Talk:General Moderators

From IBWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

A Question!

So, when a GM dies, the next GM starts a new 10-year term rather than finishing his predecessor's term?

Not sure. I think the practice has changed a couple times over the years. I think the current reasoning is that when a GM dies, a new election is called. It might be that long ago a "temporary" GM was installed. We'll see! Not sure how things are governed (if at all) during the interregnum. Perhaps the MPs are all sent home until a new government can be installed?
These issues are now resolved. [PB]

Louisiannan Cities

I've got most of the major and middle sized cities of Louisianne plotted out, so if you're looking for a particular one, ask me. Also, would they really be accepting of so many Louisiannans when they've long proven a corrupt bunch?

I figure LA has probably been a hemmorager of decent, honourable folk who want to get away from all that corruption! And anyway, politicians are corrupt by definition, so what better place to import the most important politicans but from the very spawning grounds of all political corruption!? ;) Also, the border between LA and NAL has traditionally been somewhat porous. Like Canada-USA *here*. Families travel back and forth and exist on both sides of the border. This really isn't too serious an issue in the NAL. Elemtilas

Also, Shouldn't it be Les Plaines instead of Des Plaines?

Er. Should it? [PB]

Des Plaines means Of the Plains. Les Plaines means The Plains. So unless you're speaking franglais, it'd most likely be Les Plaines. BoArthur 13:36, 1 May 2005 (PDT)

And indeed Les Plaines is the name! Elemtilas

Undefined no. 14

May I make a minor request? If the GMs who are presently labelled undefined are still "up for grabs", I'd like GM no. 14 (1917 - 1921) to be some kind of equivalent of *here*'s president Wilson. It is sort of important to my East European story (especially where it concerns Galicia) that some American leader defines the Right of National Self-Determination. --IJzeren Jan 11:09, 2 May 2005 (PDT)

Yes, please do! All of the slots marked undefined, apart from linking to an important piece of English folklore, are up for grabs. Keep in mind that this GM is rising out of a rather chaotic situation in Philadelphia. I am not certain what the details are, but I think a spate of isolationism vs. patriotic duty to the Motherlands along with pro and anti war movements and various political awakenings around the Empire served to place the NAL in a tight spot.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the office of President was a weak and ineffectual one, unsuitable for steering the country during a time of war and internal dissention. Your Wilson analogue will undoubtedly be of gigantic stature with respect to character, dignity and personal ethicomorality. Perhaps this person even "...walks silently, yet carries a stout shellaleigh"! I would leave to thee all the details. Just copy-n-paste the Generic Moderator template into appropriate file. Elemtilas
Hmm, let me think. Brithenig is one of the major languages of the NAL, isn't it? How about a Brithenig name? Something like Gw. ffeil Gwilim or somesuch. That would restore the balance somewhat! IJzeren Jan 13:57, 2 May 2005 (PDT)
Could be! There are a number of undefined slots. Now, a Bahamian or a Hogg Islander would be interesting in the mix as well... Elemtilas


Who elects the General Moderators? Is he elected by popular vote, or elected by the parliament, or perhaps by some other system (Electoral College maybe?)? If by popular vote, was it always that way? - Nik 02:43, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Given John C.'s news story regarding NAL elections difficulties of 2000, and that the issue would be "resolved in the courts", I very much think that GMs must be elected by popular vote in some way. I guess dangling chads figure prominently. Elemtilas
That could still work with a US-style electoral college, of course. Or even some sort of system where the GM is nominally elected by the parliament, but each MP votes the way his home province (or home constituency?) does. That would be an interesting system. - Nik 19:43, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT)
Agreed. I think that sounds reasonable. Elemtilas


Some of the party names don't make sense. "Conservative Democrat"? Wouldn't "Conservative" be associated with monarchical institutions and perhaps limited suffrage? "Loyal Republican"? How can one be both loyal and republican in the NAL? Wouldn't republican mean advocating the elimination of the monarchy? If so, how can that be loyal? - Nik 02:49, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT)

It seems the NAL is quite different from one's expectations! ;) The NAL is basically a federal republic (composed of several states that owe allegience to one of the British monarchs, and several more that do not). It's not ruled by London or Castreleon. I guess you can be both republican and loyal by being an American! ;)) Elemtilas
Hmm ... perhaps a debate in the early NAL was whether the monarchs should be monarchs only of their respective provinces or whether they should be monarchs of the entire NAL? In which case, the loyal republicans would've been opposed to a national monarchy, but in support of retention of the provincial monarchies. But what would "Conservative Democrat" mean? Are these party names QSS? - Nik 19:41, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT)
"Conservative Democrat" probably means little more than "maintaining the good old ideals of king and country while ensuring liberty and democracy". In other words, "We like the king!... but we like the king (to be) in Castreleon!" Note that the LR party is long defunct. I think perhaps some of their ideas might have been too radical and most of their base went over to the newish CDs, which party itself went defunct some time later. The names are QSS as far as I'm aware, on account of being written down here. Elemtilas

Pretty Colours!!

