Ideal govenemtal systems

[NapoleonGH]

Dutchess of Zeon: Why do you limit consular power to natural citizens, what do you have against naturalized citizens? Some of the most qualified members of society to lead arent natural born americans. Also why the age limit of 40, what does that age give you as an advantage over 35 or 30?


My own system, given in an abreviated format:
1. Imperial Branch:
Emperor: Chosen for life, selected by previous emperor with body of the people confirmation (the previous emperor always has someone as a "designated successor"). Executive powers given, most legislative power as well is in the hands of the emperor except for in the area of taxation.
First Citizens: 2 men chosen to serve a term of 10 years by the Tribunate. They serve as the seconds in command to the emperor and on matters dealing with military action and national security they must also give their consent before the emperor can engage in any actions.

2. Legislative:
Tribunate: 12 men elected by the people through a vote, to qualify to run you must have served as a provinicial tribune (Same powers but on a provincial basis). Basically the tribunate serves to chose the first citizens and has full legislative power in the area of taxation. May overrule the emperor through a 3/4ths majority vote. Terms are for 1 year, limit of three terms.
Senate: All former tribunes currently alive. every 5 years creates an assesment of the state of the nation with a list of proposed alterations. Any of the alterations that the emperor does not turn into law are presented to the body of the people for a vote, if 2/3s of the votes are in favor of an alteration it is turned into law and may only be repealed by the emperor after a period of 5 years.
Body of the People: All voting citizens. Vote on tribunes, vote on the senatorial state of the nation clauses.

Judicial:

"Protectorate": Separate from the rest of the government. Acts as supreme court full interpretory power over the constitution. every 51 years it is called out of order and must be recalled with the member rolls re-selected by the Tribunes and the Emperor, the emperor is granted 5 votes each tribune is granted 1 vote, simple majority of votes is needed to select a member for each seat. When a seat is vacated before the 51 year term is up the protectorate selects through simple majority the next member.

TO explain votes of the body of the people, I must explain the citizen rating concept. Basically you are given a number of votes proportional to your education.
C0: no votes, doesnt have even a high school diploma, or fails to pass a literacy test.
C1: 1 vote, passes a literacy test and has a high school diploma
C2: 2 votes, has a BA or equivalent
C3: 3 votes, has an MA or equivalent
C4: 4 votes, has a PhD or equivalent
C5: 5 votes, has multiple PhDs or equivalents.
(honorary degrees are not counted for citizen rating)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Duchess,

The power that the 10 Tribunes have is actually quite powerful (ability to veto all bills) , despite being very specific. Can Consuls trump the Tribunes?

XPViking

I think I outlined the legislative process pretty clearly - The Senate and the House can muster enough votes to override a series of vetoes by the Tribunate and the Consuls, in progressively higher percentages depending on the combination of vetoes. The Consuls have all the administrative power - The power of the Tribunate is limited directly to the veto, and appointment of three of the seats (a third) of the Supreme Court. So if the Consulate and the Legislative branch want to pass a bill over a resisting Tribunate, they just need a 60% supermajority in the House and the Senate. Considering that the Senate would operate according to Parliamentary rules, a simple majority passage of a bill would be rare there anyway.

[RedImperator]

<snip>

Someone else on this board is a Romanophile.

[XPViking]

With all due respect Duchess, your system is merely a tinkering of the existing US system. It's overly complex since there are more steps needed to pass a bill and decidedly more complicated if there is a veto.

XPViking

[The Duchess of Zeon]

With all due respect Duchess, your system is merely a tinkering of the existing US system. It's overly complex since there are more steps needed to pass a bill and decidedly more complicated if there is a veto.

XPViking

Exactly. Ah: To elaborate, what I mean is that were I to outline the whole government structure - This is intended primarily to be a government oriented around the states, while the Federal Government I detailed is very minimalist, except for defence, which it is designed to support great exertions in. So naturally most things would be done by the individual states and then only smoothed over at most by the Federal Government, with the complexity of the system, and the brake of the Tribunate, serving to prevent the growth of power that was historical in our system.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't see the point of the "citizen rating system." It strikes me as being substantially less informative than simply listing credentials, and I question hte utility of credentials in the first place!

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

That would probably work okay. Or maybe have unlimited terms, but allow only four in a row, so someone else would need to serve a term every sixteen and then four years later we could get the old guy back if we wanted him.

Edit: begone, accursed triple post! If no mods have anything better to do feel free to delete the extras :P

Edit x2: zounds, tis a quadruple post! Maybe it should be preserved for posterity.

...Or not.

Limited sequential terms huh? I like that idea.

And nifty quadruple post there.

