Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)

[Smid]

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.

[Smid]

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.

Since you had your say when the convention opened about the rules regarding the format and procedure, I think surely I can have my say on the same issue now? Thank you also for deciding for me what my motivation in this is for me, it's great that you know me better than I know myself.

This model is the same as the one put forward a few weeks back. There was a vote on that model. It only got two second preference votes and no first preference votes. It failed. You can't go pretending it didn't, simply because you didn't like the outcome. I mean, I don't blame you for trying - you voted for that model as your second preference and obviously you're not happy that this proposal defeated your second pick. By comparison, this proposal that you want to now change into your failed second preference was supported as it currently stands by three people as their first preference and six people as their second preference.

That said, if the delegates decide to vote in favour of substantially changing this proposal, even though it was the one supported and we're changing it to a method that was not supported, that would be the will of the convention.

[Smid]

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 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.

[Smid]

I'll write something up if I have to. Someone has to rise up and counter (again) the recycled and dangerous universalist proposals floating towards the top yet again.

Is there any specific order?

Oh, sorry. Didn't realise we were no longer allowed to talk about ideas.

[Smid]

I believe in term limits... I call them "elections"

[Smid]

     I pretty much agree with Hashemite.

While I was originally an advocate of party lists, thinking about it now, I feel like that would make elections pretty boring. The fact is, Atlasia has very few swing voters, and especially in a proportional system, I fear that every election would end up with each party party getting roughly the same number of votes. Maybe I'm wrong though.

     Two months or however long we make it is a long time in Atlasia. People come & go, & while drastic shifts are unlikely, the results of the elections would likely ebb & flow with the strength of the parties as well as marginal changes in turnout from election to election.

But you do reduce the excitement around these elections. Granted Senate elections could be extremely good, House elections would be pretty bland I would think.

Although the construction of party lists would be a lot of fun (they would have to be done publicly) and we would have to make a provision to include independents. Any ideas regarding independents? Do they need to win 1/16 of the vote to get the seat or something?

In Australia we have a defacto party list style STV election for the Senate. The ballot paper has two separate sections - "above-the-line" and "below-the-line." All the candidates are listed the same way we presently do it here, in the below-the-line section, grouped by party (and directly below where the party is listed in the above-the-line section). Above-the-line, only parties are listed.

Voters than have a choice - they can vote either above-the-line or they can vote below-the-line (but not both). If they vote above-the-line, they place a "1" in the box of the party they wish to support. This vote then follows that party's how-to-vote preference order, which has been lodged prior to that date by the party with the electoral commission (preferences flow through other parties, not just their own list, they may also submit more than one preference order, in which case votes are split equally between the different orders - for example, if the DA wanted to emphasise their centrism/ability to work with both sides, they may lodge one card that preferences the JCP and another that preferences the RPP and their votes would split equally between the two once all the DA candidates were either elected or excluded from the count).

Voters voting below-the-line allocate preferences for all candidates and apart from compulsory preferential and no write-ins, it's identical to how we presently do things. I'll mock-up a ballot with the candidates from the last election for you to take a look at and post it on here. If I'm not too busy, I might even allocate some of the votes in the last election to above-the-line and show you how that might work out given the numbers at the last election.

[Smid]

It's probably a bit difficult trying to keep candidate names aligned under their parties, but a ballot would probably look something like:

[quote]

This election is held in accordance with Article V of the Constitution, the Proportional Representation Act, and the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (as amended).  The  voting booth opensat 1:12am April 17, 2009 and closes at 1:12am April 20, 2009.
 
DO NOT EDIT OR DELETE THE POST CONTAINING YOUR BALLOT IN ANY WAY AFTER 20 MINUTES OF ITS BEING POSTED OR YOUR VOTE WILL BE INVALIDATED.


The act of campaigning within the election booth is strictly forbidden and will render void any votes made by those who campaign.  The act of campaigning is considered to include, but is not limited to, strong attempts to compel others either to vote or not to vote for one or multiple candidates, or other related activities that could reasonably be construed as a direct attempt to influence how future voters cast their ballots.