Thanks Jan for colouring in the GM page! Elemtilas

Ah, pretty indeed, but it was not me. All credits should to go Nik for that! --IJzeren Jan 17:42, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT)
Like I said! Thanks Nik for colouring the GM page! :))) Elemtilas
You're welcome.  :-) -- Nik 19:41, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT)
Hey, whose user page is this?! :)))) --IJzeren Jan 03:38, 16 Jun 2005 (PDT)


According the news page at it would seem that Gore and Clinton were both Whigs. Yet here they are portrayed as Progressive Conservatives. Zahir 08:29, 8 November 2005 (PST)

Jowcko map Jowcko

Jowcko map Jowcko, according to his page, was GM from 1960-1968. His page predates Edward Kennedy's. Nik 23:21, 5 January 2006 (PST)

Bo? I'm surprised you haven't mentioned this before. What is the ethnicity of the name, btw? Zahir 05:09, 6 January 2006 (PST)
Dumnonian, undoubtedly. Well, I'm afraid poor JmJ simply got forgotten, even by his own Creator! ;) But, QSS is QSS, so we'll just have to fit him in somewhere. The years may be changed a little; the article itself says: "Jowcko map Jowcko (1924-1983) was General Moderator of the North American League from 1960 to 1968. [...] Jowco dies in office before completing his full term, which would have ended in 1970". That's a little odd, given the fact that he died in 1983! So, what if we fit him in before E.M. Kennedy, of whatever his name *there* is, and make him GM between 1961 (to make it fit with the rest) and 1968? And then, EMK succeeds him for another three years? And that the poor fellow died in 1968 instead of 1983? —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 06:16, 6 January 2006 (PST)
Okay but that does change a bunch of other little things. *sigh* Yeah, QSS is QSS. Zahir 06:20, 6 January 2006 (PST)

President or Not?

Seems to me we have here a contradiction in the article: "The little used office of President, a relatively powerless interim official whose duty was simply to "carry on" in the event of an untimely death of a GM was abolished during Great War I when two inept Presidents in a row nearly crippled America's war efforts. Henceforth, any interrim President would simply be granted full GM powers and would serve out the term." there an office of President or not? And if there isn't, who succeeds the GM if he dies or resigns? Some possibilities:

  1. The President does exist and is elected to preside over Parliament for a one-year term, by both houses.
  2. The President is chosen in a general election every few years as an honorary "head of state" much like a Governor-General.
  3. There is NO President, but the line of succession next falls upon the Speaker of the Senate, then the House of Deputies, etc.

Anybody else have some ideas? Or want to go with one of those above? Zahir 09:04, 21 January 2006 (PST)