[kojikun]

this raises the question: why did the roman republic fail as a government, aside from corruption?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Executive Branch:

Head of State: Two Consuls directly elected by the whole populace for two year terms on a rotating basis, so that each year is a consular election year. The Consuls share all powers as Head of State and as Head of Government, and can veto each other's actions. Limit of one term in office for a Consul. Must be a natural born U.S. citizen over the age of fourty.

Two Consuls with the ability to veto each other? Sounds like a good way to firmly lock them up. It might be better to have all their decisions issued jointly. Otherwise you run the risk of having them get into petty veto wars. And we already get petty abuse of veto power when we have a governor of president who disagrees with the legislature.

Tribunate of the Yeomanry: Ten Tribunes elected by those who own at least twenty acres of land, or its equivlant in wealth, on a year basis. They have the power of the Veto, with a majority vote, over bills passed through the Senate and the House. The Tribunate also appoints certain of the justices to the Supreme Court as according to established process. Limit of one term in office for a Tribune. Must be a natural born U.S. citizen over the age of fourty and from the Yeoman class.

I can hear the screams now: "And thusly, did the presidents of Fortune 500 companies come to rule the land."

College of Censors: One Censor elected yearly for a single term (of one year) from each State by popular vote of the whole citizenry thereof, and one censor from each dependency, also by popular vote of the whole citizenry thereof. These shall be matched by one Censor elected yearly for a single term from each State, and each dependency, by the body of the yeomanry, as defined for the Tribunate.

The College of Censors shall have the power to determine the censorship of materials in time of War, to review the use of defensive power by the Consuls outside of declared War, to serve as a court for trials of Tribunes, of Senators, and of Representatives, and shall serve as an appeals court for all cases involving classified material. Members of the College of Censors must be at least thirty years of age and natural born U.S. citizens.

Hmmm, it might be better to convene this college on demand, rather than retaining it on a permanent basis. And it might be more efficient overall to have the government only appoint judges who are well-versed in matters of sensitive materials.

Overall, that seems to be very well thought-out, if a bit of a ponderous read. Though it doesn't sound like a government that's capable of acting very quickly, and the Tribune seems like a good way of having a government by Microsoft and for Microsoft, to pick on everyone's favorite example of a vociferously mopolistic corporation.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I'm feeling a tad inspired at the moment, and shall add more details.

It would be a federal-type government. At the lowest level, we'd have a bicameral legislative body. One half would be elected, though they would have to demonstrate basic competence/experience before being placed on the ballot. But other than that, the model would be very similar to the United States Congress.

Specifically, all members of the legislative body (called the Assembly, for convenience,) must be at least thirty years of age, and have to be citizens. Additionally, they have to have held at least one previous political office, and must be investigated (the process of investigation will have to be standardized by the federal government to avoid screening canidates based solely on political stance) thoroughly by the state they propose to represent before they're permitted on the ballot. They serve terms very similar to those of present members of Congress.

On one side, we have a council of ministers. Say twelve ministers plus one prime-minister. (This ensures that the body can't deadlock, as the there is always somebody who can break a tie.) They're appointed by the Senate and serve lifetime terms, unless a majority of the other ministers, or a supermajority of the Senate votes to remove them.

These guys are responsible for implementing legislation that gets passed. Legislation comes either from the House of Representatives (hereby the House of Commons) or the Senate (the House of Peers.) However, they, like the President, can propose legislation to the Assembly. They can veto legislation approved by the President and the Assembly, and can, if needed, review and invalidate old legislation after a certain period of time has passed since the original passing. And if the President is incapacitated or killed, control of the country passes to the Prime Minister, and on down the line until a new President is appointed by the Assembly.

To become a minister requires appointment by the Senate. This involves a process very similar to the one outlined below to choose Presidents. The requirements to become a minister are the same as those needed to become a President (also outlined below.)

On the other side, we have the President and his or her cabinet. The
President is initially elected by the House of Representatives, But, unlike his counterpart, the prime minister, he serves in terms, say about ten or fifteen years. (Four years was great when you expected your presidents to conk out in 67 years, but now, it's a little short.) And at the end of each term, he has to undergo a vote of confidence/no-confidence from the public. If he gets his vote of confidence, he sticks around for ten more years. If not, then the House of Representatives elects a new one.

The President is elected by the House of Commons to five year terms. He or she may serve three of them consecutively, but then may not be eligible to serve another term for ten years. He can propose legislation, and he can either sign or veto legislation passed by the Assembly. If necessary, he may be impeached by the Council of Ministers, and must then face trial by the Assembly, who can vote to either convict him, recall him, and open up a new Presidential search. Or else, they can vote to overturn the Council of Ministers and reinstate him.

