|           
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2020, 05:00:30 am
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 10 11 ... 14 Print
Author Topic: Structure, size and elections of Senate/House (Debating)  (Read 23754 times)
Senator Cris
Cris
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,553
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: October 31, 2015, 12:15:09 pm »

Aye

I strongly encourage my fellow delegates to support this amendment. It's not perfect, but it's a good starting point. We can change it.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,014
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: October 31, 2015, 12:15:49 pm »

After some thought, changing my vote to Aye. I will support Cris or Truman's idea later.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,744


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: October 31, 2015, 12:24:05 pm »

Aye

We can edit parts of it later for the VP duties/whether it should exist at all.
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,790
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: October 31, 2015, 12:44:44 pm »

Aye.

I am undecided on the role of (if any) of the VP, but this is by and large an excellent template.
Logged
VPH
vivaportugalhabs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,450
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: October 31, 2015, 01:48:18 pm »

aye
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: October 31, 2015, 03:09:04 pm »

     Aye. I look forward to further amendments being proposed.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,014
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: October 31, 2015, 03:25:32 pm »

Well, considering bicameralism has been approved, in case the VP remains and isn't abolished:

I would like to lower the number of the house seats. I still believe the senate should be constituted of 6 senators (+VP being the tie breaker), but I do believe that 11 is a too big numbers. Why not lowering this number to 7? I do believe as well they should be elected at large, the senate representing the regions and the house of representatives representing Atlasia at large.

In case the VP remains, I would like to propose the idea of a new role for the VP:
Why not making him the coordinator between the 2 chambers. For example, if the House passes a piece of legislation, that should be him who should administer this piece of legislation in the senate. If anyone has an another idea it would be welcome. But yes, considering now that will be bicameralism, I think it might be possible to give the VP a role without making him basically a senator.
Logged
MadmanMotley
Bmotley
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,278
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.77, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: October 31, 2015, 03:40:51 pm »

Aye.
Logged
Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN
RGN08
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,206
Philippines


Political Matrix
E: 2.31, S: 4.47

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 on: October 31, 2015, 05:48:35 pm »

Aye
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,744


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: October 31, 2015, 06:39:45 pm »

NO I do not favor a 7 person house. The lowest I'll go is 9, but 11 is preferable. We need to differentiate some between the two chambers at the very least.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,014
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: October 31, 2015, 06:43:19 pm »

Well,
9 representatives, this is fine for me. It would only increase the number of federal representatives by 5 in the end. Considering the number of regions will be reduced, I guess it is workable.
Logged
Classic Conservative
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,648



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: October 31, 2015, 07:20:44 pm »

AYE
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 on: October 31, 2015, 08:41:54 pm »

Aye,

It's a start but Duke makes an intelligent point.

Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,925
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: November 01, 2015, 01:31:37 pm »

Abstain

I feel that the house should be elected by the regions and the Senate at-large, the House should be smaller (otherwise we're still going to have the issue over not having enough people to fill each position) and the Senate should have an odd number of Senators. I also don't support having two classes of Senator if they're all going to be elected through one type of the election (regional/at-large).
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,165
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 on: November 01, 2015, 04:21:38 pm »

Aye
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,045


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 on: November 01, 2015, 04:54:02 pm »

Aye
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,459
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: November 01, 2015, 07:52:20 pm »

NAY

I don't think we have enough people for an 11-member House, and if they're elected at-large anyways, it doesn't seem to serve a separate purpose from the Senate.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,068
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: November 02, 2015, 01:27:50 am »

oh  the HELL YESSS!!!! Evil

by which I mean Aye by the way!!! Wink



I love every inch of this Amendment, except the absence of the VP. Tongue The House and Senate are perfect, as are the election methods. The increassed frequency of House elections ensures they are a truly a People's House and that they serve the will of the people. The Senate gets the PPT back, so that the House can have a Speaker.

Since the principle vote is going overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the VP, that will hopefully be amended back in. Here is my suggestion, as I mentioned in the other thread, make the Vice President serve as "President/Presiding Officer of the Congress, with the responsbility of ensuring that both chambers coordinate. So if you have emergency bills for instance, he could preside over it for both houses. He would ensure that both houses passed legislation before it is presented to the President and that both House's leadership are active, with the ability to fill in until a new PPT or Speaker is elected. He would also split ties in both houses (there could be a vacancy leading to a tie in the House). The VP would also serve as the PResident's laison to the legislative branch and therefore the VP would always have to be active and engaged.

Take the House down to 9 from eleven and that way retaining the VP is compensated for office wise.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,068
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 on: November 02, 2015, 01:30:31 am »

In case the VP remains, I would like to propose the idea of a new role for the VP:
Why not making him the coordinator between the 2 chambers. For example, if the House passes a piece of legislation, that should be him who should administer this piece of legislation in the senate. If anyone has an another idea it would be welcome. But yes, considering now that will be bicameralism, I think it might be possible to give the VP a role without making him basically a senator.

Definitely!
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,577
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 on: November 02, 2015, 01:34:55 am »
« Edited: November 02, 2015, 01:37:23 am by RG Griff »

I feel that the house should be elected by the regions and the Senate at-large

Under the current parameters, reversing the two would create a more difficult and simultaneously less competitive outcome.

For starters, we'd have to do reapportionment every 2 or 4 months in order to allocate House districts to each region under such a plan. Then, we have to determine who/how they're drawn. Then, presumably, we'd have to ensure that the districts are drawn in such a way that there are roughly the same number of active people in each district in order to ensure candidates for office will actually exist. Otherwise, you would actually end up with a lot of empty seats. Now, do you codify such a requirement into law, and if so, how specifically? What language would be used to determine who constitutes a likely "active" person and who does not?

Then, there is the problem with having a smaller Senate elected at-large all at once. Again, under the current parameters, we would only have one additional Senator being elected at-large in your idea than what is currently the case. The current at-large Senate system is widely considered (and rightfully so) to be the most predictable set of elections in the game. Unless somebody really screws up, then it's going to be 2 Senators from the biggest left-wing party, 2 Senators from the biggest right-wing party, and 1 Senator from another party or unaffiliated group (often left-leaning). That was a big motivation behind moving away from the at-large system for Senate elections with the ERA awhile back. There would be a nominal difference at most with making 6 Senators elected via at-large representation versus 5.

the House should be smaller (otherwise we're still going to have the issue over not having enough people to fill each position)

The House needs to be functionally different than the Senate in order to justify its existence, and one of the most common variables for this difference in government chambers is the size. Under the current framework (restrictions on regional government size, 11-member House, 6-member Senate, and hopefully a bit of consolidation in the cabinet), we'll be reducing the number of offices by a little more than 20%.

Because it will be at-large, it will be substantially easier to find willing candidates to fill these positions than when compared to the current regional dysfunction of too many offices and boundaries that restrict qualified candidates. Reducing the size of this chamber any more than what is specified makes it too close in scope to the Senate; I've heard people saying "7 Senators & 9 House members". What exactly is the damn point in adding an extra layer of bureaucracy if the two chambers are going to be virtually the same size? There needs to be a contrast, and it needs to be substantial.

and the Senate should have an odd number of Senators. I also don't support having two classes of Senator if they're all going to be elected through one type of the election (regional/at-large).

Well, since everybody seems to want to keep the dis-utilitarian Vice Presidency, I suppose it will have to function as the tie-breaker here. In addition, an even number is necessary to keep the regions from squawking too loudly about it not being "their chamber" or whatever.

Take the House down to 9 from eleven and that way retaining the VP is compensated for office wise.


Nope, not necessary! If literally one of the most non-useful positions in the game can be retained without any concern for the number of offices being preserved, then nobody needs to take a hypocritical approach and begin saying "we need to remove twice as many from the House for numbers' sake" to make up for it.

It's just like what I imagine would happen with the addition of new provinces; I bet if I were to introduce an amendment to remove several current U.S. states from our jurisdiction that have been historically empty - so that we don't have any "dreaded empty jurisdictions" or whatever - then I bet everybody who said we can't have any more empty territories would vote against that, too. People really need to have more consistency throughout this process. Tongue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,068
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 on: November 02, 2015, 01:50:20 am »

Take the House down to 9 from eleven and that way retaining the VP is compensated for office wise.


Nope, not necessary! If literally one of the most non-useful positions in the game can be retained without any concern for the number of offices being preserved, then nobody needs to take a hypocritical approach and begin saying "we need to remove twice as many from the House for numbers' sake" to make up for it.

It is not double for the sake of making up for it. It is double because odd numbers occur at intervals of two, not one oh great and might mathematical genius. Go Griff yo Graph!!! Tongue

You are partially to blame for the VP's present state, by the way. Wink It was working fine until Labor got its fing groper nasties all over it. Tongue
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,577
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: November 02, 2015, 02:09:48 am »

Take the House down to 9 from eleven and that way retaining the VP is compensated for office wise.


Nope, not necessary! If literally one of the most non-useful positions in the game can be retained without any concern for the number of offices being preserved, then nobody needs to take a hypocritical approach and begin saying "we need to remove twice as many from the House for numbers' sake" to make up for it.

It is not double for the sake of making up for it. It is double because odd numbers occur at intervals of two, not one oh great and might mathematical genius. Go Griff yo Graph!!! Tongue

You are partially to blame for the VP's present state, by the way. Wink It was working fine until Labor got its fing groper nasties all over it. Tongue

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if we're not worried at all about getting rid of one position with no utility whatsoever in order to free up game space, then we shouldn't be all gun-ho about getting rid of two positions under the same pretenses that will actually have intrinsic value. Since those positions will actually create value and a contrast between the two chambers in terms of electoral competition and meaning, they're worth retaining even more than the VP. Since the VP has been deemed worth keeping over more valuable offices, then there is no argument without hypocrisy to then want to ax these offices for fear of having too many offices.

People who are worried about numbers should have been willing to get rid of the least useful office currently in the game. Eleven House seats will not be difficult to fill, assuming this body doesn't reverse course and give the regions the ability to go hog-wild with office creation once again.

And there are a lot of people you can blame for how the Vice Presidency got to where it is today, but I am not one of them.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,068
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 on: November 02, 2015, 02:49:35 am »

Take the House down to 9 from eleven and that way retaining the VP is compensated for office wise.


Nope, not necessary! If literally one of the most non-useful positions in the game can be retained without any concern for the number of offices being preserved, then nobody needs to take a hypocritical approach and begin saying "we need to remove twice as many from the House for numbers' sake" to make up for it.

It is not double for the sake of making up for it. It is double because odd numbers occur at intervals of two, not one oh great and might mathematical genius. Go Griff yo Graph!!! Tongue

You are partially to blame for the VP's present state, by the way. Wink It was working fine until Labor got its fing groper nasties all over it. Tongue

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if we're not worried at all about getting rid of one position with no utility whatsoever in order to free up game space, then we shouldn't be all gun-ho about getting rid of two positions under the same pretenses that will actually have intrinsic value. Since those positions will actually create value and a contrast between the two chambers in terms of electoral competition and meaning, they're worth retaining even more than the VP. Since the VP has been deemed worth keeping over more valuable offices, then there is no argument without hypocrisy to then want to ax these offices for fear of having too many offices.

People who are worried about numbers should have been willing to get rid of the least useful office currently in the game. Eleven House seats will not be difficult to fill, assuming this body doesn't reverse course and give the regions the ability to go hog-wild with office creation once again.

And there are a lot of people you can blame for how the Vice Presidency got to where it is today, but I am not one of them.

Its called compromise Griffin, a concept you may be unfamiliar with. Tongue Plus I really don't want the best parts of your amendment gutted to something terrible.

Sure, sure! Tongue
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,553
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 on: November 02, 2015, 01:20:10 pm »

The amendment passed.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,744


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 on: November 02, 2015, 01:34:42 pm »

In case the VP remains, I would like to propose the idea of a new role for the VP:
Why not making him the coordinator between the 2 chambers. For example, if the House passes a piece of legislation, that should be him who should administer this piece of legislation in the senate. If anyone has an another idea it would be welcome. But yes, considering now that will be bicameralism, I think it might be possible to give the VP a role without making him basically a senator.

Definitely!

Does anyone bother reading my original proposal? That's exactly what I had in mind for the VP. A lot of people are just talking before educating themselves which is making this process less efficient.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 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