How the political module is supposed to work
Day 2,118, 01:15
•
Published in Ireland 
•
by
•
by Releasethe Krakken
Background(reason for writing this article)
I recently spotted a guide for the congress by our incumbent CP Ian E Coleman. It was interesting from a couple of points.
1. It seems that Ian wants to reduce the powers of congress considerably.
2. It seems every proposal must be approved by the cabinet.
How the Political Module works
Rogue Proposals:
Rogue proposals is a "political term" that was created to mean that a congress member that makes a proposal made so without authority. We must think carefully and thoroughly think out this concept.
rogue (plural rogues)
A scoundrel, rascal or unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person. [quotations ▼]
A mischievous scamp.
A vagrant.
Deceitful software pretending to be anti-spyware, but in fact being malicious software itself.
An aggressive animal separate from the herd, especially an elephant.
A plant that shows some undesirable variation. [quotations ▼]
Although it seems the word is used incorrectly it is clear what its meaning is as explained by me beforehand.
Every one of the top 5 political parties represent a certain percentage of the population.
What is usually referred to as your constituents: Now it seems people around here never grasp the concept truly:
Constituent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Constituent or constituency may refer to:
Contents [hide]
1 In politics
The people of an area or district who vote for their congressperson and are represented by him/her for the congressional period.
Electoral district or constituency
Constituent (politics), an individual voter within an electoral constituency that let the constitution appeal to people
Interest group or constituency
Each party raises issues with which it associate itself for example Party X might say our issues are:
1. Work Tax at 1%
2.No foreigners in our country or CLOSED BORDER.
whereas Party Y might say
1. Work Tax at 5%
2. Open border policy.
Constituent A is not bothered with the amount of foreigners and although he leans slightly towards OPEN BORDER he vote for Party X because of the 1% Work Tax.
How congressman should operate:
quote: "In politics, a mandate is the authority granted by a constituency to act as its representative.[1]"
There is this delusion that congress members is independent of their PP but this is a fallacy. It was the party that chose them to bring forward their instructions to government. Lets call it by its clearer word "policies".
In other words he is their representative and must carry out his defined mandate as set out in the Parties policies.
In short policies is what the constituents agreed with the political party and want them to put forward to the government as a proposal
We have seen that Party X has the policy of a closed border. Now as it has more than one issue or policy that it brings to government we can say that:
A CONSTITUENTS EVERY THOUGHT AND FEELINGS IS NOT REPRESENTED A 100% BY THE POLITICAL PARTY IT GAVE THE MANDATE TO REPRESENT HIM IN GOVERNMENT.
So we are starting to work with grey data. A constituent must vote for the political party that most closely represent the issues it wants to see implemented or that must remain in effect(if its already 1% a voter might want it to remain this way).
However the political party must bring to the table 100% its issues or policies.
EVEN THOUGH CONSTITUENT A WAS LEANING TOWARDS OPEN BORDER BECAUSE IT WAS A OFFICIAL POLICY OF PARTY X THAT CLOSED BORDERS MUST BE PURSUED PARTY X HAS ALSO THE MANDATE FROM CONSTITUENT A TO PURSUE CLOSED BORDERS.
Is rogue proposals possible.
YES look at this diagram it shows how a true rogue proposal happens.
However: If a proposal would clash with a official policy even though the congress member gets approval it would be considered a rogue proposal. So parties must formulate their policies carefully.
What must happen then is that if the congress member do not apologize to his party they must simply not put him forward as their representative.
There is a lot of issues a party must decide on but atleast:
A PARTY MUST PUT FORWARD AS ISSUES ITS MAIN POLICIES ON IMPORTANT SUBJECTS TO THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE
I dont want to put a defined list here but certainly:
1. Alliances.(sorry yes of course this is the authority of the MOFA)
2. Our relationships with our closed neighbors .(also outside authority)
3. Economic policies.
4. Natural enemies.
5. Citizenship applications.
6. MPP'S.
Although 1 and 2 is not within its authority it provides a good guideline to the MOFA when he carries out his actions so to help him this may be determined and set forward but ultimately congress does not have the authority to carry out these actions the MOFA has.
THE ROLE OF THE COUNTRY PRESIDENT:
Does a country president stand independent of its political party even its own political party.
