On the Minister Hard Cap
Written by Monkey with poll input and advice from Calvin Coolidge
Published 5 May 2020Written by Monkey with poll input and advice from Calvin Coolidge
The Republic of Europeia was dramatically changed when former President Sopo signed the Executive Split Omnibus on February 3rd, 2019. Since then, Europeia has been ruled under a dual-executive: a First Minister responsible for internal affairs, and a Chief of State responsible for foreign affairs. Now, the region is seeking to roll back this change and return to our former single executive, Presidential system. The official Senate discussion thread was opened on March 22nd by Senator Deepest House, almost 2 months ago. The Senate has not wasted time in tackling this issue. The 73rd Senate, led by Speaker Lloenflys, boasts a 9 member roster, with a mixture of both old hands and newer legislators. The Senate immediately identified cabinet structure as a key issue in the executive split. After the dust settled, it seems that the majority of Europeia is divided into three main camps. One that argues for a hard cap, or instituting a clear limit on the number of Ministers that an Executive is able to appoint. This is seen as the most rigid or firm approach presented so far. The moderate option is proposing a soft cap, or essentially instituting an advisory limit, and nominees past that limit would undergo further Senate scrutiny in order to be confirmed. The last approach is not instituting any change at all, and leaving the elected executive with the power to nominate Ministers at their discretion. There also have been debates over other possible compromises, such as altogether raising the confirmation requirement, or even combining Ministries, or giving select groups more autonomy and terms, similar to how the EIA or the WAD operate currently in Europeia.
The Argument for a Hard Cap
After getting the ball rolling, Senator Deepest House was the first to propose the idea of a mandatory limit on nominees, arguing that it would “allow a presidential candidate to present a vision to the electorate that is more than a simple “paint by numbers”. In a later post, Senator Deepest House followed up by arguing that this hard cap on Minister would “allows us to confront executive bloat, streamline the cabinet to our active player base, restore prestige to these positions, and encourage political gameplay to earn them”. The Senator also emphasized the flexibility that this plan affords to the executive, but also highlighted the fact that it would force the Executive to prioritize where they want to assign resources. Senator Darcness also came out in support of the mandatory limit, going as far as to state “The Executive has been drastically incapable of understanding it's own capacity.” and noting that the hard cap would “provide some (very basic) constraints to rein the Executive in a bit”. Senator Darcness went on to rebutt the option of a soft cap, asking “When was the last time this body was unable to pass a Constitutional Amendment with the required 2/3rds majority (but would have with a 50%+1 majority)?... Creating majority metrics aren't significant barriers. In fact, according to the data, they're not barriers at all.” Senator Darcness doubled down on the soft cap plan further: “When was the last time a Minister was approved with 50% of the vote, but not 2/3rds? Or even 3/4ths? Pretty much never. So, historically the Senate has never been one to put a stop to a particular nomination”. Here, Senator Darcness also argues against the usefulness of Senate oversight, stating that if a Senate were to reject hypothetical nominees, then, “This President simply points at their electoral mandate, wherein the people supported this much stuff (whether it made sense or not).” Senator Rotasu and Senator Deepest House also echoed their support of Senator Darcness’ logic, and Senator Deepest House went on to say that “not every project has to be a Ministry-level position, and there is nothing wrong with being a deputy minister.” and that the region should focus on “a system that allows for meaningful growth from junior minister through deputy minister to minister.”, and summarizing his view that the hard cap would allow the region to “restore prestige to the positions, promote competition for appointed leadership positions, and establish meaningful career advancement by promoting the establishment of meaningful deputy minister roles.”.
The Moderate Proposal
Senator Calvin Coolidge first suggested the moderate option, where any nominees above a soft threshold would allow higher approval, which he suggested would “keeps things pretty flexible for the Executive” while it “also reinforces to the Executive that the goal is to keep things small”. Senator Peeps pointed out that this option might have issues that the Senators needed to work out if it were to be used however, for even Senator Calvin Coolidge noted that “there is room for the President to bend the rules and somehow have a new Ministry only need a majority, while a Ministry like Comms needs the 2/3.” Once the debate pivoted more intensely to the topic of Minister caps, Senator Prim came out in support of the plan, putting forth the idea that “An ambitious and confident Executive, I think, would be bold enough to create a new one and risk the higher confirmation requirements...I think that's the kind of person I'd feel more comfortable with, managing an additional Ministry with a bigger vision.”Senator Prim also noted that this option would be a moderate compromise, which would “bolster the Senate's oversight power, but still allowable enough for new Ministries”. The Senator also noted that “when I'm not in a minister position, I tend to get active in several different Ministries...But when I'm running a Ministry, I tend to cut back on participation in other Ministries and focus on my own.”, pointing out a “drain on our inter-Ministry participation and junior staffing”. The addition of Senator McEntire after the by-election to replace Senator Sopo’s seat lead to another increase in the ranks of Senators supporting a moderate option.
