Talk Elections

This thread is for proposals of different forms of governing. In order for your proposal to appear in the vote later on (Step 2 in the procedure outlined in the Questions/Suggestions thread) you must provide 3 things:

1) A name

2) A short blurb explaining what it is

3) Must be seconded by another delegate

Non-delegates may propose their ideas, but it must be sponsored by a delegate and seconded by another delegate.

---

Current ideas proposed: (* indicates has been seconded)

• Parliamentary Universalism* = all participants shall be the members of a Lower House of the Legislature, and with an elected Upper House.
• Presidential Parliamentarian* = an unicameral legislature, like the one we have currently, expanded slightly, that elects a Prime Minister (Head of Government) who selects his cabinet. This could also include a President (Head of State) that is elected through a nationwide popular vote
• Presidential Universalism* = a system, similar to our current system of a President & Vice President, and Senate (at least partially elected by the regions), but everyone else would then be part of the lower house. Governors would be members of the lower house but ineligible for the upper house. Cabinet members would come from the lower house. An election for Speaker of the House would be held at the same time as the other federal elections
• Unitarian Empire* = a greatly centralized national government, headed by an infrequently elected (once yearly?) emperor, with greater involvement in regional affairs. Basic regional structures (governors, legislatures, etc.) would remain, but a strong figurehead would lead most aspects of the federal level. Possible involvement of regions in federal decisions, such as regional votes on Emperor's agenda, requiring general consensus by a majority of regions
• Bicameral Nonparliamentarian = a multi region system, with delegates to a House determined by population of region, with a medium member limit. The second house will be a Senate, with one delegate from each region. Bills will be passed through both houses with a conference to compromise differences. Possibly no governors and any duties, if there were any, of the governor will go either to a Senator or a Representative. Includes a popularly elected President

Even if you see yours here, feel free to offer a slight variation on the blurb, etc. if you feel it fundamentally changes the proposal. Otherwise, debate will be better left to forming the new government later on.

I sponsor a parliamentary model by which all participants shall be the members of a Lower House of the Legislature, and with an elected Upper House.

I second this.

Thank you, sir. We work well together.

Abolition: the abolition of the national government in favor of the creation of multiple nations.

Unitarianism: the abolition of the regional governments, with all powers thereof shifted to the national government.

I'd also propose breaking up Smid's proposal into:

Universalism: the creation of a bicameral system in which all participants are a member of the lower house and the upper house is elected.

Parliamentarianism: a parliamentary-style system of governance.

Some people may wish to be universalists and not parliamentarians, whereas others may feel the opposite way.

Thirded. Maximum participation, a good grounding and use of all talents :)

Could you expand on how delineating the two differently would change the underlying meaning? Or could the broader term come to include either/or during later discussion?

Federal:
Parlimentary with 10 member Upper House
  -3 at-large in February and August
  -3 regional seats in April and October
  -4 at-large seats in June and Decemeber

Parliment elects PM with simple majority vote

Regional:
3 regions run similary to how regions are now

What would compose the lower house in plan 1 out of interest? Something similar to Smid's suggestion?

I like the idea of parliamentarianism, but I'm not really sold on the idea of universalism. In a system where everyone was in the lower house, what would the point of an upper house be? We'd also be radically shifting the the game from an election sim to a government sim.

So write up a small blurb for a parliamentarian, non-universalism government and I will stick it up there.

Also a note for everyone: Try to stay away from specifics (like how many seats, etc.). Just focus on the basic idea of the government, word it like my blurbs for the ones already submitted. If I accidentally mischaracterized your proposal please correct me. I'm trying to word them as close as I can to what it appears you mean. The nitty-gritty will be resolved in Convention debate.

And don't forget to second the motions you like!

A unicameral legislature, like the one we have currently, perhaps expanded slightly to 15 or 20 seats, that elects a Prime Minister (Head of Government) who selects his cabinet. This could also include a President (Head of State) that is elected through a nationwide popular vote.

I only like Smid's idea out of all those.

Similar to Smid but I want a set rule on what qualifies someone for lower house.  I think voting in the last election might be a good one, and at least 2 posts in the lower house since the last election.

That will be something to work out once we have a form to work with. It would fall under Smid's current proposal for this thread.

I will keep this open for another day probably. Anyone have something that hasn't been thought of yet? Electoral authoritarian regime? :)

The individual components wouldn't be any different, essentially, but it's breaking it apart that's the important part.  IMO, having a parliamentary system and having a universal system aren't at all mutually implicational; one could easily come up with a universalist system that's basically like what currently exists with everyone else serving in the lower house and a parliamentary system that's unicameral with elected members but no universalism.

So would both proposals that I have listed properly characterize what you mean here? If so then I believe we have a second for your proposal in Lief's proposal and I can place an asterisk next to it.

Federal:

-Parliamentary System with a 6 member Upper House, comprised of the Governor of each of the three regions, and one other member per-region.
-The Lower House would comprise all other members of Atlasia not serving in the Upper House, who have voted in the previous election.  A member can be expelled for inactivity (i.e. only voting and nothing else) by a 3/5 majority of the Lower House.
-The Lower House will elect a Prime Minister from either its ranks or the ranks of the Upper House.  The nominee must then receive a majority vote of all Atlasian citizens.

Regional:

-3 Regional Governments, each with their own Constitution, and their own functions.
-Each Region will elect two members of the Upper House: their Governor, and one other person.  These elections (for Governor and At-Large Member) will be held in January, May, and September.
-The Region can recall either their Governor or At-Large Member by a 3/5 vote in the Region.

I haven't seen this proposed yet.