In our system any member of Ireland can be proposed by a political party as a CP. However I would think that if you want your own parties full backing you will consult with them and have a mutual understanding of what campaign issues you will handle once in the seat Else why would they back you to start with. Furthermore this last sentence also apply to a non party member because:
WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF ATLEAST ONE POLITICAL PARTY NO CP CANDIDATE CAN RUN FOR THE CP POSITION.
I will briefly delve further into this but it is clear what the role of cabinet is:
Running the day to day activities of the government:
1. Choosing alliances.
2. Handle the money of government.
3. Interact with other governments.
4. Getting policies it wants implemented by congress. The laws can only be made by congress or voted upon by congress. Lets run you down how it should work then from a PP view:
As you can see when a policy governments want to implement differs from the parties own policy it must vote NO if a proposal is in agreement or in close agreement with their own policy they must vote YES. If they have no policy their congress member may vote as he pleases.
Therefore it is important that a political party formulate and present to its potential constituents as thorough as possible policies. And that it takes a stand on as most issues as possible even if its stand is controversial.
KNOW WE RETURN TO THE QUESTION CAN CABINET APPROVE OR DISSAPROVE OF PROPOSALS
As pointed out a PP parties congress members has a defined mandate and must act the following with its policies:
1. Propose its policies if it is not already implemented
--Constituents voted based on policies or how far the policies of the party matches their own ideas. So not taking a policy to table means :
THE WISHES OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE PARTY OR VOTERS IS NOT CARRIED OUT!!!
2. Gather support for its proposals but eventaully must:
BRING ITS POLICIES TO THE TABLE.
WHY?
A voter votes the party for 1 term or 1 month that means in that month the party has a "contract" with the voters to ensure that the policies that they and voters agreed upon is brought to the table. The parties mandate ends by the end of the month so saying but we will propose it next month is not sufficient for next month the constituents and policies may change.
In short political parties:
CARRY OUT THE MANDATE BY WHICH YOU GAINED SUPPORT OR LOSE THE SUPPORT!!!
So then to answer the question does cabinet have the authority to approve or dissaprove of congress proposal or term them as "rogue proposal" - NO
The Main problem that a inexperienced CP or Cabinet creates:
1. Taking over the functions of congress:
- Whilst a CP or cabinet minister may propose certain proposals and influence congress to implement these laws. And in a sense has the duty to do this. He has by no means the authority to interfere with actions that is the duty of CONGRESS.
- The final authority on these actions lies with Congress members who is acting under a defined mandate of its constituents.
The following actions may not be handled by Cabinet:
1. Citizenship applications.
2. Laws.
although they have the right to ask for the implementation of a 1 month guideline it is up to congress members to decide whether they want to follow the guideline and even if the majority of congress members accepted these guidelines the minority congress members must still act under the policies that was proposed by its political party and that was voted on by its constituents.
Scenarios:
1.Party A clearly states that the decision of who will be allowed in this country will lie with them. Constituent A gives them the authority to do this by voting them and their representative Congress Member 1 must carry out their defined mandate and therefore before he approves a citizenship application put it to his political party.
2. Party B allow congress members to make this decision on their own. Therefore when constituent B votes for Party B he gives them the authority and instruction that their congress member must make this decision on his own. This is still a clear and defined mandate: Congress member 2 cannot ask for other congress members or a cabinet minister to make this decision he must follow his mandate and decide for himself.
3. Party C's policy is that a Minister must approve citizen applications. Its gets its authority from constituent C who therefore gives it the instruction and authority to act in this manner. So congress member 3 has the defined and clear mandate to before it allows a citizen application ask for approval from a cabinet minister.
HOWEVER: 3 must be frowned upon. Political parties gets its power from congress signing away these powers should be frowned upon by constituents as it wants a clear and string division of powers. Each division must act on its own and influence the term in its own way.
So we can clearly see what the problem is with Ireland through time the duties of CONGRESS has become watered down and CP's have wrongly taken decisions that is the exclusive prerogative of CONGRESS and assigned it to ministers:
* PREROGATIVE A hereditary or official right or privilege.
A right, or power that is exclusive to a monarch etc, especially such a power to make a decision or judgement.
