There has been some discussion in Cabinet recently about the possibility of creating a new sub-forum in The House of Commons. This new Forum will be for public Cabinet discussions and will be readable by everyone in the Region. I'd like to point out here that only Cabinet members will be able to start topics and reply to posts, but that doesn't mean that posts can't be replicated in The House of Commons or you're party forum for further discussion.

One idea that came about from this is the combining of the existing Citizen's Voice Forum and House of Commons as both forums essentially cover the same area.

It may be that that Citizen's Voice is a sub-Forum in The House of Commons or the The House of Commons is a sub-Forum in Citizen's Voice. I'd be inclined to to suggest the former (Citizen's Voice being a sub-Forum in The House of Commons).

With the idea for the new Public Cabinet Forum, it should create a streamline access point for Regional Members to discuss issues that Cabinet are dealing with as well as view the ongoing dicussion.

This isn't decided yet, and it's a 'test the water' to see if it thought to be a good idea or not. Any and all suggestions, comments and ideas are welcome.

I like the idea of moving the citizen's voice into the House of Commons and also the creation of a new cabinet sub forum in the HoC.

Creating a separate cabinet sub-forum may seem to be confusing for cabinet members but since it will be open for everyone to see I think the confusion will be minimal and may even reduce the shock for newly elected first time ministers

If we could integrate the regional parties somehow into this new sub-forum this might actually kill two or three birds with one stone. What goes in the open cabinet doesn't need to be disclosed in the cabinet reports, parties would get to be involved and have something to do and ultimately the regional government would take a more open approach to the whole process. It also raises a few questions. Should elected members of "parliament" and/or parties be able to reply to these topics?,etc.


Whatever the cabinet decides I think a calculated risk will have to be taken. As far as I'm concerned, I think testing a system and then abandoning it later would be perfectly acceptable.

Very true. It is hoped though, should this go ahead, that the discussions are referenced to within the body of the Cabinet report - as the new forum would, in many respects, be an extension of the Cabinet Fourm with global viewing permissions.

A problem that could arise, with party members participating in this forum is that with those outside of the discussion may cause it to tangent as well as that too many participants may servce to overcomplicate matters. It is hoped that discussions within this proposed sub-forum will generate parallel discussions with the party Forums. By Parliament, do you mean the current party leaders or the proposed modifications to the party system running in the thread? I would be inclined to say party leaders, although this may still be problematic - and any decsions that are arrived at that affect the Region will be brought to the Region for ratification.

That's the sensible approach.

Thinking out loud here, if the participation in the new cabinet@HoC forum is to be open for participation among non cabinet members, I think limiting participation to party leaders only may be impractical. We might see several one man parties pop up and claim their right to representation. This would create many parties but wouldn't genuinely increase their activity.
Perhaps electing some sort of an official body or parliament with a functional size according to the number of members involved within the parties. To start off I think 3 or 4 would probably suffice. I think enabling participation in open viewed cabinet discussions might be an interesting way to entice greater organization and activity of the parties.

I'm trying to think of things we could channel into organised party activity. NFN recently resigned as cartographer which brings to mind that all of the positions for appointed officials, may be assigned or appointed by the leader of the winning party in election. Perhaps ambassadors. Perhaps the positions of Deputy Ministers in some way.

A party with representation in a proposed parliament {would|should|could} theoretically prepare their position on an issue within their party forum to coordinate their effort in cabinet. while parties without representation could work their own ideas in the same fashion. We all know very well how it works in RL and I think part of our reason for playing NS is because we cherish how western representative democracies work. I'm not sure if any of this is possible within the NS universe, but I would like to think so. In RL there are countless matters that divide and unite people and the political parties serve to represent in government or opposition, people that agree with a particular platform of ideas or party leader. In a NS regional forum I don't think there are enough issues that create such division and require such representation through a parliamentary system. This is not saying that the parties are inevitably useless. We could base parties representing people based on RL views or accept the fact that parties don't necessarily have to find issues where they disagree to define themselves. We could devise a system that would create the regional-security party, inter-regional party, UN resolution party, photoshop party, or something along those lines. I'm getting sleepy so by I'm not sure if any of this monologue is going anywhere. :P

I think one big negative aspect of all this would be having to hold another election and campaign. We already have 5 cabinet ministerial elections(max) and 5 deputy minister VoC's the following weeks. To elect a parliament with N parties running might require electoral system reform to what we've already got. Either holding midterm elections for parliament or increasing the term duration from 3 months to perhaps 4 months to stretch things out a bit.

