Proposed Amendments to New Government

The ANZAC · May 25, 2003, 10:28

1.a. The Marshal cannot rule indefinitely. Politburo will hold sheduled elections to determine the Marshal.
1.b. The Marshal may be removed either by a popular referendum, or by the majority of the Politburo, or by a unanimous STAVKA decision.

2. Front commanders/STAVKA appointments must be confirmed by the Politburo. The Marshall still has the authority to remove a front commander/STAVKA member.

If you agree with the proposed amendments, vote "yes." I guess which ever choice gets the most votes, we will go with, no? Any questions/suggestions, talk about it here. Everyone has 5 days to vote.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · May 25, 2003, 11:08

I suppose I agree with them all, but point (2) will obviously require the Marshal's consent. Otherwise, the Marshal will simply sack a commander he doesn't want, regardless of how often the Politburo appoints said commander.

Dr. Nick · May 25, 2003, 11:18

STYOM, the Politburo only would confirm (ie, the Politburo has veto power), but they won't go around naming commanders, that would still remain the Marshall's prerogative.

The ANZAC · May 25, 2003, 12:28

Yes the Marshal submits who he wants on STAVKA to the Politburo, which then approves of the decision.

This is similar to the US Senate approving the President's cabinet officials. Clearer now I hope?

conmcb25 · May 25, 2003, 12:41

Well as a Proponent of a strong Marshall, I still dont like it. But thats just MHO!

Bossy20000 · May 25, 2003, 13:00

I agree with 1b, but not at all with 1a nor 2. The Marshal should have some (or even quite a lot) power. After all, he runs the war. And if we REALLY don't like how he works, we (the Poltiburo, STAVKA or a combination) can always send him on a vacation to Siberia.
I totally agree with comrade Knapovitch on this, we need a strong Marshal, with the Politburo as a counterbalance, but not as a dead weight on all decisions!

Bossy20000 · May 25, 2003, 13:07

Oh, what I forgot to mention, I think our Marshals until now have done a great job, and I think we shouldn't send them away just because their term is over. If somebody wants to take their place, go lobby with the Politburo or STAVKA and take his place like that. After all, we can't spoil any of our resources!

The ANZAC · May 25, 2003, 13:36

As for the elections issue: he can still run for reelection as many times as he wants, just there will be periodic elections to give contenders a chance to usurp him. There is no limit to the number of terms a marshal can hold under these amendments.

Also, I hardly see the politburo would become a deadweight with these amendments. All these amendments do is allow for periodic elections where the incumbent can still continue and win in them, allow for orderly provisions to remove a marshal, and allow some popular sentiment to go into the selection of front commanders/STAVKA members. Hardly a destruction of the marshal's powers

Six Thousand Year Old Man · May 25, 2003, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by El Awrence
STYOM, the Politburo only would confirm (ie, the Politburo has veto power), but they won't go around naming commanders, that would still remain the Marshall's prerogative.

I doubt there will ever be an impasse between the Marshal and the Poliburo - but there is the potential to be one, if the Politburo refuses to confirm a choice and the Marshal declines to select another choice. Sort of like a Democrat president faced with a Republican Congress...

The ANZAC · May 25, 2003, 14:41

Well, I have faith they could find a compromise

It's split right down the middle

I wonder what we'll do if it stays 50/50....I guess another round of voting

Come on people! Vote and voice your support

If you don't like these, please look somewhere else

H Tower: can you top this as this is somewhat important?

H Tower · May 25, 2003, 16:41

If a few votes swing the results one way, I'm going to have to go looking for allies in the Politburo

The ANZAC · May 25, 2003, 17:19

What, you thought being marshal would be a cakewalk?

conmcb25 · May 25, 2003, 21:04

I dont like it because the Marshall cant do anything to Front Commnaders without doing a "mother may I" at Politburo. This doesn't "destroy" the power of the Marshall but it certainly limits his power.

H Tower · May 25, 2003, 21:50

Quote:

Originally posted by conmcb25
I dont like it because the Marshall cant do anything to Front Commnaders without doing a "mother may I" at Politburo. This doesn't "destroy" the power of the Marshall but it certainly limits his power.

call it an extension of the game into a political realm. The Marshal will have some allies, some enemies, and factions will arise. From what I've heard, it has already begun.

The ANZAC · May 25, 2003, 23:27

Quote:

Originally posted by conmcb25 I dont like it because the Marshall cant do anything to Front Commnaders without doing a "mother may I" at Politburo. This doesn't "destroy" the power of the Marshall but it certainly limits his power.

