House of Representatives rules

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From a personal standpoint I'd be in favour of a partisan house (even though it's against Labor's interests atm) It would certainly make the House more entertaining, and make the elections more worthwhile 

It will encourage inactivity. Legislators aren't going to write a legislation if the legislation in question isn't going to be debated.

There are ways to do it, that gives a certain percentage of slots to the minority's legislation.

Also, doesn't the same apply as it is on the basis of whether or not something will pass. Plus Parties will weed out inactivity since a majority either way will likely be 1 seat, and thus an inactive member will devastate the majority's agenda.

I'm appalled by the fact that a partisan House could get any traction. If a representative is going to matter less by an another, he's going to be more inactive. Simple.

I have seen many bad ideas in my atlasian lifes to be enacted, like the elimination of every duty of the VP, the elimination of the GM, the "recall" amendment, so hopefully I won't see an anoter bad idea be enacted. But in case people wish to do that, please people who are reading this thread, I will be on the right side of history.

Elections are too frequent and so there is always the chance of flipping the House. There are no districts and no gerrymandering, so the voters have complete, uninterrupted say hence why Duke rightfull called it, "The People's House".

Oh come on, you really believe that the random zombie voter will care about "muh some majority leader has been mean and has killed every legislation of the other side "
And my point still stands. You will have constantly 4 representatives who will have their voice mattering much less than the 5 others----> inactivity

No, I expect them to campaign against the bills they are passing and to rally their base and swing voters in opposition to it.

[windjammer]

From a personal standpoint I'd be in favour of a partisan house (even though it's against Labor's interests atm) It would certainly make the House more entertaining, and make the elections more worthwhile 

It will encourage inactivity. Legislators aren't going to write a legislation if the legislation in question isn't going to be debated.

There are ways to do it, that gives a certain percentage of slots to the minority's legislation.

Also, doesn't the same apply as it is on the basis of whether or not something will pass. Plus Parties will weed out inactivity since a majority either way will likely be 1 seat, and thus an inactive member will devastate the majority's agenda.

I'm appalled by the fact that a partisan House could get any traction. If a representative is going to matter less by an another, he's going to be more inactive. Simple.

I have seen many bad ideas in my atlasian lifes to be enacted, like the elimination of every duty of the VP, the elimination of the GM, the "recall" amendment, so hopefully I won't see an anoter bad idea be enacted. But in case people wish to do that, please people who are reading this thread, I will be on the right side of history.

Elections are too frequent and so there is always the chance of flipping the House. There are no districts and no gerrymandering, so the voters have complete, uninterrupted say hence why Duke rightfull called it, "The People's House".

Oh come on, you really believe that the random zombie voter will care about "muh some majority leader has been mean and has killed every legislation of the other side "
And my point still stands. You will have constantly 4 representatives who will have their voice mattering much less than the 5 others----> inactivity

No, I expect them to campaign against the bills they are passing and to rally their base and swing voters in opposition to it.

You are on this game for a longer time than me, you should know that "swing voters" don't exist. People receive some messages from their party officials telling them how to vote on a legislation. A party always had a big structural advantage in this game. The House isn't going to flip every 2 months.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't see why on God's green earth either side would want such a thing. The Right's hubris over its newfound power apparently is inducing amnesia.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Hey man, I'm a swing voter. I've never really followed orders on who I should vote for. Remember the time I voted for Lumine in the tie at large senate election because of the back room deal I cut with his party to ensure my re-election?

Swing voters do exist, they just aren't very numerous.

[Blair]

I don't see why on God's green earth either side would want such a thing. The Right's hubris over its newfound power apparently is inducing amnesia.

This guy looks a bit younger than Yankee

It's like when JCL proposed changing the speakership election after Labor won the vote despite not being in the Majority. I'm sure the House will much like the Senate not be as straight forward as people think it is

[windjammer]

I don't see why on God's green earth either side would want such a thing. The Right's hubris over its newfound power apparently is inducing amnesia.

This guy looks a bit younger than Yankee

It's like when JCL proposed changing the speakership election after Labor won the vote despite not being in the Majority. I'm sure the House will much like the Senate not be as straight forward as people think it is

If something is bad, you don't advocate for something that is half-bad of the first proposal. A partisan house is going to kill activity for 4 representatives.

----
Duke, with all respect I have to you, and trust you I respect you a lot, while indeed you didn't vote all the time for the same party, I wouldn't call you a swing voter. Depending on the elections, it was clear for who you were going to vote , so I wouldn't call you "swingy"

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Great job.

