Structure, size and elections of Senate/House (Debating)

[Chief Justice windjammer]

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.

I m sorry Duke but I dont find your plan.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Duke I don't think you posted your original plan.


And you know the answer to that, because I helped you work out some of the kinks back in 2013.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Sorry, I'll post it when I get home. It's on my google docs page where I left it 2 years ago.

[Chief Justice windjammer]

Sorry, I'll post it when I get home. It's on my google docs page where I left it 2 years ago.

Haha

I wasn't even registered when you were elected with Marokai

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Sorry, I'll post it when I get home. It's on my google docs page where I left it 2 years ago.

Haha

I wasn't even registered when you were elected with Marokai

No no, this was from my first presidential campaign in October 2013. I ran on reforming the government because I felt Atlasia needed a shot in the arm, but at the time was met with a lot of opposition to the point where I had to abandon it.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16CprQX313EgE37ashRbVCTWxz8TayYtbvmXjeV13OD8/edit?usp=sharing

Here's my original proposal from 2013.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Good times!

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16CprQX313EgE37ashRbVCTWxz8TayYtbvmXjeV13OD8/edit?usp=sharing

Here's my original proposal from 2013.

I'm open to endorse Dukes plan in principle.

[Prince of Salem]

I believe Duke's plan is a great starting point for debate and improvement, if any is needed.

[Chief Justice windjammer]

I believe Duke's plan is a great starting point for debate and improvement, if any is needed.

^^^^


Basically, some requests:
     -I still would like to keep the name "senate" for the legislative body representing the regions.
     - 6 senate members elected by half is a good idea. Here is my proposal: during the presidential election, senators should be elected like right now. But during the Midterms, I think it should be elected by the state legislatures. This is important to give them some duties, because if not, people won't give any interest to local races, and that's a shame considering this is honestly the local offices, that represents just my best memories.
     - 11 representatives: that's too big. I will advocate for 7 members (I mean, what's the problem with having 2 chambers that have the same number of people?). 9 members wouldn't be terrible either.

     And finally, if we implement bicameralism, we really need to let people hold more than 1 offices (with exceptions etc): For example, a local assemblyman should be able to be at the same time a member of a regional assembly and a senator or representative.
     

[Adam Griffin]

I believe Duke's plan is a great starting point for debate and improvement, if any is needed.

^^^^


Basically, some requests:
     -I still would like to keep the name "senate" for the legislative body representing the regions.
     - 6 senate members elected by half is a good idea. Here is my proposal: during the presidential election, senators should be elected like right now. But during the Midterms, I think it should be elected by the state legislatures. This is important to give them some duties, because if not, people won't give any interest to local races, and that's a shame considering this is honestly the local offices, that represents just my best memories.
     - 11 representatives: that's too big. I will advocate for 7 members (I mean, what's the problem with having 2 chambers that have the same number of people?). 9 members wouldn't be terrible either.

     And finally, if we implement bicameralism, we really need to let people hold more than 1 offices (with exceptions etc): For example, a local assemblyman should be able to be at the same time a member of a regional assembly and a senator or representative.
     

There is absolutely zero point in having two chambers if they're the same size...furthermore, 7 at-large elected members = the same crappy and predictable system we have for the at-large elections now. An at-large system is not competitive with a small number of offices. Also, restricting offices to such a small size in your plan will not make it necessary to have dual-officeholding in cases other than where pure functionality dictates.

Your plan creates the exact same conditions we currently have.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I love you all so much. I'll have a drink for each of you tonight

[Chief Justice windjammer]

I believe Duke's plan is a great starting point for debate and improvement, if any is needed.

^^^^


Basically, some requests:
     -I still would like to keep the name "senate" for the legislative body representing the regions.
     - 6 senate members elected by half is a good idea. Here is my proposal: during the presidential election, senators should be elected like right now. But during the Midterms, I think it should be elected by the state legislatures. This is important to give them some duties, because if not, people won't give any interest to local races, and that's a shame considering this is honestly the local offices, that represents just my best memories.
     - 11 representatives: that's too big. I will advocate for 7 members (I mean, what's the problem with having 2 chambers that have the same number of people?). 9 members wouldn't be terrible either.

     And finally, if we implement bicameralism, we really need to let people hold more than 1 offices (with exceptions etc): For example, a local assemblyman should be able to be at the same time a member of a regional assembly and a senator or representative.
     

There is absolutely zero point in having two chambers if they're the same size...furthermore, 7 at-large elected members = the same crappy and predictable system we have for the at-large elections now. An at-large system is not competitive with a small number of offices. Also, restricting offices to such a small size in your plan will not make it necessary to have dual-officeholding in cases other than where pure functionality dictates.

Your plan creates the exact same conditions we currently have.

Adam, don't forget we need to reduce the number of offices too!

I love you all so much. I'll have a drink for each of you tonight

The feeling is mutual, have a good drink .

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Also I'll say I oppose any attemp to make the house 7 people. I need to be at least 9 minimum to make it worthwhile. As it stands this plan does reduce offices, so the fears that it'll add too many aren't something to fret over. I won't do anything to add offices to this game that already has too many.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Maybe the Senate should just always be elected by the Legislatures. I think it is a good idea to make them more relevant, and the split system seems a bit overcomplicated.

[Adam Griffin]

     Maybe the Senate should just always be elected by the Legislatures. I think it is a good idea to make them more relevant, and the split system seems a bit overcomplicated.

Personally, I think we should just make it so that they are given to the regions and then let the regions decide on how they want to handle it. Are you advocating for a big, heavy-handed federal approach to all of this? I'm so proud!

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Maybe the Senate should just always be elected by the Legislatures. I think it is a good idea to make them more relevant, and the split system seems a bit overcomplicated.

Personally, I think we should just make it so that they are given to the regions and then let the regions decide on how they want to handle it. Are you advocating for a big, heavy-handed federal approach to all of this? I'm so proud!

     Well I was responding to a post advocating a federal approach.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I don't know about the legislatures selecting their senator. I want more elections, all the time, because this is an elections game, and the more we have the better.

[Lincoln Republican]

We must never, NEVER, take away from the people their right to decide who is elected to represent them in ANY office.

Legislatures elect  Senators?

Have some around here lost their minds?

And I am in no way convinced that we need yet another legislative body to complicate things further.   

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't know about the legislatures selecting their senator. I want more elections, all the time, because this is an elections game, and the more we have the better.

     The problem is too many elections causing voter fatigue. The run-up to the election is oftentimes just as interesting as the result. Besides, the House would be elected by the citizenry.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

We must never, NEVER, take away from the people their right to decide who is elected to represent them in ANY office.

Legislatures elect  Senators?

Have some around here lost their minds?

And I am in no way convinced that we need yet another legislative body to complicate things further.   

Prior to the 17th amendment the legislatures of the states elected the senate. Why shouldn't we do that.

Lincoln, the voice of the people isn't being stifled by their regional legislatures if those legislatures are electing the senators. The people's will is expressed in the legislatures decision and that same legislature can recall a rogue senator.

[Lincoln Republican]

I go on record as being vehemently opposed to members of Regional Legislatures electing representatives of the people.

Only the people should be electing those who will represent them in government.

ALL eligible voters in Atlasia should be allowed to participate in the election of those who govern us, not just members of Regional Legislatures.

The Seventeenth Amendment dates from 1913 by the way.  This is 2015.   

[Prince of Salem]

I like Griffin's point. Why don't we allow regions to decide how they'll elect their two Senators?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I go on record as being vehemently opposed to members of Regional Legislatures electing representatives of the people.

Only the people should be electing those who will represent them in government.

ALL eligible voters in Atlasia should be allowed to participate in the election of those who govern us, not just members of Regional Legislatures.

The Seventeenth Amendment dates from 1913 by the way.  This is 2015.   

And it's an amendment who's time has come to die. The House is the voice of the people and the Senate is the voice of the states. That how the Constitution meant it to be. Wilson and his ilk of progressives didn't want the states to have a direct voice in government and that's how the direct election of senators happened. A return to stronger states (via regional assemblies electing senators) is what Atlasia and RL America needs.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Letting the legislatures pick their senators just opens the door to crony politics, and deprives the people of who to they wish to represent their region in the chamber. Moreover, an election game on life support should not be cutting a competitive and engrossing set of elections if it wants to survive.

JCL, leave your bankrupt ideology in the trashbin of history. There is a reason irl America discarded the broken practice of letting state legislatures anoint their senators. It has no place irl or in this game.