
But Dnate, you haven't really answered my points. The Artisanal Branch (Guild) was virtually defunct by the time it was abolished. The Chancelllor has their veto, so does the SC for different purposes. We have checks and balances on the authority of the legislature. Why does the Chancellor need so much power right now and why do the checks and balances on the Executive need to be weakened in this way? Surely, given that Executive power is embodied in one individual, we need more checks not weaker ones?[/quote:1z61xwvt]

Well, the imbalance came long before the Guild was officially eliminated. Once the Guild went defunt, the RA pretty well had all the control. In a way, they still do. I see the Chancellor's veto as being useless. It is to easy for the RA to just dump a Chancellor and install someone that they want to just do as the RA wants. As it stands now, all a single party needs is a simple majority to pass any law they want, and with a chancellor that is elected by the RA, the simple majority will not have to worry what the other parties think.

As for this bill, I am giving more power to the RA with regards to appointments of mandated positions. The RA will now have to approve the sections that the Chancellor will make.

You keep saying how much more power the Executive branch will have, but the main change in this bill is to have direct elections of the Chancellor, why is that so bad?

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:44 pm

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":38xb7e50][quote="Bromo Ivory":38xb7e50]And there isn't much in the way of a check on RA power - the RA could remove Chancellor after chancellor until they got one to perform their bidding - rather than have a check against a majorty in the RA. After all we would be lousy at defending minority rights in the case of a majority in hte RA - what better than a Chancellor with a real veto (rather than risking his position every time it was exercised)?[/quote:38xb7e50]Only with a 2/3 majority. And any party that gets a 2/3 majority in the RA is pretty likely to win the Chancelry as well. So the directly-elected Chancellor is no guarantor of minority rights at all. Pass this and we'll be worrying about the unrestrained power of the Executive before too long.[/quote:38xb7e50]

Actually, having one party control the legislature and another one control the executive is not unthinkable and a common outcome. So do not discount it - happens in places where the Legislative and Executive have independent elections quite frequently. Tends to make the government a bit more restrained.

But, it is VERY clear to me that at the moment, you are resistant to this proposal - with or without changes - because you do not want the Chancellor to be directly elected.

Why?

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:57 pm

[quote="Bromo Ivory":1owgn5ka]But, it is VERY clear to me that at the moment, you are resistant to this proposal - with or without changes - because you do not want the Chancellor to be directly elected. Why?[/quote:1owgn5ka]The presumption, in any democratic organization must be that fundamental changes (as this constitutional change is) are made only when there are very strong reasons to do so. What the supporters of this bill have failed to do is to convince those of us who were not already supporting it, that there is a very compelling reason to scrap the current system.

What I am hearing is that there are a few who think a strong, centralized executive, one that controls policy, would be much more democratic. That tends to be contrary to most of what I know about history and human behavior.

In this case the constitutional amendment that established the chancellery was passed unanimously, and then six months after it had been put into effect, passed again. The idea that we who question the new proposal should need to convince the amendment's supporters to keep things the way they are, or else scrap a chunk of our constitution makes little sense.

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:19 pm

[quote="Jon Seattle":vgcjicyj]

What I am hearing is that there are a few who think a strong, centralized executive, one that controls policy, would be much more democratic. That tends to be contrary to most of what I know about history and human behavior.
[/quote:vgcjicyj]

If the chancellor remained more or less at the same level of functional power as today but could be elected and removed by a popular election rather than the RA ... I believe that would hardly "control policy" any more than the Chancellor does today.

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:30 pm

[quote="Jon Seattle":ut2kxn0l]
What I am hearing is that there are a few who think a strong, centralized executive, one that controls policy, would be much more democratic. That tends to be contrary to most of what I know about history and human behavior.
[/quote:ut2kxn0l]

I don't understand where this is coming from. I am taking the election of the chancellor from the RA and giving it to the people. There is nothing else that is changing. It allows the RA to have a say in who is appointed to PIO and others, so that is not making the executive branch more powerful.

As to the removal process, it needs to be tweaked a little. A 2/3 majority of the RA must call for a recall election. The citizens vote and a simple majority want the Chancellor removed, then the chancellor will be remove. Then we just need to figure out how to elect the next chancellor. Maybe the 2nd place vote getter at the last election?

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:55 pm

[quote="Bromo Ivory":18n9h57z]If the chancellor remained more or less at the same level of functional power as today but could be elected and removed by a popular election rather than the RA ... I believe that would hardly "control policy" any more than the Chancellor does today.[/quote:18n9h57z]Its a very big "if".

The Chancellor under this proposed system will be able to veto any bill, threaten to halt all work in the RA, and removing him or her from office will be just about impossible. The Chancellor will hold the purse strings and the operational side of all the CDS infrastructure without effective checks. We would have no assurance that the Chancellor would implement the laws passed through our legislative process.

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:15 pm

[quote="Jon Seattle":3ddqzyxw][quote="Bromo Ivory":3ddqzyxw]If the chancellor remained more or less at the same level of functional power as today but could be elected and removed by a popular election rather than the RA ... I believe that would hardly "control policy" any more than the Chancellor does today.[/quote:3ddqzyxw]Its a very big "if".

The Chancellor under this proposed system will be able to veto any bill, threaten to halt all work in the RA, and removing him or her from office will be just about impossible. The Chancellor will hold the purse strings and the operational side of all the CDS infrastructure without effective checks. We would have no assurance that the Chancellor would implement the laws passed through our legislative process.[/quote:3ddqzyxw]]

That is completely untrue. Because the people elected the Chancellor he will hold up the RA progress? Where do you get that idea from? Unless you are admitting that the Chancellor veto is meaningless as it currently stands.

As for the removing, see my last post, it explain the change in the process. If over half the CDS citizens want the Chancellor gone, it is a pretty clear sign that they should be gone.

Flyingroc Chung · Post by **Flyingroc Chung** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:52 pm

Hm, some questions:

1.) How has the Executive branch failed us such that we need another radical change in the selection of its leader?

2.) Given that the only two Chancellors we've had are from a different faction than the LRA's faction, isn't this evidence to suggest that *in practice* our system encourages independent-minded Chancellors?

3.) Is the RA so powerful that the SC and the Chancellor's veto are ineffective?

4.) Hasn't the Executive worked so far? Can't we reasonably expect it to work in the future?