Should Atlasia go back to a unicameral system? And if so how?

[Former President tack50]

Basically opening this thread because, in my opinion, there seems to be a growing amount of people that think Atlasia should go back to a unicameral system, much like in the pre-reset days.

In my opinion it is fairly clear that the current bicameral system, while certainly very well intentioned, seems to take too long to pass anything and not even because of deadlock like irl, but just because of the limitations of a bicameral system. A unicameral system would also (theoretically) encourage more debate by having more people on the chamber, although given that House debates are still worse than old pre-reset debates with only one person less, it's far from a guarantee.

Also, if we did move to a unicameral system, how would it look like? Should we do all at large seats? All regional seats? A mix of both? How many people should be elected?

Here are some proposals from myself:

A: Permanent joint session: The only option that does not require a constitutional amendment, this would see basically the House and Senate rules reworked so that they both work in some sort of permanent joint session. Has the benefit of no constitutional amendments and being the simplest option.

B: Weighed voting: Basically the same as option A, except with a constitutional amendment that specifies votes from Senators count more than those from Representatives. Basically we'd be using the rarely used "impeachment system" for all votes

C: Assymetric unicameral: Same as options A and B, except without weighing votes. So we get a Unicameral of 15 people that is 9 Representatives and 6 Senators same as now, except this time the 9 representatives can outvote the 6 Senators if they so chose.

D: Symetric unicameral, shrinking Congress: Basically this would see us keeping our regional senators as they are now, but shrinking the amount of at-large representatives from 9 to 6, in order to match the regional seats (total of 12 seats, 6+6)

E: Symetric unicameral, expanding Congress: Same as D, except this time we expand the regional seats to match the at-large ones, so we get a total of 18 seats (9+9). This option also has the added minor inconvenience that 6 month terms for regional legislators could be a bit too long. Some options to counter this could include:

-Sucking it up and having 6 month terms for regional seats
-Doing what Brazil does, and having double barrel elections half the time (probably alongside presidential elections)
-Having regional lesgislatures appoint one of the 3 regional seats

I am personally a fan of the third option (leading to a neat 9+6+3 Senate)

F: All at-large seats: Just doing a big at-large election for 15 seats or however many we decide to have. The simplest option, this also gives us the added flexibility that makes adding or reducing seats much easier. It is also on paper the friendliest option to third parties. Biggest inconvenience is that this would be a pain for Peebs, unless we switched to a much worse electoral system like say closed party lists.

G: All regional seats: Basically under this system we'd have regional elections for the unicameral, via STV, with multiple seats per region. The seats could be apportioned according to populations or fixed at 5-5-5. Pre-reset there were at-large elections for 5 seats so this would not be too outlandish.

A-C are basically the most "status quo" ways to get a unicameral without touching the current government structure.

D and E try to keep a balance of at-large and federal seats which, to my knowledge tends to be a red line for most federalists. The issue here is that, because we have 3 regions, if we want a symmetrical chamber we either need 12 or 18 federal legislators, with no in between (if for example we had 4 regions, it'd be trivial and we could easily do a legislature of 16; 8 at large and 8 regional)

F and G are the "extreme options" of all at-large or all regional seats.

The other big question would be whether the VP should be abolished or not if we go to a unicameral (I think it should, especially if said unicameral expands Congress in any way, like with option E)

Basically opening this thread to have an open discussion on the issue, as well as because, if we did go to a unicameral system we'd need a wide agreement of people and should be something passed by near unanimous margins.

Also unlike during the ConCon (where it seems everyone was agreeing on a bicameral system), this is most definitely not an area of big agreement now.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

No, this is a stupid idea.

[SevenEleven]

Options F and C are the best imo. For option B, the House votes should be weighted higher than the Senate's, much like how the House of Commons has more power than the House of Lords.

If you consider how long some of the COVID bills have taken, we should basically be in a Great Depression right now.

[Dr. MB]

Bicameralism is bad. I'd prefer just combining what we have now but expanding the Senate to make an 18 9-9 split isn't too bad of an idea. Honestly I don't get "regionalism". It's a fake game. People move regions all the time. Have fun with it and don't get bogged down by "small government" or whatever.

[fhtagn]

No, this is a stupid idea.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Bicameralism is bad. I'd prefer just combining what we have now but expanding the Senate to make an 18 9-9 split isn't too bad of an idea. Honestly I don't get "regionalism". It's a fake game. People move regions all the time. Have fun with it and don't get bogged down by "small government" or whatever.

You only say it's bad because you are too lazy to do the work as VP that your party ascended you into. Bills are able to go through the process quickly, and if a bill gets delayed then it obviously has issues as policy. Your point about "having fun with it" only means that the select few people in this game who are in the positions of power can have their fun while the rest just have to eat up whatever we end up with after the fun is over. Imposing your poorly thought out vision on everyone is a bad idea. Regions are a good vehicle to allow more people to have their own fun in this game.

