SENATE BILL: The Bicameral Birthing Amendment of 2014 (sent to the Regions?)

[bore]

Nor is consolidating to three regions.

Due to the number of offices a bicameral structure creates, we have no choice but consolidation.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Nor is consolidating to three regions.

Due to the number of offices a bicameral structure creates, we have no choice but consolidation.

Not under my plan which could be different from Duke if Duke's plan does.

[Deus Naturae]

So, let me get this straight...if we create more offices, we'll have to destroy two of the Regions to solve the problem of...too many offices? If that's the case, why create more offices two begin with?

[Adam Griffin]

Senator Griffin, are you friendly or hostile to Senator Tyrion's amendment?

Friendly I guess.

[bore]

So, let me get this straight...if we create more offices, we'll have to destroy two of the Regions to solve the problem of...too many offices? If that's the case, why create more offices two begin with?

You'll be pleased to know that the strawman you just erected isn't actually relevant to the debate.

The bicameral system is not being proposed to reduce the number of offices (though it will, likely, have that effect, but only slightly) - it is proposed because some people think that a bicameral system would be more fun to play than a unicameral one. However, because a bicameral system must lead to an increase in federal offices, because there are only a finite number of players, we need to decrease the number of regional offices.

Consolidation is a necessary byproduct, but a byproduct is all it is.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

So, let me get this straight...if we create more offices, we'll have to destroy two of the Regions to solve the problem of...too many offices? If that's the case, why create more offices two begin with?

You'll be pleased to know that the strawman you just erected isn't actually relevant to the debate.

The bicameral system is not being proposed to reduce the number of offices (though it will, likely, have that effect, but only slightly) - it is proposed because some people think that a bicameral system would be more fun to play than a unicameral one. However, because a bicameral system must lead to an increase in federal offices, because there are only a finite number of players, we need to decrease the number of regional offices.

Consolidation is a necessary byproduct, but a byproduct is all it is.

I would seriously disagree with that. You only get a net increase of 5 offices. That does not warrant consolidating to three regions. Many supporters of consolidation (especially on the left) want to do so to send my region into oblivion out of political expediency.

[President Tyrion]

So, let me get this straight...if we create more offices, we'll have to destroy two of the Regions to solve the problem of...too many offices? If that's the case, why create more offices two begin with?

You'll be pleased to know that the strawman you just erected isn't actually relevant to the debate.

The bicameral system is not being proposed to reduce the number of offices (though it will, likely, have that effect, but only slightly) - it is proposed because some people think that a bicameral system would be more fun to play than a unicameral one. However, because a bicameral system must lead to an increase in federal offices, because there are only a finite number of players, we need to decrease the number of regional offices.

Consolidation is a necessary byproduct, but a byproduct is all it is.

I would seriously disagree with that. You only get a net increase of 5 offices. That does not warrant consolidating to three regions. Many supporters of consolidation (especially on the left) want to do so to send my region into oblivion out of political expediency.

Uh, no. Surprisingly, the world does not revolve around you.

[Deus Naturae]

So, let me get this straight...if we create more offices, we'll have to destroy two of the Regions to solve the problem of...too many offices? If that's the case, why create more offices two begin with?

You'll be pleased to know that the strawman you just erected isn't actually relevant to the debate.

The bicameral system is not being proposed to reduce the number of offices (though it will, likely, have that effect, but only slightly) - it is proposed because some people think that a bicameral system would be more fun to play than a unicameral one. However, because a bicameral system must lead to an increase in federal offices, because there are only a finite number of players, we need to decrease the number of regional offices.

Consolidation is a necessary byproduct, but a byproduct is all it is.

But is consolidation the only solution capable of balancing out the number of offices? If you include consolidation in this, it won't have a chance of passing anyway.

Sorry if this has already been proposed, but why not just eliminate the At-Large seats and reduce the Senate to five offices? That would empower the Regions while ensuring that there aren't too many offices.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

So, let me get this straight...if we create more offices, we'll have to destroy two of the Regions to solve the problem of...too many offices? If that's the case, why create more offices two begin with?

You'll be pleased to know that the strawman you just erected isn't actually relevant to the debate.

The bicameral system is not being proposed to reduce the number of offices (though it will, likely, have that effect, but only slightly) - it is proposed because some people think that a bicameral system would be more fun to play than a unicameral one. However, because a bicameral system must lead to an increase in federal offices, because there are only a finite number of players, we need to decrease the number of regional offices.

Consolidation is a necessary byproduct, but a byproduct is all it is.

I would seriously disagree with that. You only get a net increase of 5 offices. That does not warrant consolidating to three regions. Many supporters of consolidation (especially on the left) want to do so to send my region into oblivion out of political expediency.

Uh, no. Surprisingly, the world does not revolve around you.

You're right in that the world doesn't revolve around me. Needless to say however is that the left did try to take a blowtorch to my region while merely merging two of their weaker ones. Good thing I had support across party lines to preserve the five region system.

[windjammer]

Senators, you have 24 hours to object.

[Dr. Cynic]

Mr. Vice President, I will be assuming sponsorship for this bill at ex-Senator Griffin's request. (It's been awhile, so I'm not 100% on what the procedure for this is, but I'd like to at least state the intent).

[bore]

So, let me get this straight...if we create more offices, we'll have to destroy two of the Regions to solve the problem of...too many offices? If that's the case, why create more offices two begin with?

You'll be pleased to know that the strawman you just erected isn't actually relevant to the debate.

The bicameral system is not being proposed to reduce the number of offices (though it will, likely, have that effect, but only slightly) - it is proposed because some people think that a bicameral system would be more fun to play than a unicameral one. However, because a bicameral system must lead to an increase in federal offices, because there are only a finite number of players, we need to decrease the number of regional offices.

Consolidation is a necessary byproduct, but a byproduct is all it is.

But is consolidation the only solution capable of balancing out the number of offices? If you include consolidation in this, it won't have a chance of passing anyway.

Sorry if this has already been proposed, but why not just eliminate the At-Large seats and reduce the Senate to five offices? That would empower the Regions while ensuring that there aren't too many offices.

Consolidation isn't the only solution, no. For instance, we could make the upper chamber 3 and the lower chamber 6 or something, but that has serious downsides ( a 3 person chamber is very susceptible to activity issues, and the difference between the two isn't big enough, also, you wouldn't get the parliamentary feel that this bill would provide) as well.

And with regard to this amendment's passage, I think most of us involved in game reform efforts have accepted nothing will pass, but we try anyway.

[GAworth]

So, let me get this straight...if we create more offices, we'll have to destroy two of the Regions to solve the problem of...too many offices? If that's the case, why create more offices two begin with?

You'll be pleased to know that the strawman you just erected isn't actually relevant to the debate.

The bicameral system is not being proposed to reduce the number of offices (though it will, likely, have that effect, but only slightly) - it is proposed because some people think that a bicameral system would be more fun to play than a unicameral one. However, because a bicameral system must lead to an increase in federal offices, because there are only a finite number of players, we need to decrease the number of regional offices.

Consolidation is a necessary byproduct, but a byproduct is all it is.

I would seriously disagree with that. You only get a net increase of 5 offices. That does not warrant consolidating to three regions. Many supporters of consolidation (especially on the left) want to do so to send my region into oblivion out of political expediency.

I can't believe I am saying this, I believe I agree with JCL *shivers* I don't think consolidation is necessary. It may be helpful but not necessary.

Also, would the members of the house be eligible to serve as cabinet members like Senators (If I am not mistaken, this falls under the Semi-Presidentialism Amendment)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. Vice President, I will be assuming sponsorship for this bill at ex-Senator Griffin's request. (It's been awhile, so I'm not 100% on what the procedure for this is, but I'd like to at least state the intent).

I think it is a 48 hours objection period to the assumption of sponsorship, if I am not mistaken. Windjammer has to start that period I think.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Article 1, Section 4 of the Third Constitution of Atlasia is amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 3: The Addition of the House

1. Article 1, Section 8 of the Third Constitution shall be entitled “The House” and shall read:
   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 4: House Districts and Elections

1. Article 1, Section 9 of the Third Constitution shall be entitled “Elections to the House” and shall read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
Without any objection, this amendment has been adopted.


----------------
Senator yankee:
According to the senate rules:
Article 3, section 1, clause 8

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article 4 section 1 clause 8:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article 4, Section 1, Clause 7:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, if my interpretation of the rules is correct,
Senators, you have 48 hours to object to Senator Cynic taking sponsorship.

Indeed, crazy I have had to search 3 amendments .

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Looks like Article 3, Section 1, Clause 8 needs to be fixed at that end there.

[TNF]

Cynic is officially sponsor here. Do we want to do anything else with this, or are we ready to put it out to pasture?

[Dr. Cynic]

I'm ready to move this to a vote.

[President Tyrion]

We're ready? Anyone have any concerns?

[Adam Griffin]

Booooo, booooo

We're ready? Anyone have any concerns?

What about what Yankee mentioned?

[President Tyrion]

Booooo, booooo

We're ready? Anyone have any concerns?

What about what Yankee mentioned?

I thought his concern was with Senate rules?

[Lumine]

As GAworth pointed out, we may have to amend the Semi-Presidentialism if this passes, although that's a concern of the future. Since the bill turned out to be directly related to the Fix the Regions (and it remains to be seen how to get it passed) and the party list idea got defeated it seems we might indeed be ready to vote here.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I'd suggest that we separate the bill from the Fix the Regions bill before we put it to a vote.

[Lumine]

I'd suggest that we separate the bill from the Fix the Regions bill before we put it to a vote.

Well, the problem would be dealing with the amount of offices, since we would have seventeen Atlasians serving in the Senate and House with the current project, something that it may be really hard to maintain with the current activity levels and with most of the regional governments in crisis. As many others noted during the discussion it doesn't seem really feasible unless we reduce the House and the Senate, and that would affect its own efficiency as well...

[Adam Griffin]

I'd suggest that we separate the bill from the Fix the Regions bill before we put it to a vote.

Well, the problem would be dealing with the amount of offices, since we would have seventeen Atlasians serving in the Senate and House with the current project, something that it may be really hard to maintain with the current activity levels and with most of the regional governments in crisis. As many others noted during the discussion it doesn't seem really feasible unless we reduce the House and the Senate, and that would affect its own efficiency as well...

Exactly. JCL is just trying to kill it; it's tied to FTRA for two reasons: the first being that the number of offices have to be dealt with before we even consider adding new ones, and the second being an incentive to actually ratify FTRA in the first place. Bicameralism without FTRA would be a disaster. You can have 5 regions and 1 chamber (and even that's debatable from the perspective of activity), or you can have 3 regions and 2 chambers; there's no mix and match approach that will work as intended.