He can dismiss STAVKA members, but it must be approved. I highly doubt the Politburo will completely block the marshal: the reason for having that check there is so we don't get STAVKA members in their positions who are not qualified.

Uh-oh, it's tied now

Bossy20000 · May 26, 2003, 05:39

If these amendments pass, you better start being nice to the memebers of the Politburo, comrade Marshal! One person can make the difference in this poll, so you better rally all your friends to vote your way

H Tower · May 26, 2003, 14:25

Who says I didn't vote yes?

Bossy20000 · May 26, 2003, 14:44

Hm, good point! But then you would be voting against more power for yourself, and that would be very suspecious! We must investigate this thoroughly!

Dr. Nick · May 26, 2003, 14:48

It's a tactic to confuse the Politburo and seize absolute power!

Bossy20000 · May 26, 2003, 17:32

No, in fact he's trying to be historical! The Marshal had little power, and he wants to add the extra dimension! Oh, what a marshal, setting the wellbeing of the nation in the first place

We should name him Grand Marshal of the Soviet Union, for he sacrifies some his power for the good of his people.

H, I'm glad we worked things out

PinkyGen · May 26, 2003, 22:03

Looks like I have made it 7 for, 8 against with my recent vote after coming back from the capitalist New Jersey. Also, I suppose voting no is against my interest, since I am running for Politburo, but I think the Marshall be able to hire and fire as he pleases, so long as he realizes we may hire and fire him as well

The ANZAC · May 26, 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by PinkyGen
Looks like I have made it 7 for, 8 against with my recent vote after coming back from the capitalist New Jersey. Also, I suppose voting no is against my interest, since I am running for Politburo, but I think the Marshall be able to hire and fire as he pleases, so long as he realizes we may hire and fire him as well

Well, under the current government plan, there are no provisions for an early removal of a marshal, or for when elections should be held to determine the marshal. So the marshal cannot be removed in an orderly fashion in the current government.

I see a lot of people have problems with the STAVKA appointment clause. If the amendment doesn't pass I am tempted just to submit the first half and drop the second half about STAVKA members and the like. Would people be more willing to embrace it if I left off part 2?

EZRhino · May 27, 2003, 00:07

Quote:

Originally posted by PinkyGen
Looks like I have made it 7 for, 8 against with my recent vote after coming back from the capitalist New Jersey. Also, I suppose voting no is against my interest, since I am running for Politburo, but I think the Marshall be able to hire and fire as he pleases, so long as he realizes we may hire and fire him as well

Um.. Yes, of course. If you will excuse me...
*Summons guard* That man is a nazi spy, have him dragged outside and shot.

H Tower · May 27, 2003, 00:12

Quote:

Originally posted by The ANZAC
I see a lot of people have problems with the STAVKA appointment clause. If the amendment doesn't pass I am tempted just to submit the first half and drop the second half about STAVKA members and the like. Would people be more willing to embrace it if I left off part 2?

Your pork barrel bill may still pass, it's tied again

Bossy20000 · May 27, 2003, 05:18

You Americans really seem to like elections where every vote counts

Anzac, I think most people have problems with the second part, but I also think we shouldn't have elections for Marshal every year or so. We could say that if somebody is interested, he can contact the Politburo, and if a majority (4 out of 7) there thinks this would be a good thing, they can organize an election. This way, people serious about becoming Marshal can have an election, without us having a fixed election every x months which will take quite some time since we can't continue the war without knowing which Marshal is in command and what his plans are.

H Tower · May 27, 2003, 09:27

The Politburo can always hold a loose definition of elections. they can create a nominations thread to see if anyone is interested in being Marshal, if no one steps forward, then the election is an "election of the willing" and the matter is dropped. That's a bit of a perversion of the amendment though

Bossy20000 · May 27, 2003, 10:32

But it saves us time. If nobody else wants the job, it is a waste of time to hold elections. If somebody wants to become marshal, he can always ask for elections.

EZRhino · May 27, 2003, 14:08

I dont see how it wastes time unnecisarily, It hardly takes much time to vote in a poll, and this way it puts more pressure on the Marshal to dazzle us with daring exploits during those few pre-election turns.

conmcb25 · May 27, 2003, 14:14

A tie means the measure is defeated, correct?

Bossy20000 · May 27, 2003, 14:42

Well, comrade EZRhino, you see how long the Politburo-elections take. Each time we would have elections for the position of Marshal, it would take at least as long, AND we couldn't continue playing in the mean time because a new Marshal could have a new strategy. That's what I meant with a waste of time.

Comrade Knapovitch, I really don't know

What have we agreed on?