Electing Ministers

It’s well known by this point that my administration has had no qualms with replacing or rearranging ministers as needed to complete the various projects, festivals, and initiatives that the executive has been working at. This has resulted in new ideas, renewed enthusiasm, and productivity.

Other regions have had success with standardizing this, though, with elected ministers. Essential ministries such as Culture, Integration, Security, and Foreign Affairs could be elected periodically under such a system and they could appoint their own deputies - as they do now - to work on more specific areas of concern or projects.

This is really brainstorming here and I understand this is a power that has traditionally been reserved by the delegate but this system could prevent cronyism, give way to more new perspectives, and allow a mechanism for the public to decide how it wants these ministries to be run.

What do you think?

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

Honestly, if we were going to elect ministers, I’d say we look to TSP and see how they do it. It’s a bit interesting how they break up their executive, and it could help to shelve the burdens, so to speak. Elected positions could force the executive to work with a group chosen by the people, which could hamper fluidity, and may increase bureaucracy, but could allow for greater diversity in theory.

I’d imagine this would require the Curia Act to be amended.

I have been in a couple of regions that have experimented with electing cabinet members in the past. The issue that became immediately apparent is that it is typically necessary for a Delegate and their ministers to be generally in agreement and on the same page together. When you have an elected cabinet, you end up with a group of people who just don’t gel. With that, there can be some severe disagreements that can endanger the stability of a government.

I’ve frequently added people to my cabinet because they voiced disagreement with me and made for a good alternative viewpoint to avoid the echo chamber effect. I can’t promise future delegates will be as welcoming of that dynamic but that’s certainly not a point against in my opinion.

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

I think it’s certainly commendable that you approach the cabinet with that sort of attitude. However, nobody can guarantee what approach future delegates may take with their cabinets. If we have an elected cabinet, I am just fearful that government progress can be stymied by potentially deep conflicts between ministers or between a minister and the delegate. I also feel like it would make more sense for ministers to have been made to prove themselves in their ministry and be recognized by the head of the cabinet.

The only thing I can think of is our instant runoff voting system and cringe. Maybe, if we had a simple voting system, I would be in a more favorable position but even then I think it should be an internal voting system of the executive…like a standing order. Have the members of the executive branches vote among themselves to elect their minister within their departments.That fits more in the way our branches operate with standing orders and makes more sense when you take into consideration of TEP law. It would also give any new Delegate the flexibility to continue a previous Delegate’s policies or scraping them depending on their campaign.

Having ministers who disagree with you at times might force a delegate to have some skills in negotiation and achieving pragmatic solutions. God knows Wallenburg and I have been through that dance a few times as well as a few other members of the cabinet, each of whom have done well in their respective jobs and have been productive running their own ministry on the mandate that they essentially put their money where their mouth is when it comes to doing what they say needs to be done. Perhaps this arrangement would just formalize that dynamic which has been quite effective in this administration. Not just that, it lets the citizens of the East choose their ministers and bestow them with a renewable mandate to achieve what they said they would and have their agendas pitted against challengers.

If someone is afraid of that kind of accountability to the citizenship, an election certainly isn’t for them but I do think we’d find ourselves with more new people with fresh ideas wanting to step up and take a swing at an elected position other than being responsible for running the whole region.

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

A theoretical question. Let’s say the elected Delegate and the elected Minister disagree and no compromise can be found between the two. Would the Delegate still get the final say or does it have to go to the Magisterium or Conclave? Edit: Or voted between the Ministers? But then that also runs into the same question.

The Ministers are elected to run their ministries. I have to admit that this does take away some of the significance of the delegate position in the sense of administrating the region.

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

— Begin quote from ____

A theoretical question. Let’s say the elected Delegate and the elected Minister disagree and no compromise can be found between the two. Would the Delegate still get the final say or does it have to go to the Magisterium or Conclave?

— End quote

I would think of it less in those terms and more of the idea that a disagreement between a delegate and a minister could be so large that the social environment becomes toxic and the minister works to actively sabotage the efforts of the delegate for the remainder of the term, without much being able to be done by the guy trying to run the region. That is my main concern when it comes to this.

