House of Representatives rules

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It does, thanks. Looks good!

Thank you! Oh and by the way, if you really want to act quickly and that the 36 hours have not elapsed, you can motion for ending the debates. I think I'm the last speaker who has used this procedure, but by experience, the 2/3 majority (most of the times) in order to end the debates is quickly reached!

Under the old rules, I could open a vote at any point after 24 hours of silence in the thread with the motion of a Senator. We rarely ever had cloture votes in my time as PPT (a really long fing time), I think twice it occured.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As much as I like your rules, and I do don't get me wrong. I would prefer some innovations and I would prefer some differentiation in style between the house and Senate. Adam made an issue of their size as a matter of "differentiation" and I think this goes along with that necessity.


People have long discussed possibly having Majority Leaders, conferences and the like. I think now would be a good time to start something like that or to at least give it a shot. This is a time for bold moves. The success of the reforms will not be made by passivity and simplicity, but by daring and energy!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't understand the need of having complete different rules between the House and the Senate. If I recall correctly, you are a partisan of the VP having some legislative duties. Now the VP serves in 2 chambers. It is really going to complicate his job if he has totally different rules in the 2 chambers.

Rules must be clear, understandable and shorter as possible

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not against Majority leaders etc don't get me wrong. But, giving which duties in the senate rules? The only one that I could see is which bills should be debated on the floor. I would clearly oppose this rule. The administration of the House/Senate should be non partisan, everyone should have a chance to have his bills debated for example.
But again, I'm not against any symbolic title or whatever, but I really believe that the role of majority/minority leader should be dealt internally, ie the parties choosing their leader by their own, not the senate/house rules having to deal with it .

In the original Duke Plan, the Senate would be non-partisan. The House would be partisan though.

The Senate is too small for such to work and would function best as you describe. The House though is different. It has both the size and the novelty factor to make it work.

The differences don't have to be 100%. The VP's job is to coordinate and I am all for that, and again that was also part of the original Duke plan in Ocotber 2013. Of course at the time the VP had responsibilities so that was more of strengthening an existing situation than introducing a new thing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must say that fact that one of Labor's leading figures is more Conservative than me on legislative rules, is touching beyond belief in its sheer irony considering back in the day everyone from TNF to Talleyrand to Nix were in the tank for a partisan Senate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From a personal standpoint I'd be in favour of a partisan house (even though it's against Labor's interests atm) It would certainly make the House more entertaining, and make the elections more worthwhile 

It will encourage inactivity. Legislators aren't going to write a legislation if the legislation in question isn't going to be debated.

There are ways to do it, that gives a certain percentage of slots to the minority's legislation.

Also, doesn't the same apply as it is on the basis of whether or not something will pass. Plus Parties will weed out inactivity since a majority either way will likely be 1 seat, and thus an inactive member will devastate the majority's agenda.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From a personal standpoint I'd be in favour of a partisan house (even though it's against Labor's interests atm) It would certainly make the House more entertaining, and make the elections more worthwhile  

It will encourage inactivity. Legislators aren't going to write a legislation if the legislation in question isn't going to be debated.

There are ways to do it, that gives a certain percentage of slots to the minority's legislation.

Also, doesn't the same apply as it is on the basis of whether or not something will pass. Plus Parties will weed out inactivity since a majority either way will likely be 1 seat, and thus an inactive member will devastate the majority's agenda.

I'm appalled by the fact that a partisan House could get any traction. If a representative is going to matter less by an another, he's going to be more inactive. Simple.

I have seen many bad ideas in my atlasian lifes to be enacted, like the elimination of every duty of the VP, the elimination of the GM, the "recall" amendment, so hopefully I won't see an anoter bad idea be enacted. But in case people wish to do that, please people who are reading this thread, I will be on the right side of history.

Elections are too frequent and so there is always the chance of flipping the House. There are no districts and no gerrymandering, so the voters have complete, uninterrupted say hence why Duke rightfull called it, "The People's House".

Windjammer, I have been fighting this fight for a long time as well and most of the time on the same side of those very issues. Right now though, the success or failure of the reforms and the game are on the line and I think we should at least try a novel approach with the House. If it fails, I will be the first to call for its repeal. I wanted a largely conservative structure, and I got it, but on this I am willing to compromise if it will draw interest and make elections matter more. That is why I am bringing this up as an option, one that was present in the original Duke plan, who was at the time and is once again an independent. I trust he based it on what would most likely generate interest and strengthen both Houses in such fashion. Both House and Senate elections become proportionally more important. The Senate to reign in the House, The House to try and flipd the incumbent majority.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From a personal standpoint I'd be in favour of a partisan house (even though it's against Labor's interests atm) It would certainly make the House more entertaining, and make the elections more worthwhile 

It will encourage inactivity. Legislators aren't going to write a legislation if the legislation in question isn't going to be debated.

