what did I walk into?

Seriously, what did I miss? because non of this makes sense

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_BeCthw3QhNDSLk-byHGkyaHQLBexCMl4jzz64JTN5k/edit?usp=sharing

I made it

I wanted to have a hard copy of a lot of different ideas that were spinning around in my head, and I figured that if I was going to write them down anyway I might as well write it as if it were a constitutional amendment.

@FroggyC ^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks, the reason I limited the President's ability to create a cabinet is described in the fourth paragraph of section 19. Basically I'm using the Cabinet as a check on the President's ability to use executive orders, and so I need the Cabinet to not be loyal to the President but instead to congress, and by extension the people of the United States.

And as for the referendums, I am curious about which restriction specifically you think will make them impossible to pass?

@FroggyC ^^^^^^

I expect the Cabinet will still represent a single vision, it will just be the vision of the leading coalition instead of the vision of the President. Because the new Electoral system would make everyone hyper aware of how fast their political career can end, and therefore it would eventually be considered political suicide to be an obstructionist unless you are absolutely sure that is what your base wants. The idea is that because nobody likes a government that can't get things done people will punish politicians who make that impossible.
And even if they don't this ability to check executive orders is the only power that the Cabinet as a whole has, the rest of the powers belong solely to individual Cabinet members and therefore they will likely get there individual jobs done regardless.
It would interfere with the separation of powers in the sense that the president would have a harder time passing legislation, but passing legislation is the job of the legislature anyway. As far as I see it the separation of powers has already broken down in the executives favor, this would just be correcting for that.
As for your point about the referendums, I agree that that may have been an over correction. The main thing I was worried about was a common occurrence in my state of Texas, here the state has to hold a referendum everytime it wants a constitutional amendment, which is often because of the way the Texas constitution is written, however because so few people vote in state elections they usually pass with only a few percentage points of the population in favor of them. But yeah like I said, in hindsight I may have over corrected for that problem.

@FroggyC ^^^^^

@FroggyC I'm curious what you think a good minimum percentage of voters would be though, cause I still feel like there should be one.

How hard was it for an advisory referendum to fail?

Ahhh, so I'm guessing it wasn't part of your constitution then?

OK, well still 25-30% sounds like a fairly good number.

Actually, if we're just talking about the number of people that need to participate, would it maybe be better to set it at something like 50-60%? That way enough people will have to know that it's unlikely that anyone didn't participate due to a lack of knowledge of the referendum.

@FroggyC why not? Also why did you @ me twice?

No problem, I was just curious

OK, i see. And while I think this problem would be slightly medicated by the fact that referendums would not be set during their own special elections, but instead thrown onto the ballot of the next scheduled election, I can still see how everything you mentioned would still be a problem. Thanks for the help.

!agree