Election

[Richard Amherst]

Brettish Orient is a good compromise. I would suggest we stay away from macronational names, and use the Micran ones, such as Chi'nam and so forth. But we can decide that when the claim goes through.

[Verion]

So, who wants to bring this to the MCS:

[Arthur Rivers]

Done.

[Richard Amherst]

Excellent.

Well, should we hold an election? Or should we quickly amend the Instrument of Government, and restart the government?

[Verion]

I prefer the latter. But of course we need a Lord Protector anyway, so we may very well do both.

[Richard Amherst]

AHA. I had forgotten about what I put into the Instrument. When there is no Lord Protector, and when Parliament has not selected a successor, the Lord Chancellor succeeds, followed by the Speaker of Parliament. With no Lord Chancellor, that means Arthur is acting LP and Speaker until we elect someone new (which is supposed to be "immediately.").

So, maybe we can just demur on electing a new LP, amend the constitution, and maybe make the new term begin on, say, May 1?

[Verion]

That's fine with me.

[Richard Amherst]

Very good.

I figure it would be best to compile a list of things which need changing:

- Any citizen can be Lord Protector
- LP can issue orders to enforce laws, but not decrees with force of law
- Lord Protector is presiding officer of Parliament, until Parliament decides otherwise
- A basic list of national powers, all other powers granted to subdivisions
- High Court composed of Lord Chancellor and a number of justices he wishes to appoint (with confirmation)
- Lord Chancellor cannot be Lord Protector or presiding officer of Parliament
- Anyone is subject to a vote of no confidence

Those are just things off the top of my head. Feel free to add or subtract as necessary.

[Verion]

It seems to me that a Chancellor cannot be minister either (seperation of powers) - so it would be better to just put a seperation of powers article here.

[Arthur Rivers]

Well that was quick - the claim's been approved.

Who wants to develop what? I know both of you had preferences for developing ideas, but I can fill in whatever is left following along the lines of the continued development of Port Moorland and Port Impregnable.

It seems to me that a Chancellor cannot be minister either (seperation of powers) - so it would be better to just put a seperation of powers article here.

What about the military? We could make the LP commander of the armed forces, similar to most heads-of-state.

[Richard Amherst]

Well, the LP is already commander in chief of the armed forces (though we should probably update the language).

As for a strict separation of powers, I have no problem with it in general, but with so few citizens, we would end up with two or three man Parliaments. I have no problem sitting out Parliament, if that's what people want, but I would be willing to say a good option would be that the Lord Chancellor cannot be Lord Protector, Speaker of Parliament, or, as Jack suggested, a minister. In that way, the LC could still be an extra vote in Parliament, but his only real power comes from his acting as the highest judge in the land.

I'm definitely willing to develop my Gaelic colony; the Anglo-American idea can wait for other expansions.

[Verion]

Guess that makes sense. Parliament would then be similar to the Landsraad in Shireroth. I don't mind that per se, but I would like to see political fractions emerging eventually. Since we're probably going for a district voting system, that would be rather like Natopia's Frenzy.

[Richard Amherst]

Likely so. I mean, that does bring up a good point. Do we want a parliament with "elected" constituencies, sort of like a unicameral House of Commons, or would we rather have a parliament composed of lords of subdivisions, like a unicameral House of Lords? I, too, electoral politics; and, as Arthur said, we can easily have a system in paper which has a different reality. But, I bring it up as it could solve our peerage problem, and give us all fancy titles.

[Verion]

I think we can have staged elections, 'real' elections are only necessary when there are more OOC persons living in one district, which I think wouldn't happen too soon. Political fractions can/should then be formed in parliament, and they wouldn't necessarily be important in elections, compare it to 18th century Britain. I'm not too sure about peerages, but I don't find it problematic to have peers sitting in a Parliament that more closely resembles the HoC. It's not a 1-on-1 copy of the UK anyway. FYI, I'm a proponent of peerages being granted by the LP based on merit.

[Richard Amherst]

Which is like the aforementioned systems in Craitland and Natopia: a group of constituencies, of which each person picks on, and only needs a real election if another person runs in the same constituency.

One idea we could use in the future is something like a mixed-member proportional system. Each real player could stand in a regional constituency, and be the member for that region. We could simulate elections for the lower seats, which then get apportioned as votes to each real member.

As for peerages, I would still suggest something like baronets, quasi-noble knighthoods.

[Verion]

The latter idea would be not unlike the customary voting method in the Dutch sector. OOC persona stands for election, often with a party, and every person gets a number of votes (1000 in Flanders, for example). Parliamentary seats are then divided accordingly.

[Richard Amherst]

Which I would say is the most fair way to do it. Of course, that would also require us to start factions quickly, and have the manpower to sustain them. Likely, we should go with the Craitish-Natopian model, and then leave it open in the constitution for Parliament to change it (unless there is a better idea).