Semi-Presidentialism in Atlasia

[Talleyrand]

A consensus is growing that the game as we know it is no longer fun or unpredictable. Here's my proposal to change that.

1. Maintain the regions and judicial branch as they currently exist.

2. Restructure the federal executive and legislative branches as detailed below.

---

The Senate and House of Representatives will be combined into a unicameral 15-member Parliament. Elections for Parliament will be held every 2 or 3 months using PR-STV.

At least 8 Members of Parliament must coalesce to elect a Prime Minister. These MPs will be part of the majority coalition. The Prime Minister will then appoint a Cabinet (e.g. Secretary of State, Secretary of Internal Affairs) consisting of members of the majority coalition. The Prime Minister will have control of most of the legislative slots in Parliament.

Members of Parliament not in the majority coalition may elect to form caucuses of their own, with designated leaders, or remain disaffiliated from any caucus. The leader of the largest opposition caucus will designated Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition will control a minority of legislative slots in Parliament. Members of other opposition caucuses (if they exist) will also have a designated legislative slot.

Parliament will also designate a Speaker to preside over the body.

A President will be elected, serving a four-month term. They will have the power to appoint administrative officials (Registrar General, Game Moderator, etc.) and judges with the advice and consent of the Parliament. The President will also have the power to present honors (e.g. the Order of the Gold Star of Atlasia).

The President may veto any legislation passed by Parliament, but Parliament may override their vetoes with the support of 9 MPs (a 60% supermajority). The President will have the ability to hold a referendum on a bill of their creation at the next parliamentary election.

A Vice President will be elected on a ticket with the President. If the President leaves office, the Vice President will succeed him for the duration of their term.

----

What do people think? Suggestions and improvements are welcome.

[Lumine]

In strictly theoretical terms - since it's important to remember Parliamentarism or Semi-Parliamentarism has never had the votes to ever be enacted -, I have grown to believe the single biggest flaw in such a model is that A. due to logistical issues you cannot have a truly large unicameral body (more than 15-20 would be nightmarish to handle and coordinate); but B. having a body of that size may have the effect of excessively empowering a very select group to the detriment of other players.

There are conceivable means of partly addressing that - allowing the PM or at the very least the Cabinet to be non MP's is a must, otherwise you'll encounter dysfunction right away -, but it is an issue to be taken into account. Also, though full PR would be interesting to see, it bears reminding Federalists have had a informal veto power whenever this is discussed due to the quorums required for reform, and there's always an insistence in the need for regionally-elected representatives (though I remember Yankee once suggested the German model - as opposed to a Westminster concept - seemed more "acceptable").

(All that side, good to see you back in the game!)

[Talleyrand]

In strictly theoretical terms - since it's important to remember Parliamentarism or Semi-Parliamentarism has never had the votes to ever be enacted -, I have grown to believe the single biggest flaw in such a model is that A. due to logistical issues you cannot have a truly large unicameral body (more than 15-20 would be nightmarish to handle and coordinate); but B. having a body of that size may have the effect of excessively empowering a very select group to the detriment of other players.

There are conceivable means of partly addressing that - allowing the PM or at the very least the Cabinet to be non MP's is a must, otherwise you'll encounter dysfunction right away -, but it is an issue to be taken into account. Also, though full PR would be interesting to see, it bears reminding Federalists have had a informal veto power whenever this is discussed due to the quorums required for reform, and there's always an insistence in the need for regionally-elected representatives (though I remember Yankee once suggested the German model - as opposed to a Westminster concept - seemed more "acceptable").

(All that side, good to see you back in the game!)

Perhaps the Prime Minister would have to belong to the Parliament, but the Cabinet could be non MPs?

It's not ideal, but you could also have each region be a multi-member constituency with 5 MPs? Or perhaps each region could elect 2-3 MPs, and the rest would be elected nationwide?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Of course any plan that goes into a ConCon will not reemerged without some alterations, but at first glance —I like it. As Lumine says, the biggest objection that will be raised is the lack of regional representation, but I don't think that is a flaw in the idea itself. MMP would indeed be one way to address this concern.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Making Atlasia parliamentary in the way described really won't make it fun to actually serve in it.