Creating a "shadow" Cabinet thread, where the general population can see parts of the Cabinet's debates, is an interesting idea. I agree that it could make the transition for new Cabinet members easier and perhaps facilitate the flow of information between the Cabinet and the general region.

What will be included in the public thread(s)? If a thread begins to get too sensitive, will it be moved to a closed area? Should I want to jump into the debate by creating a "mirror" of the thread in the House of Commons, wouldn't that potentially slow the decision process down tremendously, if the ministers are defending positions that they are only just beginning to feel out for themselves?

And, who will be the one deciding what to make public and what to keep private?

If I am waaaay jumping the gun on this one, feel free to tell me to back off. :)

The cabinet as a group will, for now, decide unanimously what can be a publicly-viewed topic. We are concerned about topics which may involve regional security or diplomatic relations not being publicly-viewed.

Creating a "mirror" thread in the HoC I don't think would limit debate, but give cabinet the potential to include input from the region at an earlier stage in discussions. The only potential problem I imagine is flaming ministers before they have made up their mind.

For example, during discussions, I waffle back and forth on issues to explore the merits of a variety of viewpoints, even sides I don't agree with. If I were ridiculed on my position, I might concede more points without truly exploring the issue for myself.

Truthfully, we don't know all the answers to your questions TV. I think by attempting to have the publicly viewed cabinet discussion, we would be exploring the answers to your questions.

True, but in the same way by making the forum open globally could produce over-representation, which partly explains the hope that this forum may increase the use of the party system and create interesting debates within the different party's according to their underlying philosophies.

1. Who would make up the offical body or parliament and how - volunteers, party leaders, those who are appointed (by some as yet undecided mechanism) or something else?

** This idea, to me, would require a change in the current electoral procedure to a more party orientated approach.

1. Can / Are able (if they choose to)?

Theoretically, it is achievable, but is it pragmatic? NationStates by it's very nature,. as you've already noted C6, is that far simpler than real life and, ergo the mechanisms employed can be that much simpler which is why they often work or are riddled with flaws.

It is also of greater benefit to keep the processes as simple as possible, yet maintaining maximum flexibility - rather capacity - for use. If a process is overcomplicated, it often intimidates people - much as real life politics does and drive them away when they have the right to voice their opinions and ideas and participate in elections and referenda if they choose.

Bolded section - Yes. Meaning that a larger proportion of the term would be concerned with creating the representation mechanisms and separate election which could slow down Cabinet progress.

1. ...and the possiblity of a major Consitutional ammendment which could well span over two Cabinet terms depending on the complexities and questions raised during the debate. Consistency is very important, and the possibility exists that one or more Cabinet member may not be in the subsequent Cabinet meaning catch-up will need to be played and that is often a time consuming process in major dicussions and debates.

---

I think that JG has convered everything :). With reagrds to 1. and 2. though:

1. This is a very important point. As JG has said we've not got all the answers and, to some extent would 'feeling our way as we go'. As C6 said in his initial post, it is a calculated risk. It would be unfair to terminate the topic outright, so it may be that portions of the discussion are 'adjourned' whilst Cabinet discusses the sensitive areas in private. On the other hand, it may be that the entire thread is moved. This will, of course, depend largely on the content, context and nature of the discussion which is why we would be 'feeling our way'. Another alternative is that there may be two Cabinet discussion occuring similtaneously - although this would be difficult to manage to some extent.

2.

I think this would need to be explained - perhaps in a pinned (and closed^? topic). Many Cabinet discussion (if not all), start with an exploration of ideas, merits, flaws and opportunities (naming only a few) and definition or context of the idea. Discussion and debate can sometimes be interspersed with tangents that are relevant, or not, to hopefully help this process. In some cases tangents lead to parallel ideas that are spearate from the discussion or debate at hand. JG's comment about giving 'cabinet the potential to include input from the region at an earlier stage in discussions' is one of the clear benefits in the potential for keeping a clearer focus and extensively exploring, defining and contextualisation of existing debatem dialogue and discussion.

I think the long term method would be "elected by a yet undecided mechanism."

Basically I think the idea is that party members and parties would end using the party sub forums to prepare their POV for the open cabinet. This wouldn't be imposed by law I guess, but it might be a natural sub-product of the whole process.

Another great question. Quoting hudson bay (I think) "Change can be a great thing but only when it represents an improvement." If we do change anything as important as this, the bottom line is that it must improve the region's forum. Othwerise its best to leave it alone.

And that is something we should avoid.

While I agree there is a lot of overlap in the Citizen's Voice and HoC, they do technically serve different functions.

