[DRAFT] Capitalist Paradise Constitution, A bunch of ideas I stole from others...

Generally speaking, I approve of NeoYomato's new constitution, but it's simply a bit... too much like the current system for my taste. Of course, my taste could be totally off-kilter, which is why I need all the good nations of the Capitalist Paradise and vote for which they think has the most potential. This vote is completely informal, unofficial, and you can change your mind later on if you so wish. It's just to help me decide which one of the three draft constitutions to push to a vote. (If Any).

Without further ado...

NeoYamato's Constitution Draft

Germoaustria's Constitution Draft

Afforess's Constitution Draft

Afforess, I haven't read yours yet ("Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage," I'll try again later) but so far I prefer Germoaustria's. The only significant thing I don't like is the Senate. I feel that one house of the Legislature is enough and that for the purpose of seperation of powers, we shouldn't have a legislative body where the CEO gets a vote.

The reason I have the senate is so we have a kind of screen before a bill goes to a General Vote, and a more democratic military.

The reason the CEO has a vote is because I wanted there to be an odd number of Senators, but I am more than willing to work with you and reajust that.

I have your back Afforess,

Afforess's Constitution Draft

My problem with Afforess's draft is that it does not seperate the offices of Delegate and CEO, and does not provide for full sufferage when electing our CEO. I do not like the 5% quota for bills either, though I am willing to live with that.

My problem with Afforess's draft is that it does not seperate the offices of Delegate and CEO, and does not provide for full sufferage when electing our CEO. I do not like the 5% quota for bills either, though I am willing to live with that.

My draft abolishes the CEO. There is only a POL and the Delegate.

My problem with Afforess's draft is that it does not seperate the offices of Delegate and CEO, and does not provide for full sufferage when electing our CEO. I do not like the 5% quota for bills either, though I am willing to live with that.

My draft abolishes the CEO. There is only a POL and the Delegate.

The Delegate still has the mass majority of the CEO's power though.

My problem with Afforess's draft is that it does not seperate the offices of Delegate and CEO, and does not provide for full sufferage when electing our CEO. I do not like the 5% quota for bills either, though I am willing to live with that.

My draft abolishes the CEO. There is only a POL and the Delegate.

The Delegate still has the mass majority of the CEO's power though.

Well yes. It's important to have a strong executive branch. Having a weak one leads to the Military Militia incident that Quebec had happen. Quebec was unable to do anything to respond to it. Do we want more of that?

It would seem to me that the primary two ideas are present in NeoYamato's, Afforess', and Germoaustria's. I bring this up primarily because the largest differences in the three stem from the following:

A separation of powers into a Senate and House of Nations.

A separation of powers into a Delegate and POL. (As opposed to a CEO)

That being said, what really needs to be figured out is which system is more effective. Mind you, this is not an all one way or all the other sort of deal. We can have a separation of powers into a Senate and House and still have a powerful CEO.

Should there be debate on this, I ask that we try to keep the debate as basic as possible. I do not mean for people to try to keep their ideas primitive, but that they should deal with the foundations of this problem instead of its minute details. (The reason for such a request is that the aforementioned debate style would prove more productive than alternative debate styles.)

And for the sake of Afforess, whose board we all play in presently, I will say a few things on the proposed constitution that I believe can or should be changed for the betterment of the constitution should you please.


First and foremost you have an economy clause in there under Section 4. (Which seemed to come from another constitution, whose list of corrections showed that the clause had been fixed but whose final copy still had the clause.) (Since fixed in that pesky constitution.)

Second, and this is in both the NeoYamato constitution and the Afforess constitution, the ratification is all wrong. See the revised NeoYamato constitution and you'll see my point.

Third, the Afforess Senate can only convene on legislature from the previous week, whereas it is set up to handle the legislature from the previous month.

Fourth, the duties and powers of the Pol are not stated.

Fifth, the Arbiter is decided by the Chief Justice, but under the constitution there is no Chief Justice. (In fact, it is stated that all are equal.)


That's all I caught on a quick run through. I can look at it again later in greater detail should you wish. Anyways, all three of these constitutions are at varying levels of evolution and so there should be no surprise that this youngest of constitutions still has errors. (Besides, it would seem a few of them were shared between the youngest and the oldest.)

I think this constitution can be made rather flawless, as can the other two. But as stated above, the problem is not in the constitutions but in the base ideology of them.

My problem with Afforess's draft is that it does not seperate the offices of Delegate and CEO, and does not provide for full sufferage when electing our CEO. I do not like the 5% quota for bills either, though I am willing to live with that.

My draft abolishes the CEO. There is only a POL and the Delegate.

The Delegate still has the mass majority of the CEO's power though.

Well yes. It's important to have a strong executive branch. Having a weak one leads to the Military Militia incident that Quebec had happen. Quebec was unable to do anything to respond to it. Do we want more of that?

That happened while our offices were one in the same. My Constitution does not make the executive weak, if anything it makes the more important office stronger and more stable, you don't like it because it will cause you to loose power.

Woa

Woa

Well, I call it as it see it, and it seems that way.

Just a quick thought about the voting. Should we hold a 2 week long census to see how many active members there are? Everyone would be "required" to make a post in some thread, between arbitrary dates, saying they were there. We could then base voting numbers off of the census, instead of a total member count. Seriously, we have, what? 100+ members on the forums? Seems like only 10 of us post regularly enough to really affect anything.