Convention Poll 1: Universal Participation (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 02, 2024, 08:27:01 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Convention Poll 1: Universal Participation (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: If a Lower House was created to allow all citizens to debate and vote on legislation, would you participate?
#1
Yes, a great deal
 
#2
Yes, a bit and I would vote
 
#3
Yes, infrequently
 
#4
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 23

Author Topic: Convention Poll 1: Universal Participation  (Read 1919 times)
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,236
United States


« on: March 29, 2009, 12:22:32 PM »

     I would participate a great deal.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,236
United States


« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2009, 03:36:08 PM »

No.

Also a poll for this sort of thing is deceiving, of course everyone if going to say they're going to participate.

     Probably the biggest problem with such a poll is that the people most enthusiastic to participate will all get elected to the upper house.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,236
United States


« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2009, 03:47:17 PM »

     Actually, I just thought of a possibility for a bicameral congress where the lower house is not universal.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,236
United States


« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2009, 12:14:40 PM »
« Edited: April 04, 2009, 01:53:57 PM by Senator PiT »

     Realistically, a properly-working bicameral legislature would have 15 members total, not just 15 in the upper house. That's just me though.

     Also, on further thought I would not participate in a universal system, due to the ridiculous inactivity of a universal lower house. I came up with an alternate idea for a bicameral congress which I guess I'll keep around for the fifth convention.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,236
United States


« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2009, 12:04:36 AM »

    Actually, I just thought of a possibility for a bicameral congress where the lower house is not universal.

I actually already proposed that, and it didn't get enough votes from delegates to pass to the next phase of the convention.

     As it so happened, I was able to put it forth & it looks like there's a real chance of a compromise between the proponents of the two major plans. Smiley
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,236
United States


« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2009, 12:20:01 PM »

Nothing would ever be able to be passed or in very rare situations. Imagine how many votes you'd need to pass anything and how innactive most people would be.

Majority vote and no quorum. But that sorta puts debate power in the hands of those who are always active, while some members could mobilize zombies for vote power whenever the mood strikes them. Universalism straight is becoming less and less appealing, but the current compromise being struck in the Convention is a promising starting point.

     Pretty much. People used to complain frequently about the RPP mobilizing inactive voters. If we had a universal lower house & did the same thing the complaints would multiply 10,000x.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 14 queries.