Cabinet Deputy Elections Amendment

[New Rogernomics]

Cabinet Deputy Elections Amendment (August 2020)Proposed by: @"New Rogernomics"​

Section 1. Amendment of the Twelfth Mandate of Lazarus

Edit: Crossed out 9 and 10.

 

[temmi]

I think more elections for more positions can be a good thing. Deputies would be a good start so we can try it out and still let the Cabinet Ministers be appointed awhile. It would give newer people a chance to run and compete for positions in the government without waiting for a PM or LazDev election too!

 

[Demonos]

Demonos supports this and would recommend other Lazarenes to support this as well. This, in principle, expands the opportunity to participate, and creates a mechanism to insure an office's survival. The proposal is practical and welcomed. All-in-all this is a very good idea.

 

[Domais]

No support from me, just add something like they can hold elections if Cabinet Minister/Deputy positions if they feel like it. Also, Deputies are kinda pointless, TBH. If this passes, a Prime Minister could be like, okay I'll hold elections for this position but I'm not giving them any power because I don't care. Moreover, if the Prime Minister doesn't like the results of the election he can nullify it by removing the Deputy and holding a new election, furthermore, they could do this perpetually. Besides we have an inactive problem and I doubt we could honestly put deputies in every ministry.

 

[McChimp]

Not in favour. The key to activity is good governance, not more elections. Cabinet deputies should be selected by the cabinet so that they can work together as well as possible.

Electing all cabinet ministers is also a bad idea-it robs the Prime Minister of authority, rendering the position redundant and depriving the region of an effective head of government and the leadership that provides.

 

[New Rogernomics]

No support from me, just add something like they can hold elections if Cabinet Minister/Deputy positions if they feel like it. Also, Deputies are kinda pointless, TBH. If this passes, a Prime Minister could be like, okay I'll hold elections for this position but I'm not giving them any power because I don't care. Moreover, if the Prime Minister doesn't like the results of the election he can nullify it by removing the Deputy and holding a new election, furthermore, they could do this perpetually. Besides we have an inactive problem and I doubt we could honestly put deputies in every ministry.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Not in favour. The key to activity is good governance, not more elections. Cabinet deputies should be selected by the cabinet so that they can work together as well as possible.

Electing all cabinet ministers is also a bad idea-it robs the Prime Minister of authority, rendering the position redundant and depriving the region of an effective head of government and the leadership that provides.

 

[Demonos]

Wait, this is different from the original proposal. We do not support.

 

[Frankender]

I do not support this amendment, for two reasons:

1. The amendment reads: (S1.2.8) "The Prime Minister may provide for the appointment, election, and removal of Cabinet deputies."
Why would it requires both an appointment and then an election of cabinet deputies? How can a candidate be appointed yet also partake in an election for the same position? It doesn't make sense.

2. I disagree with requiring elections for the appointment of cabinet deputies. I do not believe an election is necessary for a position that reports to an already-elected position.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Why would it requires both an appointment and then an election of cabinet deputies? How can a candidate be appointed yet also partake in an election for the same position? It doesn't make sense.

I disagree with requiring elections for the appointment of cabinet deputies. I do not believe an election is necessary for a position that reports to an already-elected position.

 

[Frankender]

Why would it requires both an appointment and then an election of cabinet deputies? How can a candidate be appointed yet also partake in an election for the same position? It doesn't make sense.

I disagree with requiring elections for the appointment of cabinet deputies. I do not believe an election is necessary for a position that reports to an already-elected position.

Though, I haven't seen much interest in the idea in this thread. So haven't pursued it.

I know you say you aren't pursuing it, but I am still discussing it in case it was ever taken to a vote, that's all, primarily since there hasn't been any sort of motion to table it or anything.

 

[New Rogernomics]

That would be because I haven't got around to tabling it yet. There is no motion to table, though, you just ask the Speaker or myself to table it.