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

[Clyde1998]

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.

[Clyde1998]

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).

[Clyde1998]

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.

[Clyde1998]

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).

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clyde1998]

     Interesting point about the name of the PPT. It reflects the difference in the role in the United States versus Atlasia, so I agree that we should have a more fitting name for it.

I suppose I agree, just as long as it is not a Senate Speaker, and is something similar to a Senate President, I'll be fine with it.

We could use Prime Minister (or similar) to avoid confusion of having two people with 'President' in their title - and as PMs are generally Heads of Government and Presidents are generally Heads of State.

[Clyde1998]

I agree, clearly we do not want to be using parliamentary titles, but we should not be using Latin terms either.

To be fair, "President Pro Tempore" is Latin as well, and Atlasia has obvious historical ties to the Roman Republic. I don't want to get into a long argument about names, however; is there another title you would prefer? We've already named the House leader the "Speaker" and the VP the "President of Congress," so the two most obvious titles are in use. I suppose we could always just leave it up to the Senate itself (in fact, that might be the best option).

Does the Vice President need an additional title? Although, as you said, it will be best to leave it up the the Senate.

[Clyde1998]

I object to the proposal.

[Clyde1998]

Abstain.

I feel that simply replacing the word 'senatus princeps' with 'leader' doesn't complete section two, clause three.

I propose something along the lines of:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clyde1998]

Aye