There are ways to do it, that gives a certain percentage of slots to the minority's legislation.

Also, doesn't the same apply as it is on the basis of whether or not something will pass. Plus Parties will weed out inactivity since a majority either way will likely be 1 seat, and thus an inactive member will devastate the majority's agenda.

I'm appalled by the fact that a partisan House could get any traction. If a representative is going to matter less by an another, he's going to be more inactive. Simple.

I have seen many bad ideas in my atlasian lifes to be enacted, like the elimination of every duty of the VP, the elimination of the GM, the "recall" amendment, so hopefully I won't see an anoter bad idea be enacted. But in case people wish to do that, please people who are reading this thread, I will be on the right side of history.

Elections are too frequent and so there is always the chance of flipping the House. There are no districts and no gerrymandering, so the voters have complete, uninterrupted say hence why Duke rightfull called it, "The People's House".

Oh come on, you really believe that the random zombie voter will care about "muh some majority leader has been mean and has killed every legislation of the other side "
And my point still stands. You will have constantly 4 representatives who will have their voice mattering much less than the 5 others----> inactivity

No, I expect them to campaign against the bills they are passing and to rally their base and swing voters in opposition to it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't see why on God's green earth either side would want such a thing. The Right's hubris over its newfound power apparently is inducing amnesia.

It was fine for three years when you had TNF on pedestal as if he was god's gift to the world. Your President's, your Senators, yourself were all marching in lockstep behind making him PPT and establishing his partisan administration of the Senate.

This has nothing to do with election wins or lossess.


I am following a three year-old blueprint from your Vice President!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Update on Regional Reduction Plan

In order to fix the numbers problem, I have proposed that The People's House be the at-large elected body, with 4 representatives elected per cycles. In addition, I think it would be proper to allow partisan leadership to take effect in it.

The Senate will consist of 6 members, 3 elected per cycle, all by the regions, and retain the non-partisan leadership style we are all accustomed to.

Since August of last year, I have been trying to push us as close to the original Duke plan as possible. Bicameralism, the design of the two houses, etc. The cycles are bit different for the House, but other than that it is the same. This is just a continuation of pushing in that direction. Any notion that this is based on Federalist electoral success is blatantly false and I am calling them out on it in public and demand they stop. If I was doing tihs based on the party, I would do just the opposite, because we would actually struggle in a partisan situation since our base is more divided then Labor and more prone to fracturing. I am doing this basedo n what I think is good for the game as I have since August and July of last year, and frankly for years.

For one thing, the increased turnout would probably make it different for Feds or Labor to outright control the chamber on a continual basis and that is why I think the chamber will shift a good bit, far more often than the old Senate did. There is good reason for that and yes there are swing voters, they are just not swing voters in the traditional sense. They are created anew by the dynamics of each side in a two person race. Some voters who might be Leinad's natural base, become up for grabs with a different candidate and vice versa.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't see why on God's green earth either side would want such a thing. The Right's hubris over its newfound power apparently is inducing amnesia.

This guy looks a bit younger than Yankee

It's like when JCL proposed changing the speakership election after Labor won the vote despite not being in the Majority. I'm sure the House will much like the Senate not be as straight forward as people think it is

If something is bad, you don't advocate for something that is half-bad of the first proposal. A partisan house is going to kill activity for 4 representatives.

----
Duke, with all respect I have to you, and trust you I respect you a lot, while indeed you didn't vote all the time for the same party, I wouldn't call you a swing voter. Depending on the elections, it was clear for who you were going to vote , so I wouldn't call you "swingy"

But even then thati s based on the candidate more than the party, so it is hardly makes him less of a swing voter.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't see why on God's green earth either side would want such a thing. The Right's hubris over its newfound power apparently is inducing amnesia.

This guy looks a bit younger than Yankee

It's like when JCL proposed changing the speakership election after Labor won the vote despite not being in the Majority. I'm sure the House will much like the Senate not be as straight forward as people think it is

Most people seem to think I am 20 based on looking at me.  So not sure what is suppose to mean, you guys have never seen a pictureo f me and never will.

