Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)

[Associate Justice PiT]

I've also been thinking of limiting the powers of the Lower House, since that seems to be a sticking point for most non-universalists. Perhaps preventing the Lower House from introducing fresh Bills would create an incentive to run for the Senate, thereby making Senate elections more competitive.

     I definitely think limiting the lower house's powers would be a good idea. Maybe we should also implement Brandon's idea of a minimum activity level to retain it, so if it turns out that the lower house routinely gets ~5 people voting on bills we can put it out of its misery.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I've also been thinking of limiting the powers of the Lower House, since that seems to be a sticking point for most non-universalists. Perhaps preventing the Lower House from introducing fresh Bills would create an incentive to run for the Senate, thereby making Senate elections more competitive.

     I definitely think limiting the lower house's powers would be a good idea. Maybe we should also implement Brandon's idea of a minimum activity level to retain it, so if it turns out that the lower house routinely gets ~5 people voting on bills we can put it out of its misery.

Perhaps the minimum activity requirement could be more along the lines of a minimum number of votes and speeches to reach "quorum" and if quorum is failed, the Bill passes regardless of the Lower House vote (since by that stage it will have been passed by the Senate). In other words, the Lower House forfeits its rights on that legislation, rather than perpetual. I mean, we still have regional governments under the current model, despite months (years?) of inactivity in the majority of them. I think the Lower House can provide the necessary experience for new members, which is currently at times the way Regional Assemblies have worked - although this would cover everyone, not just people fortunate enough to register in a region with an active Assembly.

     If both houses vote concurrently (which seems to be what you're implying), then that would be acceptable. It just should not be the case that bills get slowed down waiting to see whether or not the lower house will manage to fulfill a quorum. Maybe the lower house should be given a deadline of 48 hours after the cessation of voting in the upper house to achieve a quorum or forfeit its right to vote on that bill.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If both houses vote concurrently (which seems to be what you're implying), then that would be acceptable. It just should not be the case that bills get slowed down waiting to see whether or not the lower house will manage to fulfill a quorum. Maybe the lower house should be given a deadline of 48 hours after the cessation of voting in the upper house to achieve a quorum or forfeit its right to vote on that bill.

No, the procedure would be:

Bill is introduced in the Senate,
Bill is voted on "in principle" in the Senate,
Amendments are moved and voted on in the Senate,
Amended Bill is passed by the Senate. Progresses to the Lower House.
Amendments are moved and voted on in the Lower House,
Bill is voted on in the Lower House, including any amendments that have been moved (otherwise, it's just the Bill, as amended by the Senate).
If there are amendments moved by the Lower House, the Bill is sent back to the Upper House for the amendments to be ratified, if the Bill was not amended by the Lower House, it gets sent to the President.
If the Senate ratifies amendments made by the Lower House, the Bill is sent to the President. If the Senate does not approve the amendments made by the Lower House, the Bill fails.

I'm trying to put together a flow chart for the presidential amendments, Double Dissolution concept, but I can likewise incorporate this element to the flow diagram.

     I do think that certain mechanisms should be incorporated to make sure a bill doesn't languish for whatever period of time in the lower house waiting for a quorum that would not be realized. Perhaps the PM should be able to temporarily dissolve the lower house without affecting the function of the upper house if he determines that it is too inactive.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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.

     Aye, Abstain.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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". Also, I think if it were introduced without much fanfare we would be able to get an amendment through without zombies appearing to vote against it.

     Furthermore, I think that it is annoying to deal with a Constitution with a large number of amendments. Just look at the wiki page; each amendment has its own page, complicating matters for people who want to familiarize themselves with Constitutional matters or want to see if an exact matter is touched on that they do not see in the main body of the text. Even if we overturn a bad amendment that gets passed, that's two more pages for amendments that end up taking up space on the list of amendments.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Also, I think if it were introduced without much fanfare we would be able to get an amendment through without zombies appearing to vote against it.

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

     But if we succeed in increasing activity, I imagine that no-change zombies would become less of a problem, as more active citizens would also be easier to convince of the necessity of a given change.

     Furthermore, I think that it is annoying to deal with a Constitution with a large number of amendments. Just look at the wiki page; each amendment has its own page, complicating matters for people who want to familiarize themselves with Constitutional matters or want to see if an exact matter is touched on that they do not see in the main body of the text. Even if we overturn a bad amendment that gets passed, that's two more pages for amendments that end up taking up space on the list of amendments.

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?

     A Constitution-as-Amended would be a wonderful idea. I find it quite cumbersome to have a Constitution whose original text is separated from its amendments.

[Associate Justice PiT]

[  ] Option 1
[1] Option 2
[2] Option 3

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye