Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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?

[Marokai Backbeat]

In "Powers Denied to the Regions" I hope we could alter the existing article a bit to include more clarification towards regions creating their own currencies, considering the recent court battle fought over the topic.

Also, has anyone seen my brief mention of a "Department of Statistics" idea on the other board? I know it's a bit of an out-there idea, but it would be interesting to have a bit more structure towards individual fantasyland rules and could create occasional fictional issues or crises that the government would have to develop solutions for.

[Marokai Backbeat]

What about consecutive term limits?

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

I'm fine either way honestly, but I can see the fairness in consecutive term limits as a tool to increase participation if necessary

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

That seems reasonable to me.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay. Draft a version without Regions and then add them in later if the Convention supports them. Starting out with Regions in the plan biases it towards the introduction of Regions.

Wouldn't it be unbiased as it maintains the status quo? Rather than a blatant change that shows bias towards the no-region people?

No. It is always less biased to build up from minimalism than to "build down", so to speak, regardless of what the issue is under consideration.

You might say, for example, that it would be less biased towards any constitutional position to start with the current Constitution and modify from there than it is to begin with a new Constitution. But that would be false; beginning with the current Constitution as a base would bias the Convention towards a Constitution more strongly resembling the current Constitution.

There are plenty of people here who support retaining regions, in some form or another, including myself. Either way you're probably going to end up voting on the issue, since the people who oppose it will want them ripped out and the people who support them will want to retain them/put them back in.

[Marokai Backbeat]

As for the vote; Aye, but I want some discussion on the possibility of adding consecutive term limits.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I mean, I guess I sort of see the reasoning to staggering the elections if you're going to do away with regions, but why not just keep regions and allow dual office holding? There's no harm in that.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I mean, I guess I sort of see the reasoning to staggering the elections if you're going to do away with regions, but why not just keep regions and allow dual office holding? There's no harm in that.

That was my plan, for House members. In the Article that passed it states, "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." So any house member could hold an office that is federal or like a governor, but they could be Assembly members.

I only came up with the other plan because some wanted to take the region out of the Article that passed.

Fair enough. I wasn't really directing the comment at you, just to everyone in general. If we're going to take out regions then staggering elections makes sense to me, but I still don't see it as necessary nor do I see regions as inherently harmful.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would rather have elections just be about the individual candidates, I don't see any reason to change that.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I truly don't like the idea of voting on the basis of just checking a box and supporting that Party. It seems to me that it would make elections very boring and would make the party system much more stale and skewed in favor of parties that can just recruit a lot of people, instead of putting forward good candidates. Let me try to explain, the way we have it now, we vote for individual candidates, and because of this there are often swing voters from certain parties shifting over into others, some candidates doing poorly because of their quality, and parties rise and fall on the basis of the candidates they have.

It seems to me that if you change the system to something that allows just checking a party box, you could bypass that altogether. Elections essentially become a race for certain parties to get out their vote, and it's not an entirely irrational thing to suggest that most people would favor their party over others, for obvious reasons. Elections could quite easily just fall down the party line each and every time. (I realize this happens often now, but people can still split there vote between individual candidates, instead of having their support stuck to undetermined candidates of a certain party.)

Just voting for a party is too vague, too. Certain parties like the DA can differ wildly from center right, to center left, and the JCP has some economic conservatives as well as strong economic leftists. If we base it off a strictly "vote for party, party picks their people to fill the positions" system, no one is going to know who the hell they're voting for.

I like our current system of voting for individual candidates, and I don't like the idea of making larger parties destroy other parties simply by a get out the vote campaign, instead of individuals campaigning on their own merits to get elected. I realize under this system there would be a lot of people to elect, but I don't like the idea of just checking a party box. If people want to vote for a party, they can do so anyway.

But if we're going to change the voting system, let's at least just pick one way of voting, and not make it even more confusing to others. There's no need for 2+ voting methods.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I like the first one quite a bit, but I just have a one major issue as of now. I find the six months to be a bit steep for something like this, even if the Senate is supposed to be more powerful and prestigious, a half-year term just seems too long.

Otherwise this article is quite good, and I do hope we end up with three regions so we can have regional & at-large elections instead of purely regional ones.

As for the second, I'm not a fan of the voting system and the lack of any regional impact on elections whatsoever, so, opposed.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Agreed, why arbitrarily change the name, anyway?

[Marokai Backbeat]

"Prime Minister" just seems more appropriate for a parliamentary model, and people have a better understanding of what a PM is and does rather than a "Speaker." Which could mean a great deal of things. I think it makes sense and would be easier for people to "get" the system if we just called the position by the name literally anyone else would call it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I will clarify it when I bring it to a vote to include the powers of both in one (essentially stating he is called the PM, but may be referred to as the Speaker or PM). That way it is clear that there is no alternative Speaker, which could be a potential secondary problem.

Sounds good?

That sounds good to me.

[Marokai Backbeat]

[X] Option 1
[  ] Option 2
[  ] NOTA (no change)

[Marokai Backbeat]

I really like Smid's proposals that he outlined in the universalism thread. I hope we could work out something similar here.

What in particular?

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't have a problem with that clause anymore, in the light of those comments, so I drop my objections to that little part.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Why not just give the President the tie breaking power? I see no reason to waste a position on a Vice President.

Also, I don't like the section about the Game Moderator, I think if it's a Presidential appointment then it should remain a Presidential responsibility to remove the GM from office.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

No, I'm not, but I also think we should abolish the position of game moderator and make a similar office that is an elected position.

But I still think if the President makes the appointment, he should end up being the one to determine whether or not he stays or goes. Since we're basically makes the rules here for a new system, if you're going to include provisions for removal of the GM, appointed by the President, for whatever reason the Senate determines, then we might as well include provisions for Senate removal of any other appointed official.

The President doesn't really have a great deal of power in these models anyway, so if we're going to be able to run over some of his decisions through legislative action, why have one?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Elections would typically be the method, I would imagine. Especially since they're likely to happen more often under a parliamentary model.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Presidency: Nay
Supreme Court: Aye