Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)

[ilikeverin]

Nope.  How on earth is this universalism?!

[ilikeverin]

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

[ilikeverin]

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?

[ilikeverin]

Nope

[ilikeverin]

Nope

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.

[ilikeverin]

I don't see how there can exist a category that's "kind of universalist".

[ilikeverin]

I don't see how there can exist a category that's "kind of universalist".

It's more universal than the other non-universalism.

You can have a universalism proposal, but no reason to block a compromise proposal from being discussed as well.

That attitude is precisely why I'm voting no; as the proposal is one of "wishy-washy moderatism", it will naturally be selected in the end, no matter the other proposals.  I'm not saying it isn't necessarily meritorious... but the thought that it would pass based simply on its merits rather than its "compromise" status is laughable.

[ilikeverin]

Here's a suggestion: make a new thread for discussion of the compromise proposal.

I agree.  I don't have a problem with wheeling-and-dealing; I have a problem with completely terminating any discussion of the first proposal in this thread.  I also have a problem with that this "compromise" also changes the fundamental balance of proposals discussed at the convention from 2 universalist-1 non-universalist to 1 universalist-2 non-universalist, but even besides that it seems like what's being proposed is substantially different enough to merit its own thread.

[ilikeverin]

The best bet is to work on the style of government first I think. The questions about regions, bill of rights, etc. should be left for the wrap-up towards the end, or as they are needed.

Right now the most important aspects are the Executive and Legislative branches.

Actually, I think deciding the regional question pretty early is a good idea; that way there will be a better idea of how many posts will be elected.  This is operating on the assumption that non-universalists have a number of offices they consider "appropriate" to exist; if regions are scrapped, then the size of the national government (and thus the composition of the legislature) will have to expand, whereas if regions are kept (and perhaps with the modifications described here), the size of the national government should be decreased.  Perhaps if people have radically different ideas on the thought we could split them into different threads.

[ilikeverin]

What about the people that aren't in national government? What are they suppose to do? Sit there and watch others?

Well, I would say that that's an excellent point

Actually, what Dan is advocating seems to be something different from what anyone else seems to be proposing: a Regional-based Universalist system.  Maybe some sort of Confederation.

Removing regions allows us to concentrate on national governance, which is much more fun, enjoyable and active, and it includes everyone, rather than just the people who happen to be in the one or two regions that are temporarily seeing a burst of activity.

And we don't have to make 12 at large seats. We can do a proportional, party list election (something I'm very partial to), we can divide the election into half nationwide seats, half district-elected, etc. I'm not against keeping regions as territories or electoral districts, as I said; I'm merely against giving them in game governments.

What about the people that aren't in national government? What are they suppose to do? Sit there and watch others? If you have regions with assemblies were every citizens can join in then it will keep people active.

I do agree with Leif that regional governments right now are pitifully inactive and uncompetitive, but there is the possibility that by reducing the number of regions you can increase activity by virtue of having more people competing in the regions. I think reducing the number of regions should be our first option, if regional government are still inactive then perhaps we could eliminate them at a later date via amendments.

I don't think that would help any.  Regions aren't necessarily inactive because there's not enough people in them (witness that the Midwest has always been one of the smallest regions by population but that we used to be one of the most active); regions are inactive because people can't really do anything with them.  They don't really have a point at all; basically everything that can be done in them can also be done on the national level, and better, too.  Barring a confederation/dissolution of the national government, which would force regions to matter, I don't really think there's an alternative where we leave regions relatively untouched (or even reduced number) but they still matter.

[ilikeverin]

Nope (opposition to regions, etc.  don't have a problem with dual office holding)

[ilikeverin]

Nope (opposition to regions, etc.  don't have a problem with dual office holding)

If you have no problem with dual office holding why are you anti-region?

I have to concur, what exactly are you making opposition over? If you agree with allowing dual office holding what is the point of opposing regions, and furthermore, why would you even care about dual office holding if there are no offices to hold dually? Seems like a silly thing to make opposition over in my opinion.

