|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 03, 2020, 12:37:30 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Structure, size and elections of Senate/House (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 Print
Author Topic: Structure, size and elections of Senate/House (Debating)  (Read 23822 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,145
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: October 29, 2015, 12:15:38 am »

What legislative system do you support?

[X] Bicameralism
[ ] Unicameralism
[ ] Abstain

I think we could have two five member houses.

1x1 - President
5x1 - Senate
5x1 - House of Representatives
1x3 - Governors
5x3 - Regional Representatives.

29 elected officials.

The Senate would have to go up to 6 or down to three since we have three regions.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,145
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: October 29, 2015, 12:18:26 am »

If bicameralism fails, I am going to push for the preservation of a class of Senators dedicated to representing the people of the nation in Nyman.

If bicameralism fails, I am going to push for the preservation of atlasia as a country that doesn't randomly torture kittens.

That sounds wonderfull. However, the anti-Kitten brigade has not elected any Regional Senators as of yet. Such cannot be said of the secessionists, who have elected a Regional Senator dedicated to the cause of seperatism. While he is perfectly free to represent the sectional interests of his region in such capacity, it is contrary the interests of the nation and therefore the great people of this land must be representated or we are no longer a Federal Republic.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,627
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: October 29, 2015, 01:00:15 am »

  • bicameralism I guess

And the Cabinet should obviously be destroyed. SoEA, SoIA, Home Affairs, whatever. Noo one has ever, ever, ever cared.

The only worthwhile position is that of Attorney General, and that's only useful when someone competent holds the job.
Logged
Classic Conservative
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,648



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: October 29, 2015, 05:46:28 am »

Unicameralism
Logged
Leinad
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,827
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: October 29, 2015, 06:00:29 am »

Abstain.

I have major doubts of it's feasibility, but, on the other hand, it would be totally freaking awesome!

The question is this: are the benifits of bicameralism worth adding extra offices? Two chambers, or not two chambers, that is the question!

Bicameralism doesn't add offices. It reduces them by nearly 15.

That's a bit misleading, to be slightly pedantic--yes, your plan does reduce offices, overall, but it would reduce more without the bicameralism part. Of course, you could easily say that the added dynamic of two chambers would make it worth it, but still, it's technically incorrect to say that "bicameralism doesn't add offices" when that's literally what it is: adding offices (not your plan overall, but bicameralism specifically).

Not trying to bash you or anything--I'm just a bit of a stickler for factual accuracy in debates such as these. Again, I'm not opposed to bicameralism, just skeptical. But I want to believe.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,742


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: October 29, 2015, 09:18:38 am »

If this convention exists merely to consolidate regions and do nothing else, it will be a failure. Adding nothing new to the game and putting band aids on the government will not fix things. It'll only hasten the games decline and put it in a permanent malaise.

Bicameralism' main point is the change the dynamic of the game so people will be interested in playing again! This game is in awful shape. Interest is at all time lows and we still have some people in this convention afraid to do something borderline radical.

I ask you, Leinad, what is your vision for the game? Do you think merely consolidating regions and tweaking some other aspects of the cabinet will fix our problems? Add any new dynamics to the game? I'm not trying to be a dick either. I'm genuinely curious.
Logged
Biden/Abrams Voter
Adam Griffin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,610
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: October 29, 2015, 09:21:21 am »

Abstain.

I have major doubts of it's feasibility, but, on the other hand, it would be totally freaking awesome!

The question is this: are the benifits of bicameralism worth adding extra offices? Two chambers, or not two chambers, that is the question!

Bicameralism doesn't add offices. It reduces them by nearly 15.

That's a bit misleading, to be slightly pedantic--yes, your plan does reduce offices, overall, but it would reduce more without the bicameralism part. Of course, you could easily say that the added dynamic of two chambers would make it worth it, but still, it's technically incorrect to say that "bicameralism doesn't add offices" when that's literally what it is: adding offices (not your plan overall, but bicameralism specifically).

Not trying to bash you or anything--I'm just a bit of a stickler for factual accuracy in debates such as these. Again, I'm not opposed to bicameralism, just skeptical. But I want to believe.

No, it is not misleading - it is factually accurate and nominally sound. This would be like saying that a budget proposal with spending cuts and tax increases that ultimately cuts spending overall doesn't really cut spending because more cuts could be made/cuts could be made without tax increases. Doesn't make sense there; doesn't make sense here.

When we are finished with cabinet consolidation, regional legislative restrictions and shrinking the Senate, we're looking at cutting the # of offices in this game by close to 25%. That, combined with a new gameplay format, should be sufficient for maintaining long-term competitiveness, activity and officeholding stability.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,167
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: October 29, 2015, 09:31:24 am »
« Edited: October 29, 2015, 09:33:12 am by President bore »

1 Unicameralism

If bicameralism fails, I am going to push for the preservation of a class of Senators dedicated to representing the people of the nation in Nyman.

If bicameralism fails, I am going to push for the preservation of atlasia as a country that doesn't randomly torture kittens.

That sounds wonderfull. However, the anti-Kitten brigade has not elected any Regional Senators as of yet. Such cannot be said of the secessionists, who have elected a Regional Senator dedicated to the cause of seperatism. While he is perfectly free to represent the sectional interests of his region in such capacity, it is contrary the interests of the nation and therefore the great people of this land must be representated or we are no longer a Federal Republic.

There is functionally no difference between at large senators and regional senators in terms of who they represent and this is pretty obvious, honestly. At large senators represent the 20% of people who voted for them and share their views and no one else. There is pretty much no correlation between how a senator is elected and what they see their role as, apart from regional senators being more active and having a less dull election method.

These abstract ideas of how things are in principle, like with the crazy "governors should open constitutional amendment" movement are a large part of the problem with the game. People become so wrapped up in the idea of federalism and the separation of powers that they are blind to what works and what doesn't. And all the evidence shows that senators elected by the people at large are no more or less likely to represent people against regional interests.



Also I'd like to echo delegate oakvale's words about the cabinet. If we go through with bicameralism we need to really take a chainsaw to the cabinet to get the necessary reduction in numbers.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,925
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: October 29, 2015, 09:41:41 am »

We could always have the cabinet being made up of people who have been elected to the Senate/House - in order to keep the numbers down and to make sure that elected officials fill these roles.

The Senate would have to go up to 6 or down to three since we have three regions.
It depends on how the elections are run - you could have three regional seats for both and two at-large seats. (I can't remember if we've agreed something on this).
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: October 29, 2015, 02:15:35 pm »

We could always have the cabinet being made up of people who have been elected to the Senate/House - in order to keep the numbers down and to make sure that elected officials fill these roles.

The Senate would have to go up to 6 or down to three since we have three regions.
It depends on how the elections are run - you could have three regional seats for both and two at-large seats. (I can't remember if we've agreed something on this).

In essence a semi presidential system minus a prime minister. Unless we make the Speaker of the House such.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,742


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: October 29, 2015, 02:21:50 pm »

6 member senate all elected at large and either a 9 or 11 person house elected by the regions. It's very simple. It gives regions a direct way to elect their representatives and let's the senate represent the entire nation sort of like it's done now.

It's that simple. Let's not overthink this.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: October 29, 2015, 02:38:05 pm »

6 member senate all elected at large and either a 9 or 11 person house elected by the regions. It's very simple. It gives regions a direct way to elect their representatives and let's the senate represent the entire nation sort of like it's done now.

It's that simple. Let's not overthink this.

I can work with that.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,919
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: October 29, 2015, 02:42:41 pm »

6 member senate all elected at large and either a 9 or 11 person house elected by the regions. It's very simple. It gives regions a direct way to elect their representatives and let's the senate represent the entire nation sort of like it's done now.

It's that simple. Let's not overthink this.

     What if we use the Regional Legislatures to staff the lower house, similar to SWE's proposal? It would be a quick way to cut down on offices and it would make regional elections way more important.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,145
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: October 29, 2015, 04:14:15 pm »
« Edited: October 29, 2015, 04:19:09 pm by Senator North Carolina Yankee »

6 member senate all elected at large and either a 9 or 11 person house elected by the regions. It's very simple. It gives regions a direct way to elect their representatives and let's the senate represent the entire nation sort of like it's done now.

It's that simple. Let's not overthink this.

That is the opposite structure of your 2013 plan though, with an all Regional Senate and "A People's House". Also it isn't correct to say the Senate represents the whole nation right now since it is bifurcated between representatives of the Regions and representatives of the People.

Also with that arrangement, what is the purpose of having six as the magic number for the Senate anymore if the Senators aren't tied to Regions?

I prefer the 2013 plan in this regard, I always have. I like the concept of a People's House to represent the nation as a whole.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,145
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: October 29, 2015, 04:23:12 pm »

There is functionally no difference between at large senators and regional senators in terms of who they represent and this is pretty obvious, honestly. At large senators represent the 20% of people who voted for them and share their views and no one else. There is pretty much no correlation between how a senator is elected and what they see their role as, apart from regional senators being more active and having a less dull election method.

These abstract ideas of how things are in principle, like with the crazy "governors should open constitutional amendment" movement are a large part of the problem with the game. People become so wrapped up in the idea of federalism and the separation of powers that they are blind to what works and what doesn't. And all the evidence shows that senators elected by the people at large are no more or less likely to represent people against regional interests.

But that 20% of the people is spread across the entire nation and therefore it is unavoidable for them to have a national outlook on things as opposed to a regional one obviously.

It was not a crazy idea. If people are to give a damn about regional elections, they have to have some important tasks or otherwise they are indeed a useless layer of gov't as ILV stated. Perhaps, this won't the right area to give them responsibility, but at the time, with the exception of you, no one even consider the idea of reassessing the relationship between the two levels of gov't and I damn sure wasn't going to sign off on yet another shifting of responsibility from regional to federal without some counter shift in another area.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,939
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: October 29, 2015, 08:46:01 pm »

It's the uncertainty about what form the bicameralism would take that makes me hesitate.  Under the proper circumstances, maybe having a second chamber elected by the regions would give them something to do.  But there's a lot of "what ifs" between that system and the current one that just checking off "bicameralism" doesn't ensure.  I think there are lots of forms of bicameralism that would be an even worse trainwreck than what we have now.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,919
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: October 29, 2015, 09:55:42 pm »

There is functionally no difference between at large senators and regional senators in terms of who they represent and this is pretty obvious, honestly. At large senators represent the 20% of people who voted for them and share their views and no one else. There is pretty much no correlation between how a senator is elected and what they see their role as, apart from regional senators being more active and having a less dull election method.

These abstract ideas of how things are in principle, like with the crazy "governors should open constitutional amendment" movement are a large part of the problem with the game. People become so wrapped up in the idea of federalism and the separation of powers that they are blind to what works and what doesn't. And all the evidence shows that senators elected by the people at large are no more or less likely to represent people against regional interests.

But that 20% of the people is spread across the entire nation and therefore it is unavoidable for them to have a national outlook on things as opposed to a regional one obviously.

It was not a crazy idea. If people are to give a damn about regional elections, they have to have some important tasks or otherwise they are indeed a useless layer of gov't as ILV stated. Perhaps, this won't the right area to give them responsibility, but at the time, with the exception of you, no one even consider the idea of reassessing the relationship between the two levels of gov't and I damn sure wasn't going to sign off on yet another shifting of responsibility from regional to federal without some counter shift in another area.

     One of the major concerns I have seen with Labor (and the JCP too to a lesser extent) is that Labor has tended to not see a role for the regions. TNF saw no issue with bossing regions around and many amendments came out of the left sought to diminish the role of the regions.

     We may have been overzealous in our response, but considering that our opponents blithely dismissed an entire dimension of the game that was critical to integrating new blood, it's not hard to see why there was so much pushback. Yankee is right that it may not have been the correct position to hold on that issue, but I would maintain that the greater good of Atlasia was served by the right-wing reaction to the erosion of the regions.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,167
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: October 30, 2015, 08:57:17 am »

There is functionally no difference between at large senators and regional senators in terms of who they represent and this is pretty obvious, honestly. At large senators represent the 20% of people who voted for them and share their views and no one else. There is pretty much no correlation between how a senator is elected and what they see their role as, apart from regional senators being more active and having a less dull election method.

These abstract ideas of how things are in principle, like with the crazy "governors should open constitutional amendment" movement are a large part of the problem with the game. People become so wrapped up in the idea of federalism and the separation of powers that they are blind to what works and what doesn't. And all the evidence shows that senators elected by the people at large are no more or less likely to represent people against regional interests.

But that 20% of the people is spread across the entire nation and therefore it is unavoidable for them to have a national outlook on things as opposed to a regional one obviously.

Maybe in principle, but there is no evidence of that ever, ever, happening. People, whatever the type of election, vote for the candidate that is closest to their politics or that they personally like the most. Federalists vote for federalists in regional elections as well as national ones and regionalists vote for regionalists in national elections as well as regional ones.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was talking about who opened the voting booths not how amendments were ratified. And given governors repeatedly failed to open and close booths with no measurable impact on peoples votes in regional elections defending that became kind of crazy towards the end.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,742


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: October 30, 2015, 09:32:23 am »

Sorry Yankee, you were right. I didn't mean to mix up my plan. Although I'm fine with either as long as we don't do something silly like 5 regional senators and 1 at large. That's just stupid.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,027
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: October 30, 2015, 01:35:37 pm »

I support the existence of regions. When I was "tracking" the senate with Cris, there was a big difference in term of level of activity between at-large senators and regional senators. Regional senators were averagely much more active.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,925
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: October 30, 2015, 01:49:35 pm »

6 member senate all elected at large and either a 9 or 11 person house elected by the regions. It's very simple. It gives regions a direct way to elect their representatives and let's the senate represent the entire nation sort of like it's done now.

It's that simple. Let's not overthink this.
I'd think the Senate would have to have an odd number of people in it - five or seven - so we don't have a tie in the Senate. That's my only issue with that.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,919
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: October 30, 2015, 03:15:49 pm »

I support the existence of regions. When I was "tracking" the senate with Cris, there was a big difference in term of level of activity between at-large senators and regional senators. Regional senators were averagely much more active.

     I can see why that would happen. Regional Senators tend to be more vulnerable to changes in demographics. Some at-large Senators are on the bubble and some aren't. A Laborite or Federalist designated as the prime target for election at-large is pretty safe no matter what happens.
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,790
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: October 30, 2015, 03:25:55 pm »

x Bicameralism.

Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,553
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: October 30, 2015, 04:37:30 pm »

Abstain
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,553
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: October 30, 2015, 04:43:27 pm »

Bicameralism won.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines