[Proposal] Cabinet of Lazarus Amendment

[New Rogernomics]

Cabinet of Lazarus Amendment (April 2019)

Proposed By: @"New Rogernomics"

Preamble

This amendment of Cabinet of Lazarus Section IV (April 2019) changes the constitution to allow for election of Ministers as well as the establishing of Ministries.

Section 1. Amendment of Section IV

(1) Section IV shall be amended to read:

IV. Cabinet of Lazarus

(1) The Cabinet shall contain any ministries mandated by law.

(2) The Delegate may set the course of the Cabinet with such additional ministries, programs, and activities as they determine are beneficial for Lazarus.

(3) The responsibilities of ministries, mandated by law or otherwise, may not overlap.

(4) The Delegate may issue executive directives to set public policy for executive ministries, programs, and activities. Such directives will remain in effect unless rescinded by the Delegate who issued them or a subsequent Delegate. Such directives may also be amended by the Delegate who issued them or a subsequent Delegate.

(5) The Delegate shall undertake to appoint Cabinet Ministers for ministries, through an election undertaken by the assembly, with each candidate requiring a 50%+1 majority to be considered for regional appointment by the Delegate. This Election procedure may be further defined by law.

(6) Cabinet Ministers will serve until resignation, removal from office by the Assembly or the Delegate, or automatic removal from office.

---

This is an amendment to allow for the appointment of Ministers through an election, where the Delegate selects/appoints from those candidates who receive 50%+1 of the vote. It also allows ministries to be established as established ministries through an act of the assembly.

[whatermelons]

What if nobody gets a 50%+1 majority

[New Rogernomics]

What if nobody gets a 50%+1 majority

That would be something for an elections act to deal with or further define. Right now if nobody gets a 50%+1 majority they don't pass.

Usually though, general procedure would be to do rounds of voting if there are two candidates or more and neither gets 50%+1.

Though an elections act could define run off procedure, such as set an upper limit on the number of run-offs between two candiates.

In past governments, you'd usually draw the line at one runoff for two candiates. Both the Humane Republic and Celestial Union made this for an elections officer to decide for example.

Under this amendment, Tubbs could decide he doesn't like the candiates on offer after the first vote anyway. So we'd never have a perpetual one with or without an elections act.

[Legalist Zombal]

Democracy has not worked for Lazarus. It will not work this time, no matter the position.

It should be allowed, yes, but it should not be required in any way.

[McChimp]

It's reductive to say that "democracy has not worked for Lazarus". I for one am in favour; I think that electing cabinet ministers alone strikes the perfect balance of security, activity and sensible policy. I expect the election procedure would have a knockout/rounds system in case nobody got more than 50%.

Democracy seems very Lazarene, don't you think?

[New Rogernomics]

Democracy has not worked for Lazarus. It will not work this time, no matter the position.

It should be allowed, yes, but it should not be required in any way.

This would not be a democratic transition in any traditional sense, as the Delegate will still be able to, as now, reject candidates they don't favor and put forth candidates they do.

[Legalist Zombal]

I am not a fan of adding forced elections in any way honestly, I would prefer it be kept to appointments voted on by the people.

[New Rogernomics]

I am not a fan of adding forced elections in any way honestly, I would prefer it be kept to appointments voted on by the people.

They are not forced elections, as they require the delegate to approve candidates, where required. 

As McChimp has implied, this is no drastic departure from the existing system, and is merely an amendment to better organize the existing constitution to allow for elections - where multiple candidates can run.

Just like now, if the Delegate doesn't want someone in Cabinet, they don't pass go, and don't collect 100 Feathers.

[Legalist Zombal]

So I would like to also publicly state my view has changed. I wish for the region to use a challenge election system for the cabinet, maybe the speaker, but not elect the delegate. It is not very drastic to the current system and is very similar to NR's proposal here.

My only issue is that I do not think the following would allow for challenges:
(5) The Delegate shall undertake to appoint Cabinet Ministers for ministries, through an election undertaken by the assembly, with each candidate requiring a 50%+1 majority to be considered for regional appointment by the Delegate. This Election procedure may be further defined by law.

It allows procedure to be defined by law but it *HAS* to be a delegate appoint to start the election. I think we could straight change this to challenge or it could be reworded to allow alternative ways to start the challenge election as stated by law (then it could be included in that law)

[Cormac]

I don't think this goes far enough, but I'm willing to support it as a first step toward what I hope will eventually be more robust reform.

I'm not particular on whether we do this through scheduled elections or challenge elections, so I'll defer to others' preferences on that.