Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)

[Verily]

Nay, on general principle that Regions are a bad idea

[Verily]

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.

[Verily]

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?

No. It is always less biased to build up from minimalism than to "build down", so to speak, regardless of what the issue is under consideration.

You might say, for example, that it would be less biased towards any constitutional position to start with the current Constitution and modify from there than it is to begin with a new Constitution. But that would be false; beginning with the current Constitution as a base would bias the Convention towards a Constitution more strongly resembling the current Constitution.

[Verily]

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?

No. It is always less biased to build up from minimalism than to "build down", so to speak, regardless of what the issue is under consideration.

You might say, for example, that it would be less biased towards any constitutional position to start with the current Constitution and modify from there than it is to begin with a new Constitution. But that would be false; beginning with the current Constitution as a base would bias the Convention towards a Constitution more strongly resembling the current Constitution.

There are plenty of people here who support retaining regions, in some form or another, including myself. Either way you're probably going to end up voting on the issue, since the people who oppose it will want them ripped out and the people who support them will want to retain them/put them back in.

That's not my point. Inserting them in the original proposal is biased in favor of retaining them. I know we're going to vote on it at some point.

Well, lets vote for this and if it passes then we can have a vote on taking the Regions out.

You're totally ignoring my point. It is always easier to insert a provision than to remove one. Therefore, adding extra, unnecessary provisions, like Regions, bias the proposal in favor of the introduction of Regions. It's a basic principle of drafting that you start simple. This proposal is not doing so, and I won't stand for it.

[Verily]

Option 1

[Verily]

Newspapers are not paid in Atlasia, as far as I can tell. For game purposes, it's a cute provision without any meaning, although obviously if this were implemented in real life it would be significant.

Anyway, Aye.