Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Since this proposal hasn't really sparked much interest, it was suggested that I could use this chance to suggest a few changes. One thing that I'd like to propose would be a fixed federal legislature size of 15 total members: five in the upper house & ten in the lower one. Obviously this would do away with the universal part, but I have ideas for other changes if people will hear it out.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Since this proposal hasn't really sparked much interest, it was suggested that I could use this chance to suggest a few changes. One thing that I'd like to propose would be a fixed federal legislature size of 15 total members: five in the upper house & ten in the lower one. Obviously this would do away with the universal part, but I have ideas for other changes if people will hear it out.

I could live with that, that are you other ideas.

     Among other things I plan to have a significant difference between the houses. As such, only upper house members could propose legislation, but a bill's fate would be decided by one of various lower house committees. This way we can have a bicameral system that is interesting but not excessively slow. There's more to the legislature than that though.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Since this proposal hasn't really sparked much interest, it was suggested that I could use this chance to suggest a few changes. One thing that I'd like to propose would be a fixed federal legislature size of 15 total members: five in the upper house & ten in the lower one. Obviously this would do away with the universal part, but I have ideas for other changes if people will hear it out.

I could live with that, that are you other ideas.

     Among other things I plan to have a significant difference between the houses. As such, only upper house members could propose legislation, but a bill's fate would be decided by one of various lower house committees. This way we can have a bicameral system that is interesting but not excessively slow. There's more to the legislature than that though.

So not every member of the house would get to vote on all the propose legislation, only the house members in the committee that the propose legislation is sent to?

     Depends on the judgment of the committee. The idea is that lower house members have fewer duties & fewer powers. That way it's a good place for new members to start, but one still has motivation to try to run for the upper house at some point.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

     I haven't really posted the full outline yet. The way I conceived of it only the upper house would be non-parliamentarian. As Marokai said, there are notable differences between this & a bicameral nonparliamentarian model.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The upper house (or the Senate) would be composed of five members. Those members would all be elected regionally. If one or more regions is/are eliminated, the remainder can be elected at-large. It would function much like the current Senate, only smaller.

     The lower house (or the Parliament) would be composed of ten members. They would be elected from ten districts, each of equal population based on the last Presidential election. Leadership would be determined by a ruling coalition, which would elect a prime minister. The prime minister would select committee appointments for all MPs, himself included. The committees would roughly break down as:

Social Concerns Committee
Economic Concerns Committee
Law & Enforcement Committee
Forum Affairs Committee
External Affairs Committee

     Only Senators can propose legislation. Once proposed, the PPT sends it to the appropriate committee. If the Senator who initially proposed it feels it was not sent to the proper committee, he can challenge the PPT's decision, in which case the Senate will vote on whether or not to overturn the PPT's decision.

     Once it reaches committee, the two MPs assigned to that committee will have 48 hours to question the Senator who proposed the bill. After that, they will vote on it. If both assent, it will immediately go to the Senate to be heard there. If both dissent, then it will die in committee (unless the proposing Senator files an injunction stating that he did not believe that the MPs understood or made an effort to understand the intent or wording of the bill; the injunction would be heard by a justice of the Supreme Court). If the MPs split, then it will go to be heard by the Parliament.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     That's my full original outline, so people will know what direction I'm intending here. I conceived it to retool the universalist proposal to take into account Marokai Blue's arguments against it.

     I didn't mention the executive or judicial branches directly, but I didn't expect any massive overhaul to them. I refer to a PPT & a Prime Minister while Purple State referred to a Speaker of the House, but the names are of course open to change.

     Worth noting is the existence of committees to incorporate a second house while not significantly slowing legislation that is likely to pass. I would also like you to note that the lower house is conceived as a parliamentary system. While not all bills will be voted in the lower house, this introduces a strong element of partisanship, as well as differentiates the function of the two houses.

[Associate Justice PiT]

We would be halfing the number of Senate members and abolishing regional government for a committee?

     Just curious, but when did I say we were abolishing regional government?

[Associate Justice PiT]

We would be halfing the number of Senate members and abolishing regional government for a committee?

     Just curious, but when did I say we were abolishing regional government?

Okay, hands up I jumped the gun on that one. But you are still halfing the Senate and if that Senate is any good it's legislation will be watertight so when it reaches the lower house it gets rubber stamped and goes back to the Senate. I cannot support a lower house that has no power to legislate. It goes against not my hopes for this game, but also with regards to an international context.

I'll change my vote to Aye to discuss it, but I can't support it as it stands

     The idea is to not slow down good bills too much while preventing bad bills from wasting too much of the Senate's time. The bills in between would be decided on the entire parliament.

     Thing is that I made the lower house weak so that MPs would want to become Senators at some point, while MP would be a fine office for someone just starting out in Atlasia & looking to get his feet wet.

     The thing that I fear about existing universalist proposals is that the upper house is at best indistinguishable from the lower house, & at worst comparatively unappealing. People should genuinely want to move up in the political world.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Thing is that I made the lower house weak so that MPs would want to become Senators at some point, while MP would be a fine office for someone just starting out in Atlasia & looking to get his feet wet.

     The thing that I fear about existing universalist proposals is that the upper house is at best indistinguishable from the lower house, & at worst comparatively unappealing. People should genuinely want to move up in the political world.

I quite agree. But I don't think it should be done by weakening the lower house. I know it is not your intent, but weakening or handicapping one or other houses is not the hallmark of a democracy. A universalist system may be too large and unwieldy I will accept that, but a system where only 5 members of the federal government get to propose legislation is too narrow. I would fully support a 5/15 split - but the 15 should have the authority to propose legislation and for the government and PM to have a legislative agenda. I believe the powerhouse should be the lower house; with new members and exciting ideas. The Senate should be for those who prefer taking the time to dissect legislation. The Senate should have old duffers like me in it calculating how much things cost outside of the machinations of politics in the house below if you catch my drift

     So kind of like the House of Lords (but not as powerless)?

     I gave some thought to your alternate idea, & I think there is probably sufficient motivation to move up to the upper house due to being one of five rather than one of ten. Then again, I would prefer it if there were some other benefit to it as well. Maybe it should be easier to override a veto on a bill proposed by a Senator than on one proposed by an MP.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

     I agree with this. If the Senate could be more of a stately, deliberative body while the Parliament more of a down & dirty place where people jockey for party power, I think that could be quite a positive design for Atlasia's government.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

     Same here. This seems like it could be the foundation of a good compromise.

[Associate Justice PiT]

If a compromise model is simply voted down without further discussion, I don't know whether I'll have the faith in us reaching a compromise or agreement on any system in this convention.

As Hshemite says - this is a vote to continue discussion - nothing more.

     Same here. If this voted down before getting anywhere, then the hopes for any really substantial compromise get gutted.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Good, though you should change "United States of America" to "Republic of Atlasia." That's more in step with what's been done historically in Atlasia.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

No it wouldn't, right now we can make our own government for the regions and all but one are dead. My Assembly idea is the best way to get people active in regional government, but people shot that down.

     Partially because regions should decide on their government. If the citizens of one region want to be run as a monarchy, they should have the ability to do so. Besides, if another, better alternative avails itself they should not be locked into having regional assemblies.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I don't see any reason why the powers of Congress should be any different from what they are under the current Constitution.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Term limits =

     Aye. Kids, just say no to term limits.

[Associate Justice PiT]

What about consecutive term limits?

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

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I could get behind a limit of two consecutive terms along with no limit on total terms.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye

[Associate Justice PiT]

Article 1: The Congress of Atlasia

Section 1: Formation of the Senate
1. The Senate shall be composed of five Senators elected by a popular vote of the citizens of Atlasia, each with a term of six months.
2. No Person shall be eligible to run for Senate who has not attained two hundred or more posts. A Senator may not hold any other public office in Atlasia for the duration of their term.
3. The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, who shall act as President of the Senate in the absence of the President and who shall manage the everyday business of the Senate.
4. The President of the Republic of Atlasia shall be the President of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided.

Section 2: Formation of the House
1. The House of Representatives, herein referred to as House, shall be made up of sixteen Representatives, each with a term of three months.
2. No Person shall be eligible to run for the House who has not attained one hundred or more posts. A Representative may not hold any other federal or executive office in Atlasia for the duration of their term.
3. The House shall elect a Speaker of the House who shall be responsible for chairing debate that occurs within the House and for managing every day business.

Section 3: Congressional Rules and Legislation
1. The separate chambers of Congress may establish their own rules of procedure, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of its number, respectively, may expel a member of the same chamber.
2. Each chamber shall have fulfilled a quorum if a majority of its members are capable of discharging their offices and sworn into office. A quorum in each chamber shall have voted on any Resolution, Bill, Impeachment or Constitutional Amendment for it to be considered valid.
3. For any Bill or Resolution to pass the Congress, it shall have gained a majority in a valid vote in each respective chamber. Before the Bill or Resolution becomes Law, it shall be presented to the PPT, Speaker, and sponsors of the Bill or Resolution from each chamber for conference, unless it be concerning the rules for the proceedings of a chamber. Upon resolution of any differences between the separate versions of legislation, the Bill or Resolution shall be returned to both chambers for approval. If passed by both chambers separately, the revised Bill or Resolution shall then be presented to the President of the Republic of Atlasia. If the President approves, he shall sign it, and it shall become Law. If the President does not approve, he shall return the Bill with his objections to the Congress, and it shall not become Law. Upon reconsidering the Bill, if each chamber shall approve the legislation by two-thirds of its number, it shall become Law. If a Bill is not returned to the Congress by the President within seven days after it shall have been presented to him, it shall become Law regardless.

Section 4: Elections to Congress
1. Elections for the Senate shall be held on the 2nd Thursday in the months of January and July.
2. The House election shall be as the following:
    i. The House will be split into groups A, B, C, D, each having four Representatives in each group
   ii. Group A elections are held on the 1st Thursday of Jan, April, July and Oct
   iii. Group B elections are held on the 1st Thursday of Feb, May, Aug and Nov
   iiii. Group C elections are held on the last Thursday of Jan, April, July and Oct
   iiiii. Group D elections are held on the last Thursday of Feb, May, Aug and Nov
2. Elections shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later.
3. If a vacancy shall occur in the House or Senate then a special election shall be called to fill the remainder of the vacted term within one week of the vacancy occurring; Such special election shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on a Friday and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later. However, if a vacancy shall occur when there is a person due to assume that office within two weeks, then no special election shall be necessary
4. The Senate shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Congressional elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to Congress shall be by public post.
5. Those elected in ordinary elections to Congress shall take office at noon Eastern Standard Time on the Friday following their election. Those elected in special elections to the Senate or appointed to the House shall take office as soon as the result of their election or appointment has been formally declared.

Section 5: Powers of the Congress (with some small edits later)
[insert the current Article 1, Section 5 here]

Section 6: Powers denied to the Congress (with some small edits later)
[insert the current Article 1, Section 6 here]

Section 7: Powers denied to the Regions (with some small edits later)
[insert the current Article 1, Section 7 here]

I would like for this to be replaced with the current Article I.

What?

     I second that reaction. Such a move would make this neither parliamentary nor bicameral.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I think all he did was change the way elections work for the House...

     Oh. I'm slightly confused now.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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.

[Associate Justice PiT]

• Option 1

[  ] Option 2
[  ] NOTA

[Associate Justice PiT]

I make a motion that we vote to reduce the regions to three and rewrite Article I for three regions, not five. We can work out the details of the regions later on.

I say we move on to the next Article and work out the regions at the end. The best idea is to get all the proposals done, vote which one we want, and then work out the miscellaneous issues that may prove contentious. No reason to go through these fights over and over for each proposal.

Ok, just trying to get this active. What is the next Article?

I would like to see someone craft an Article on the Prime Minister and on the President. Although I am somewhat questioning the need for a separate one for the PM. His powers have been outlined in Article I. What would be added by an addition article?

     The procedures of his election, though that does not need to be enumerated in the Constitution. For the PPT's election I think it is laid out in the OSPR, actually.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye