Trying to codify Political Rank

[ericthered]

When I play with political rank, the next "Layer" in the ranking have administrative, military, or police rank. Political rank means that you have a bunch of lower organizations at your command. This is a cost savings in points, as well as saving space on the character sheet. It probably also should include a certain degree of "civilianhood", as the holder of political rank probably won't understand say the military the way a military rank 6 general would.

I would not include legislators in political rank. Their power is mostly soft, and they only have authority when acting as a group. They will have reputation, status, and a small administrative staff, but individually none of them commands any of the vast organizations over which they hold power. They probably have some weird legal enforcement-like powers though.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I'm not sure I believe in "political" rank. The president doesn't actually have authority to give, say, a mayor or a legislator orders. He does have temporary rank over things like the military and the civil services but if he wants cooperation against other elected officials he has to use connections persuading and horse trading assisted by the fact that he's always dealing with lower status people than him. And the vice president doesn't have authority over anyone except his personal staff.

It's more or less a convenient fiction.

The president of the United States has Status somewhere between 6 and 8, depending on historical period; Status 7 is probably a fair average. That costs 35 points (subject to discounts). But he can give orders to the highest ranked generals and admirals, who are at least Military Rank 8; to the highest levels of the civil service, who are probably Administrative Rank 8; and to the head of the FBI, who might be Police Rank 7. That is, he's above people with Rank worth 35 or 40 points in three different hierarchies (at least!). In effect, he has power exceeding what other people paid 40 points for, at a cost of 35 points. That seemed like an awkward fit.

With the assumption that high-status people who actually give orders to formal organizations with chains of command have Political (or Feudal) rank equal to their Status, the president has Political Rank 7, worth 35 points, and Status 7, discounted to 25 points, for a total of 60 points. So he's worth half again as much as, say, a four-star general or admiral, or a Cabinet member, or the head of an independent agency of great power.

I'd suggest that the distinction is also meaningful in that, for example, William Jefferson Clinton, George Walker Bush, and Barack Hussein Obama are all still called "President" and deferred to, and can interact with each other and with Donald John Trump as social equals; but the first three do not have any actual power of command or any of the other presidential powers such as veto or nomination. It seems as if they have Status 7 (they aren't just "honorary presidents" or something) but lack something else, and that something else can be conceived as a sort of Rank.

I'm sure it's not the only way to do it, but it seems as if it works well enough for gaming purposes.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I would not include legislators in political rank. Their power is mostly soft, and they only have authority when acting as a group. They will have reputation, status, and a small administrative staff, but individually none of them commands any of the vast organizations over which they hold power. They probably have some weird legal enforcement-like powers though.

Congress as a body seems to have the power of subpoena.

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'd suggest that the distinction is also meaningful in that, for example, William Jefferson Clinton, George Walker Bush, and Barack Hussein Obama are all still called "President" and deferred to, and can interact with each other and with Donald John Trump as social equals; but the first three do not have any actual power of command or any of the other presidential powers such as veto or nomination. It seems as if they have Status 7 (they aren't just "honorary presidents" or something) but lack something else, and that something else can be conceived as a sort of Rank.

Well, if you're using Political Rank, then fixing that is simple. Just give them Political Courtesy Rank 7 [7] plus whatever Status you deem appropriate.

Also, I'm a little disappointed that the thread has gone in the direction of "discussing whether Political Rank exists and the best way to represent political power" rather than what I started it for "discussing what levels of Political Rank correlate to what actual position", but it's good discussion, so I'm not too bothered by it.

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Congress as a body seems to have the power of subpoena.

Congress as a body, yes, but an individual U.S. Representative who wants one issued needs to convince 217 other people, whereas a president (or, on a smaller scale, a state governor or a mayor) can cause things to happen on his own.

EDIT: Which is not to say that being a congressman is useless, but I wouldn't call the fact that he gets a vote on laws "Political Rank" any more than I would call the fact that I get to vote on whether he keeps his job (and am thus, in a certain sense, technically his boss) "Political Rank". In both cases, the power is too spread out- the people are sovereign over their elected government, but an individual person isn't; congress has sweeping power to make law, but an individual congressman's power is limited.

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by ravenfish

Congress as a body, yes, but an individual U.S. Representative who wants one issued needs to convince 217 other people, whereas a president (or, on a smaller scale, a state governor or a mayor) can cause things to happen on his own.

EDIT: Which is not to say that being a congressman is useless, but I wouldn't call the fact that he gets a vote on laws "Political Rank" any more than I would call the fact that I get to vote on whether he keeps his job (and am thus, in a certain sense, technically his boss) "Political Rank". In both cases, the power is too spread out- the people are sovereign over their elected government, but an individual person isn't; congress has sweeping power to make law, but an individual congressman's power is limited.

But an individual congressman or Senator does have significant power that a regular citizen, even one of equal Wealth and Status, does not. Security clearance, social influence, limited immunity to certain crimes, special status in certain legal situations. You can represent this as a combination of various smaller advantages, but I personally think Political Rank works adequately as a simple way of representing it.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by whswhs

It's more or less a convenient fiction.

The president of the United States has Status somewhere between 6 and 8, depending on historical period; Status 7 is probably a fair average. That costs 35 points (subject to discounts). But he can give orders to the highest ranked generals and admirals, who are at least Military Rank 8; to the highest levels of the civil service, who are probably Administrative Rank 8; and to the head of the FBI, who might be Police Rank 7. That is, he's above people with Rank worth 35 or 40 points in three different hierarchies (at least!). In effect, he has power exceeding what other people paid 40 points for, at a cost of 35 points. That seemed like an awkward fit.

It seems to me that the straightforward approach is to give each political leader the actual rank he commands in each relevant heirarchy. The President has top administrative rank in tje federal executive branch bureaucracy (including civilian alphabet agencies) and top rank in the military as commander in chief. This is clear in terms of rules and accurate as a reflection of reality, and it's superior to spinning up a broken structure like pololitical rank.

I'd suggest that the distinction is also meaningful in that, for example, William Jefferson Clinton, George Walker Bush, and Barack Hussein Obama are all still called "President" and deferred to, and can interact with each other and with Donald John Trump as social equals; but the first three do not have any actual power of command or any of the other presidential powers

That's the precise role of Courtesy Rank, with status a couple of notches below the incumbent.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I would not include legislators in political rank. Their power is mostly soft, and they only have authority when acting as a group. They will have reputation, status, and a small administrative staff, but individually none of them commands any of the vast organizations over which they hold power. They probably have some weird legal enforcement-like powers though.

Most of their power is as a group but it doesn't require all of Congress. Several committees hold considerable power, including the ability to subpoena.
I agree though, Executives hold Rank but IMO Legislatures do not.
Though arguably committee chairs and the Leadership do.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Congress as a body seems to have the power of subpoena.

Also as committees.

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

But an individual congressman or Senator does have significant power that a regular citizen, even one of equal Wealth and Status, does not. Security clearance, social influence, limited immunity to certain crimes, special status in certain legal situations. You can represent this as a combination of various smaller advantages, but I personally think Political Rank works adequately as a simple way of representing it.

I think Executives hold actual Political Rank as they command law enforcement and Governors and the President the military.
Legislative members I would give Courtesy Rank, while they cant command much beyond their own staff a lot of people would consider their requests an order. Though that power is weakening these days.
Also they do have some Legal Immunity under limited circumstances. Varies by area a lot but here in Oklahoma they cant be arrested on the way to a legislative session.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

It seems to me that the straightforward approach is to give each political leader the actual rank he commands in each relevant heirarchy. The President has top administrative rank in tje federal executive branch bureaucracy (including civilian alphabet agencies) and top rank in the military as commander in chief. This is clear in terms of rules and accurate as a reflection of reality, and it's superior to spinning up a broken structure like pololitical rank.

Well, let's look at military rank specifically.

*The president is entitled to give orders to any military officer in any service. Since he thus "outranks" Rank 8 generals and admirals, he must be at least Military Rank 9.

*The great majority of military personnel got to their rank by coming in at a lower rank and being promoted, once or many times. There is the oddity (a relic of aristocracy) that O-1s often come in straight out of military academies without service as enlisted personnel. But a Rank 2 sergeant, for example, started out as a Rank 0 private, and a Rank 8 admiral started out as a Rank 3 ensign. The president did not have to go through that process; he can be commander-in-chief with no previous military service at all, as I believe was the case for Barack Obama and Donald Trump (and would have been for Hillary Clinton).

*The president is not chosen for his position by normal military processes of promotion and appointment, but by vote of the people measured by the Electoral College, a process that does not apply to any serving military personnel from raw recruits to the top command.

*The president cannot be court-martialed; he can only be tried by the Senate after charges are presented by the House of Representatives.

*The president has a vast range of extra-military powers, whereas military officers not only DO NOT but CANNOT have those powers, under the principle of civil supremacy over the military.

For all of these reasons, describing the president as having "military rank" or "a position in the military" strains MY suspension of disbelief. It's a big case of "one of these things is not like the others." I think it's much simpler to say "the president is an official of a special type to whom the heads of the military, (certain types of) law enforcement, and administrative agencies report, but who is not part of those organizations but above them."

Compare, too, the constitutional position of the English monarchy, from Henry VIII to Elizabeth II, as heads of the Church of England. That doesn't make them priests, and still less bishops, archbishops, or patriarchs (if Western Europe had patriarchs)—they don't have Religious Rank. Rather, they are officials of an entirely different type to whom the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are subordinate.

I think you are trying to forcibly assimilate a thing that is different to a familiar category, and ignoring the obvious ways in which it doesn't fit.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

Political Rank does exist canonically, though not in the Basic Set. It was first mentioned in Social Engineering and was expanded upon in Pulling Rank. So, based on the small amount that's out there, here's the way I see it (this is for the US):

PR7: President (this is the only one that's been confirmed)
PR6: Vice President, Senator, Speaker of the House, major cabinet secretary
PR5: Representative, governor, minor cabinet secretary
PR4: Major city mayor, lower-level statewide office
PR3: State Senator, minor city mayor
PR2: State Representative, small town mayor
PR1: City council member

Thoughts? Is there any you think I should move around? Any suggestions for where other offices might fit in?

A lot of those are semi-independent. State and municipal officials are not only not in the Federal hierarchy (in America), they are designed not to be.

A Senator or Congressman is not "equal" to a vice-president. A Veep can by chance (or not so much for conspiracy fans) become Potus. On the other hand a reasonably powerful congressman can in effect fight a private war if the Potus carefully looks the other way (paging Charlie Wilson). While a Veep is often considered where you dump the guy you consider a drone.

You did not allow for Opposition leaders. Nor for such things as "Bosses", rabble-rousers, special-interest leaders, press barons and all sorts of people who in the US system certainly have what you call political rank but are not listed. The whole thing is convoluted. In fact it was meant to be convoluted to protect the public with a giant traffic jam and arguably has become more simplified than it is supposed to be but that is a matter of serious discussion not game play. What is the point is that there is no one chain of command and there is not even parallel. There is a knotted tangle like the ancient Elms Colonials used to have their Town Meetings at.