Stay the Course
Senator Sopo then jumped in to provide his thoughts on the matter, arguing that “the executive is elected based on their platform and their vision...The Senate can certainly exercise caution when approving seemingly superfluous positions”, but seemed to argue against for a cap of any kind. It is important to note that Speaker Lloenflys had earlier come out generally against an cap on Ministers, arguing that “Removing the power of the Executive to structure their cabinet as they see fit does not necessarily strike me a good idea“ but later reinforced his view, saying that “would not limit the executive in determining a structure”, but emphasized the role of the Senate in ensuring that the Executive cabinet is realistic and capable to be staffed. After pivoting to debate specifically focusing on the Minister Cap, speaker Lloenflys ultimately issues the statement that “that any attempt to cap ministers is in my opinion antithetical to the spirit of the region and I will not support it”. Senator Sopo doubled down and finalized his view against the Minister hard cap, arguing, “our role there is one of oversight, not imposing hard numbers”, and advocating for flexibility among the executive, which Senator Olde Delware expressed his assent with.
To the Data:
“I would like to note here that it's very likely that any reform bill that comes out of the Senate will be subject to a referendum -- a hard cap with no ability to increase is very unlikely to fare well in a public referendum, I don't think.”. - Senator PrimThe following are the results from the poll that I conducted regarding the Minister Cap debate. The poll was released on May 4th, and was open for more than 36 hours. During that time period, I received 23 responses.
Interestingly, a majority of the respondents marked that they actually preferred no cap on Ministries. While I was conducting my background research, it seemed to me that for the most part, the debate in the Senate mostly focused between those advocating a hard cap versus those arguing for a soft cap, with a small minority pressing for no cap at all. This poll however, shows a drastically different mindset within the region. It seems that a hard cap is the least popular option, receiving only 4.3%. The option for a soft cap received over a quarter of the vote, but looking at the results still suggest that instituting no cap at all fares better than all the other options combined. Something important to note that the current plan suggested tentatively by the Senate was not included in this poll, and it would be interesting to measure how that option might lead to a different result. The second and third option (red and gold respectively) would have been the most similar to the current suggested proposal, however even those added together do not beat not instituting any cap at all.
Interestingly enough, Senator Calvin Coolidge even remarked that “the Senate has just given extreme deference to the President/FM/CoS.”, despite its duty to perform oversight on nominees. Senator Olde Deleware noted the same sentiment, “if the Senate is passing 97% of nominees that is presented to it from the Executive, its essentially just a formality.” Both of these Senators ended up agreeing that stronger oversight on confirmations is needed going forward. Senator Rotasu however, gave a different outlook on the issue, arguing that “The Senate passing nominees is a "formality" is because rarely there is nominee that isn't qualified for the position...they are confident that their picks are qualified citizens who they have confidence in”. Speaker Lloenflys also chimed in on the issue, presenting a different reason: “The Senate has every right to reject an unsuitable nominee, but that by no means should be the norm. The executive should generally have the freedom to choose their team, and barring significant concerns the Senate should not serve as a roadblock to that.”
While some Senators may argue that confirmations are just a formality in allowing the executive to execute their vision, it is clear that the majority electorate does not believe the same thing. A little below 40% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the level of questioning, while nearly 60% of the respondents marked that they were unsatisfied with the level of questioning for confirmations. A majority indicated that they would like to see Senators question nominees more, while a smaller group seemed to believe that the questions were not good. Comments to this question seemed to reflect some of the current Senator’s beliefs, pointing to qualified nominees or advocating for the use of oversight rather than confirmation to check the executive. It will be interesting to see if this has any impact on future Senate elections, knowing that a majority of citizens believe that the senate should be doing more questioning, while some prominent Senators have remarked that they believe it is not their job to stall or be a roadblock to the executive.
- I mean none of the nominees are ever likely to be unsuitable. Most of the time the questions are just a formality because we expect Senators to question the nominees.
- This Senate has been a bit better, though.
