Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:48:26 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote) (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)  (Read 44698 times)
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« on: April 03, 2009, 01:37:07 PM »

Regions must be abolished.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2009, 11:21:25 PM »

Some thoughts upon actually reading the Smid proposal:

Chapter 2

Why should members need a constituency name?  And why the difficulty in changing states?

Here's an odd idea: make the PM be elected by the Senate, subject to approval by the Lower House.  But the Lower House can also kick the PM out of office.  Would give people more of an incentive to get elected to the Senate.

Might want to specify posted 15 posts on the entirety of the Atlas Forum.

Chapter 3

To mollify the people whining about elections, do what I did in the Midwest: hold elections every two months.  And lower the number of Senators down to 10, so it doesn't get too crazy.  Both more and more competitive elections are necessary.

I'd support STV.

Chapter 4

The initial provisions seem somewhat self-defeating; how could anyone create a party with more than five people without somehow magically teleporting to that number first?

Make it three people, I'd say.  If they're active enough to make by-laws and elect people, why not recognize them?

I do like the strong party system, though.

Chapter 5

Obviously my Upper-House-election idea would kind of invalidate parts of this... and I think restricting the PMship to a party leader is kind of annoying, even though I understand it would encourage coalition-building.

Jee, what's up with the time period for people to oppose a PM candidate's nomination?  So many time restrictions!

Chapter 6

Good, I think; will support the party system.  Perhaps let the number of laws able to be proposed by the opposition be set in the House Standing Orders, so as to have recriminations and nasty, bitter arguments about them.

It also is unclear to me what the regulations are for the Senate.

Chapter 7

Obviously I support the abolition of regions.  You also misspelled every Midwestern state.

Chapter 8

Justices should be elected by the Senate every twelve months.  I think five is a bit too many considering the workload and that they'd have to resign their seat.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2009, 12:01:08 PM »

Where did Smid go?

And where is anyone else?

Should I just have a discussion with myself?
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2009, 08:43:36 PM »

For reference, Hashemite's large post:

I read over this thread and the actual codified proposal in the formal language in the other thread. I am, overall, strongly in favour of this, with a few minor quirks.

Firstly, moving away from the British Westminster proposal a bit, I don't think the Prime Minister absolutely needs to be the leader of a political party. I think any person that fits certain requirements (activity, and something else maybe) should be allowed to be Prime Minister. This would also allow Independents who are nonetheless able to build a majority coalition around them to become Prime Minister. This is pretty much the only part of this where I have a problem.

Secondly, I disagree with parts of Article 4 on Political Parties, though I agree with the gist of the article. I do not think that political parties should be considered political parties after they have five members. Since all voters are MPs anyways, I think political parties of any size should be allowed. However, I propose a system similar to the one used in the French Parliament concerning parliamentary groups. A parliamentary group should have atleast 5 (or 10, whatever) members. Large political parties should have no trouble forming a group. Smaller parties or Independents that do not pass this threshold can choose to (i) caucus (apparentée) with a larger group or (ii) to sit as non-inscrits, which is not a group per se but a grouping of minor sub-5 parties and "fully independent Indies". Parliamentary groups would each have a leader (or speaker) and a whip, like the current constitution plans for political parties, and have a quota of PMBs like Purple State proposed earlier. A group speaker's would be responsible for addressing the group's response to a NCM, confidence vote, PM vote, law or whatever. He could also delegate this power to another member of the group at any time. Small (small defined as sub-5 members) political parties that would choose to caucus with a larger group would have access to these "advantages". Non-inscrits could choose a "delegate" that has less powers than the other leaders and would not have a whip. I assume non-inscrits MPs should have the right to introduce one piece of legislation per session. This whole thing is just an idea, but I feel that it would allow smaller political parties that do not have 5 members to have a voice.

I also had this idea concerning the election of the Prime Minister while reading the Constitution of the Fourth Republic like we all do in our spare time. Two alternatives, with many sub-alternatives. Basically:

1

Senators and MPs assemble in Congress and elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). For example, Smid declares as RPP candidate, Lief declares as SDP candidate, Franzl declares as DA candidate, realistic declares as JCP candidate, and maybe some Indie. Here we have three scenarios that break off:

1. In the first and second rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win, and in the third round he needs a simple plurality of votes cast. No candidate is eliminated after each round, but one may choose to drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. No one drops out, then it remains as in round one. Candidates may now choose to drop out, and their voters vote the way they wish. If one candidate has 39 votes, he wins.