I should also note that I don’t entirely hate this idea. I think there is some value in it as well, however I want this topic to be borne out in discussion because I think it is an important one.

The ministries would somewhat diminish the power of the delegate, but it could allow people who aren’t the delegate to blossom and give them confidence in maybe running for the position down the road. To obtain this, we’d likely need some legislation to hash this out, as well as give the ministers more concrete responsibilities, I’d imagine, but if we establish a hierarchy, it would help to iron out differences. This is what generally happens in TSP, for what it’s worth. They have a delegate, and the delegate has ministers who may or may not be running independently of one another. Their duties are defined, but broad to the point that it allows for some flexibility. And they are all elected at the same time, via a simple majority vote (last I checked).

I’m not saying it’s a perfect system. There are no perfect systems IRL or on NS. But, I’m saying that if we’re really keen on going that route, it may be advisable to look them up, see how they do it, perhaps even contact one of their election committee members to discuss some of the pitfalls / benefits of this system.

I agree with EM in that using the same voting system for multiple minister positions would feel…messy, given all the potential scenarios for run-offs. I would be in favor for a simpler election system for these specific positions if this would end up being something we pursue. I think Funkadelia has brought up good points on how this has the potential to make the executive a bit more dysfunctional if certain Ministers end up not being able to cooperate on the agenda. Additionally, as Todd noted we would definitely need defined Ministries as opposed to how it currently works. I see that result as more of a negative than a positive. Currently the executive operates in a very flexible manner, allowing seamless crossover and encouraging that sort of cooperation. Currently the Delegate is also able to easily create new Ministries if it is deemed necessary, a process we’d likely have to abandon or engulf in bureaucracy. I think these are all pretty valid points to consider.

Despite that though, I do believe this will contribute to more involvement and activity within the executive branch. Allowing people the opportunity to be elected helps encourage participation, new ideas, and a sort of goal for Citizens who want to lead some day.

I likely can’t see the benefit until we have a reasonable way to hold and elections. That being said, I have a rough draft of a campaign thread, that proposed the complete restructure of the executive branch and it could molded into this idea and since I have no crazy political ambitions… I’ll share and we can pick it apart :smiley:

My idea was to introduce Executive Branch Department Workgroups that would completely restructure the current executive branch and since this is related in a restructure, it seems fair to share. The idea would allow for structure and flexibility. To throw in what this thread is proposing… Each director could be an elected position. An idea is that the WA Delegate can be a director / the elected directors pick a regional representative among them to be the face of TEP or the elected directors pick a WA Delegate among themselves / or we define what the WA Delegate’s role would be among the elected.

Below is my rough draft:

Foreign Affairs & Relations (FAR)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs would continue as-is but renamed to better represent itself to our sister regions. We don’t want to show we only want simply affairs with them but solid relations also. This workgroup would be responsible for organizing fun festivals, solid treaties and delivering news created by the ICED workgroup.

2 Directors

Regional & World Assembly Relations (RWAR)
Ministry of Integration and Ministry of the World Assembly would be combined to focus on creating relations with the residents of the RMB, prospective citizens, and being WA Ambassadors to non-WA members.

2 Director

Information, Culture, Education and Design (ICED)
Ministry of Information and Culture, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Design, TEP Census Bureau and TEP Media Office would all combine to pool limited resources together.

3 Directors

Sovereign Army and Police Service (SAPS)
The East Pacific Sovereign Army and East Pacific Police Service

1 Director

— Begin quote from ____

I likely can’t see the benefit until we have a reasonable way to hold and elections. That being said, I have a rough draft of a campaign thread, that proposed the complete restructure of the executive branch and it could molded into this idea and since I have no crazy political ambitions… I’ll share and we can pick it apart :smiley:

My idea was to introduce Executive Branch Department Workgroups that would completely restructure the current executive branch and since this is related in a restructure, it seems fair to share. The idea would allow for structure and flexibility. To throw in what this thread is proposing… Each director could be an elected position. An idea is that the WA Delegate can be a director / the elected directors pick a regional representative among them to be the face of TEP or the elected directors pick a WA Delegate among themselves / or we define what the WA Delegate’s role would be among the elected.

Below is my rough draft:

Foreign Affairs & Relations (FAR)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs would continue as-is but renamed to better represent itself to our sister regions. We don’t want to show we only want simply affairs with them but solid relations also. This workgroup would be responsible for organizing fun festivals, solid treaties and delivering news created by the ICED workgroup.

2 Directors

Regional & World Assembly Relations (RWAR)
Ministry of Integration and Ministry of the World Assembly would be combined to focus on creating relations with the residents of the RMB, prospective citizens, and being WA Ambassadors to non-WA members.

2 Director

Information, Culture, Education and Design (ICED)
Ministry of Information and Culture, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Design, TEP Census Bureau and TEP Media Office would all combine to pool limited resources together.

3 Directors

Sovereign Army and Police Service (SAPS)
The East Pacific Sovereign Army and East Pacific Police Service

1 Director

— End quote

This is a very interesting concept.

— Begin quote from ____

I likely can’t see the benefit until we have a reasonable way to hold and elections. That being said, I have a rough draft of a campaign thread, that proposed the complete restructure of the executive branch and it could molded into this idea and since I have no crazy political ambitions… I’ll share and we can pick it apart :smiley:

My idea was to introduce Executive Branch Department Workgroups that would completely restructure the current executive branch and since this is related in a restructure, it seems fair to share. The idea would allow for structure and flexibility. To throw in what this thread is proposing… Each director could be an elected position. An idea is that the WA Delegate can be a director / the elected directors pick a regional representative among them to be the face of TEP or the elected directors pick a WA Delegate among themselves / or we define what the WA Delegate’s role would be among the elected.

Below is my rough draft:

Foreign Affairs & Relations (FAR)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs would continue as-is but renamed to better represent itself to our sister regions. We don’t want to show we only want simply affairs with them but solid relations also. This workgroup would be responsible for organizing fun festivals, solid treaties and delivering news created by the ICED workgroup.

2 Directors

Regional & World Assembly Relations (RWAR)
Ministry of Integration and Ministry of the World Assembly would be combined to focus on creating relations with the residents of the RMB, prospective citizens, and being WA Ambassadors to non-WA members.

2 Director

Information, Culture, Education and Design (ICED)
Ministry of Information and Culture, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Design, TEP Census Bureau and TEP Media Office would all combine to pool limited resources together.

3 Directors

Sovereign Army and Police Service (SAPS)
The East Pacific Sovereign Army and East Pacific Police Service

1 Director

— End quote

This is very interesting

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

Just to throw out some random words before I run off to work… The idea behind the workgroups is to consolidate and streamline executive operations. The Executive section of the forum is underutilized and I believe Discord is the cancer of choice. On the roleplay end as we continue through that restructure it was clear that Discord was causing too much OOC to happen which is great for coming up with ideas but terrible for keeping everyone on the same page we’ve decided that a forum, Discord, wiki and NS approach is needed with continual curation of the forum section to keep it lean and clean. So for example we can have someone want to change something on the map and they can tell us on Discord but we still require a forum post for the official record. The Christie Island Film Feastival, a proposed event you should checkout, was created on Discord but a forum post formalized it. So as I look at the Executive it has too many dead sections and I felt a refresh could help.

I would, sadly, oppose such an idea. Although it would grant our citizens more right, I dont believe it would improve our region anyhow.

  1. I believe, that WAD should choose his Cabinet freely. Removing possible threats to region and adding effective and efficient people. WAD is given trust of citizens to his hands. And I believe that choosing own Cabinet is included in that trust.

  2. There is a high possibility that Ministers and WAD wont get along. And I am not saying that having different persective and opinion is bad - it is actually really good to have people that dont agree with you, so that, you have a different perspective on the case. However, we still need a Cabinet that will have a general agreement. Electing Ministers could ruin this agreement. Especially since most of the regions consider it just a game, while TEPers tend to take GP seriously.

  3. I dont believe that choosing Ministers by elections would improve efficiency and effectiveness in region. There is a lot of power-hungry people in this region, they have a lot of influence, but when it comes to what it comes, they are lazy and doing nothing once in charge. As the only thing they care about is the title they have. While in this case, WADs tend to choose people based on effectiveness, efficiency and experience. I am afraid that citizens would simply choose peoppe they like. And I am afraid of wrong people being in charge. While electing Magisters could be good choice, because it is considered “a boring paperwork with no real power of the unit”, electing Ministers could a wrong way to go, as it is considered “a pretigious seat with a lot of power”. Therefore, that being said, I consider it my main argument against this proposal.

  4. If we really want the Cabinet to be somewhat verified and accepted, then I would go for Ministers being nominated (as a whole Cabinet) by the Delegate and then being accepted by Magisterium (or Magisterium and Conclave) in some general governmental voting. Just to make sure, that they are right people in right places.

  5. One of smaller arguments would be Foreign Affairs. What if a controversial individual is willing to join FA? WAD is mentioning this in a convo with MoFA, but MoFA ignores this (as cannot be fired by WAD) and appoints such an individual as an Ambassador to one of friendly regions? That could only damage our relations.

And that being said, although I do see a possibility of me having profits from such a resolution (in Ministries like ICU - considering my previous job done there or DE - considering me being designer irl), I am heartfully opposing this proposal, as it could cause damage inside and outside the region. I place my full trust in terms of choosing Cabinet on hands of any, democratically chosen Delegate.

Sorry for some mistakes. Sent by phone. Gonna fix the message once Im home.

For full transparency, I will post some remarks I made on Discord regarding this subject :

“I’m not sure electing ministers is a good idea though. I would understand the use of electing certain positions that need some independence.
But a cabinet should be a unity, not a amalgamation of separately elected ministers, each on their own platform. It seems to me this would introduce a lot of strife, and red tape, to the government.”
“I could see the use for electing the EPSA-general, the Chief Officer of Justice, the Viceroy, … positions like that.”

I think there has been some very good discussion today on Discord regarding this. I think most people seem in favor of keeping certain Ministries such as FA, WAA, and RA as appointed positions, given their need for congruence with the Delegate in terms of policy and agenda, while allowing the other ministries to be elected positions. There have been some discussions regarding the specific ministries, combining them, removing some, and reforming others that I’d like to bring up officially here as well.

I will echo some of the thoughts I had regarding the Ministry of Education from the Discord:
“I think it’d be a positive change to remove Education as a ministry entirely and utilize the University as a regional institution instead of just part of the executive. I think the sort of care and attention it requires calls for that sort of approach and will ensure that the person in charge of staffing it and developing it is wholly committed to those efforts. Especially when the tangibles like developing courses and learning material does take quite some time and effort.”

So essentially, the ‘Dean’ or ‘Instructor’ or whatever we call the head of the University would be a citizen-appointed position that would serve indefinitely. That way the person standing for this position clearly has that sort of commitment and it isn’t changing hands (potentially) every few months which can directly impede productivity and progress within the University. I think those that are working within it now can attest to how long it takes to develop a well-thought out course.

[mention]Libertanny[/mention] and I discussed the role of the Ministry of Design and how this is not necessarily needed and is inherently ineffective at its aim. Design/writing/any creative pursuit is something that is fluid, as are the levels of ability across that spectrum. I might be good at making flags, someone else might be better at making banners, someone else might be even better at making dispatch graphics, etc. It’d be better to promote designers and writers as sort of fluid executive roles. If Integration needs someone to make certain graphics, they can ping a designer role in the exec server and see who is willing to contribute, same thing with writing, whether it’s regionwides or newsletters.

I think it makes sense to merge Integration with the Police or abolish the Police as a whole and just hold Viziers accountable to being the security watch-dog force they are meant to be to begin with. I wouldn’t mind hearing others’ thoughts on combining, merging, and reforming some of our Ministries as a whole if we are going to go the direction of electing some of them.