|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 26, 2020, 01:11:22 AM
News: 2020 Election day live thread: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=409870.0

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 19
Author Topic: Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)  (Read 79160 times)
Smid
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,153
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: April 05, 2009, 07:43:21 PM »

I second Hashemites proposals.

As I've touched on before, we need to look at what sort of people we have in Atlasia. I think the lower house should be the arena for career politicians, party politics and promises, where in order to be re-elected the governing party has to propose legislation some good some bad. The Senate should be proposing legislation but also looking at how much it costs, whether it's constitutional what international effect it has etc and looking at lower house legislation in a similar fashion. That reflects how people are in this game - I for one would be more at home in the Senate with a calculator than in the House with pushing through legislation and making sure my party get's elected. Other posters would love that side of things however.

Not to say the Senate should be the home of the retired Smiley Goodness no, but each chamber should reflect different styles of lawmaking (and reasons for making them)

As you've stated here, in many parliamentary systems, the Senate is a House of Review.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,064
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: April 05, 2009, 07:44:07 PM »

Wouldn't voting yes be putting a stop to the discussion of the beginning of this thread, though?
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,489
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: April 05, 2009, 07:49:23 PM »

Wouldn't voting yes be putting a stop to the discussion of the beginning of this thread, though?

What discussion?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,432


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: April 05, 2009, 07:58:49 PM »

I second Hashemites proposals.

As I've touched on before, we need to look at what sort of people we have in Atlasia. I think the lower house should be the arena for career politicians, party politics and promises, where in order to be re-elected the governing party has to propose legislation some good some bad. The Senate should be proposing legislation but also looking at how much it costs, whether it's constitutional what international effect it has etc and looking at lower house legislation in a similar fashion. That reflects how people are in this game - I for one would be more at home in the Senate with a calculator than in the House with pushing through legislation and making sure my party get's elected. Other posters would love that side of things however.

Not to say the Senate should be the home of the retired Smiley Goodness no, but each chamber should reflect different styles of lawmaking (and reasons for making them)

As you've stated here, in many parliamentary systems, the Senate is a House of Review.

Agreed. I think the Senate, if it is to have distinct authority, should be the only house that is able to propose amendments to the constitution for example. It could also be the only house that can authorise, through the President a declaration of war.
Logged
Purple State
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: April 05, 2009, 08:06:45 PM »

Ok, if everyone can agree on a summation of what you're all talking about, should I remove the current motion and propose this compromise that is being discussed?

Tell me if I have it right so far:
Small Senate (5ish) with power to originate amend legislation
Relatively large Parliament (15ish) with power to originate legislation
PM elected by both houses, presents agenda, followed by NC vote
PM appoints Cabinet members (either office holders or not)
Possible committees in the Parliament, with chairmen and some form of markup?
President with power to dissolve Parliament, but not Senate (I threw this in. It sorta gives the Senate that more regal feel as well)

Would you all compromise with something like that? If I get some sort of consensus of agreement I will drop the current motion and get this up for a vote.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,064
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: April 05, 2009, 08:47:33 PM »

Wouldn't voting yes be putting a stop to the discussion of the beginning of this thread, though?

What discussion?

A point well taken, but shouldn't we not preclude the option of having a presidential universalist system?
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,906
Cuba


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: April 05, 2009, 08:59:15 PM »

Ok, if everyone can agree on a summation of what you're all talking about, should I remove the current motion and propose this compromise that is being discussed?

Tell me if I have it right so far:
Small Senate (5ish) with power to originate amend legislation
Relatively large Parliament (15ish) with power to originate legislation
PM elected by both houses, presents agenda, followed by NC vote
PM appoints Cabinet members (either office holders or not)
Possible committees in the Parliament, with chairmen and some form of markup?
President with power to dissolve Parliament, but not Senate (I threw this in. It sorta gives the Senate that more regal feel as well)

Would you all compromise with something like that? If I get some sort of consensus of agreement I will drop the current motion and get this up for a vote.

I support this. Some small minute details and quibbles to fix, but I agree with the gist.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,489
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: April 05, 2009, 09:03:15 PM »

Ok, if everyone can agree on a summation of what you're all talking about, should I remove the current motion and propose this compromise that is being discussed?

Tell me if I have it right so far:
Small Senate (5ish) with power to originate amend legislation
Relatively large Parliament (15ish) with power to originate legislation
PM elected by both houses, presents agenda, followed by NC vote
PM appoints Cabinet members (either office holders or not)
Possible committees in the Parliament, with chairmen and some form of markup?
President with power to dissolve Parliament, but not Senate (I threw this in. It sorta gives the Senate that more regal feel as well)

Would you all compromise with something like that? If I get some sort of consensus of agreement I will drop the current motion and get this up for a vote.

I support this. Some small minute details and quibbles to fix, but I agree with the gist.

As do I.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: April 05, 2009, 09:17:50 PM »

Ok, if everyone can agree on a summation of what you're all talking about, should I remove the current motion and propose this compromise that is being discussed?