A right, generally [quotations ▼
I have discussed how the political module works and how everyone that is in must operate so will not say more.
Thank you for reading this rather long article and may the Word be with you.
I recently spotted a guide for the congress by our incumbent CP Ian E Coleman. It was interesting from a couple of points.
1. It seems that Ian wants to reduce the powers of congress considerably.
2. It seems every proposal must be approved by the cabinet.
How the Political Module works
Rogue Proposals:
Rogue proposals is a "political term" that was created to mean that a congress member that makes a proposal made so without authority. We must think carefully and thoroughly think out this concept.
rogue (plural rogues)
A scoundrel, rascal or unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person. [quotations ▼]
A mischievous scamp.
A vagrant.
Deceitful software pretending to be anti-spyware, but in fact being malicious software itself.
An aggressive animal separate from the herd, especially an elephant.
A plant that shows some undesirable variation. [quotations ▼]
Although it seems the word is used incorrectly it is clear what its meaning is as explained by me beforehand.
Every one of the top 5 political parties represent a certain percentage of the population.
What is usually referred to as your constituents: Now it seems people around here never grasp the concept truly:
Constituent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Constituent or constituency may refer to:
Contents [hide]
1 In politics
The people of an area or district who vote for their congressperson and are represented by him/her for the congressional period.
Electoral district or constituency
Constituent (politics), an individual voter within an electoral constituency that let the constitution appeal to people
Interest group or constituency
Each party raises issues with which it associate itself for example Party X might say our issues are:
1. Work Tax at 1%
2.No foreigners in our country or CLOSED BORDER.
whereas Party Y might say
1. Work Tax at 5%
2. Open border policy.
Constituent A is not bothered with the amount of foreigners and although he leans slightly towards OPEN BORDER he vote for Party X because of the 1% Work Tax.
How congressman should operate:
quote: "In politics, a mandate is the authority granted by a constituency to act as its representative.[1]"
There is this delusion that congress members is independent of their PP but this is a fallacy. It was the party that chose them to bring forward their instructions to government. Lets call it by its clearer word "policies".
In other words he is their representative and must carry out his defined mandate as set out in the Parties policies.
In short policies is what the constituents agreed with the political party and want them to put forward to the government as a proposal
We have seen that Party X has the policy of a closed border. Now as it has more than one issue or policy that it brings to government we can say that:
A CONSTITUENTS EVERY THOUGHT AND FEELINGS IS NOT REPRESENTED A 100% BY THE POLITICAL PARTY IT GAVE THE MANDATE TO REPRESENT HIM IN GOVERNMENT.
So we are starting to work with grey data. A constituent must vote for the political party that most closely represent the issues it wants to see implemented or that must remain in effect(if its already 1% a voter might want it to remain this way).
However the political party must bring to the table 100% its issues or policies.
EVEN THOUGH CONSTITUENT A WAS LEANING TOWARDS OPEN BORDER BECAUSE IT WAS A OFFICIAL POLICY OF PARTY X THAT CLOSED BORDERS MUST BE PURSUED PARTY X HAS ALSO THE MANDATE FROM CONSTITUENT A TO PURSUE CLOSED BORDERS.
Is rogue proposals possible.
YES look at this diagram it shows how a true rogue proposal happens.
However: If a proposal would clash with a official policy even though the congress member gets approval it would be considered a rogue proposal. So parties must formulate their policies carefully.
What must happen then is that if the congress member do not apologize to his party they must simply not put him forward as their representative.
There is a lot of issues a party must decide on but atleast:
A PARTY MUST PUT FORWARD AS ISSUES ITS MAIN POLICIES ON IMPORTANT SUBJECTS TO THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE
I dont want to put a defined list here but certainly:
1. Alliances.(sorry yes of course this is the authority of the MOFA)
2. Our relationships with our closed neighbors .(also outside authority)
3. Economic policies.
4. Natural enemies.
5. Citizenship applications.
6. MPP'S.
Although 1 and 2 is not within its authority it provides a good guideline to the MOFA when he carries out his actions so to help him this may be determined and set forward but ultimately congress does not have the authority to carry out these actions the MOFA has.
THE ROLE OF THE COUNTRY PRESIDENT:
Does a country president stand independent of its political party even its own political party.