If elected VP, I'd probably leave running the Congress to a professional

[windjammer]

Great job.

If elected VP, I'd probably leave running the Congress to a professional

So you would be impeached

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I don't see why on God's green earth either side would want such a thing. The Right's hubris over its newfound power apparently is inducing amnesia.

This guy looks a bit younger than Yankee

It's like when JCL proposed changing the speakership election after Labor won the vote despite not being in the Majority. I'm sure the House will much like the Senate not be as straight forward as people think it is

I proposed changing the speakership because I believe elections have consequences. There was no hubris in my intent. If labor had won the majority and we ended up with a federalist speaker I would be just as dissapointed

[Lumine]

Probably a silly question from me, but what happens when too many people are the "most senior Representative". They all start with the same term, so...

And also, is there any chance we can raise the impeachment quorum for the House (up to two thirds, ideally)? I realize the Senate is still left and will probably place a higher threshold, but I'm rather wary of allowing a simple House Majority to pass the impeachment, particularly in light of (how shall I put this) previous experiences.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't see why on God's green earth either side would want such a thing. The Right's hubris over its newfound power apparently is inducing amnesia.

It was fine for three years when you had TNF on pedestal as if he was god's gift to the world. Your President's, your Senators, yourself were all marching in lockstep behind making him PPT and establishing his partisan administration of the Senate.

This has nothing to do with election wins or lossess.


I am following a three year-old blueprint from your Vice President!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Update on Regional Reduction Plan

In order to fix the numbers problem, I have proposed that The People's House be the at-large elected body, with 4 representatives elected per cycles. In addition, I think it would be proper to allow partisan leadership to take effect in it.

The Senate will consist of 6 members, 3 elected per cycle, all by the regions, and retain the non-partisan leadership style we are all accustomed to.

Since August of last year, I have been trying to push us as close to the original Duke plan as possible. Bicameralism, the design of the two houses, etc. The cycles are bit different for the House, but other than that it is the same. This is just a continuation of pushing in that direction. Any notion that this is based on Federalist electoral success is blatantly false and I am calling them out on it in public and demand they stop. If I was doing tihs based on the party, I would do just the opposite, because we would actually struggle in a partisan situation since our base is more divided then Labor and more prone to fracturing. I am doing this basedo n what I think is good for the game as I have since August and July of last year, and frankly for years.

For one thing, the increased turnout would probably make it different for Feds or Labor to outright control the chamber on a continual basis and that is why I think the chamber will shift a good bit, far more often than the old Senate did. There is good reason for that and yes there are swing voters, they are just not swing voters in the traditional sense. They are created anew by the dynamics of each side in a two person race. Some voters who might be Leinad's natural base, become up for grabs with a different candidate and vice versa.

[Leinad]

And my point still stands. You will have constantly 4 representatives who will have their voice mattering much less than the 5 others----> inactivity

Not saying your point lacks merit, but would it be valid inverted? As in, if 4 Representatives being less powerful than others leads to less activity, would 5 Representatives being more powerful than others lead to more activity?

Now, with regards to my own opinion, I see both points, but as of now I'm leaning towards Yankee's purely due to the novelty factor. It's more fun if we shake things up here and there, and make there be some differences between each chamber. If it doesn't work, of course, we could change it fairly easily.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't see why on God's green earth either side would want such a thing. The Right's hubris over its newfound power apparently is inducing amnesia.

This guy looks a bit younger than Yankee

It's like when JCL proposed changing the speakership election after Labor won the vote despite not being in the Majority. I'm sure the House will much like the Senate not be as straight forward as people think it is

If something is bad, you don't advocate for something that is half-bad of the first proposal. A partisan house is going to kill activity for 4 representatives.

----
Duke, with all respect I have to you, and trust you I respect you a lot, while indeed you didn't vote all the time for the same party, I wouldn't call you a swing voter. Depending on the elections, it was clear for who you were going to vote , so I wouldn't call you "swingy"

But even then thati s based on the candidate more than the party, so it is hardly makes him less of a swing voter.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't see why on God's green earth either side would want such a thing. The Right's hubris over its newfound power apparently is inducing amnesia.

This guy looks a bit younger than Yankee

It's like when JCL proposed changing the speakership election after Labor won the vote despite not being in the Majority. I'm sure the House will much like the Senate not be as straight forward as people think it is

Most people seem to think I am 20 based on looking at me.  So not sure what is suppose to mean, you guys have never seen a pictureo f me and never will.