Well, the US of A here are unusual in this sense that they do not separate the function of head of state from the function of head of government. At least, that's my impression. Almost every other country has them separated; in the case of the republics, there is either a weak president, performing largely ceremonial tasks, and a strong prime minister, who is the actual leader of the country (Germany), or there is a strong president and a weaker prime minister. The way I understand it, the NAL is pretty much like the USA in this respect. At least, I've never seen a prime minister mentioned.
Therefore, option #2 doesn't seem likely to me, since the GM is not merely a prime minister. Besides, it would make it hard to explain why the NAL hasn't had any other presidents since GW1.
Another thing is this: how do we explain the name of the title, president? It would be odd if the speaker of the Senate, or the governor-like figure for that matter, would suddenly start carrying that title once he fulfills the duties of head of state.
"President" meaning "one is presiding", in this case, over the Government until an election can be called. Please don't confuse this vèry weak place-holding office for the much stronger definition in use by republics *here*!
The US *here* has a position President of the Senate, which is a secondary office held by the Vice President. In addition, there is a President pro tempore who excercises that power when the VP is absent. Perhaps, in a similar way, this "President" is actually "President of Parliament" or "President of the House of Commons" or something similar? Nik 21:04, 21 January 2006 (PST)
There could well be some sort of president of the Senate (though I don't know what the term of office is), I get the idea it's not the same thing, though presumably the President of the Senate could have been elected President (of the Government). Elemtilas 21:53, 21 January 2006 (PST)
So I do have two alternative suggestions:
  1. When the General Moderator dies in office, his function is taken over by a group of people (the two speakers, the oldest or eldest minister, the leaders of the biggest parties in the House, etc.), one of whom became chairman of the group and carries the title "president".
This is basically what we had in mind. Except that the one designated as President presides over the whole Convention. I also think that during this time, the government was pretty much shut down until a new GM could be installed. I think that's the only sensible way to explain why the NAL was so hampered by two presidents in 1915 and 1916.
  1. When there are elections for the GM, the candidates also have a running mate. This would be IB's equivalent to the function of vice-president. He may carry the title "president", for example because he presides over the government.
Just my 2 dzienarze. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 11:43, 21 January 2006 (PST)
I don't think the GM has a lieutenant. (There are precedents *here* -- for example it wasn't until very late that Maryland had a lieutenant governor.) We've never heard of one and no mention has ever been made of such a thing.
Yes, the NAL is not the USA, not least because there are actually multiple heads of state--Queen Diana, King Pedr and Queen Beatriz just for starters. The situation is somewhat more analogous to Canada, IMO, wherein there is a Governor-General. Then again, perhaps the General-Moderator functions as both a prime minister and a Governor-General? That would be very IB imo. But then imo the simplest solution is to state that the presidency was abolished, and a clear line of succession established to the actual General-Moderatorship, a line that (evidently) Franklin Rosenberg's wife could be placed within with little enough trouble. Perhaps a Deputy Moderator, elected by Parliament? Zahir 12:03, 21 January 2006 (PST)
It could have been worded better in the article: it should be understood that the office of President was abolished. After 1916, there were no more Presidents. Should a GM die in office, a new GM would be elected. Seeing as GMs come from the ranks of the Convention (Parliament), there should be no great delay in calling an election.
The old office of President was simply a stop-gap officer that could sort of hold the reigns steady (without initiating anything new) until a new slate of candidates and a proper election could be arranged. Back in the days of old, this could take a year. By the early XX century, we have telegraph and wireless and trains, so a long interim office was not needed and obviously could be disasterous. I suspect that there must be some official who takes over temporarily, but it's probably not for a year of status-quoery.
No. 1 above was indeed the case pre-1916. This is no longer the situation. I don't see how No. 2 would work since we've already got too many heads of state! ;) I think No. 3 would be most sensible, though we've never worked out that line of succession. Presumably the most senior Senator would get the job until a proper election can be called.
Some kind of deputy Moderator might make sense, but this person wouldn't have an independent office (like the vice president) until the GM should die or resign. Elemtilas 13:11, 21 January 2006 (PST)
I altered the article to read that the Senior Senator would become GM. Pending discussion and decision here. Elemtilas 13:15, 21 January 2006 (PST)
Removed: Henceforth, any interrim President would simply be granted full GM powers and would serve out the term.
I am such a pest, but... If the Senior Senator becomes GM, then that means Ruth Rosenberg and Juanita Edith Baker-Stuart as well as Edward Moore Kennedy (or O'Kenneide) and Ronald William Regan were all the Senior Senators. Now, for Regan that makes sense. But unless women's suffurage took a VERY radically different path, then the first two examples are hard to swallow. Kennedy is even harder, because he was quite a young man when he succeeded to office. My own preferance (as of right this second) is for a Deputy Moderator to be a Cabinet official, chosen (like the others) from and pretty much by Parliament. But I'm open to suggestions. Zahir 14:10, 21 January 2006 (PST)
OK, not senior senator. I'm certainly open to suggestions. I wouldn't want this deputy become some kind of lieutenant Moderator, though. Perhaps some prominent member of the Cabinet would be first in the line of succession (perhaps regardless of his status as an MP).
Ruth Rosenberg is a special case, on account of the fact that she basically ran the show towards the end of her husband's life. I don't know what is meant in the Juanita Stuart article about "parlaying" herself into the position but would expect that she was an MP and would thus be eligible to stand for election.
As for women's sufferage, I don't see why it couldn't have come a little earlier *there*. The only one this would affect is Stuart anyway. Elemtilas 16:11, 21 January 2006 (PST)
The point is that whatever the line of succession was, Ruth Rosenberg must have been next-in-line when her husband died.
She wasn't even an MP! That's why I said she's a special case. Anyway, she only had the office for six weeks. Elemtilas 21:53, 21 January 2006 (PST)
Okay, but the law still said that when her husband died, she then took over his office. Perhaps the law was changed again, but at that time she must have been next in the line of succession. Consider the current US administration. If the President dies, and pretty much everyone would prefer the Secretary of State succeed him--TOO BAD! Anyway, why couldn't Ruth Rosenberg have been an MP? Eleanor Roosevelt was never an elected official, but Ruth is not Eleanor. Zahir 23:20, 21 January 2006 (PST)
I see the point about a Deputy Moderator--I mean, what would this person do the rest of the time? How about simply the Speaker of the Senate, followed by the Speaker of the House? Or vice versa? That would actually be close to what is the line-of-succession *here* (which since 1947 has been Vice President/Speaker of the House/President Pro Tempore/Secretary of State, etc.). And it would be easy to believe Rosenberg, Stuart, O'Kenneide and Regan could each have held either office when their predecessors died. (The Stuart article is slightly ambiguous because when I wrote it I was unsure just how she ended up in the General Moderartor-ship precisely). Zahir 18:34, 21 January 2006 (PST)
I would hazard the guess that Stuart was an MP. Especially if she was a savvy politico. Mrs. Rosenberg was not. Elemtilas 21:53, 21 January 2006 (PST)
If, as I suggested above, the title President is short for President of Parliament, it may be that he/she simply presides over Parliament. Perhaps, like the President of the Senate in the US, it's a mostly honorary position with a few special duties, such as casting tie-breaking votes and certifying election results? Nik 21:04, 21 January 2006 (PST)

Well, how about the Senate elects its presiding officer and he/she is called the President of the Senate? And the House elects a Speaker? And the line of succession goes Senate President, then House Speaker? Zahir 23:20, 21 January 2006 (PST)

GM = MP?

I think it's kind of a neat feature, but I've always been somewhat bothered by the idea that the GMs are always elected from the Convention. Any comments or criticisms or ideas floating around as to how this would work?

Speaking of this, do MPs have limited terms in office as well as the GM? Elemtilas 16:11, 21 January 2006 (PST)

Well, in the USA the answer would be "no." I'm not familiar with any legislatures that have term limits *here* and the reason seems obvious enough--individual legislators do not have anywhere near the raw power of a chief executive. I was assuming the GM was elected from the Convention/Parliament because it seemed to me the office was like a super-Prime Minister-ship. However, borrowing from the French Republic model, one could simply say that the sitting Parliament/Convention functions as an Electoral College and elects whoever they see fit as General Moderator. I'd certainly have no objection. What does anyone else think? Zahir 18:41, 21 January 2006 (PST)
The problem with the GM as a super-Prime Minister is that it becomes hard to explain why his term lasts ten years. I don't know how often the parliament is elected, but definitely more often than that! And the term of a PM would usually last as long as the term of the parliament. I would therefore rather expect the GM to be elected directly by the people. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 01:55, 22 January 2006 (PST)
But, the form of election is QSS as it has been stated in at least one news report vis-a-vis the 2000 election that the choice of GM depends upon the political makeup of Parliament. Likewise, there are now several articles that state as much. So Parliament chooses the General Moderator, but I see no reason why they [u]must[/u] choose from among themselves. Zahir 08:23, 22 January 2006 (PST)
I don't understand why the term is so long with so much power. Could it originally have been a weak position? Anyways, for what it's worth, *here*, one of the proposals for choosing the President was election by Congress,
Interesting how art imitates life, even unwittingly!
And, indeed, even now, Congress chooses in the event of no candidate achieving a majority of the electoral vote. I've read that many of the founders expected that to be the norm after Washington, believing it would be rare for any candidate to achieve a majority of the electoral vote Nik 18:05, 22 January 2006 (PST)
yet his term was expected to last longer than the Congress'. A similar arrangement exists *here* with the Supreme Court. Justices are appointed by the President, yet their term is typically longer than that of the President who appointed them Nik 11:50, 22 January 2006 (PST)
But my impression is that a GM can be removed via a vote of No Confidence. Evidently, this has not happened, though. Zahir 15:00, 22 January 2006 (PST)
Yes, a GM can be removed by a vote of No Confidence. I suspect the GM could have been a weaker office in time past. The title "Moderator" seems to indicate that he's something of a go-between -- a coordinator. I would guess that Senators' terms are 5 years or thereabouts Lower House might be 2 years like *here*. Elemtilas 16:48, 22 January 2006 (PST)

Here is what the NAL article says:

Legislative which is styled the Great Convention of the North American League, though commonly known as Parliament. Parliament consists of a Senate and a House of Delegates. Senators are three per province, the method of selection being the domain of that provincial government (most hold direct elections). Their terms are for six years and half must face re-selection every three years. Delegates are elected based on populations of individual provinces for terms of either five years or the next general election, whichever comes first. All bills must originate in the Delegates, but to become law must be approved by both houses. The Senate approves judicial and ambassadorial nominations.


What is it in our world? --Quentin 12:42, 8 June 2006 (PDT)

To what, specifically are you referring? BoArthur 12:49, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
The "Covenant March" which you link to. --Quentin 22:53, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
Good question. That's something that Padraic uploaded. BoArthur 07:44, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
I think the answer to Quentin's question would be "Hail To The Chief," a piece of music traditionally played for the President of the United States. Zahir 08:33, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
The piece of music, uploaded under Covenant March, is in fact the same as *here* Federal March. Paweł Ciupak 12:29, 20 September 2006 (PDT)
Aha! Thanks. --Quentin 12:16, 7 December 2006 (PST)