[Talleyrand]

Making Atlasia parliamentary in the way described really won't make it fun to actually serve in it.

Do you think there's a way to make it parliamentary that, in your opinion, would preserve the fun? Any proposal will need conservative support to pass, so just curious.

I'd argue my proposal would make elections more interesting, as it would be easier for the Right to gain control of the legislative branch.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes I would support the German model, provided like the German model we have two chambers.

I will never support any model that deprives the Regions of their equal say in legislative matters. Absent that, preservation of the regions as stated has to be caveated with a "for now".

I would also support a Presidential system with a unicameral chamber provided the unicameral chamber had equal representation between Regional and At-large members.

Likewise absent the two chambers, the Vice Presidency would need to be caveated with a "for now" as just like Nix did in 2014 you would nuke its primary job and just like happened then and happened prior to 2013 (when Duke and I first got the VP involved with chamber admin), the position would be wracked with inactivity and ever growing calls for its abolition.

I would rather separately elect the VP, rename it as (or just create a) President of Congress, then if you want to eliminate the VP (in the non-renaming scenario), I would be open to it even.


For Historical Perspective:
Both of the "for now" caveats represent the "exclusivist/reductionist rabbit hole". Shrink the game population wise>Consolidate (in this case congress)>Abolish the VP/GM/and possibly the regions at some point if the game keeps shrinking.

[Former President tack50]

Well, here go my thoughts on this. This is definitely an interesting plan that I happen to oppose.

First of all, I am always very weary of any reform for the federal government that deviates too heavily from the RL United States model of government. At the end of the day, 95%+ of players are Americans and therefore keeping it relatable to them is a decent worry to me.

Secondly, there is already a region that has a semi-presidential system of government, that being Lincoln; which introduced it in early 2019 with the Philladelphia Plan. And it hasn't been the greatest experiment. I've actually been one of its strongest proponents but even I have to recognize it has several shortcomings, like having a much less powerful governor, having power be too divided between too many people ending up unable to do anything, some arcane procedures, etc.

The regions are the place to experiment with alternate systems of government; and sadly Lincoln's experiment in semi-presidentialism has been a relative failure. I do not want for the federal government what Lincoln has; and I say this as one of the people who supported the system and as the still sitting senator for the region.

In fact, this seems to even bring back the government vs opposition dynamics of Lincoln and modeled after said regional plan.

The only point of that reform I would agree with is the switch back to unicameralism, which would make legislative activity easier. I described a lot of possible ways for Atlasia to go back to unicameralism in this thread; but none of the options are ideal.

[windjammer]

I support this.

[Peanut]

I think MMP is interesting.

I wonder - does Yankee think a mixed member unicameral legislature would work? It's probably the closest thing to a compromise between our current system and a full Westminster-style structure, and it would be quite fun to see how it also manages to keep regional representation alive via the constituency (or regional, I assume) seats.

That aside, going full German (with some or most of the very limited powers of the German upper house carrying over) would also be interesting. I think these are all ideas worth exploring, and I actually agree that regional representation is very important.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Making Atlasia parliamentary in the way described really won't make it fun to actually serve in it.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Glad we are throwing out ideas, at least. Would love to see some of the nay-sayers announce what they would rather do instead.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, here go my thoughts on this. This is definitely an interesting plan that I happen to oppose.

First of all, I am always very weary of any reform for the federal government that deviates too heavily from the RL United States model of government. At the end of the day, 95%+ of players are Americans and therefore keeping it relatable to them is a decent worry to me.

Secondly, there is already a region that has a semi-presidential system of government, that being Lincoln; which introduced it in early 2019 with the Philladelphia Plan. And it hasn't been the greatest experiment. I've actually been one of its strongest proponents but even I have to recognize it has several shortcomings, like having a much less powerful governor, having power be too divided between too many people ending up unable to do anything, some arcane procedures, etc.

The regions are the place to experiment with alternate systems of government; and sadly Lincoln's experiment in semi-presidentialism has been a relative failure. I do not want for the federal government what Lincoln has; and I say this as one of the people who supported the system and as the still sitting senator for the region.

In fact, this seems to even bring back the government vs opposition dynamics of Lincoln and modeled after said regional plan.

The only point of that reform I would agree with is the switch back to unicameralism, which would make legislative activity easier. I described a lot of possible ways for Atlasia to go back to unicameralism in this thread; but none of the options are ideal.

One of your compromise ideas was the best of the lot IIRC.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Glad we are throwing out ideas, at least. Would love to see some of the nay-sayers announce what they would rather do instead.

You see folks this is the classic thing that the radicals/reductionists/exclusivists do. They make a radical reform suggestion, seek to dominate the language of reform and then when you make an alternative proposal (like I did in my post) it gets discarded and you labeled as a "do nothing obstructionist" because 1) it is not their idea or 2) it doesn't achieve their ulterior motives (back then it was usually screwing the regions over).

They always have to be defined as the "reformers" and their opponents as "obstructionists". I have supported reform at every stage over the last 12 years. Reforms to strengthen the regions, reforms to make Congress work, reforms to improve the GM, reforms to improve the VP, etc etc, but for someone who is a reductionist at heart they would rather just eliminate these things then make them work.

Then eventually they seek cancel me because I can read between the lines have 1 2 5 7 12 years of experience with this and "know to much". Early 2015 must be seen in this context to get an accurate view of the situation. Its also why I was able to predict something like Bloody July before it happened.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Long been an opponent of the Philadelphia Plan and so I'll oppose anything that even smells like Parliament. However, I'm open to expanding the house, Unicameralism (with or without regional seats) as long as there is no bound slot advantage for the majority and no prime Minister role.

The main thing I'd like is four regions, with Kansas being in some region other than the South.

[YE]

Why the f**k should there be 4 regions?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why the f**k should there be 4 regions?

Seems to be something popular on discord.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

At minimum you would need a hard legislative cap for four regions to be even remotely feasible from a political stand point.

[YE]

Why the f**k should there be 4 regions?

Seems to be something popular on discord.

Well bring the discussion/reasoning here then.

[YE]

At minimum you would need a hard legislative cap for four regions to be even remotely feasible from a political stand point.

I’d favor if it was phased in very gradually and would only proceed if the first steps of phasing in was successful. Absolutely no to a drastic increase in officeholders.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why the f**k should there be 4 regions?

Seems to be something popular on discord.

Well bring the discussion/reasoning here then.

You think I am in charge of this discussion? I noticed it glancing by Lokcord last night. Tim Turner was making crazy maps, looked like quite a wild party but I was about to collapse from exhaustion so I stayed clear.

[YE]

Why the f**k should there be 4 regions?

Seems to be something popular on discord.

Well bring the discussion/reasoning here then.

You think I am in charge of this discussion? I noticed it glancing by Lokcord last night. Tim Turner was making crazy maps, looked like quite a wild party but I was about to collapse from exhaustion so I stayed clear.

Fair. Didn’t mean to come off as rude.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why the f**k should there be 4 regions?

Seems to be something popular on discord.

Well bring the discussion/reasoning here then.

You think I am in charge of this discussion? I noticed it glancing by Lokcord last night. Tim Turner was making crazy maps, looked like quite a wild party but I was about to collapse from exhaustion so I stayed clear.

Fair. Didn’t mean to come off as rude.

I am certainly in favor of onshoring discord discussion to Atlas wherever possible, but it is hard to resist the magnetic pull of real time discussion on these chat mediums.

[Sirius_]

Why the f**k should there be 4 regions?

Because Atlasia is larger than ever, and Lincoln's population alone is enough to reasonably support 2 regions that are similar in population to Fremont and the South. And we want more potential for close elections, we don't currently get many on the regional level.

[YE]

Why the f**k should there be 4 regions?

Because Atlasia is larger than ever, and Lincoln's population alone is enough to reasonable support 2 regions that are similar in population to Fremont and the South.

Is the active player base actually going to get larger though? Can it long-term?