[S019]

This idea isn't awful, but I need to do more research before coming to a conclusive decision

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Which option is gonna give me more votes in the Frémont by-election?

[Left Wing]

I’d prefer not to

[tmthforu94]

A: Permanent joint session: The only option that does not require a constitutional amendment, this would see basically the House and Senate rules reworked so that they both work in some sort of permanent joint session. Has the benefit of no constitutional amendments and being the simplest option.

This is actually an interesting idea at first glance, though there may be some issues I haven't thought of yet - any bill would still have to get the approval of a majority in both houses, it is just all discussed in the same thread. Whoever is officer of the legislature will just have to keep good track of who is a Senator and who is a Representative!

Edit: I think I like the idea of this being done as a constitutional amendment as it is a big change and should be permanent by law. So maybe closer to C, but still requiring a majority from both chambers for passage.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We passed several covid bills in quick succession. The sheer number of separate covid bills caused confusion, as to what had passed and what hadn't. The jobs and pay one is one such example. I thought it had been passed and signed. Bicameralism has nothing to do with delays on the covid bills, anyone who says so is a liar.

The difficulty with the VP activity lately has been a problem and I have repeatedly pushed, begged and pleaded with you guys to separately elect the VP, bc right now people are being made VP as a means to select heir apparent rather than genuine desire to be VP for it's primary purpose. The fact that the sitting VP is pushing a plan to basically remove his entire active portfolio speaks volumes as to his desire to actually do that. President of Congress either as the VP or separate needs to be either separately elected or elected by Congress with a clear chain of succession which doesn't exist. Presently the Senate rules with no constitution basis seeks to unilaterally address this meaning I cannot administer VP stuff outside my own chamber.

Frankly, as I see it we made a deal when we consolidated the regions and if you want to unravel bicameralism the I will insist on consolidation being likewise unraveled. Duke designed this system this way for a reason, to ensure it was balanced, to ensure that regions wouldn't get run roughshod over with everything they do centralized, and to prevent the situation that necessitated the legislative reset.

[Continential]

separately elect the VP,

My bill to do that

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bicameralism is bad. I'd prefer just combining what we have now but expanding the Senate to make an 18 9-9 split isn't too bad of an idea. Honestly I don't get "regionalism". It's a fake game. People move regions all the time. Have fun with it and don't get bogged down by "small government" or whatever.

It's a fake game. Have fun with it and don't get bogged down over "big government" or whatever.

I can play this pretentious line too 2009 Marokai Blue, 2013 Adam Griffin and Xahar well any year.

It's like walking up to a liberal and saying don't worry about freedom or walking up to a socialist and say don't worry about equality and on and on and on.

This is honestly very inconsiderate.

[Dr. MB]

Bicameralism is bad. I'd prefer just combining what we have now but expanding the Senate to make an 18 9-9 split isn't too bad of an idea. Honestly I don't get "regionalism". It's a fake game. People move regions all the time. Have fun with it and don't get bogged down by "small government" or whatever.

It's a fake game. Have fun with it and don't get bogged down over "big government" or whatever.

I can play this pretentious line too 2009 Marokai Blue, 2013 Adam Griffin and Xahar well any year.

It's like walking up to a liberal and saying don't worry about freedom or walking up to a socialist and say don't worry about equality and on and on and on.

This is honestly very inconsiderate.

Yeah I should have phrased it better. My apologies.

[Rep Jessica]

I oppose this idea as it allows less choices for people to win office and makes things less interesting overall. The element of smaller office makes the game more interesting and allows for someone to prove themselves through growth of experience along side the reality that they'll get more chances to gain office. Also it can be a massive abuse of power at the federal level with one party having a much easier time at passing the most radical and extreme bills that have a negative impact on the population! There's a reason we have two houses of congress and that is to check the power of government and to allow more oversight.

For this and more I oppose this idea.

[Pericles]

The irony of this is it is probably easier for Labor to lose the House than to lose the Senate, at least in most scenarios. I usually am a fan of unicameral systems, it is possible that it would make the government more efficient. However, in Atlasia I am wary of straying too far from the American system as that makes it less attractive to American posters, and the game probably is more fun with the Senate. In Atlasia there is a greater risk too of bills being passed without proper debate and scrutiny, which is less of an issue in professional real-life unicameral legislatures. I can definitely see the other side of it too though. Of course, given reform usually needs a very strong consensus to pass in the game, I don't think this will go anywhere regardless of my views.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In Atlasia there is a greater risk too of bills being passed without proper debate and scrutiny, which is less of an issue in professional real-life unicameral legislatures. I can definitely see the other side of it too though.

We have had many instances where one chamber has gone to other cap in hand begging them fix their oversights and mistakes.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This idea isn't awful, but I need to do more research before coming to a conclusive decision

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

separately elect the VP,

My bill to do that

We also need a means for deputies or clear statement of who steps up when VP is inactive. Right now the Constitution is silent on this and the only rules are the Senates and per the constitution, the Senate cannot make rules except for itself. This is how I have been administering VP slots on occasion like with the Hate Crimes one is the most recent example.

