Nate suggested I put this on a poll, so here it is. Concepts There are five fundamental concepts behind this proposal: - Cabinet makes most of the large and influential decisions about the server - Players currently have very little say in Cabinet - MPs are elected by the public, and it is their duty to represent the public. - The public often votes for MPs based on the MPs legislative policies, not executive preferences. - Executive preferences is who an MP believes is fit for a minister position, without influence from the public. Proposal In order to give the public a say in cabinet, who makes most of the large and influential decisions about the server, MPs should act as a proxy for the public when voting on nominations for vacancies of minister positions. Currently, the public does not know that a nominee has been nominated, nor can they trust the MPs to vote based on what the public thinks about a nominee because the MP is currently unable to see what the public truly thinks about a nominee, and the MPs were voted in based on legislative policies, with executive preferences rarely being mentioned in election posts. A 4-step program should be implemented (attached for simplified viewing): 1) Koal and Cabinet will pick a nominee. This step is hopefully self-explanatory. Koal and Cabinet will pick a nominee that they see fit for the position. This way, Cabinet will still get to chose who gets the position. Cabinet will nominate. The public will not.2) The nominee will be announced in Government Announcements on Discord. This step is also pretty self-explanatory. The nominee will be announced so the public is informed on who the nominee will be.3) The public will be given 24 hours to discuss the nominee. With this step, the public will be given 24 hours to discuss the nominee in political discussion, which will help the MPs gain a better idea of what the public thinks about the nominee. This will also allow MPs to be able to offer better representation, because MPs are not voted in based on executive preferences, but rather legislative policies. They cannot effectively represent what the public thinks regarding executive preferences. Additionally, the public doesn't nominate or directly vote for minister positions.4) MPs will be given 24 hours to vote on the nominee. MPs, in combination with their beliefs and the public's opinion, will vote on the nominee. Again: MPs will vote. The public will not. This proposal provides a balance between what the public wants and what Cabinet wants. This is designed to give more power to the people, while not subtracting too much from Cabinet. Counterarguments - MPs don't always represent the public. This is a poor counterargument. It is the duty of MPs to represent their voters, and they are unable to if their voters can't discuss their opinions about a nominee before voting on it takes place. Moreover, if they want to keep their job as an MP they will have to represent their voters, or they'll be voted out.- The process is too complicated. This is simply untrue. The process adds two more simple steps (typing something in government announcements and letting people discuss) and an additional 24 hours to the voting time. That isn't complicated at all, and it's easy to commence and understand.- It will slash department efficiency. This is an over-exaggeration. This proposal does nothing but add another day to the time wait for a new minister. As this is a Minecraft server, secretaries in Departments aren't working around the clock with their hands full 100% of the time. We can afford a two day wait. We've waited longer for other things, and considering a Minecraft server is not too important to the functioning of our lives, Department efficiency won't be shredded. Efficiency isn't lost after two days.- People will be voted in based on popularity. A person that's more popular might win over a hard-worker if the hard worker is more quiet. The public will not vote directly under this proposal. If anything, the current system is based on popularity of the nominee within the MPs as the public has next to no say on it. MPs might feel intimidated into voting for someone if they don't have others to back up what they initially felt. Moreover, the situation spelled out here is both unlikely and purely hypothetical. I am yet to see a hard-worker who isn't recognized by people in political discussion, or in general popularity. In fact, the opposite is true. Puppy and Kai, for example, don't talk in political discussion much, but are both hard workers (and were recognized for it!)-- they got voted in, and they still have support with the public. That's pretty much all. I'll be responding to anyone who begs to differ down below in the thread.