Apples to oranges comparison precisely because the Senate is and should be a non-partisan administration. The House is brand new, and thus we have the opportunity to experiement here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The irony here is that this is credit to mine nad our success that this old Duke idea is being attacked from all sides.

It is difficult to maintain a compromsie between two sides of an issue, when the one side is completely gone. TNF, Nix, Talleyrand, Oakfail, the lot aren't here screaming up an down for partisan administration to be compromised with.

Like Adam said a few weeks ago, "victim of my own success". Where were you all three and two years ago, when Labor was insisting on nuking the Senate and I stood alone against the abyss?

[windjammer]

I don't see why on God's green earth either side would want such a thing. The Right's hubris over its newfound power apparently is inducing amnesia.

It was fine for three years when you had TNF on pedestal as if he was god's gift to the world. Your President's, your Senators, yourself were all marching in lockstep behind making him PPT and establishing his partisan administration of the Senate.

This has nothing to do with election wins or lossess.


I am following a three year-old blueprint from your Vice President!!!

It is funny you're saying that because if I recall correctly I did certify the PPT elections for you 3 years ago and I was forced to then certify the election to TNF because you were forced to withdraw the election for personal issues.
And anyway, yes, indeed TNF became PPT, but he didn't nuke the senate. Averroes indeed changed the rules, he simplified them. I disagreed with him about the elimination of the VP, but he didn't make the senate a partisan chamber. No senator had a higher priority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How many times the senate control changed it when you were in the senate? Not often. And that's going to be the same thing for the House. Parties have an actual advantage, that was Labor before, now it is the Federalists, then it may be the Labor or an another thing again in the future. But elections are almost never competitive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's me who stood alone against them when they wanted to eliminate the VP.You were nowhere when it happened, not your fault but you cannot give you the credit for something you didn't.
And they didn't make the senate partisan like you plan to do with the House. This is a fact. The current senate isn"t partisan and follows mostly the rules that were adopted by them.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't see why on God's green earth either side would want such a thing. The Right's hubris over its newfound power apparently is inducing amnesia.

It was fine for three years when you had TNF on pedestal as if he was god's gift to the world. Your President's, your Senators, yourself were all marching in lockstep behind making him PPT and establishing his partisan administration of the Senate.

This has nothing to do with election wins or lossess.


I am following a three year-old blueprint from your Vice President!!!

How is that in any way comparable to what is being proposed? You're comparing the spirit of something to the actual institutionalization of it. Huge difference, and not even really comparable: if by "establishing [a] partisan administration of the Senate", you mean "not letting Yankee continue to run the show as he saw fit for years and years by daring to elect someone else to the post (*gasp!*)", then sure.

Also, laughable that you think the Labor Senators ever voted in "lockstep" on virtually anything. There's a reason I stopped caring/trying to herd Senate legislation after awhile.

[windjammer]

And my point still stands. You will have constantly 4 representatives who will have their voice mattering much less than the 5 others----> inactivity

Not saying your point lacks merit, but would it be valid inverted? As in, if 4 Representatives being less powerful than others leads to less activity, would 5 Representatives being more powerful than others lead to more activity?

Now, with regards to my own opinion, I see both points, but as of now I'm leaning towards Yankee's purely due to the novelty factor. It's more fun if we shake things up here and there, and make there be some differences between each chamber. If it doesn't work, of course, we could change it fairly easily.

So basically you justify the fact that 4 representatives would become inactive because 5 others *could* become more active. You really think it is going to be a great situation where only 5 representatives run the show? The body is composed by 9 representatives, so all of them should be active, not only 5 of them.

[Blair]

The one big thing we need to avoid however is the only allowing the majority to introduce bills- as we saw in the mock parliament (which had a partisan house) it kills off debate extremely quickly

[windjammer]

The one big thing we need to avoid however is the only allowing the majority to introduce bills- as we saw in the mock parliament (which had a partisan house) it kills off debate extremely quickly

That's why the house need not to be partisan!

[Leinad]

The one big thing we need to avoid however is the only allowing the majority to introduce bills- as we saw in the mock parliament (which had a partisan house) it kills off debate extremely quickly

I certainly agree with this. If we go the partisan route there definitely needs to be room for minority bills.

And my point still stands. You will have constantly 4 representatives who will have their voice mattering much less than the 5 others----> inactivity

Not saying your point lacks merit, but would it be valid inverted? As in, if 4 Representatives being less powerful than others leads to less activity, would 5 Representatives being more powerful than others lead to more activity?

So basically you justify the fact that 4 representatives would become inactive because 5 others *could* become more active. You really think it is going to be a great situation where only 5 representatives run the show? The body is composed by 9 representatives, so all of them should be active, not only 5 of them.