[Former President tack50]

The difficulty with the VP activity lately has been a problem and I have repeatedly pushed, begged and pleaded with you guys to separately elect the VP, bc right now people are being made VP as a means to select heir apparent rather than genuine desire to be VP for it's primary purpose. The fact that the sitting VP is pushing a plan to basically remove his entire active portfolio speaks volumes as to his desire to actually do that. President of Congress either as the VP or separate needs to be either separately elected or elected by Congress with a clear chain of succession which doesn't exist. Presently the Senate rules with no constitution basis seeks to unilaterally address this meaning I cannot administer VP stuff outside my own chamber.

Frankly, as I see it we made a deal when we consolidated the regions and if you want to unravel bicameralism the I will insist on consolidation being likewise unraveled. Duke designed this system this way for a reason, to ensure it was balanced, to ensure that regions wouldn't get run roughshod over with everything they do centralized, and to prevent the situation that necessitated the legislative reset.

A separately elected VP is an interesting idea but honestly I think it'd go just on party lines instead of "who can do the best job", which is an even worse scenario than the current model. In terms of VP reform, as of now I am leaning towards actually abolishing the position of VP as basically everyone who has been Vice President post reset has hated the job and described it as "all the inconvenients of being PPT/Speaker, with none of the advantages". But I am fine keeping the current model, but maybe we should move some powers to the PPT/Speaker, at least allowing them to step in if needed.

As for the final point that is certainly an interesting one. I was not there, but I certainly don't view bicameralism as part of some sort of quid quo pro.

The old 5 region map collapsed because Atlasia didn't have enough active players and that is still the situation today. Plus it's not like the regions would get killed by unicameralism if we didn't want it. Pre-reset there was a perfectly symmetrical distribution of powers (well, post 2008 anyways, before that there were FPTP districts for some reason)

I detailed a whopping 7 different versions of a possible unicameral Atlasia. 2 of which literally keep the current status quo (A and B); and a further 2 that keep the balance between regional and at-large seats (D and E); as well as the version that goes for all regional seats. Even option C keeps a decent balance of power, even if instead of 50-50 it ends up as 60-40.

So 5/7 versions keep a perfect split of regional and at large seats, and a 6th keeps at least some imperfect balance. Really the only version where you would have a point is if we went with only at-large seats, which seems unlikely to me due to logistical reasons.

As for unraveling consolidation, we can barely hold 3 regions as it is now anyways, there is always one that is lagging a bit behind (as of now Lincoln, previously the South). Let alone 4 or 5.

[Continential]

If any Senator/Representative is willing to sponsor the bill, I hope that someone will.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As for the final point that is certainly an interesting one. I was not there, but I certainly don't view bicameralism as part of some sort of quid quo pro.

The Duke plan functioned as a Grand Compromise. Dukes legacy as an RPPer, close ties to Adam and respect with reformers pretty much made him the only one that could have brought everyone together on a plan.

The old 5 region map collapsed because Atlasia didn't have enough active players and that is still the situation today. Plus it's not like the regions would get killed by unicameralism if we didn't want it. Pre-reset there was a perfectly symmetrical distribution of powers (well, post 2008 anyways, before that there were FPTP districts for some reason)

They were trying to mimic real life a little too closely, in a manner just not practical with the game. Also representation on its own doesn't ensure a symmetrical distribution of power, it ensures a symmetrical distribution of representation in the hopes that such would better preserve a symmetrical distribution of power.

I detailed a whopping 7 different versions of a possible unicameral Atlasia. 2 of which literally keep the current status quo (A and B); and a further 2 that keep the balance between regional and at-large seats (D and E); as well as the version that goes for all regional seats. Even option C keeps a decent balance of power, even if instead of 50-50 it ends up as 60-40.

So 5/7 versions keep a perfect split of regional and at large seats, and a 6th keeps at least some imperfect balance. Really the only version where you would have a point is if we went with only at-large seats, which seems unlikely to me due to logistical reasons.

Any asymmetric setup is not preserving the status quo.

As for unraveling consolidation, we can barely hold 3 regions as it is now anyways, there is always one that is lagging a bit behind (as of now Lincoln, previously the South). Let alone 4 or 5.

The system as it is was designed to be tailored for the three region map. That is why when you start to unravel parts of it, it tugs on the other parts as well. This was sold, embraced and adopted as a package.

 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If any Senator/Representative is willing to sponsor the bill, I hope that someone will.

I might but with changes to it to deal with VP inactivity and related concerns.

[Continential]

If any Senator/Representative is willing to sponsor the bill, I hope that someone will.

I might but with changes to it to deal with VP inactivity and related concerns.

I’m fine with you making amendments to it.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Tricameral: Every bill has to go through a House, a Senate, and a referendum by the people.

Yes, I hate efficiency.