Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)

[ilikeverin]

Should we get something moving?

If Smid could put his plan into an article? Or just tell me what to bring up and I'll do it.

Actually I'm not sure what to bring up anymore

I agree that we should have a "Congress" not a "Parliament" and  a "President" not "Prime Minister", for the reasons bgwah stated.

I agree, but I think those differences are largely cosmetic and can be changed in final drafting.

[ilikeverin]

How about we bring forward two relatively uncontroversial portions?

Chapter _ The Judiciary

8(1) Legal disputes shall be heard in the High Court of Atlasia.

8(2) The High Court of Atlasia shall be the Court of Last Resort.

8(3) There shall be three Justices of the High Court of Atlasia.

8(4) Justices of the High Court of Atlasia shall be selected to serve four-month terms.

8(5) Justices of the High Court of Atlasia may serve more than one term.

8(6) Justices of the High Court of Atlasia shall be selected by the Upper House of Atlasia.

8(7) The qualification of a Member of Parliament or a Senator to vote in the election of a Justice of the High Court of Atlasia shall be the same as that in Section 2(.

8(8 ) Justices of the High Court must resign any other office they occupy, including the office of Member of Parliament in the Lower House, or the office of Senator.

Chapter _ Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered, or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the Lower House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the Lower House, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by the Lower House, it shall be referred to the Senate for ratification,
(v)   The Bill may be debated in the Senate as any other Bill,
(vi)   The Bill shall be voted on by Senators, as any other Bill.

9(2) Voting to change the constitution referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (vi) shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).

[ilikeverin]

I vote "Yup" to both, o/c

[ilikeverin]

     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.

     Even if it is a majority of all Atlasians, I still don't like it. That's how you end up with hundreds of amendments cheapening the process like in California or Texas.

I can understand that argument IRL, but here on the forum I think our population is small and sane enough that we'd not do such things. (and even if we did we'd be able to fix it no problem)  This also allows reforms to be made easier, requiring fewer active members to counteract "no-change zombies" (which I don't intend to refer to people who oppose significant change to the government structures here but instead the occasional voter who happens to wander around and takes the default option on every issue, which is usually "no").

[ilikeverin]

     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.

     Even if it is a majority of all Atlasians, I still don't like it. That's how you end up with hundreds of amendments cheapening the process like in California or Texas.

I can understand that argument IRL, but here on the forum I think our population is small and sane enough that we'd not do such things. (and even if we did we'd be able to fix it no problem)  This also allows reforms to be made easier, requiring fewer active members to counteract "no-change zombies" (which I don't intend to refer to people who oppose significant change to the government structures here but instead the occasional voter who happens to wander around and takes the default option on every issue, which is usually "no").

Each side makes a strong point (grateful I don't get a vote ). I will bring the matter to a vote after this and allow the delegates to decide between the two.

Makes sense to me.  I hardly noticed the caveat in there when I first posted it, but I'm not unhappy about it now; it's how constitutional amendments work in the Midwest, which has always kept our system, well, interesting

(no matter how you feel about the ilikeverinship elections now, do note how easy it will be to change them to something more in line with the status quo!)

[ilikeverin]

     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.

     Even if it is a majority of all Atlasians, I still don't like it. That's how you end up with hundreds of amendments cheapening the process like in California or Texas.

I can understand that argument IRL, but here on the forum I think our population is small and sane enough that we'd not do such things. (and even if we did we'd be able to fix it no problem)  This also allows reforms to be made easier, requiring fewer active members to counteract "no-change zombies" (which I don't intend to refer to people who oppose significant change to the government structures here but instead the occasional voter who happens to wander around and takes the default option on every issue, which is usually "no").

     I agree that the populace of Atlasia is sane enough to not pass dumb amendments, but I think it never hurts to set the bar for amendments higher. In both Atlasia & real life the important amendments have gotten passed anyway.

     That aside, I'm not aware of how many really significant changes have been blocked by "no-change zombies".

You're about to

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe, but doesn't that kind of defeat the point of increasing activity?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then just do what the Midwest does and have a Constitution-as-Amended.

Come to think of it, why couldn't we have a national constitution as short and as simple as the regional ones?

[ilikeverin]

I would easily vote for an amendments section that requires a two thirds majority. I think a simple majority cheapens the process, considering the importance of Constitutional Amendments.

Yeah, that's cool. A few options would be two thirds of both Houses, two thirds of a joint sitting of both Houses (ie, everyone votes together, rather than passed by the Senate and then by the House, each with a two thirds majority), or passed by the Senate (simple majority) and then the House (two thirds majority).

Do you want to create the new versions, then?  I'm not sure which two-thirds proposal people would favor.

[ilikeverin]

Okay, here are three possible articles, each with their own spin on it.

Option 1, which is that it is like any other bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Option 2, which is most similar to the system today.  Basically, the bill would have to be approved by two-thirds of one of the Houses of Congress to be put to a full vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Option 3, an interesting third idea based off Smid's idea.  It would give the Senate more power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suggest preferential voting.

[ilikeverin]

Okay, here are three possible articles, each with their own spin on it.

Option 1, which is that it is like any other bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Option 2, which is most similar to the system today.  Basically, the bill would have to be approved by two-thirds of one of the Houses of Congress to be put to a full vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Option 3, an interesting third idea based off Smid's idea.  It would give the Senate more power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suggest preferential voting.

Hello?

(and the "preferential voting" thing was to determine which of these should be used)

[ilikeverin]

1. Option 3
2. Option 1
3. Option 2

[ilikeverin]

I gave it four days and not even the universalists bothered to vote. This motion lacks any sort of quorum and thus fails.

Sportsmanlike of you.

Well, given that it got the most votes of the people that did vote, I motion for a vote on the most default of articles:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe a simple up or down vote on an article that essentially changes nothing will encourage people to vote, because then they don't even have to think.

[ilikeverin]

Premature, as Purple State hasn't commented, but the sentiment is appreciated

[ilikeverin]

Though this proposal, or basically any other proposal which isn't the status-quo has no chance.

Oh, why, I hadn't noticed the tone of debate for the past two months

I just seek to provide Atlasians with a valid alternative to the status quo.  I know they're going to vote it down, but it's wrong to go down without a fight, or at least an informed debate on the subject.

[ilikeverin]

Though this proposal, or basically any other proposal which isn't the status-quo has no chance.

Oh, why, I hadn't noticed the tone of debate for the past two months

I just seek to provide Atlasians with a valid alternative to the status quo.  I know they're going to vote it down, but it's wrong to go down without a fight, or at least an informed debate on the subject.

I'm all for it, obviously. But I doubt this convention will even go to its term, as it's becoming increasingly likely (and not an entirely bad idea, seeing how little delegates care and how everybody just wants bad ol' status-quo to win).

Yeah, I agree.

Still, bashing my head against a break wall is hours of fun.  Purple State should be more impartial here and open this to a vote.

[ilikeverin]

If you insist, I will be happy to open a vote up and include all those that have voiced their votes already.

I would appreciate that.  Let's let these things come up for a vote before we insist they're dead.

[ilikeverin]

Yup

[ilikeverin]

I doubt we've reached a quorum; in any case, I'm starting to wonder whether this Convention could even reach a quorum to close itself