The HoC is a place to debate regional political issues, while I feel the CV forum is more of a place where people can make their suggestions, or debate topics, regarding the forums, or other issues that aren't really related to regional politics....like the map, the chat, Frappr, Wiki, etc. (A topic like this one is also ideally placed in the CV forum).


Also, as it stands now, we only allow citizens of the region to post in the HoC. Anyone can post in the CV forum. There are active members of this forum that don't have a nation in the region.......would they be allowed to post in the new merged forum?

If everything goes according to plan, yes. The exact details are still being put together and it may be that the existing Citizens Voice is moved into The House of Commons.

---

1. That infers another election (in order to become elected you require and election so that voters may elect. The points raised here intimate the creation of another election which seems not to be preferred as even yourself has said.

2. If I understand this correctly as:

- Cabinet begin open topic about the price of cheese and small mammal cheese consumption;

- The Nacho Cheese Party debates the issue and prepares a statement and questions;

- The Nacho Cheese Party posts the statement and questions in The House of Commons main Forum for Cabinet's attention;

- Cabinet address The House and dialogue, discussion and debate follow.

Which, in a way isn't a bad thing. It may even be that it is this 'natural sub-product' that is created is what is wanted, as it also tackles two concurrent issues.

- Party inactivity; and

- Increasing participation in Regional government.

3. Which is why I wasked if it was practical in this context. I certainly agree that change is good only if there are clear benefits to what is being changed - or clear justification. Here, the idea is to, the proposed Public Cabinet Forum, create a streamline access point for Regional Members to discuss issues that Cabinet are dealing with as well as view the ongoing dicussion.

I think this is a great idea.

There is a discussion in this thread about archiving the inactive parties in The House of Commons.

I've realised that this may be an opportunity to 'try' the idea of a combined Citizen's Voice and House of Commons meaking the change more fluid rather than in stunted phases.

I was thinking of making the changes to the Citizen's Voice Forum when the inactive parties are Archived. Citizen's Voice will still be a Forum in it's own right, but within The House of Commons. Are there any objections or suggestions to this working plan idea?

I would be interested in starting up a political party based on socialism, or embracing an old one?

There's currently The Canadian Communist Party and The Socialist Alliance Party that have been quiet recently.

I think the Socialist Alliance Party would be a good one for me, is that ok with everyone?

You don't have to ask us for that. Just go right ahead and do what you feel is best. If you want to join a party you should approach the party to apply for membership.

Well its leader is quite innactive and so are the members of it. Maybe I could obtain leadership of it and help it grow?

With regards to this post in Political Party System - Your Thoughts in The House of Commons, it may be best in these instances to have an interim leadership exchange until a given point (return of existing leader or some other trigger point and mechanic). Perhaps it could be tied in with the Cabinet elections to reflect this by appointment of a Deputy Leader.

That's a good step but I don't think that is enough. The ability to eventually challenge for the leadership of a party is essential in my opinion. I'm positive its the reason why we have so many inactive parties.

Bear with me - I'm thinking on my feet.

To run a separate election would be a possible way to allowing legitimate challenges to the leadership for parties. The question is though where would this be held and when? It may be possible to tie it in with the Consitution elections, or perhaps even establish a separate process. Alternatively, challenges for the the leadership of parties could occur within the party itself by way of a poll or even within the Hosue of Commons parent Forum which would provide a benchmark that parties could either use or adapt for their own needs.

There is also the consideration of whether these guidelines would need to be ratified -- perhaps into some form of legislature or the 'rules' of The House of Commons.

It makes more sense, in my mind, to run the polls or leadship challenges within the parties as it is an predmoniantly an internal matter, but with the aid of generic guidelines pinned [and closed^?] in The House of Commons. It could be argued however, that each party should or could have their own system for contestment of leadership implementing a stand-alone process. I guess it essentially boils down to each party -- but as a party they would be tied to the House of Commons policies.

With regards to the guidlines, I think six or seven points should be able to conver all eventualities yet provide enough flexibility.

Yes the parties should set up their own internal electoral process. The election should be done internally and within their sub-forum. I just think that the rules should enforce minimum requirements for parties and the main requirement even if it should be the only requirement must be the exitence of some sort of an internal electoral system. Even if these elections do go uncontested. If we're going to have parties and give them more to do I think at least this much has to be changed.

As this is being discussed in another thread, I was wondering if there'd by any objections to implementing the proposed changes?

The Conservative party proposes that the internal mechanism used for leadership succession be by way of missile-launcher combat.

It's sort of like an election, except everyone's ballot (missile) counts.

Sounds good to me Daemon. As long as they put in a safety regulation that candidates must all wear elbow-pads.

:lol: