|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 30, 2020, 03:04:26 PM

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Structure, size and elections of Senate/House (Debating) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Structure, size and elections of Senate/House (Debating)  (Read 24781 times)
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« on: October 10, 2015, 02:52:23 AM »

We can definitely accommodate bicameralism in the new game - as I have explained like fifty-eight times at this point - but it will require firm regulation as to how many (legislative) offices each region can have at a given time, preferably through a formula that reduces the number of legislators for a region if it becomes either too small or too large as a percentage of the game's population.

Something like:

Idea #1 (My Favorite Idea)
  • <25% of the game's population = 3 Legislators
  • 25-40% of the game's population = 5 Legislators
  • >40% of the game's population = 3 Legislators
Logged
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2015, 10:51:48 PM »

[X] Bicameralism
[ ] Unicameralism
[ ] Abstain
Logged
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #2 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
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2015, 06:29:39 PM »

Duke and I of course will be serving up the best bicameralism amendments very shortly.
Logged
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2015, 02:53:59 AM »

I offer the following amendment (in quotes). Yes, it's big - don't freak out over it.

Notable items:

  • Use of hours where applicable, instead of days; we need to get in a habit of doing this so that we don't have any future court cases over what constitutes a "day" when counting various criteria
  • 6 Senators, all elected by the regions; 4-month terms; staggered
  • 11 House members, elected at large; 2-month terms
  • Simplified language for election booth times; removed "Daylight"/"Standard" conundrum
  • Eliminated other various elements of over-eloquence
  • Built on the idea that we'll abolish VP to free up offices; President breaks tie in Senate and Speaker breaks tie in House; yes, we already have dilution of separation of powers because the VP is part of the executive branch and he/she breaks ties in Senate
  • Provisions of Proportional Representation Act Fix of 2014 are included to ensure that House vacancy procedures are codified, but eliminated the "35-day window"; if we're giving the Senate to the Regions and allowing them to appoint however/whenever, then it's only fair that we give the House to the Parties and allow them to appoint regardless of time left (except in cases where members aren't in a major party, in which case we'll have a special election); since terms are two months and there will likely we higher rates of vacancies due to more members in the House than currently in the Senate, having an appointment-exclusive system in major party representation cases makes more sense and prevents election fatigue
  • Probably some other things that I've forgotten because they're minute

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2015, 11:15:02 AM »

I realize not everyone was around when all of the details when Duke's and my consolidation/bicameralism plans were carved out two years ago, but I promise that for every question that will be asked wiith regards to specifics, there is a pre-existing answer. In this particular case:

The specific numbers for both the House and the Senate are carefully considered and were developed long ago. We cannot go higher in terms of numbers for the House because that would create too many offices. We cannot go lower because there would be no point in having two different chambers with two different leaders, two different sets of rules and two sets of hurdles for legislation to jump through that have roughly the same number of members (a "House" is supposed to be considerably larger than a Senate, and needs to be considerably larger than the current at-large elections are in order for PR-STV or an equivalent to be truly competitive and interesting).

Furthermore, rounding down to an even number (8 or 10) would further necessitate the need for a tie-breaking member in this chamber; I had just assumed that giving the Speaker "two votes" in the case of a tie would be the most controversial element of all of this but perhaps I'm mistaken.
Logged
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2015, 11:51:42 AM »

AYE

It's important to note that this can very easily be amended after the principle vote is held without rejecting this amendment outright. This particular vote is not a principle vote.

The Vice Presidency is a useless relic of an office that already muddies the separation of powers by definition, only serves to allow blocs to get elected more easily and adds yet another position to the game that has to be filled and that prevents someone from holding an office that actually makes a difference; with bicameralism being the new government form, we must strive to reduce office counts elsewhere by as much as possible in order for it to work. There literally isn't a more useless office in this game currently than Vice President.

The rest of this has either already been approved via principle votes (bicameralism), has been debated ad nauseum in terms of specifics (6 in the Senate, 11 in the House), or is so minute that it's not something to get upset over them.
Logged
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #7 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
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #8 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
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2015, 12:18:15 AM »

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.
Logged
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2015, 01:17:02 PM »

     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! Wink
Logged
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2015, 10:38:42 PM »

Option D
Logged
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2015, 05:16:08 AM »

[1] The House of Representatives shall consist of 11 Members.
[2] The House of Representative shall consist of 9 Members.
Logged
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2015, 06:52:00 AM »

Yay, let's have only marginally-predictable elections with a 9-member chamber instead of entirely-predictable elections with a 5 or 7-member chamber. :Smiley

And why is everyone now talking about variable-sized chambers? We just had a principle vote on the size of the chamber. It's over.
Logged
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2015, 02:16:27 AM »

No, at-large
Logged
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2015, 01:04:55 PM »

Yay, let's have only marginally-predictable elections with a 9-member chamber instead of entirely-predictable elections with a 5 or 7-member chamber. :Smiley

And why is everyone now talking about variable-sized chambers? We just had a principle vote on the size of the chamber. It's over.

I am not sure what the reference at the top is about. I recall you saying STV only works at higher numbers than five and I acknowledged the alternatives. I was simply making the case for having them At-Large by illustrating the superiority a larger number of At-Large seats would have versus the current system using the same method.

I was protesting in general that anything less than 11 is going to be weaksauce in terms of really making elections competitive and less predictable, while also allowing individuals from all walks of life the ability to get elected and ensuring that there is clear contrast in the inherent value of a seat in each chamber based on the number of people in each.

A 7-member chamber (which some were supporting) is essentially identical to a 5-member chamber, and certainly comparable in "value" when placed alongside a 6-member Senate. A 9-member chamber is only marginally better, but will still likely require a relatively large amount of support in order to win. Think about it this way: the more seats there are, the harder it is for major parties to field candidates to win as many as possible. Anyone against the "duopoly" should have supported a 11-member chamber on that virtue alone.
Logged
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2015, 07:31:01 PM »

Abstain
Logged
Questionable Intent
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,637
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2016, 11:32:18 PM »

Aye
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 13 queries.