In order to be a President, he must be at least forty years of age, have served in several major political offices, (possibly including at least one term as a member of the Assembly,) and must have been evaluated, and placed on the ballot by the current Presidential Selection Committee. He must win a pure majority of the votes in the Assembly (which is to say, if the Assembly had 100 persons, and the canidate managed to win 51% of the vote, but ten assemblymen abstained, then the canidate wouldn't be selected because only 46% of eligible voters actually voted for him.) In the case that the PSC nominated a large number of canidates, then the pool will be winnowed down by successive votes until a canidate who captures a pure majority of Assembly members is found.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

this raises the question: why did the roman republic fail as a government, aside from corruption?

After the Punic Wars a large number of small landowners were dispossessed, because they'd had to pay to arm and equip themselves to serve in the Roman Army before the Marian Reforms. Due to the long duration of the war they had to take out loans - with their farms as collateral of course - and a lot of them defaulted.

They congregated in the cities after that, particularly Rome, as now effectively unskilled labour, while the nobility bought of their farms and consolidated them into latifunda, or large estates run by slave labour that was taken from overseas conquests. These former small farmers, now usually with no jobs, or at least no permanent jobs, families to support, and a vote in the Plebian Assembly - which in Rome required direct attendance - allowed them to naturally dominate that assembly as they flooded into the city.

The Roman politicians started to appeal to them as a voting block by promising them things like a free grain ration, which was constantly increased, and free entertainment, the amount of which, of course, was also constantly increased. In response this large block of citizens would of course vote for whomever was offering them the most. To help fund these extravagant promises, more foreign wars were launched, which only accelerated the process of the consolidation of the small farms into latifunda, etc.

After the institution of the Tribunate, Rome was - excepting the fact you had to be physically present in the city to exercise your right to vote - equal to mid-19th century Britain in terms of political rights, again excepting the practice of slavery. Those two exceptions were part of the problem which allowed the dispossession of the small farmers to become so serious.

However, we're suffering the exact same thing, with similiar consequences, that are only slowed by our written constitution, reliance on mechanized labour instead of slave labour, and system of representation. The reversal of the concept of a Tribunate, or a concentration of Veto power into a group of officials charged with protecting a segment of the population under threat, seems entirely reasonable under the circumstances, due to the potential dangers which the Mob poses to our future otherwise. Certainly the Plebians can look out for themselves these days - The political power of the lower classes in a western democracy is stunning, and threatening to State stability.

Note that nobody is going to have their suffrage restricted or removed in any fashion. Every single office that in the USA could be voted upon by the average citizen, could still be voted upon (excepting the Senate - But that wasn't in the original constitution anyway, and was changed by amendment in the 20th century).

Furthermore, you'd have the power of recall over representatives, so if you didn't like what they were doing you could circulate a petition, hold a vote, and then elect a replacement for the remainder of their term. The People's House would be far more wary of the people - They might feel like they could do whatever they want in only one term, but they feel that way if they could get kicked out for it by their constituents? *g* I think not. So while the Senate becomes the Chamber of the States, the House becomes infinitely more democratic.

Likewise, the Consuls are elected by direct vote. That's why I instituted a Consulate - I don't like the idea of a powerful presidency elected by direct vote. So the alternative was splitting the office in two. I contemplated a Triumvirate, but one of those has never worked. Conversely, the Consulate of San Marino functions just fine and has for a long time, and the Roman Consulate does a good job, too.

Naturally this government is going to be big on compromise to get anything done - Don't expect anything hugely partisan to be passed - but the entire point is that the states should be dealing with issues important enough to be hugely partisan in the first place, except for war, and the process for declaring war is a simple one which lets the Tribunate - Coming from the Yeomanry, who are required to sacrifice the most for it, have the final say on an even vote.

That's another thing. The Tribunate does protect the Yeomanry as a wealthy class, or a landed class, yes - But to be classified as Yeomanry you must serve in the military. You can have all the wealth in the world and if you refuse to do the required military service then you don't get the additional voting privilages.

I don't think it is very Heinleinian myself - The majority of the government functions are controlled by any average person as an automatic right. The yeomanry, however, exist as a class defined by wealth, who then have the option of military service, after of which they may exercise some additional rights, which reflect both their willingness to perform that option, and their status. Those additional rights, however, do not dominate the system, but rather balance against the rights of the bulk of the populace.

[kojikun]

so what it all comes down to is the ability for the majority of people (the lower classes, as you say) to control their government? well, i agree with you there. i think that people have too much control over too many important things.

btw, much as youre a fascist bitch, i love ya for your wel knowledgedness