Because there's no reason for their existence, just as Jas has stated.  But, when the regions are inevitably kept, I would prefer we see dual office-holding, so that competent people aren't sucked into the void of regional government (or, more optimistically, to allow for a wider distribution of active citizens, so that things can happen within regional government).

[ilikeverin]

I fail to see why the activity of the regions couldn't simply be channeled into an expanded federal government.

[ilikeverin]

I fail to see why the activity of the regions couldn't simply be channeled into an expanded federal government.

What will citizens uninvolved in the federal government directly do with their time? Regions give them a possible outlet for that. Without any possibilities of regional activity it just further removes people from the game. At least regions give the option to get involved on some level, a way to gain a reputation and experience in the game. Otherwise what is there?

1) What will people not involved in either do with their time? (proponents of regions keep making arguments for universalism! )  The best way to keep people from being removed from the game is ensuring that they can always play a part in it.

2) But with a significantly expanded federal government and the regional governments abolished, wouldn't the norm then to get oneself elected to a federal government slot right away if one is interested in participating?  Perhaps we could stage elections at closer time intervals or rotate through spots more frequently, to allow n00bs in more quickly.  I mean, $Dan$ is new, but he seems to have had no problem jumping right into the constitutional convention.

We don't really have enough types of players to really support a tiered activity system, and even if you think we do perhaps this could be a component of the lower/upper house division; one of the chambers could serve as the experience that is the same as your idea of what the regional experience should be, and the other could be similar to what the federal government is now. 

3) I still haven't heard a rebuttal to my point that regions don't have a purpose.  You have to make people want to get elected, and if they get elected only to have the opportunity to have a shiny title... well... that's basically what exists now.

[ilikeverin]

1) What will people not involved in either do with their time? (proponents of regions keep making arguments for universalism! )  The best way to keep people from being removed from the game is ensuring that they can always play a part in it.

I am not arguing against universalism here, nor do I deny it has merits. But we are working with this proposal, not a universalist one, so when you vote in this thread it should be to make this the best proposal it can be. You don't seem to understand that we are supposed to develop all the proposals well, not push one agenda while attempting to stunt the others.

Look, I was just making a point that, in the debate on regions, there is an alternative to regions that satisfies many of the arguments you're making here.  I've been stating my support of abolitionism for months now, so you shouldn't be so paranoid about my intentions in this thread; it's been clear for a while that (barring my idea to break up the federal government) I do honestly believe it's the best policy to eliminate regions.

Besides, isn't proposing a viable alternative more constructive than simply saying "no" over and over again?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Noobs would likely be confused or intimidated by the process and veteran members. Not to mention people will inevitably lose elections. What are they to do in the months before elections?
[/quote]

Well, people will inevitably lose elections on the regional level, too, unless you somehow make enough positions that people are guaranteed to win elections.  But that's counterproductive: what's the point of unopposed elections?

Besides, why do you assume that adding more positions on the regional level will be more conducive to this idea than adding more positions on the federal level?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The purpose of regions is to orient new members, provide an entirely separate outlet for current members, and to simply have the grassroots element of Atlasia thrive. Even if regions aren't active at times, the fact that they are at any time is better than not even giving them the chance. I must have repeated this five times now and then you come back saying I didn't explain my point.

To make it clearer, without regions there is no mechanism to orient new members, no system to provide experience to new members, and nowhere for new members to be introduced to the members and functions of the game in a more informal setting. Sure the regions may not be so active all the time, but the chance that they may, at any point, be active and fulfill some of the roles I believe they can is worth keeping them around.
[/quote]

$Dan$ seems to be oriented just fine.  So have all sorts of n00bs: you, Marokai, and other have all jumped into the policy-making process right away upon entering Atlasia.  If anything, n00bs are more active than we old players, because you honestly think that things can be changed for the better in the Fantasy section.  My problem isn't that you haven't stated your objectives for regions well; my problem is that you still haven't presented the regions as a particularly gripping alternative to unitary governance.  In a unitary government, there is no reason why the national government shouldn't help orient new members; there is no reason that the national government shouldn't provide experience for new players; there is no reason for the national government to not be that informal setting.