Round three. No one drops out, then it remains as in round one and two and Smid wins by plurality. If a candidate dropped out before round two or three, then whichever candidate has the most votes wins.

Pros: There is a guaranteed winner after 3 rounds, so there is no chance it goes into 13 rounds of voting.
Cons: The winner may lack a stable majority in Parliament. For this reason, I do not recommend adopting this system.

2. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. No candidate is eliminated after each round, but one may choose to drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately.

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: It could potentially take for ever for one to get a majority. In France in 1953, Coty won after 13 rounds of voting.

3. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The candidate receiving the least votes is eliminated after each round, he doesn't have to endorse another candidate immediately. In addition, a candidate may drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid. Lief is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 34
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19

Round three. Assume all Lief votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: A high number of candidates in the first round means that it could take a long time.

4. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The second round is only between the top two candidates in the first round.

Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid and all votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.

2

MPs only elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). The same scenarios (1, 2, 3, 4) from Alternative 1 apply, but only the House votes (composition RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 ). So on and so forth.

Anyways, this is all just an alternative.

Lastly, if you want more fun in this, courtesy of the Fourth Republic. The elected Prime Minister, in a speech to the House, outlines his political agenda and his government's policy. All MPs vote in a confidence vote, which requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. Voluntary and voting abstentions are therefore counted in this total. Members not voting are not counted in this total. If it passes, the Prime Minister names his cabinet and must/could (two alternatives, you see) proceed to a second confidence vote in the House with the same rules as in this first vote. A NCM can be proposed at any time, and requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. If it passes, the PM and his cabinet must resign immediately and a new vote is held. Just an idea.

As said above, the part that I really have a major issue with is Article 5, Section 1, Clause i and parts of Article 4. My other proposals are just things that I feel could add to the game and could make this more fun. I probably won't defend them to the death, though.

On a last note, I really like Article 2, Section 1, Clause i and the general idea of constituencies. Though I feel there should be boundary commission that sets the borders of these constituencies so that people don't just go around randomly creating their constituencies out of the blue, which would be a disastrous idea.

I also apologize for this very long post.     



And of course my proposed revisions are to Smid's proposal.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2009, 12:33:24 PM »


That seems like the most comprehensive proposal yet enumerated to me...
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2009, 05:53:13 PM »

I note that none of my propositions have been included in the proposed articles.

Smid's proposals give a lot of room to the lower house to determine the methods of electing the Prime Minister; I'd assume that your proposals would be debated then.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2009, 05:57:51 PM »

If you insist, I can copy-paste, with a few modifications...

Chapter __ The Lower House

2(1) Any person who registers in Atlasia shall be deemed to hold a seat in the Lower House. When registering, they must provide:
(i)   the name of their state of fantasy registry
(ii)   the political party to which they belong, unless they are an independent.

2(2) Any Member of Parliament may change their state of location no more frequently than once every two months; however they may change the party with which they are affiliated as frequently as they wish.

2(3) Any Member of Parliament seated in the Lower House shall be entitled to debate Bills and Motions that come before the Lower House, except for the Speaker of the House.

2(4) Any Member of Parliament entitled to debate a Bill or Motion before the Lower House shall also be entitled to vote on that Bill or Motion, even if they did not participate in the debate concerning that Bill or Motion. 

2(5) The Lower House shall be presided over by the Speaker of the Parliament, elected by the Members of the Lower House, whose role shall be to chair the debate that occurs within the Parliament and who shall not vote, except to break ties.

2(6) The Lower House shall be responsible for electing Senators.

2(7) Members of the Lower House shall be responsible for approving the selection of a Prime Minister, whose Government shall be responsible for the governance of Atlasia.

2(8 ) To qualify to vote in the election of a Senator or to vote in confidence and no confidence motions in the Prime Minister, a Member of Parliament must meet the following requirements: (i) a minimum total post count on the forum of 25;
(ii) have posted more than 15 times in the previous 8 weeks;
(iii) participated in parliamentary debate on at least two Bills in the previous 8 weeks; and
(iv) have registered as a Member of Parliament in the Lower House more than 1 week prior to the election.

2(9) The only exception to the qualification to vote in the election of a Senator or to vote in a confidence motion for a Prime Minister is to allow Members of Parliament to vote for the first Prime Minister and for the first elected Senators.

2(10) Following the first election of Prime Minister and Senators, Section 2(9) shall cease to operate.

2(11) The Lower House may not conduct debate on any matter if it does not have a Speaker.

2(12) The Lower House may not conduct debate on any Bills or motions, except for a confidence motion if it does not have a Prime Minister.

2(13) If a motion of no confidence is moved, the Lower House must cease to debate all other Bills and motions until the motion of no confidence is resolved.

2(14) The Speaker is required to maintain on a weekly basis a public list of current members of the House who are qualified according to Section 2(8 ).
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2009, 06:07:13 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2009, 06:12:00 PM by ilikeverin »

Chapter _ The Upper House

3(1) The Upper House shall comprise of 12 Senators, elected by the Lower House by the method allowed by the House of Representatives Standing Orders.

3(2) Senators cannot be Members of Parliament in the Lower House while serving as Senators and shall be determined to have resigned their seat in the Lower House upon the declaration of their election, unless they resign in writing to the Speaker prior to their election.

3(3): The first election of Senators shall be by the following method: All Members of Parliament shall elect by a method of Single Transferable Vote, the number of Senators referred to in Section 3(1).

3(4) The Upper House shall be presided over by the President Pro Tempore, elected by the Senators, whose role shall be to chair the debate that occurs within the Parliament.

3(5) Senators shall be elected to four-month terms in office, with elections occurring over the first weekend of:
(i)   January, May, and September, for Class A Senators,
(ii)   February, June, and October, for Class B Senators,
(iii)   March, July, and November, for Class C Senators, and
(iv)   April, August, and December, for Class D Senators.

3(6) Senators shall be responsible for electing the Prime Minister.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2009, 06:08:07 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2009, 06:09:51 PM by ilikeverin »

I note that none of my propositions have been included in the proposed articles.

Smid's proposals give a lot of room to the lower house to determine the methods of electing the Prime Minister; I'd assume that your proposals would be debated then.

Section 2/PM article is clear on the method of election of the Prime Minister. The said method does not include any of my proposals.

Oh, goodness.  Smid's original proposal, which I've been operating on the presumption is the Universalist Manifesto, doesn't have a president at all; I'm not sure where the one there appeared from.  In my slight modifications, rest assured there will not be one.

2(12) The Lower House may not conduct debate on any Bills or motions, except for a confidence motion if it does not have a Prime Minister.

As long as it is codified that a PM who has just lost a vote of no confidence, remains as PM until his successor is formally confirmed. And also that if the PM is incapcitated, a 'Deputy' (whether formal or nominated) can assume that position temporarily.

Sure.  That's why I was hoping there would be more debate on this earlier; I certainly have no idea how a parliamentary system really works Wink

I plan to add this in my revised part about Prime Minister, so yell at me if you don't see it there.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2009, 06:11:01 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2009, 06:21:26 PM by ilikeverin »

Chapter _ Political Parties

4(1)(a) Members of Parliament and Senators must declare the political party to which they belong, unless they are an independent.

4(1)(b) Political Parties must contain at least three members of either House of Parliament.

4(2) Each political party must declare:
(i)   a party leader, who must be a Member of the Lower House unless that party is comprised solely of Senators; and
(ii)   a party whip.

4(3) If a Senator resigns from the Senate, the leader of the political party to which that Senator belonged at the time of his or her resignation may appoint his or her replacement Senator. If the Senator was not a member of a political party at the time of his or her resignation, the following rules shall apply:
(i)   If the Senator was an independent at the time of his or her resignation, the leader of the political party to which he or she belonged when elected may appoint his or her replacement Senator.
(ii)   If the Senator was an independent at the time of his or her resignation and also at the time of his or her election, the replacement Senator shall be elected by the Lower House using whatever method is specified in the House of Representatives Standing Orders for the election of Senators.

4(4) Each party must provide a copy of its by-laws in a publicly accessible place. The Parliament may pass an Act of Parliament to create a single set of by-laws that are adopted by all parties until the party has published its own set.

4(5) Unless a party's by-laws state otherwise, the party leader has the power to expel any party members for whatever reason he/she deems appropriate,

4(6) Unless a party's by-laws state otherwise, the party leader has the power to appoint the party's whip and spokespeople for the party for particular portfolios.

4(7)(a) Unless a party’s by-laws state otherwise, the party whip is responsible for the allocation of the party’s quota of Private Members’ Bills to party members for introduction.

4(7)(b) Where a party governs in coalition with another party, the Prime Minister shall appoint a whip from one of the parties to be “the Chief Government Whip” and responsible for allocating the number Private Members’ Bills to each party as they see fit, as referenced in section 6(5)(i).

4(7)(c) Each party whip in a coalition Government allocates their party’s Private Members’ Bills, based on the number allocated to that party by the Chief Government Whip.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2009, 06:17:56 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2009, 06:21:20 PM by ilikeverin »

Chapter _ The Prime Minister and the Executive Branch

5(1) The Prime Minister may be any member of the Lower House who is able to gain the confidence of a majority of Upper House Members of Parliament.

5(2) The Prime Minister shall be elected by Members of the Upper House.

5(3) The procedures used to elect a Prime Minister shall be enumerated in the Senate Standing Orders.

5(4) A Prime Minister may be removed from office by the Lower House.  The procedures of removal shall be enumerated in the House of Representatives Standing Orders.

5(5) Should a Prime Minister be removed by Vote of No-Confidence, the Speaker of the House of Representatives will serve in his stead until a new vote of confidence is passed.

5(6) A Prime Minister may resign as the Prime Minister, at which time a confidence motion must be moved to appoint a new Prime Minister, subject to Section 5(3) (a) to (f).

5(7) The Prime Minister may appoint Ministers who shall be responsible for certain policy portfolios and the management of their departments.

5(8) The Prime Minister may appoint any Member of the Lower House or the Senate to be a Minister of the Government.

5(9) The Prime Minister shall follow his or her party's by-laws when appointing Ministers.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2009, 06:20:36 PM »

Chapter _ The Passage of Legislation

6(1) There shall be two types of Bills moved in the Parliament, known as:
(i)   Government Bills, and
(ii)   Private Members’ Bills.

6(2) Government Bills are Bills moved by a Government Minister, and must relate to the portfolio of that Minister.

6(3) Private Members’ Bills are any Bill moved by are Private Member of Parliament or the Senate, and may relate to any matter.

6(4) The number of Government Bills allowed to be moved and debated in any month is unrestricted.

6(5) The number of Private Members’ Bills shall be limited by the Standing Orders of the relevant House.

6(6) Bills shall be introduced to the Parliament according to the Standing Orders of the relevant House.

6(7) Any Bills that pass one House of Parliament are referred to the other House for ratification.

6(8) If the House ratifying a Bill moves and passes any amendments to the Bill, upon passing the Bill, it is referred back to the initial House to ratify the amendments.

6(9) If a Bill is referred to the initial House for the ratification of amendments, the initial House may move further amendments, vote in favour of the amended Bill, or vote against the amended Bill.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2009, 06:24:27 PM »

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(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.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2009, 06:25:53 PM »

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 ).
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2009, 10:55:42 PM »
« Edited: April 19, 2009, 10:59:44 PM by ilikeverin »

Why don't we use my draft?  It's based off Smid's, which is the most complete proposed Constitution we have to date. (and I'm not trying to pick a fight here--I'm sure I could find a way to fit my proposals into yours--I just think that going with the more endogenous proposal might be a better idea)

Chapter __ The Lower House

2(1) Any person who registers in Atlasia shall be deemed to hold a seat in the Lower House. When registering, they must provide:
(i)   the name of their state of fantasy registry
(ii)   the political party to which they belong, unless they are an independent.

2(2) Any Member of Parliament may change their state of location no more frequently than once every two months; however they may change the party with which they are affiliated as frequently as they wish.