What? I'm not trying to justify anything, it was a valid question that you chose to not answer but instead react to nonexistent subtext.

I'm not really someone who states my opinion in the form of questions, I prefer to ask questions to help form my opinion.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

And my point still stands. You will have constantly 4 representatives who will have their voice mattering much less than the 5 others----> inactivity

Not saying your point lacks merit, but would it be valid inverted? As in, if 4 Representatives being less powerful than others leads to less activity, would 5 Representatives being more powerful than others lead to more activity?

I don't think so. After all, there is a limit to how active one person can be - no matter how little social life you have, real life will eventually get in the way. I can also attest, having spent three terms in the Senate and three in the Mideast Assembly, that legislators do not become more active when their colleagues go MIA.

I'm okay with a partisan House leadership, but the minority party should not be sidelined in the process (fortunately, it doesn't seem like that's what you're proposing). As Blair pointed out, that arrangement pretty much killed South America. We should order the House on the model of the real life US House of Representatives: give the Speakership to the majority party, but allow everyone to propose bills and try to cobble together a coalition to pass their ideas.

[windjammer]

The one big thing we need to avoid however is the only allowing the majority to introduce bills- as we saw in the mock parliament (which had a partisan house) it kills off debate extremely quickly

I certainly agree with this. If we go the partisan route there definitely needs to be room for minority bills.

And my point still stands. You will have constantly 4 representatives who will have their voice mattering much less than the 5 others----> inactivity

Not saying your point lacks merit, but would it be valid inverted? As in, if 4 Representatives being less powerful than others leads to less activity, would 5 Representatives being more powerful than others lead to more activity?

So basically you justify the fact that 4 representatives would become inactive because 5 others *could* become more active. You really think it is going to be a great situation where only 5 representatives run the show? The body is composed by 9 representatives, so all of them should be active, not only 5 of them.

What? I'm not trying to justify anything, it was a valid question that you chose to not answer but instead react to nonexistent subtext.

I'm not really someone who states my opinion in the form of questions, I prefer to ask questions to help form my opinion.

My point is that it is not going to matter if 5 representatives become more active or not. You would have 4 representatives becoming much less active. So a partisan House that would kill activity for 4 of his members is just extremely bad. A game, in order to be functional, needs to encourage activity for all of his players.

And my point still stands. You will have constantly 4 representatives who will have their voice mattering much less than the 5 others----> inactivity

Not saying your point lacks merit, but would it be valid inverted? As in, if 4 Representatives being less powerful than others leads to less activity, would 5 Representatives being more powerful than others lead to more activity?

I don't think so. After all, there is a limit to how active one person can be - no matter how little social life you have, real life will eventually get in the way. I can also attest, having spent three terms in the Senate and three in the Mideast Assembly, that legislators do not become more active when their colleagues go MIA.

I'm okay with a partisan House leadership, but the minority party should not be sidelined in the process (fortunately, it doesn't seem like that's what you're proposing). As Blair pointed out, that arrangement pretty much killed South America. We should order the House on the model of the real life US House of Representatives: give the Speakership to the majority party, but allow everyone to propose bills and try to cobble together a coalition to pass their ideas.

If by partisan you just mean giving the majority party the speakership, I'm fine with that as long all representatives are treated equally. The US house of representatives is bad though, there are many votes that never can be open and they can do whatever they want with the rules (like killing a pro gay amendment).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Setting aside the historical revisionism for a minute, I will deal with that in minute.


Truman and Blair are correct and like many things with mock parliament, they took things to the excess to express their dislike of the Atlasian way and ended up destroying themselves.

That is why I said before. You could give I don't five slots to the majority and two to the minority, or perhaps some other spread. Perhaps five and three. There are ways to make it work, so everyone is engaged and constantly pushing towards getting a majority, so that you balance involvement with differentiation in power so as to create that incentive to seek such constantly, producing more frequent competitive elections with more candidates.

Also, one thing to note is the theoretical power of indies and third parties. An indy or a third party can get to a seat pretty easily. Anyone who looks at the first election and sees that partisan 5 Feds, 4 Labor should note that CR scattered its votes and several Feds and Laborites won independent voters. A single candidate can unify that vote and get elected and he would almost certainly become the deciding vote on everything. Therefore rather being powerless, just the opposite, he now has a certain amount of leverage.

This is one major different vrom the old Senate, where partisan administration would have necessarily t-boned the third parties and indies because of the intersection of the election methods and the size of the chamber. One more reason why it was such a bad idea there.