Apples to oranges comparison precisely because the Senate is and should be a non-partisan administration. The House is brand new, and thus we have the opportunity to experiement here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The irony here is that this is credit to mine nad our success that this old Duke idea is being attacked from all sides.

It is difficult to maintain a compromsie between two sides of an issue, when the one side is completely gone. TNF, Nix, Talleyrand, Oakfail, the lot aren't here screaming up an down for partisan administration to be compromised with.

Like Adam said a few weeks ago, "victim of my own success". Where were you all three and two years ago, when Labor was insisting on nuking the Senate and I stood alone against the abyss?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Setting aside the historical revisionism for a minute, I will deal with that in minute.


Truman and Blair are correct and like many things with mock parliament, they took things to the excess to express their dislike of the Atlasian way and ended up destroying themselves.

That is why I said before. You could give I don't five slots to the majority and two to the minority, or perhaps some other spread. Perhaps five and three. There are ways to make it work, so everyone is engaged and constantly pushing towards getting a majority, so that you balance involvement with differentiation in power so as to create that incentive to seek such constantly, producing more frequent competitive elections with more candidates.

Also, one thing to note is the theoretical power of indies and third parties. An indy or a third party can get to a seat pretty easily. Anyone who looks at the first election and sees that partisan 5 Feds, 4 Labor should note that CR scattered its votes and several Feds and Laborites won independent voters. A single candidate can unify that vote and get elected and he would almost certainly become the deciding vote on everything. Therefore rather being powerless, just the opposite, he now has a certain amount of leverage.

This is one major different vrom the old Senate, where partisan administration would have necessarily t-boned the third parties and indies because of the intersection of the election methods and the size of the chamber. One more reason why it was such a bad idea there.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How is that in any way comparable to what is being proposed? You're comparing the spirit of something to the actual institutionalization of it. Huge difference, and not even really comparable: if by "establishing [a] partisan administration of the Senate", you mean "not letting Yankee continue to run the show as he saw fit for years and years by daring to elect someone else to the post (*gasp!*)", then sure.

Also, laughable that you think the Labor Senators ever voted in "lockstep" on virtually anything. There's a reason I stopped caring/trying to herd Senate legislation after awhile.

No. I took advantage of the slot rules to get TNF one more than he actually deserved under the clogging rule, and he wanted more. He always wanted more. TNF was a dishonest, self-righteous, egotistical narcissist. You PM him everything that was going on, and then he would crusade in public about being shut out of the process (This actually happened by the way). You give him an extra slot, he wanted all of them. His agenda was supreme, the only possible answer to anything, everybody else could just go get guillotined.

He wanted entire show to himself and he was perfectly willing to shut everyone else out. Other Senators realized this two. Three Senators threatened to resign if TNF ever got control of the Senate, including at least one Laborite. Yet, Labor always voted in lockstep in the actual vote to put him in charge. I did make a big mistake in not letting Franzl take over when he wanted to in late 2012. I was burned out by mid 2013, but by that point I was trapped.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That is why I said before. You could give I don't five slots to the majority and two to the minority, or perhaps some other spread. Perhaps five and three. There are ways to make it work, so everyone is engaged and constantly pushing towards getting a majority, so that you balance involvement with differentiation in power so as to create that incentive to seek such constantly, producing more frequent competitive elections with more candidates.

How would the president fit into all of this? Would they use one of their party's slots, or would they get their own slot?

That is something that could be considered either way. You could also have an Indy President at some point, which makes it difficult to do that based on party though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't see why on God's green earth either side would want such a thing. The Right's hubris over its newfound power apparently is inducing amnesia.

It was fine for three years when you had TNF on pedestal as if he was god's gift to the world. Your President's, your Senators, yourself were all marching in lockstep behind making him PPT and establishing his partisan administration of the Senate.

This has nothing to do with election wins or lossess.


I am following a three year-old blueprint from your Vice President!!!

It is funny you're saying that because if I recall correctly I did certify the PPT elections for you 3 years ago and I was forced to then certify the election to TNF because you were forced to withdraw the election for personal issues.
And anyway, yes, indeed TNF became PPT, but he didn't nuke the senate. Averroes indeed changed the rules, he simplified them. I disagreed with him about the elimination of the VP, but he didn't make the senate a partisan chamber. No senator had a higher priority.

Two years ago. It was July 2014, the tail end of the struggle. You tried to certify me and got sued for trying to avoid having to chose between me and TNF. I think he voted late or declared too late or something. He sued and you guys spent a month stuck in court. I don't remember who won the case, but anyway you ended up running the Senate yourself for a period, which I found preferable anyway. Granted, after August things get foggy because I lost my internet access. I do recall PPT TNF making declarations and trying to do stuff he had not the power to do, I do recall their being a tremandous outrage against him and it was tied in to the power bill, culminating in LAbor losing an At-Large seat and Lumine becoming PPT in September.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How many times the senate control changed it when you were in the senate? Not often. And that's going to be the same thing for the House. Parties have an actual advantage, that was Labor before, now it is the Federalists, then it may be the Labor or an another thing again in the future. But elections are almost never competitive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's me who stood alone against them when they wanted to eliminate the VP.You were nowhere when it happened, not your fault but you cannot give you the credit for something you didn't.
And they didn't make the senate partisan like you plan to do with the House. This is a fact. The current senate isn"t partisan and follows mostly the rules that were adopted by them.

They didn't because they couldn't. I was parcing every damn phrase of Nix's text. I would save the texts at my neighbors house, take them home review them, and make psots that I would post the next day. Also Nix had left Labor by that point and he no longer felt the need to appease the madman of the Midwest, especially since TPP was by this point on a ticket with a Federalist. But as President in July 2013, Nix constantly meddled in Senate rule debates, and openly endorsed TNF's proposal to make it a partisan administration.

I have long acknoweldged that you were one of the better Laborites on this matter, Windjammer, but for part of this period in question I don't even think you were a Laborite yet and certainly not VP yet.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Setting aside the historical revisionism for a minute, I will deal with that in minute.


Truman and Blair are correct and like many things with mock parliament, they took things to the excess to express their dislike of the Atlasian way and ended up destroying themselves.

That is why I said before. You could give I don't five slots to the majority and two to the minority, or perhaps some other spread. Perhaps five and three. There are ways to make it work, so everyone is engaged and constantly pushing towards getting a majority, so that you balance involvement with differentiation in power so as to create that incentive to seek such constantly, producing more frequent competitive elections with more candidates.

Also, one thing to note is the theoretical power of indies and third parties. An indy or a third party can get to a seat pretty easily. Anyone who looks at the first election and sees that partisan 5 Feds, 4 Labor should note that CR scattered its votes and several Feds and Laborites won independent voters. A single candidate can unify that vote and get elected and he would almost certainly become the deciding vote on everything. Therefore rather being powerless, just the opposite, he now has a certain amount of leverage.

This is one major different vrom the old Senate, where partisan administration would have necessarily t-boned the third parties and indies because of the intersection of the election methods and the size of the chamber. One more reason why it was such a bad idea there.

There is a difference between theory and the results in the end.

I led the major party for a year last year with Griffin. And I can tell you this: swing voter isnt a thing. One party will have always a big structural advantage. Your partisan house will make things even worse because one party will always have his representatives second class citizens.

If swing voters don't exist and Feds are so powerful? How is Adam Griffin President?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Regarding your point about the PPT election, I was honestly believing that write ins weren't allowed, as ihe was unable he declared in time. That wasn't a scheme from my part or whatever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oooooh, I didn't even know about that. I thought you were referring to the last big change that happened in the senate rules (after my resignation and before my election to the senate, my apology.

Yea, I was generally talking about 2013.

And for those rules in October 2014, I was involved the in debates, despite not having internet access. I even posted an alternative, that preserved most of the same functions, and the PPT name, with only slight different in length from Nix's (mine was a 62% reduction in size, Nix's was 73%).

But yes, I never supported a partisan senate or whatever and I have always wanted to letthe VP having some duties in the senate. So for my part, I never changed my position on this issue.

Indeed, though I never recalled saying you had. I never really pictured you as "old Labor", precisely because you were so different from the rest on a variety of issues at the time. As I recall you started out as a Liberal Party member, so that wasn't all that surprising.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The same way Flo won the Southern emperor election. You will tell me the South was a swing region at this time?

The first time? I beleive he was unopposed, The second time, yes, it kind of was. Hence why PiT won two months later, before all the TPPers deregistered from the region, even.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He won reelection by convincing fed zombies to vote for him because muh nice guy. Not a definition of swing voters for me.

I don't recall that many "Fed" defections, but I cannot check my February chart right now.

And additionnally the fed candidate was a total cretin.

Sheer and utter nonsense!