[ilikeverin]

You use me, $Dan$, and Marokai as examples. Both myself and $Dan$ were first active on the regional level. My appointment to the Mideast Assembly was the only thing that kept me active and caring. $Dan$ has both an active Mideast and this Convention which is a great opportunity to start, during the actual formation of the process.

I have no problem with no regions for universalist proposals, but regions are clearly beneficial, at some level, for a game where not everyone has a say on the federal level.

But you presume that you would not have become active on the federal level right if there were no regional governments.  I don't know why that would be the case.  If there are no regional governments, it's not like people interested in being active will have no idea what to do; they'll just go right to the federal level.  Even without universalism, we could just make it easier for people to do so (like I mentioned, perhaps with more frequent elections or more positions) and there won't be any issues.

And, sorry, I forgot to explain myself better when I said that regions are pointless.  I was referring to something a bit more specific than activity and such.  IRL, national subunits exist because it is presumed that certain functions are better performed on those levels than they would be at the national level.  Municipalities, for instance, are given some control over local schools because it's thought that local control leads to better performance.  In Atlasia we don't have this problem, which is reason number one why regions are unimportant: most of the things that are ruled over by states (e.g. education) aren't issues in Atlasia because, well, we don't really have any students, or any way to simulate such a system.  Consequently, regions essentially have only the powers to regulate only those things surrendered to them by the national government, because the regions have essentially no powers that cannot be done by the national government.  All that's left for the regions are the powers to regulate, say, their state mottos, or their capitals (witness the Dirty South!), or the election regulations for the powerless positions they are allowed to create.

[ilikeverin]

I think the Upper House will be check enough; having an upper house and a lower house and regions with some veto power and and and... would just lead to stagnation.

[ilikeverin]

Nay. Draft a version without Regions and then add them in later if the Convention supports them. Starting out with Regions in the plan biases it towards the introduction of Regions.

Wouldn't it be unbiased as it maintains the status quo? Rather than a blatant change that shows bias towards the no-region people?

Oh, come now... no matter which way you set it, you are automatically biasing it against one way or another.  We're looking for the best possible solution here.

[ilikeverin]

Is it just me, or does it seem needlessly complicated that these proposals have two legislative bodies, with presiding officers over both, a President, and possibly regions?

[ilikeverin]

Is it just me, or does it seem needlessly complicated that these proposals have two legislative bodies, with presiding officers over both, a President, and possibly regions?

They address the President peripherally, have one presiding officer over both legislative bodies, and don't mention regions at all. It may just be you...

I was talking more in terms of overall development of this proposal; the Articles given are more symptomatic of the complication than specifically problematic.

[ilikeverin]

Option 1

[ilikeverin]

Since most of you seem to be supporting Option 1, I'll point out some of my problems with it.

Five-member Senate elections every six months? Really? Twice a year?!?! No, this is an elections game and this is unacceptable. And don't think covert attempts to abolish regional Senate seats is going unnoticed.

Perhaps some will counter with the fact that we have Representative elections every two months. But 15 seats? Didn't we only have like, 6 candidates for Senate in December? Maybe 7 or so last April? What makes you people think there will actually be 15 people willing to run? What makes you think they'll be at all active? But more importantly, what makes you think a good number more than 15 will run? We would need at least say, 20 or so candidates every two months to make the elections competitive, fun, and interesting, and I'm telling you right now that I don't think that is going to happen.

I agree with you on this, for the most part, but I believe the intent of the vote was whether we wanted a more parliamentary system or a less parliamentary system, and that we would be ironing out such differences at a later date.

[ilikeverin]

Then, um, what does Sec. 3 Part 3 do?  Nobody gets paid in Atlasia

Yup overall, I guess.

[ilikeverin]

Sure on both

[ilikeverin]

Yup
Yup
Nope

Regions should be abolished.

I still don't understand what harm the regions do. At best they provide a training ground for new members. At worst? They are inactive and boring. You don't gain anything by their abolition.

You eliminate dead weight.