2(3) Any Member of Parliament seated in the Lower House shall be entitled to debate Bills and Motions that come before the Lower House, except for the Speaker of the House.

2(4) Any Member of Parliament entitled to debate a Bill or Motion before the Lower House shall also be entitled to vote on that Bill or Motion, even if they did not participate in the debate concerning that Bill or Motion. 

2(5) The Lower House shall be presided over by the Speaker of the Parliament, elected by the Members of the Lower House, whose role shall be to chair the debate that occurs within the Parliament and who shall not vote, except to break ties.

2(6) The Lower House shall be responsible for electing Senators.

2(7) Members of the Lower House shall be responsible for approving the selection of a Prime Minister, whose Government shall be responsible for the governance of Atlasia.

2(8 ) To qualify to vote in the election of a Senator or to vote in confidence and no confidence motions in the Prime Minister, a Member of Parliament must meet the following requirements: (i) a minimum total post count on the forum of 25;
(ii) have posted more than 15 times in the previous 8 weeks;
(iii) participated in parliamentary debate on at least two Bills in the previous 8 weeks; and
(iv) have registered as a Member of Parliament in the Lower House more than 1 week prior to the election.

2(9) The only exception to the qualification to vote in the election of a Senator or to vote in a confidence motion for a Prime Minister is to allow Members of Parliament to vote for the first Prime Minister and for the first elected Senators.

2(10) Following the first election of Prime Minister and Senators, Section 2(9) shall cease to operate.

2(11) The Lower House may not conduct debate on any matter if it does not have a Speaker.

2(12) The Lower House may not conduct debate on any Bills or motions, except for a confidence motion if it does not have a Prime Minister.

2(13) If a motion of no confidence is moved, the Lower House must cease to debate all other Bills and motions until the motion of no confidence is resolved.

2(14) The Speaker is required to maintain on a weekly basis a public list of current members of the House who are qualified according to Section 2(8 ).
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2009, 11:19:19 AM »

Sorry about the delay in responding, I just saw these.

Why should members need a constituency name?  And why the difficulty in changing states?

Regarding the constituency name, this is to allow people to incorporate local information in their speeches to the House: for example "As I talk to local small businesspeople in my constituency of Staten Island, they tell me of the pressures placed on them from the global financial crisis. Yesterday I had the great pleasure of speaking to a dry cleaner and he implored me to vote in favour of this Bill, saying that if this Bill doesn't pass, financial reality will force him to close his doors and put three people out of work..."

I think that sounds more interesting than just saying "This Bill helps alleviate pressures on small business and allow them to hire more people, during these difficult times." The whole aim of the constituency name was simply to allow local factors in speeches on Bills.

Regarding the difficulty in changing seats - this was for a few reasons: firstly, I think it makes things more realistic, you don't have reallied MPs and Congressmen changing seats/states, except in fairly rare circumstances. Since everyone's a Member of Parliament in the Lower House, we should have some restrictions on seat-changing.

{weakening of regions}

I guess the short answer would be - I think that carpetbagging is not a good thing and that is why I aim to restrict it, but there may be others who prefer its fluidity. Anyway, that's why I've tried to impose restrictions.

OK, I see your point on constituencies (though of course that opens the door to the whole is Atlasia the United States or is it its own country question).  What would happen if there were a boundary dispute?

Re: weakening of regions, Smiley

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's certainly an option. One reason that I took the Senate out of the PM election process was to cause a conflict - to make people and parties decide whether they'd prefer to run for Senate or simply hold a seat in the Lower House. They'd have to balance and weigh up their options to decide which they'd prefer, it creates an additional level of strategy within the game.
[/quote]

That's actually why I moved the PM election to the Senate in my draft; with PM elections in the House, I don't think there's much reason to be the Senate.  I want to have competitive elections, and the surest way to do that is to give people a reason to desire being elected.  Being able to choose the PM might be that reason.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's cool, I wasn't too fussed about the number in the Upper House or the frequency of elections. There were to be elections every two months anyway (three classes of Senators, each elected to six-month terms, each class elected two months apart).
[/quote]

Oh, right.  Silly me Smiley  As you can see, I fussed with it a bit (now there's monthly elections, with Senators elected for four month terms), but this isn't a particularly strong issue for me.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't mind STV and I don't mind Regional Caucusing. If we're not having regional governments, then it's probably important to leave some form of regionalism in and I thought Senate elections would be a good way to do that. Mind you, if we reduce the number of Senators from 15 to 10, we could have one election using STV and the other using Regional Caucusing (effectively what we have now).
[/quote]

Huh.  Maybe there might be some reason for leaving regional-type governments in if they were strictly designed... but, at the same time, look at the pattern of Senate elections now.  Though the STV and regional elections have approximately the same amount of candidates, they're much more boring, because 7 candidates for 5 STV slots is significantly more exciting than 1.4 candidates for each regional seat!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is mainly for people breaking away. If a party gets too large, it won't have enough positions for its members - cabinet or senatorial - and this may lead to dissent within the party's backbench and lead to a number of members leaving. I'd prefer to set the bar somewhat higher to keep things at least a little stable, though. If a party has the ability to introduce legislation, that's a pretty important privilege and I'd rather make it not too easy to achieve. Also, if five independents get together, they should be able to form a party (and since independents wouldn't have the right to introduce legislation, they gain substantial benefit from being able to form a party - again, I therefore don't want to make it too easy to gain that benefit).
[/quote]

Okay, I can see your point that it would make things better for introducing bills, but I've always considered the massive coalition building necessary for countries with fractured parties to be pretty interesting (witness the latest Knesset elections; frustrating for Israelis, interesting for everyone else!)... placating the desires of several squabbling factions seems to me more exciting than defaulting to any one person.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The time restrictions are to try to ensure there are set rules for these sorts of elections - same as time limits/restrictions presently for elections. They are to set minimum lengths of time as much as maximum lengths - they're not purely restrictions. If the rules state that there is 24 hours to speak against a nomination for Prime Minister, it's not just to limit it to that length of time - it's also to prevent the Speaker from moving the vote to quickly to try to cause it to fail/succeed. It's to create a window, rather than a restriction.
[/quote]

Personally, my thought was that it didn't necessarily go long enough.  I could imagine thigns working out with your time scheduling if things were basically planned out beforehand... but if suddenly someone had a brilliant bolt of inspiration and wanted to topple the government, it would be quite difficult under your plan.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A good idea about the House Standing Orders. I'm giving that some more thought. I'm a little worried that a government will be most likely in coalition - and therefore the balance may be weighted a little too much in favour of the Opposition, leading to more benefits to them (and thus reducing some of the incentive to push to topple the PM). I'm going to continue thinking about this idea. The regulations for both houses would be set out in the Standing Orders (each House would need to pass its own Standing Orders, which would only detail the regulations for the relevant House).

Obviously I support the abolition of regions.  You also misspelled every Midwestern state.

I noticed that, but wasn't sure which state was which, so figured I'd put it in as is and let it be amended accordingly.

Justices should be elected by the Senate every twelve months.  I think five is a bit too many considering the workload and that they'd have to resign their seat.

Fair point. The legal side of Atlasia is not my forte (my experience is predominantly in parliamentary procedure - and I do have RL experience there). Chapters 7 and 8 were mostly put up as a bit of a framework for further adaptation and amendment by people who know that stuff and are more interested in it than I am.
[/quote]

I'm not very interested in it myself, actually Wink
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2009, 11:20:48 AM »

I just figured mine was formatted a little more cleanly. It also basically incorporated Smid's stuff.

Okay.  The big difference I see between yours and Smid's/mine (which have their differences, but I assume they'll be ironed out) is that you have the election of a President in there; neither of our proposals have one.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2009, 10:40:02 PM »

Okay, here is my equivalent of PurpleState's version:

Article _: The House of Commons

Section 1: Formation
1. Any person who registered as a citizen of Atlasia shall serve as a Member of Parliament, herein MP, in the House of Commons, herein Lower House.
    i. Upon registering to Atlasia, they must provide:
       a. name,
       b. state of residency, and
       c. political party to which they belong, or as independent.
    ii. Any MP may change their state of residency no more frequently than once every two months.
2. The Lower House shall be presided over by the Commons Speaker, elected by the MP's, who shall be responsible for chairing debate that occurs within the Lower House and who shall not vote, except to break ties.
    i. All debate and votes shall be initiated by the Speaker. No debate shall occur without the presence of a Speaker.
    ii. The Speaker shall be required to maintain a weekly-updated public list of current members of the House who are qualified under Section 2, Clause 4.

Section 2: Powers
1. MP's shall have the power to debate and vote on Bills and Motions that come before the Lower House.
2. The Lower House shall be responsible for electing Senators to the Upper House.
3. MP's shall be responsible for approving the selection of a Prime Minister, whose Government shall be responsible for the governance of Atlasia.
4. The qualifications to vote in the election of a Senator or the President include:
    i. a minimum total post count on the forum of 25
    ii. 15 posts in the previous 8 weeks
    iii. participation in parliamentary debate on at least two Bills in the previous 8 weeks
    iv. registered as a MP in the Lower House more than one week prior to the election.
5. Section 2, Clause 4 iii - iv. shall only be enacted after the first election of Senators and President under this Constitution. Following said election, this clause shall cease to operate.

Section 3: Confidence Votes
1. The Lower House may not conduct debate on any Bills or Motions, except for a confidence motion, without the presence a Prime Minister.
2. If a confidence motion is moved, the Lower House must cease to debate all other Bills and Motions until the motion is resolved. The motion shall last for 72 hours.
3. A confidence motion shall be deemed as carried with a vote of confidence or lost with a vote of no confidence by a majority of all MP's.
4. Immediately upon the passage of a vote of no confidence against the Government, the Senate and Prime Minister shall become vacant and new elections shall be held.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2009, 07:14:29 AM »

Formatted well and makes sense, I suppose, though I still oppose the system entirely.

I'm assuming the House can introduce bills as well, yes?

The only reason why I don't like this system is because it would take away the elections, which in part is the best thing about Atlasia. That is why I think if we make more offices to fill and have more elections, active will go up.

It does place the emphasis more on a government sim rather than an election sim, which I'm not sure is the brightest idea in light of the recent uptick in election activity. One of my bigger reasons for opposing this system is not only that, it's that the House and the Senate are virtually identical bodies that only differ in size. There's no point in having an upper house in a universal system because everyone has the same powers, so there's no incentive to run for the Senate, and if you take the Senate out, you eliminate all elections. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I specifically stated I amended Smid's proposal to deal with this; the Senate is now the House who is able to propose Prime Ministers, not the House, making getting elected to the Senate a Good Thing (tm).  I'm open to more ideas for how to make the Houses less overlappy.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #19 on: May 03, 2009, 05:19:46 PM »

I'd be up for that, but it might be a good idea to wait for Smid... he seemed to have thought of something and forgotten about it, so perhaps we can make him remember it yet again Smiley
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #20 on: May 03, 2009, 05:24:03 PM »

Ooh, I just thought of something fun about my proposal... I was thinking about what would happen if the Senate only nominated one candidate for the House of Commons to choose for Prime Minister, and considering adding in a "NOTA" option... then I realized that the House of Commons could simply do a VoNC and get rid of that Senate entirely.  That's kinda fun!
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #21 on: May 03, 2009, 05:56:35 PM »

Ooh, I just thought of something fun about my proposal... I was thinking about what would happen if the Senate only nominated one candidate for the House of Commons to choose for Prime Minister, and considering adding in a "NOTA" option... then I realized that the House of Commons could simply do a VoNC and get rid of that Senate entirely.  That's kinda fun!

Being as I looked at that and kinda sorta understood...put it in writing in the Article.

The Vote of No Confidence thing is already in the Article (last clause); the NOTA clause isn't really necessary, I don't think, because Commons could just use the VoNC in lieu of NOTA.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #22 on: May 04, 2009, 12:49:26 PM »

I would prefer not to have a President; IMO, one of the strengths of the original proposal is that there isn't one.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #23 on: May 04, 2009, 06:33:51 PM »

Go ahead.  I have yet to hear it.

(Though I do agree with you on the nomenclature)
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2009, 05:03:28 PM »

Should we get something moving?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
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 0.065 seconds with 13 queries.