A system, similar to our current system of a President & Vice President, and Senate (at least partially elected by the regions), but everyone else would then be part of the lower house. Governors would be members of the lower house but ineligible for the upper house. Cabinet members would come from the lower house. An election for Speaker of the House would be held at the same time as the other federal elections. I would also consider having regional Senator elections administered by the regions.

Might be a little too American based for some of you though. :P

Stop thinking you're a delegate. Since you're not.

Nor is that any different than previous proposals.

I don't need specifics. Give me general ideas like the blurbs I've already posted. Does anyone feel like seconding other proposals? Or are everything but parliamentarian universalism only supported by one person.

Looks about right.  I don't particularly support the Presidential Universalism idea, but I figured it should be offered up just in case anyone thinks that parliamentarianism is scary or something :)

I am entitled to participate in the Convention, whether I'm a delegate or not.  I make no claims to be a delegate, or to have voting rights, or anything of the sort.  I'm giving my views on the Convention, which I am allowed to do.

Okay, that kinda looks like a double seconding of both Presidential Universalism and Presidential Parliamentarian. Any objection to me starring both of them?

If not, I think we have enough viable options to begin debate followed by a vote on which to pursue. If there are no objections by tonight around 10pm EST I will start a new thread for that.

I was thinking about this in History class while trying not to fall asleep. I have a few issues with the Smid proposal (which I outlined in that respective thread, but nobody answered), though I agree with the general idea. Should I propose my preferred personal version or should I not since those issues could be fixed later?

If you agree with the general outline proposed in the blurb, but think there are certain policy differences you would take in constructing that model than I would vote for the basic premise and then propose your ideas when we start building.

If, however, you feel there is a fundamental difference between the blurbs I have in the first post of this thread and what you have in mind I would propose it.

Let me be clear, we aren't going to be asking for wholesale proposals like Smid's. We will be starting from scratch with a regime archetype and then go article by article, section by section and fit it together like a puzzle. The current proposals are meant to be as vaguely specific as possible.

Didn't really find a better thread for this:

What does everyone think of making everyone re-register when the constitution passes to clear the voter rolls of people who are no longer active for sometimes as long as six months

This will be one of those straggling issues the Convention will address at the end. I will go make a thread for these right now so we can add ideas of what to address as we think of them.

And, to voice my opinion, you would kill the game.

I think it would be worth considering a Consitutional Monarchy of sorts. In other words an executive (given the title of King or Emperor if we wanted to be more bad-ass) with greatly expanded powers who is elected not as frequently (perhaps only once a year). Also an idea would be that the executive has veto power over regional issues as well (but can still be passed by regional legislatures if done so by a 2/3 majority). There would still be the same basic structure with regions, governors and a parliament (which could take a number of forms). I personally feel that Atlasia needs a figurehead of sorts. In addition it would make the yearly (or I guess twice a year) campaign much, much more important, everyone would have to pay attention.

Atlasia has been in trouble in the recent past and needs a strong leader to get us through the coming days.

You caught me just as I was about to put up the thread. Lucky. I will combine this idea with the unitarianism (if it's alright with you), and make some sort of government in which the powers of the national executive are greatly strengthened over the power of the regions. This way you are seconding the unitarian form (and getting on the ballot) while just changing the blurb a little.

Work for you?

No, not really. I don't want to see the regions lose any of their power... I just want a stronger and more relevant executive branch. Though because I am not blind I can see how the two conflict... Perhaps a solution is simply having regional governments that have their own legistlatures who enact laws and such but no national legistlative branch. Instead for laws to take effect on a national scale 3 out of four regions plus the King/President/Emperor must agree (in other words the law has passed all but one region and has the agreement of the executive, until then the laws would only be effective in the region(s) in which passed).
Yeah, basically I am just bouncing around ideas that would sound interesting.

I have closed this thread to additional proposals. The four candidates can be found in the Government Proposal Vote thread, which has not yet opened for vote. Currently, I am trying to determine the parameters of debate. Please contribute to that discussion, to be followed by brief debate and the vote.

Wow, nobody even seconded Abolitionism?  Jeez.

I'll second it for the purposes of debate, however I am concerned that it will require too many participants to be viable.

Really? Creating multiple small nations? We can't even decide if we want 3 or 4 regions and how we would go about dividing that up.

I will reopen this thread for proposals, as the vote will not be starting yet. There is currently a discussion on the parameters of that vote and the preceding debate.

Feel free to continue to post "actual" proposals and seconding one's you like.

I have a proposal.
Bicameral System Proposal:
I suggest we have a 10 region system, with delegates to a House delegated by population of region, with a 20 delegate limit. The second house will be a Senate, with one delegate from each region and no nationally elected Senators. Bills will be passed with the same system as the current USA system. This will get more people into the game and allow more people a chance to participate. There will be no governors. Each region will be self governing. Any duties, if there were any, of the governor will go either to a Senator or a Representative.

President: Our president will be elected by majority vote, as it is now. However, I propose that the VP and the President be elected separately, to promote more interest in elections and the office of President.

I have slightly reworded the blurb to make the concept a little more broad. Most specifics can be worked out through the Convention. I actually like your idea though and I would urge a delegate to sponsor it and another to second it. It is titled Bicameral Nonparliamentarian.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I'll sponsor it out of my desire to get as many proposals as possible into the Convention. I hope another delegate will second my decision.

I second it simply in order to provide choice. I disagree with the proposed system.

Thank you Senator. :)

I am glad you chose to second it, and respect my plan enough to give it a chance in the "national spotlight," so to speak.

Oh no problem, I don't think any proposal should go unheard. Everyone should have the chance to present their ideas.

Plus, I like the proposal. I can't vote, but I'll be pushing for it to make the cut.

I am officially closing this thread. No additional proposals will be taken at this time. Thank you everyone that participated. Please continue to discuss the proposals in their respective threads. Voting will begin at 10pm EST in the voting thread.