- I'm opposed to a veto on a hard cap; if the Senate decides to pass that, then it is the will of the people.
- Confirmation has fluctuated wildly over time, but I'd like to see Senators inquire about goals and then use the metrics obtained to conduct oversight. The cap is a bad idea.
The data shows that almost a majority of respondents picked 7 as the ideal size of the cabinet. Interestingly enough, looking at the current Government header, it seems that there are 9 appointed positions within the government. This may mean that while citizens don’t support a hard cap, they do support shrinking the size of the government down. About 17% of respondents picked that they would prefer bigger sizes, while 28% marked that they would want smaller sizes. Interestingly, 9+ received 13% of the vote. I’m not sure if the people who marked these are really interested in pushing for a larger cabinet, or if some even marked it to protest any sort of cap whatsoever.
I wanted to ask this question to measure if the number of ministers changed if it was a hard cap vs a soft cap. I believed that voters would be in favor of a higher hard cap number, and a lower soft cap number. This would allow more flexibility if a hard cap were imposed, while the low cap was less of an obstacle since Ministers could still be confirmed. My thinking was partially correct - 43.5% of voters marked that option. Interestingly, 47.8% of voters marked that this distinction did not change their opinion at all.
To me, this was the most interesting and divisive question. Let’s breakdown the numbers.
- 13% of respondents said Executive bloat is a significant issue that needs to be addressed in this region as it can lead to large and inefficient governments
- 34.8% of respondents said Executive bloat is a significant issue that needs to be addressed in this region as it leads to a strain on available talent and can take away resources from other places
- 13% of respondents said Executive bloat is a significant issue but not for the reasons listed above
- 13% of respondents said Executive bloat is not significant -- the elected executive should have the leeway to appoint whomever they desire
- 21.7% of respondents said Executive bloat is not significant -- it allows the government to accomplish more goals and delegate as they wish
- 4.3% of respondents said Executive bloat is not a significant issue, but not for the reasons listed above
- We have an issue with involvement but I don't think caping Ministries is the way to deal with it. What Ministry or Ministries would we get rid of right now?
- Executive bloat is a made up term that doesn't describe any reality of the system, it's just a buzz-phrase for people who want to impose their desired version of a smaller cabinet on other administrations, when it should be to any given executive to determine what structure they want to use.
- Executive bloat hurts the region in a number of ways. I’m glad the Senate is taking this on.
- I think with the new influx of nations, executive bloat really shouldn't be an issue going forward
The next two questions are grouped together because of a high similarity in responses.
My goal in asking these questions were to evaluate whether an executive might have an easier time expanding the size of their cabinet or choosing their nominees if they had a large margin of victory, and had a perceived ‘mandate’. Unfortunately, the question seemed to be phrased in a way that was difficult to understand or unclear, so take these results with a grain of salt. Overall, it seemed as if the vast majority of respondents believed that the margin of victory for an executive had little to no bearing on their cabinet setup. Most of the comments regarding the candidate choices seemed to match the responses, a large majority of responses said that the nominee and the executive should be separately considered. The number of nominees received a similar answer, although there was a slight increase in the number of responses that marked yes. However, they generally agreed that the executive’s margin of victory had no impact on how they considered cabinet nominations. Personally, it seems to me that most of these responses hint towards the fact that perhaps the electorate should be more proactive in criticizing the executive if they see broad problems with the structure of their candidate, rather than counting on the Senate to make big changes with the overall direction of the executive’s cabinet.
- Cabinet nominees are usually influenced by prior cabinet members. When I left the Ministry and my FM was re-elected I helped to choose who would replace me.
- The margin of victory is as much about the quality of the other candidates as it is about the quality of the winner.
- The strengths of a nominee and their ability to do the job effectively are independent of the candidate's margin of victory
- Generally my opinion is on the individual given the role, and how they have previously performed.
- Why would it matter?
- A win is a win, and it means that a candidate gets to have their nominees fairly considered
- We’re questioning the nominee, not the campaign.
- I don't know think the two even correlate.
- With a nominee, I'm evaluating the person, not the position (assuming the position was part of the platform and voted on in the election)
- It's the prospective nominee that should be evaluated, not how impressive the margin of victory was.
- Why would it? Just cuz you won with 90% of the vote doesn’t mean I shouldn’t take you over the coals for a Ministry of boondoggling
- A nominee is either capable of serving in the role they are nominated for or not, the margin of victory for their nominator is irrelevant.
- Nominees should be judged based on their own merits, not the popularity of the executive.
