Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:05:44 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open) (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
Author Topic: Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)  (Read 94303 times)
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« on: April 02, 2009, 11:19:03 PM »
« edited: June 24, 2009, 09:27:14 PM by Senator Purple State »

This thread is for the development of a Presidential Universlaism system of government. Please propose ideas for individual pieces of construction, rather than entire proposals. I would prefer no more than one Article (e.g. Executive, Judicial, etc.) per post maximum. I will include all pieces that have been approved in this first post as they are passed through votes.

As a reminder, the Rules of Order state that, "All elections and votes required by this law shall require the participation of 50% of all delegates, as determined by the sign in thread, at the start of the election or vote to be valid, unless otherwise stated [in the RoO]."

Please keep debate and discussion friendly.

The following is a brief outline of this system: 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)



The Constitution

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2009, 10:48:22 PM »

I have spoken to PiT privately and think his idea has some weight to it. If a delegate would be willing to second his changes to the outline of this proposal I will bring it to a vote, retitle this proposal whatever is agreed on, and discussion can begin on his idea.

Considering this proposal does not seem to be getting much, or any, attention, I think PiT's thoughts would present a more compelling and viable third option for the Convention to discuss.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2009, 01:24:55 AM »

Alright, I will allow for a little bit of discussion on this. I plan to bring the motion to change the model outline tomorrow afternoon.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2009, 09:04:25 AM »

Let me get a word in on this.

Thus far, there has been no discussion whatsoever on this Presidential Universalism proposal. I accept that it gained sufficient votes to be considered, as do I acknowledge that PiT's edits would lean this idea slightly closer to the Bicameral Nonparliamentarian form that failed earlier.

However, there are a number of reasons why I will be bringing this motion forward. First, I find it telling that the first post in this thread is a proposal to change the idea presented. There has been no serious discussion of the merits of this idea and no one seems all that ready to discuss the development of this model. Second, in order for such a motion to pass it would require 50% participation of all delegates and would have to secure a majority of votes. As of now that would mean 5 votes in favor, which is greater than the 4 votes that the proposals originally required.

For these reasons I think there needs to be some flexibility in the way we approach these things. Sure, we can stand hard and fast behind these proposal outlines. But in order for a serious and successful Convention there needs to be the ability to change, from what is not working to what has potential. You are within your right as a delegate to vote Nay when the vote comes up, but I am within my right to bring forward what I feel has the best potential for compromise and creativity on the part of the delegates. As a delegate has seconded this idea and another has voiced his semi-interest, I will be bringing this to a vote.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2009, 05:50:12 PM »

I bring the following motion to a vote of the Convention:

The outline for the Presidential Universalism development thread shall hereby read: "A fixed federal legislature size of 15 total members: five in the upper house and ten in the lower one. Only upper house members could propose legislation, but a bill's fate would be decided by one of various lower house committees. There will be a President and VP, as well as a Speaker of the House."

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain on the motion. The vote shall last for 48 hours and a clear majority is needed for passage.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2009, 06:16:15 PM »

I am more than happy to help amend this proposal, but at present I can't support it as it stands. It is not reflective of any current system of government internationally and there is a huge democratic deficit due to the lower houses limited powers.

Keep in mind we aren't voting on PiT's proposal. We are voting on a change to the outline to what I stated.

If you have input to amend this that would be great. I really wanted discussion to just get started in this thread, considering there had been a total of zero posts before I had PiT stick this here. But bear in mind that this is not about PiT's proposal per se. If you can work with it within the confines of the outline I stated above then I would urge you to vote Aye.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2009, 08:06:45 PM »

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.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2009, 10:25:55 PM »

With that kind of consent I hereby call off the current motion on the table and bring forward the following:

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)"

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain. I will leave the voting open for 48 hours. 50% of delegates will be required for the vote to considered valid. A simple majority shall be required for the motion to pass.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2009, 10:38:05 PM »

So, this is essentially the Presidential Parliamentary proposal but with an upper house?

Whatever it is it got an avid anti-universalist (Marokai) and a staunch universalist supporter (Hashemite) to agree. Whatever you want to dub it, it is what it is.


