Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)

[Daniel Adams]

Nay FTR, for the reasons outlined by Afleitch as well. If we are to have regions, they should be free to choose their own type of government.

[Daniel Adams]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What if we change it to this?

I think it still encroaches too much on regional autonomy. Regions should be allowed to choose whatever type of government they please. Doing so will encourage more participation in regional government and thereby foment activity.

[Daniel Adams]

I agree with Dan. While I generally side with allowing regions to determine how they will govern themselves on their own, if we don't set out some sort of very basic standards towards regional governance, they'll be terribly inactive and useless to new citizens. If we set up some general guidelines towards regional government structure then at least there will be a consistent framework for people to stay active in.

But you're assuming there's some secret formula this convention can prescribe that will help regions be active. I don't think there is. Giving regions the freedom to choose their own form of government will allow them to experiment and discover the best alternatives. I think constraining them to a division of powers model is more likely to create inactivity than setting no standards.

[Daniel Adams]

What about consecutive term limits?

     If someone wants to run & is otherwise eligible, to forbid them that right is undemocratic.

I agree in principle, but I don't see the problem with forbidding people from holding a certain number of consecutive terms. It gets more people involved in the game, if there's too many people getting elected over and over.

Marokai is right. I think it is important that we remember this is a game, not real life, and therefore encouraging activity is sometimes more important than adhering to real-world political principles. Some sort of term-limits would get more people involved and wouldn't be too much of an encroachment on political rights.

[Daniel Adams]

Aye

[Daniel Adams]

Option 1.

[Daniel Adams]

Aye, but I have a question about Sec. 3 Clause 3, how would this affect people who run newspapers? I value alot of the newspapers existing in Atlasia and I wouldn't like to see them affected by that.

I agree Sec. 3 Clause 3 is problematic. I would like to see this clarified before I vote.

[Daniel Adams]

Satisfied with the clarification for Section 3 Clause 3, I vote Aye.

[Daniel Adams]

I agree that the President should have tie-breaking powers.

Regarding the GM, I think it's appropriate for the Senate to have the power to remove him. The GM has an extreme important role in keeping the game active and GMs that are clearly not willing or able to put in the time necessary for this need to be dealt with apace. The situation with Ebowed has shown that the President of Atlasia cannot always be trusted to do so.

[Daniel Adams]

I agree that the President should have tie-breaking powers.

Regarding the GM, I think it's appropriate for the President of the Senate to have the power to remove him. The GM has an extreme important role in keeping the game active and GMs that are clearly not willing or able to put in the time necessary for this need to be dealt with apace. The situation with Ebowed has shown that the President of Atlasia cannot always be trusted to do so.

It is not the President of the Senate who is written, but the President or the Senate.

Sorry about that typo. Got distracted.

I agree that the President should have tie-breaking powers.

Regarding the GM, I think it's appropriate for the President of the Senate to have the power to remove him. The GM has an extreme important role in keeping the game active and GMs that are clearly not willing or able to put in the time necessary for this need to be dealt with apace. The situation with Ebowed has shown that the President of Atlasia cannot always be trusted to do so.

What's the point of having a President if all his decisions can be overruled by the legislature? You may as well just make the Prime Minister head of the armed forces and abolish the Presidency altogether.

We're only talking about the GM here, not "all his decisions". Let's not create a straw men. Atlasia's activity is an issue of paramount importance and if we are to have a GM we need to ensure that he is doing his job properly. I don't see the GM as a part of the Executive Branch, so there is no reason his permanence on the job should be exclusively up to the President. If the Senate believes the GM has become inactive, it must have the power to act. Are you satisfied with Ebowed's performance as GM?

[Daniel Adams]

Article III: Aye
Article IV: Aye

[Daniel Adams]

Aye, Aye, Aye.

[Daniel Adams]

Article VIII: Aye
Amendment: Aye