- Why would who they are matter? If they were elected, they are competent enough to determine who to appoint.
- N/A
- If you win, you win.
- Each cabinet candidate should be judged on their own merits and not rubber stamped because of the leader's victory margin.
- I support the nominee on their own merits, not by who nominated them.
- I don't understand the question
- I don't like required these bits.
- No
- Required
- There are not a lot of bad candidates for election usually. I usually support many candidates and have faith they will do a good job and have to pick my favorite.
- I still think winning margin is irrelevant.
- The number of cabinet nominees, and what cabinet positions they are, might affect how I vote, but not the other way around
- You should already have a clear idea of what the nominee's intentions or goals are, so assuming they are the victor, then the public would have voted with these in mind.
- Why would it matter?
- Possibly, if the number of Cabinet positions they were proposing was a major issue in the campaign, but in general no.
- We’re questioning the nominees, not the campaign.
- I'm not sure how these correlate.
- With a nominee, I'm evaluating the person, not the position (assuming the position was part of the platform and voted on in the election)
- Same as before
- Same as above
- Winning by a large margin doesn't somehow "win" you the right to have more nominees - an executive should put forward a management structure that they like. That may be more or fewer than is the case in previous administrations but it has nothing to do with whether they win by a lot or a little.
- No amount of popularity should allow for leniency in cabinet restrictions, same rules should apply to everyone.
- Why would who they are matter? If they were elected, they are competent enough to determine how much to appoint.
- N/A
- Same
- Again, each cabinet candidate should be judged on their own merits and not rubber stamped because of the leader's victory margin.
- I will give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has just won a big election, yes.
- I don't think margin of victory has anything to do with number of cabinet nominees
- I don't like required these bits.
- No
- Required
Senator McEntire seemed to be the first to champion another alternative: restructuring some of the Ministry's to function with more independence and autonomy, similar to the EIA or the WAD. This would allow for certain organizations to “operate outside of political considerations, and should perhaps be spun off to an independent entity. These independent agencies would be managed by directors...who would technically report to the FM... need to be re-confirmed after a longer period (for instance, 180 days).”. McEntire suggested that this system would alleviate strain on the Executive, as well as allow these leaders to “follow a vision for an organization whose mission is fundamentally not tied to political considerations.”. Senator Calvin Coolidge was quick to rebut this idea, arguing that the EBC “does very well when run by a different person every term” and “needs to have more fluidity in its management”. Senator McEntire countered by stating that for the EBC, “one of its primary responsibilities is running our state-run media outlet.” and pointed to “activity in the EBC can vary from administration to administration”. McEntire furthered his argument by expressing the value that a single EBC executive would have, in executing the vision and strategy of our regional Communication department. Senator Darcness however, expressed concern with the plan, due to the fact that it “unnecessarily pins down the Executive”, and also the lack of available manpower.
Interestingly, the leader in the results seem to be radio, with nearly half of the responses marking it as a Ministry that could be re-delegated. This could be perhaps to the more independent nature of radio, as well as the lack of Ministers that have traditionally lead radio. The Ministry of Radio seems to go in different directions based on leadership, similar to McEntire’s stance. Other areas that were selected involved EBC/Communication, and World Assembly Affairs.
- Any privatisation of WAA would still require it to be tied to the CoS - SC vote recommendations are an extension of foreign policy so WAA cannot be "doing its own thing" separately of our FA branch
- I don't think anyone is suggesting "privatizing", just giving them greater independence
- Certainly don’t need to privatize EBC.
- Maybe a gameside position with some interior duties. Radio is a good potential options for this. Most other things are not.
- Any privatization, in my opinion, would work well as an auxiliary, perhaps, but not as a standalone organization.
- Required
It’s clear that this Senate has been ambitious in passing its goals and working towards reform. Recently, the Senate passed the controversial Chief of State Direct Election Amendment, which is unlikely to see usage now that Executive Reform seems to be on the horizon. Senator Prim released an initial draft of what the merge bill could look like just today, with a lengthy list of law corrections, but even he noted that there were still issues that were unresolved. The Senate is clearly intent on pursuing this to the very end, and the question of Ministers is only one of the many issues they will have to sort out. It currently appears that a tentative compromise has been reached, where a soft cap will be instituted, and if an executive nominates a number beyond that cap, then all Ministers are subject to a higher confirmation threshold. It will be interesting to see how this fares among the citizenry when it comes time to pass the reform via referendum, which is rumored to happen.