I did try to incorporate your ideas in there with the committees and all. If you're voting nay on this I hope that means you're willing to step up and develop the current outline for this proposal. Because until this discussion on changing the proposal got going, not a single post was put up to even try development of Presidential Universalism.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2009, 11:17:08 AM »

Current vote tally:
Aye = 5 (Marokai, CultureKing, afleitch, Meeker, Hashemite)
Nay = 3 (BrandonH, ilikeverin, SPC)

Motion currently: Passing
Quorum: Not yet met
Approx. time remaining: 35 hours
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2009, 07:12:38 PM »

There also happens to already be a Universalism proposal, so that can be developed at the same time as this compromise. But universalism and absolute non-universalism shouldn't be the only options on the table. Can't hurt to have a compromise going as well.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2009, 08:22:11 PM »

I don't see how there can exist a category that's "kind of universalist".

It's more universal than the other non-universalism.

You can have a universalism proposal, but no reason to block a compromise proposal from being discussed as well.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2009, 08:51:19 PM »

I don't see how there can exist a category that's "kind of universalist".

It's more universal than the other non-universalism.

You can have a universalism proposal, but no reason to block a compromise proposal from being discussed as well.

That attitude is precisely why I'm voting no; as the proposal is one of "wishy-washy moderatism", it will naturally be selected in the end, no matter the other proposals.  I'm not saying it isn't necessarily meritorious... but the thought that it would pass based simply on its merits rather than its "compromise" status is laughable.

Compromises now don't mean that other systems won't end up looking better in the end, when all the Constitutions are built.

I would just like to note that conversation on other proposals has basically stopped in recent days. If you are so concerned about losing universalism, why not go try working on it and getting things moving?
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2009, 10:46:48 AM »

Current vote tally:
Aye = 6 (Marokai, CultureKing, afleitch, Meeker, Hashemite, dead0man)
Nay = 5 (BrandonH, ilikeverin, SPC, bgwah, DWTL)

Motion currently: Passing
Quorum: Achieved
Approx. time remaining: 12 hours
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2009, 09:42:31 PM »

Here's a suggestion: make a new thread for discussion of the compromise proposal.

I agree.  I don't have a problem with wheeling-and-dealing; I have a problem with completely terminating any discussion of the first proposal in this thread.  I also have a problem with that this "compromise" also changes the fundamental balance of proposals discussed at the convention from 2 universalist-1 non-universalist to 1 universalist-2 non-universalist, but even besides that it seems like what's being proposed is substantially different enough to merit its own thread.

What discussion of the first proposal? I specifically moved PiT's original attempt at this from a different proposal to here because no one really cared to discuss this one. And the balance of proposals is inconsequential. The final proposals will each be voted on based on their individual merits. We aren't combining votes for universalism against non-universalism. Your job is to make the proposals better, rather than stymie better discussion. I would recommend that, rather than work to block this change, you put this same effort into developing the universalism constitution.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2009, 10:30:25 PM »

Final vote tally:
Aye = 6 (Marokai, CultureKing, afleitch, Meeker, Hashemite, dead0man)
Nay = 5 (BrandonH, ilikeverin, SPC, bgwah, DWTL)

The motion passes by a vote of six in favor, five opposed. The appropriate edits have been made to the initial outline. Please begin discussion on the development.

~Presiding Officer Purple State
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2009, 10:49:50 PM »

What do you want to come out of the discussion? Shouldn't you go ahead and pick one of the three that is out and then work on making more details for that one. It is going to be very hard for you to get people to go in to details on all three.

Just trying to get things moving. Sorry if I am over stepping...

That was my initial intent, but I was overruled by a large number of delegates who insisted we choose a bunch of proposals and work on all of them. At this point we have three proposals. If, at any point, the delegates choose to pass a motion to close one or two, I am here to simply move debate along. And tip my hand where it's appropriate.

I would, however, recommend that the delegates get moving on actually proposing stuff. So far the only way things have gotten moving is I tip the scales, people mobilize and something gets done. I really prefer not to press buttons to get things moving, but I will if I have to.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2009, 11:35:13 PM »

The best bet is to work on the style of government first I think. The questions about regions, bill of rights, etc. should be left for the wrap-up towards the end, or as they are needed.

Right now the most important aspects are the Executive and Legislative branches.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2009, 11:46:45 PM »

Detail, debate, ideas for wording of the different pieces for the Constitution. Anything that relates directly to the development of the actual proposal, rather than peripheral issues.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2009, 12:42:30 PM »

The best bet is to work on the style of government first I think. The questions about regions, bill of rights, etc. should be left for the wrap-up towards the end, or as they are needed.

Right now the most important aspects are the Executive and Legislative branches.

Actually, I think deciding the regional question pretty early is a good idea; that way there will be a better idea of how many posts will be elected.  This is operating on the assumption that non-universalists have a number of offices they consider "appropriate" to exist; if regions are scrapped, then the size of the national government (and thus the composition of the legislature) will have to expand, whereas if regions are kept (and perhaps with the modifications described here), the size of the national government should be decreased.  Perhaps if people have radically different ideas on the thought we could split them into different threads.

I was thinking the number of regions would be based around the seats. But if you want to do the regions first, then go for it.

I would think the best idea for the regions is 3, that way you can have a Senate of 5 seats (3 regional, 2 national at-large) and 12 lower house seats (6 regional, 6 national). This works well because we can have the PM elected by a combination of both houses and it gives us an odd number of reps.

What does everyone think? Use that as a starting point to draw up some Articles and debate it.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2009, 12:59:50 PM »

I think the best idea for the number of regions is 0. We can keep regions solely as electoral districts, but they shouldn't have (in-game) governments.

I also think this compromise is pretty bad (essentially being presidential parliamentarian with a bunch of stuff added on top), but apparently it's what everyone's settled on, so whatever.

What does removing the regions accomplish? If you are worried about rules against dual-office holding then just don't include that kind of clause. Regional governments don't harm the game in any way and can be, although they aren't always, but can be a vital way to introduce new members. At best they serve their purpose, at worst they just exist. No harm done by keeping them.

They also make election counts easier, otherwise you are figuring out who won out of countless candidates for 12 at-large seats. It would get messy.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2009, 04:02:20 PM »

A regional government has, at the very least, two office-holders, sometimes 4 or 5 (if we give each one an assembly). That's up to 15 people in participating in the "side game" and not able to participate in the "main game." This is an ambitious plan, and for it to work, we need many people to be interested and able to take seats in the lower house and the upper house. Regional governments would just be a drain on activity.

Why can't those people in regional government also participate in national government? You maybe misread my previous post somewhere, but we can allow for dual office holding, especially if you would like to make regions a little less formal. I have no problem with making the regions a sort of less involved side game, but until you show me how something like this hurts the game I think you are missing a point. The regions can really be a no-lose situation, with active regions being an incredible tool and inactive regions being just as "bad" as no regions at all.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #22 on: April 11, 2009, 09:56:47 PM »

Added my edits and rewording in there:

Article _

Section 1: Regional Boundaries

1. The Republic of Atlasia shall be made up of three Regions.
2. The Senate and Parliament will hold a joint conference each June to redraw the boundaries of the Regions.
3. After conference, both the Senate and Parliament shall hold separate votes to confirm the new boundaries. Confirmation shall require a simple majority in each house.
4. In the event that a new State joins the Republic of Atlasia, the Senate and Parliament shall hold an emergency conference for the sole purpose of deciding the placement of the new State in the Regions.

Section 2: Regional Government
1. The Regions may elect a Head of State as chief executive officer. No Head of State shall be elected for a term lasting longer than six months.
2. A Region must have an Assembly of no less than three members. The Assembly shall serve as the legislative body of each Region.
3. A Region may establish a judicial body to assist in the maintenance of law and order within its boundaries. So long as no such body has been instituted, the federal Supreme Court shall serve as the arbitrating body in all disputes that arise under regional law.
4. Regions shall stand autonomous of the federal government and may govern themselves as they so choose, except where otherwise provided for in this Constitution.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2009, 10:14:11 PM »

Sounds great, what is the next step?

I'm going to wait for some comment by other delegates and hopefully bring it to a vote tomorrow afternoon or night.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #24 on: April 13, 2009, 02:49:39 PM »

Article _

Section 1: Regional Boundaries

1. The Republic of Atlasia shall be made up of three Regions.
2. The Senate and Parliament will hold a joint conference each June to redraw the boundaries of the Regions.
3. After conference, both the Senate and Parliament shall hold separate votes to confirm the new boundaries. Confirmation shall require a simple majority in each house.
4. In the event that a new State joins the Republic of Atlasia, the Senate and Parliament shall hold an emergency conference for the sole purpose of deciding the placement of the new State in the Regions.

Section 2: Regional Government
1. The Regions may elect a Head of State as chief executive officer. No Head of State shall be elected for a term lasting longer than six months.
2. A Region must have an Assembly of no less than three members. The Assembly shall serve as the legislative body of each Region.
3. A Region may establish a judicial body to assist in the maintenance of law and order within its boundaries. So long as no such body has been instituted, the federal Supreme Court shall serve as the arbitrating body in all disputes that arise under regional law.
4. Regions shall stand autonomous of the federal government and may govern themselves as they so choose, except where otherwise provided for in this Constitution.

If there is no further discussion of the above text by later tonight I will be calling a vote.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 14 queries.