Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)

[Marokai Backbeat]

I happily second his proposal.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I oppose this proposal.

At least I waited to see the proposals before making such statements..

[Marokai Backbeat]

What PiT has proposed is the Bicameral Nonparliamentary model that was voted on earlier and failed. We can't just go radically changing the nature of the model when it was voted on earlier. It would be like me waltzing into the Presidential Parliamentarian thread and proposing a whole new Lower House to be comprised of universal membership. It's not the structure that was voted for. If people wanted a bicameral model, they would have voted for the bicameral model when they had the chance.

The Presiding Officer was given full authority to proceed with the ConCon as he saw fit and determine exact rules as he pleases. If we don't want this proposal, you can vote it down, but don't try to shut it out a compromise that threatens your proposal because you don't like it.

This proposal as it stands is practically a modified duplicate of the Parliamentary Universalist model in the first place, it's likely not going anywhere as it stands.

[Marokai Backbeat]

As it stands, Smid is correct in that delegates did not vote for the Bicameral Nonparliamentary model.

I'm not saying to shut down this proposal, before you jump on my statement aggressively like you did on Smid's.

I simply don't see the harm in the PO exercising the abilities we gave him to exercise, to amend a proposal that is basically a knockoff of a pre-existing proposal.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The Bicameral Nonparliamentarian proposal was somewhat different from what PiT is proposing himself. It's just a coming together of some of the parameters from the Presidential Parliamentarian model, and the Parliamentary Universalism model. Retaining elections to all the seats, while having two legislative bodies. Keeping a manageable number of seats, while still retaining some Universalist originated ideas like Committees in the Lower House. (And having differences in the powers of each body, which your proposal does not really inherently have.)

And to be entirely honest with you, I only voted for the original proposal because I was bound by the rules as I understood them to choose two preferences and the rest were deplorable.

In any case, the PO still has full authority to determine the parameters of debate and the structure of proposals, if there is some support, I don't see why we should retain a redundant proposal instead, on the basis of some silly technicality.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye, and I hope everyone else has the maturity to support debate on a proposal instead of shutting it out as well.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I must say that I truly do like the difference in the two Houses in your outline, you've done a pretty good job of balancing their powers.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So in effect the lower house is a series of committees with no power and most of the time only two of them will get to have any say on a bill. It would only meet, in full if two committee members split. We would be halfing the number of Senate members and abolishing regional government for a committee?

I cannot see, with the greatest of respect why I would wish to replace the current system with this one. Why should a lower house 'wait' for legislation? Both upper and lower houses should be able to propose legislation.

On that note,

Nay.

As opposed to a system where both houses are completely redundant and the only difference is one house being elected?

Unfortunately I don't expect this to pass, opposition to this compromise seems too great.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nope.  How on earth is this universalism?!

It's not meant to be universalism, it's meant to be a compromise between Presidential Parliamentarism and Parliamentary Universalism.

Guys, we're not voting to adopt this measure here, we're just voting for further debate and brainstorming. Keep in mind that by voting against this, you're voting against the mere act of talking about it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm drifting more and more to the idea that a 'compromise' is impossible. Most Universalists will not compromise to a system with Universalism, and many of the rest of us won't compromise to a system that has Universalism.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm drifting more and more to the idea that a 'compromise' is impossible. Most Universalists will not compromise to a system with Universalism, and many of the rest of us won't compromise to a system that has Universalism.

I am strongly in favour of compromise and I've been involved in constitutional compromises on here for years. I just can't compromise in favour of this proposal as it stands because it is too exclusive and draws unfavourable comparisons with historical governence. I think it can be made better, so I won't and can't dismiss it. A two house solution with a 5/15 split is fine - but I cannot support a powerless lower house whether it has 15 or 50 members.

Oh I know, you're someone I quite respect

I'm willing to compromise too, it's just tough, because I'm opposed to Universalism, and since Universalism is basically the entire proposal, it makes it seem like I'm a naysayer and nothing more.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I have no serious problems with those ideas, Hashemite.

Though I have some minor quibbles with the similarities in Houses, it seems like a decent compromise. I also don't know how the Senate could be forced to be a more deliberative body, unless there is a certain mandated debate time we could implement, while freeing up the House to pass and propose things as swiftly as they please.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The lower house would still be universal,

Lost me there.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

What discussion?

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

I find it very disappointing that delegates are trying to kill this proposal in it's crib. It's not even officially been considered yet. Goodness sakes.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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)"

Just to bring this back to the forefront, since it's been a few pages since the details of the thread were posted and we can bring this back on track after the successful vote. Thank you to all of the delegates that voted in favor.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm sure I and some others could write something a little more formal looking and fluffed up shortly. I'm just happy we got this through and avoided proposal crib-death.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So far, I believe this new Parliamentary Bicameralism is the best. I also think it would do some good to work on the regions now too for this plan. (I have a plan for the regions I think would be good, so let me know when you want to start talking about regions and their governments.)

Any ideas are appreciated. Go ahead.

[Marokai Backbeat]

We need to settle on how many states would be in each region/which states would be in each region.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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 Lief 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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay

We can always revise regional issues at a later date via constitutional amendments, we don't need to start by abolishing them altogether right away. Reducing the number of regions and allowing dual office holding is the last best option for giving hope to regional governance.