Tell me if I have it right so far:
Small Senate (5ish) with power to originate amend legislation
Relatively large Parliament (15ish) with power to originate legislation
PM elected by both houses, presents agenda, followed by NC vote
PM appoints Cabinet members (either office holders or not)
Possible committees in the Parliament, with chairmen and some form of markup?
President with power to dissolve Parliament, but not Senate (I threw this in. It sorta gives the Senate that more regal feel as well)

Would you all compromise with something like that? If I get some sort of consensus of agreement I will drop the current motion and get this up for a vote.

I support this. Some small minute details and quibbles to fix, but I agree with the gist.

As do I.

     Same here. This seems like it could be the foundation of a good compromise.
Logged
Purple State
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: April 05, 2009, 10:25:55 PM »

With that kind of consent I hereby call off the current motion on the table and bring forward the following:

The outline for Presidential Universalism shall hereby be renamed Parliamentary Bicameralism and read,
"Small Senate (5ish) with power to originate amend legislation
Relatively large Parliament (15ish) with power to originate legislation
PM elected by both houses, presents agenda, followed by NC vote
PM appoints Cabinet members (either office holders or not)
Possible committees in the Parliament, with chairmen and some form of markup?
President with power to dissolve Parliament, but not Senate (I threw this in. It sorta gives the Senate that more regal feel as well)"

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain. I will leave the voting open for 48 hours. 50% of delegates will be required for the vote to considered valid. A simple majority shall be required for the motion to pass.
Logged
Lief 🐋
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,025
Dominica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: April 05, 2009, 10:28:44 PM »

So, this is essentially the Presidential Parliamentary proposal but with an upper house?
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,307
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: April 05, 2009, 10:32:57 PM »

Nay
Logged
Purple State
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: April 05, 2009, 10:38:05 PM »

So, this is essentially the Presidential Parliamentary proposal but with an upper house?

Whatever it is it got an avid anti-universalist (Marokai) and a staunch universalist supporter (Hashemite) to agree. Whatever you want to dub it, it is what it is.


I did try to incorporate your ideas in there with the committees and all. If you're voting nay on this I hope that means you're willing to step up and develop the current outline for this proposal. Because until this discussion on changing the proposal got going, not a single post was put up to even try development of Presidential Universalism.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,489
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: April 05, 2009, 10:41:40 PM »

Aye
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,229
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: April 06, 2009, 01:03:03 AM »

aye
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,432


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: April 06, 2009, 01:55:18 AM »

Aye
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,165


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: April 06, 2009, 02:07:41 AM »

Aye... I think.
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,906
Cuba


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: April 06, 2009, 06:38:52 AM »
« Edited: April 06, 2009, 06:59:29 AM by Enor, enor d'ar gwenn-ha-du »

Aye.

Though I'd rather get rid of the President or have him with reduced powers. Whatever. Doesn't really matter.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,064
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: April 06, 2009, 07:13:36 AM »

Nope
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,906
Cuba


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: April 06, 2009, 07:22:31 AM »


Do you reject changing this into something different from the original intent or you reject outright the universalist/anti-universalist compromise?
Logged
Lief 🐋
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,025
Dominica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: April 06, 2009, 09:22:08 AM »

So, this is essentially the Presidential Parliamentary proposal but with an upper house?

Whatever it is it got an avid anti-universalist (Marokai) and a staunch universalist supporter (Hashemite) to agree. Whatever you want to dub it, it is what it is.

That's cool, or whatever, but I'm still not really seeing the big difference.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,008
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: April 06, 2009, 10:31:08 AM »

Nay
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,064
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: April 06, 2009, 11:03:39 AM »


Do you reject changing this into something different from the original intent or you reject outright the universalist/anti-universalist compromise?

Both; the so-called "compromise" is ridiculous.  It's not universalist at all.
Logged
Purple State
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: April 06, 2009, 11:17:08 AM »

Current vote tally:
Aye = 5 (Marokai, CultureKing, afleitch, Meeker, Hashemite)
Nay = 3 (BrandonH, ilikeverin, SPC)

Motion currently: Passing
Quorum: Not yet met
Approx. time remaining: 35 hours
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,906
Cuba


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: April 06, 2009, 03:15:04 PM »


Do you reject changing this into something different from the original intent or you reject outright the universalist/anti-universalist compromise?

Both; the so-called "compromise" is ridiculous.  It's not universalist at all.

If we include universalism in said compromise, then it's not a compromise anymore in that it will not appeal to non-universalists. We need to unite, find common ground and flesh out a compromise that both sides can accept. There's been a clear division between both sides that is very marked. With the idea of universalism losing popular support, a strong division into two sides, and the general need to get something done here, people need to be able to compromise instead of blocking everything and anything.

Universalists must make compromises, but non-universalists must also make compromises. This is just a general intent at a compromise. No details have been fleshed out. I urge you to vote Aye to not shut down all debate, even if you may not agree with the idea as it stands now.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 19  
« previous next »
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 0.042 seconds with 14 queries.