In our system any member of Ireland can be proposed by a political party as a CP. However I would think that if you want your own parties full backing you will consult with them and have a mutual understanding of what campaign issues you will handle once in the seat Else why would they back you to start with. Furthermore this last sentence also apply to a non party member because:
WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF ATLEAST ONE POLITICAL PARTY NO CP CANDIDATE CAN RUN FOR THE CP POSITION.
I will briefly delve further into this but it is clear what the role of cabinet is:
Running the day to day activities of the government:
1. Choosing alliances.
2. Handle the money of government.
3. Interact with other governments.
4. Getting policies it wants implemented by congress. The laws can only be made by congress or voted upon by congress. Lets run you down how it should work then from a PP view:
As you can see when a policy governments want to implement differs from the parties own policy it must vote NO if a proposal is in agreement or in close agreement with their own policy they must vote YES. If they have no policy their congress member may vote as he pleases.
Therefore it is important that a political party formulate and present to its potential constituents as thorough as possible policies. And that it takes a stand on as most issues as possible even if its stand is controversial.
KNOW WE RETURN TO THE QUESTION CAN CABINET APPROVE OR DISSAPROVE OF PROPOSALS
As pointed out a PP parties congress members has a defined mandate and must act the following with its policies:
1. Propose its policies if it is not already implemented
--Constituents voted based on policies or how far the policies of the party matches their own ideas. So not taking a policy to table means :
THE WISHES OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE PARTY OR VOTERS IS NOT CARRIED OUT!!!
2. Gather support for its proposals but eventaully must:
BRING ITS POLICIES TO THE TABLE.
WHY?
A voter votes the party for 1 term or 1 month that means in that month the party has a "contract" with the voters to ensure that the policies that they and voters agreed upon is brought to the table. The parties mandate ends by the end of the month so saying but we will propose it next month is not sufficient for next month the constituents and policies may change.
In short political parties:
CARRY OUT THE MANDATE BY WHICH YOU GAINED SUPPORT OR LOSE THE SUPPORT!!!
So then to answer the question does cabinet have the authority to approve or dissaprove of congress proposal or term them as "rogue proposal" - NO
The Main problem that a inexperienced CP or Cabinet creates:
1. Taking over the functions of congress:
- Whilst a CP or cabinet minister may propose certain proposals and influence congress to implement these laws. And in a sense has the duty to do this. He has by no means the authority to interfere with actions that is the duty of CONGRESS.
- The final authority on these actions lies with Congress members who is acting under a defined mandate of its constituents.
The following actions may not be handled by Cabinet:
1. Citizenship applications.
2. Laws.
although they have the right to ask for the implementation of a 1 month guideline it is up to congress members to decide whether they want to follow the guideline and even if the majority of congress members accepted these guidelines the minority congress members must still act under the policies that was proposed by its political party and that was voted on by its constituents.
Scenarios:
1.Party A clearly states that the decision of who will be allowed in this country will lie with them. Constituent A gives them the authority to do this by voting them and their representative Congress Member 1 must carry out their defined mandate and therefore before he approves a citizenship application put it to his political party.
2. Party B allow congress members to make this decision on their own. Therefore when constituent B votes for Party B he gives them the authority and instruction that their congress member must make this decision on his own. This is still a clear and defined mandate: Congress member 2 cannot ask for other congress members or a cabinet minister to make this decision he must follow his mandate and decide for himself.
3. Party C's policy is that a Minister must approve citizen applications. Its gets its authority from constituent C who therefore gives it the instruction and authority to act in this manner. So congress member 3 has the defined and clear mandate to before it allows a citizen application ask for approval from a cabinet minister.
HOWEVER: 3 must be frowned upon. Political parties gets its power from congress signing away these powers should be frowned upon by constituents as it wants a clear and string division of powers. Each division must act on its own and influence the term in its own way.
So we can clearly see what the problem is with Ireland through time the duties of CONGRESS has become watered down and CP's have wrongly taken decisions that is the exclusive prerogative of CONGRESS and assigned it to ministers:
* PREROGATIVE A hereditary or official right or privilege.
A right, or power that is exclusive to a monarch etc, especially such a power to make a decision or judgement.
A right, generally [quotations ▼
I have discussed how the political module works and how everyone that is in must operate so will not say more.
Thank you for reading this rather long article and may the Word be with you.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
The Word.....
Last months we had a CP who support thiefs and traitors.
this month we have a CP who support thiefs, traitors and sex abusers.....
Ireland is going forward..no question about it...
Problem it is going forward in shit......
this is my doctorate for the university. 😃
I don't think that was quite the intent of the policy. Minority policies still deserve proposals. But let's get the debate out of the way BEFORE the actual proposal, instead of sparking a bunch of reactionary bickering to a proposal nobody saw coming.
Tell congress you are going to propose law X. Then discuss law X for at least a day or 2. At the end of debate (regardless of any seeming consensus) the law can be safely proposed. Congress members will then vote on it based on the information learned through the course of the dail debate. The consensus of members who participate in discourse may not be the actual consensus of the whole dail. Some silent members may vote the other way. If enough do, then the law will pass. Maybe by actually having the discussion before the proposal, the minority opinion can win some undecideds to their side. That is why the policy is in place.
As I saw it, the purpose of the policy was not to prevent people from making proposals that the administration doesn't like. The policy was to ensure the dail has heard the merits of both sides of the yes/no vote BEFORE the proposal is actually made.
The administration can recommend a yes/no, but they cannot force the dail members to vote that way. Each vote still belongs to the elected congress member.
but your excluding the public or constituents . as i said a party may have a policy to decide themselves on what proposals to make enough people voted for them to get the few congress members they have. therefore their mandate must not be interfered with. its the same argument as the policy some parties have to voting a pp outside of the game. the game has good mechanics although it only allows the person that made the proposal to debate. but i am certain if you wrote the congressman that put up the debating article he can include your article as counter or the link to it anyway. 24 hours should be enough for any proposal.
but my article is not really as much about colemans proposal or article its more my view on the level of power separation there must be
There's no rule against an article on potential proposals, if you want public feedback, too. The more input, the more the policy can be vetted. personally, I would love to see more articles before proposals. Go for it, man.
in the strictest sense the 2 need to even interact. cp etc makes decisions about alliances, and handling the money and congress handles laws and citizen applications. if colemans arguments holds then the opposite must also be true and congress must approve each decision of cabinet? in other words everyone will be holding everyone else's hands.
re your latest comment: game mechanics only allow 1 debating article or am i wrong and only a congress man can provide the link to a debating article,
The link is moot, people rarely click that thing. One alloted link hardly limits the discourse to one location.
The proposal should be well discussed in articles, and the dail, and the shout wall, and maybe even party or MU chat. Then there will be plenty of info out there for each dail member to make an informed vote.
no it was just written as some kind of opposing guideline for young congress members. i get the impression they often do no know what to do and if their just gonna implement what the cabinet approves it means one party has a influence of 100% on political decisions.
The rules regarding rogue Congress proposals were originally voted into use by Congress itself.
Our CP is merely trying to reinstate their use.
congress has a life of 30 days so anything that was voted in previously shouldn't still apply.or what do you jurassic parkers think about this?
That approach would prevent the nation from creating/accomplishing any long term agendas, and bog down each new Dail with an extraordinary amount of redundant work.
However the new Congress is not constrained by it's predecessors.
Current Congress can vote to amend/repeal the acts of previous Dail.
So if the current Dail is unhappy with our CP's request to follow previously established Dail procedure, they are free to forward a motion to change that procedure.
or it can just ignore it 😃
Some Congressmen opt to do just that RTK. However Congress is democratic, and many of their contemporaries are the very people who ratified those motions in the first place.
It has been a long standing tradition in the Dail for proposals to have a one day debate period BEFORE votes were called. I have been here for almost 4 years and that has been the process for all that time. Only recently has it fallen by the wayside. Ian is just trying to bring it back. Almost no one has had an issue with it in the past. If they did they didn't make a big fuss about it.
There have always been rouge proposals. As a tradition most TDs voted them down because they didn't have the proper debate. whether that debate is in the Dail threads or newspapers ( not wise for national security measures ) doesn't matter. We still have TDs who vote no for all proposals that have no debate.
Not an attempt to get rid of democracy, just tradition.