However, the Department of Forum Affairs will make every effort to be fair in consideration of the above matter and will give voters the benefit of the doubt.  Explanations of one's vote or simple expressions of approval for a candidate will not be construed as acts of campaigning, unless they obviously violate the above criteria.

Place the numbers 1, 2, etc. in the space provided beside the candidates who you wish to vote for to designate your order of preference for these candidates or place the number 1 in the space provided beside the party for which you wish to vote.  Numbering beside both a party and a candidate shall render your vote informal. 

If any other mark or attempt to order the candidates is made, the Department of Forum Affairs will make every effort to deduce voter intent from the content of the ballot, but the warning must be issued that failure to follow the above instructions may result in the invalidation of your ballot in the event of an inability to discern voter intent.  You are an eligible voter in general if you were registered to vote on or before April 6th 2009, and if you made 15 posts in any location within the Atlas Forum in the 8 weeks prior to the commencement of the regular election.

In the event that you do not support any listed candidate or that you support one or many candidates that are not listed in addition to those that are, you may write in other candidates and include them in your list of preferences.  Space is provided for one such write-in, but as many can be listed as you wish.  In the event that you do not support any listed candidate, and do not wish to write in any candidate, you may place an X or a 1 beside "None of the above", and only beside "None of the above".  In the event that an X or a 1 appears beside "None of the above" on a ballot, all other marks or numbers will be ignored.  It is not permissible under current election law to vote for both "None of the above" and other candidates.

Because of the nature of PR-STV voting, voters are STRONGLY ENCOURAGED to rank choices by number and only by number. Bullet voting for multiple candidates may result in the disqualification of your ballot if voter intent cannot be reasonably determined.


Official ballot

[  ] RPP            [  ] DA            [  ] SDP            [  ] JCP

Either place a 1 in one of these boxes ^
or place a 1, 2, etc in these boxes v

[  ] Senator SPC [Chuck Hagel 08]
^{Regional Protection Party}

[  ] afleitch
^{Democratic Alliance}

[  ] Sen. DownWithTheLeft [downwithdaleft]
^{Regional Protection Party}

[  ] Mideast Assembly Speaker Purple State [Purple State]
^{Democratic Alliance}

[  ] Senator Franzl [Franzl]
^{Democratic Alliance}

[  ] Senator Lief [Lief]
^{Social Democratic Party}

[  ] Bacon King
^{Jesus Christ Party}

[  ] Write-in:______________________________

[  ] None of the above

[Smid]

Option 1. Maybe a few minor changes here and there to it, but it's pretty good.

[Smid]

Aye.

[Smid]

Aye. Aye.

[Smid]

Aye, Aye, Aye.

[Smid]

A thought I've been having... and feel free to shoot it down, run with it, change it, whatever - I'm just putting it out there...

What about having the Lower House elected by Regions (similar to one class of Senators are now) and having the Upper House elected by STV across Atlasia at-large (similar to the other class of Senators are now)?

In order to attempt to maintain a degree of equality across the Regions, perhaps a redistricting committee could determine regional boundaries annually (for example, every March). The SoFA would provide a list of eligible voters by state (and obviously the total number of voters) and the Redistricting Committee would then denote which Region a state belongs in, with the aim of keeping each Region within a 3% band from the mean and each Region made of contiguous states.

The Redistricting Committee could contain various appointees - one appointed by the President, two appointed from (and by) the Lower House, two appointed from (and by) the Senate and 4 elected by the public using STV. I was going to say three by STV, but we probably want an odd number on the Committee so that there are no ties.

The regions determined by the RC could then be ratified by the House/Senate/President, although given that the House, Senate and President all get a say through their appointees, it could probably automatically become law.

I'd personally also advocate under this system to remove the ability to transfer between regions (otherwise people will just move as soon as the boundaries change and therefore the constituents of a region won't change even if the boundaries do).

[Smid]

Countries with both directly elected houses usually do it the same day. Like Australia.

Yes this is entirely correct - although we only elect half the Senate at each election (except when we have a Double Dissolution election). The other thing is, the Senate has a fixed term, so while the composition of the House changes from the first day of sitting, new Senators are not seated until a particular date. This means that a new Government may at times need to wait until the Senate changes before it can pass controversial legislation through the Senate.