Talk Elections

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Constitutional Convention => Topic started by: Purple State on April 02, 2009, 11:17:00 PM



Title: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Purple State on April 02, 2009, 11:17:00 PM
This thread is for the development of a Parliamentary Universalism 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: All participants shall be the members of a Lower House of the Legislature, and with an elected Upper House.



The Constitution

Quote
Article _: The Judiciary (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=94514.msg2005383#msg2005383)


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Smid on April 03, 2009, 02:48:34 AM
To get the ball rolling...

Thinking about it, while my proposal's suggestion for the election of PM is more along the lines of Westminster systems, Hashemite's suggested options are probably easier to administer - probably the STV option is what I'd prefer (I forget which number that one was). Hashemite, would you perhaps put forward your ideas on electing the PM here again.

I still am in favour of motions of no confidence first to trigger a vote for PM, and I think motions of no confidence and elections of the PM should be limited to the Lower House and that the PM should be a member of the Lower House.


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: afleitch on April 03, 2009, 06:06:42 AM
To get the ball rolling...

Thinking about it, while my proposal's suggestion for the election of PM is more along the lines of Westminster systems, Hashemite's suggested options are probably easier to administer - probably the STV option is what I'd prefer (I forget which number that one was). Hashemite, would you perhaps put forward your ideas on electing the PM here again.

I still am in favour of motions of no confidence first to trigger a vote for PM, and I think motions of no confidence and elections of the PM should be limited to the Lower House and that the PM should be a member of the Lower House.

I agree.

The Scottish Parliament elects a First Minister. Party leaders will put their case to the parliament and decide who becomes First Minister through a vote. It has always (so far) been the leader of the largest party who has been elected First Minister often due to abstentions etc. It makes for better government for the First Minisiter to be the head of the largest party. In a universal system, that means that everyone votes for the position. So it certainly workable, both in our context and within the context of a parliamentary system.

As such, as Smid has suggested, the PM should always be a member of the lower house, as his duty as PM is to that house. I also support, as I've argued before a 'no confidence' system. We have to remember that PM's and governments in most parliamentary systems can rise and fall without elections - our game should reflect that and allow it to happen, not routinely, but if and when it is needed so that if the game is being run by people without much interest or committment to it, they can be turfed out before the full term is over (if such a move has support)

Moving on a little, a Cabinet can be drawn from both Houses. This should be larger than it is now giving people portfolios on finance, defense, welfare etc.


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Smid on April 03, 2009, 07:21:07 AM
Afleitch, I agree with absolutely 100% everything you said in that last post.

I think we need to have no confidence motions as the trigger for an election for the PM because:

1. It means that as soon as a party lacks the support in the Lower House, the other parties will have the opportunity to topple them and form government (rather than having to wait until a particular date for an election)

2. It means that a party can't focus on just trying to prop up numbers on a particular date for an election. While there'd still obviously be some sort of GOTV campaign during a no confidence vote/election of PM, it would be less predictable than if an election is to be held, say, the first weekend of August.

If we restrict votes for PM/confidence to the Lower House, it means that parties will need to balance the need to have the numbers in the Senate to pass legislation with the need to maintain numbers in the Lower House to prevent their own government from toppling or to have the numbers to topple another party's government. This adds an extra level of strategy to the game.

I'm also keen on a legislative activity requirement to vote in confidence/no confidence motions - if we give people the right to participate, there's no reason we can't expect them to use that right and to disallow them from voting if they don't.

The Lower House will give new members the opportunity to debate Bills and get to know how Atlasia works - similar to what has been said about the Regional Systems presently.


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: afleitch on April 03, 2009, 08:54:08 AM
Strategy is important and of course in a parliamentary system so too are the party and alliance systems put in place. I believe that if this model is adopted all current parties should be dissolved. I'll explain exactly why; It is likely that the game will take its course and a left bloc and right bloc are established (with some centrists operating) but I think that new parties should be set up that are far broader in their appeal. Part of the strategy in this system will also involve factionalism within parties. That way the 'backbenchers'; the non ministerial, non high ranking representatives have the fate of their superiors in their hands.

I am wary or setting up a system and 'dropping' exisiting parties, alliances and rivalries into it. Likewise I'd like independents to join or at least caucus with one of the parties, particularly as they will as backbenchers have power in numbers.


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 03, 2009, 09:19:02 AM
Most of what you two have said so far sounds good, but how can we make Cabinet member positions more meaningful than they are now? Even if we give them "portfolios" there is no incentive for them to participate meaningfully. They would have just as much power as current Cabinet members, which means they can't accomplish all that much.

Maybe we should eliminate the VP and then in tied Upper House votes the appropriate Cabinet member has jurisdiction over breaking the tie. That could make coalition governments and Cabinets more interesting. And also, later when we start deciding how to limit Lower House debate, perhaps the corresponding Cabinet member has the final post before voting begins.


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Devilman88 on April 03, 2009, 01:28:47 PM
Wouldn't under this plan the regions be useless?


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 03, 2009, 01:35:39 PM
Wouldn't under this plan the regions be useless?

Not necessarily. Regions may have different opinions than the nation at large. The regions will always have a niche if they are allowed to exist. They serve as hubs for introduction to a smaller group, allow for more local politics, etc.


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 03, 2009, 01:37:07 PM
Regions must be abolished.


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 03, 2009, 01:37:44 PM

Regardless, let's work on proposals for the actual government this Constitution will create.


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Hash on April 03, 2009, 04:55:32 PM
I'll post my old stuff over here, in the hopes that there is some discussion over this.

I read over this thread and the actual codified proposal in the formal language in the other thread. I am, overall, strongly in favour of this, with a few minor quirks.

Firstly, moving away from the British Westminster proposal a bit, I don't think the Prime Minister absolutely needs to be the leader of a political party. I think any person that fits certain requirements (activity, and something else maybe) should be allowed to be Prime Minister. This would also allow Independents who are nonetheless able to build a majority coalition around them to become Prime Minister. This is pretty much the only part of this where I have a problem.

Secondly, I disagree with parts of Article 4 on Political Parties, though I agree with the gist of the article. I do not think that political parties should be considered political parties after they have five members. Since all voters are MPs anyways, I think political parties of any size should be allowed. However, I propose a system similar to the one used in the French Parliament concerning parliamentary groups. A parliamentary group should have atleast 5 (or 10, whatever) members. Large political parties should have no trouble forming a group. Smaller parties or Independents that do not pass this threshold can choose to (i) caucus (apparentée) with a larger group or (ii) to sit as non-inscrits, which is not a group per se but a grouping of minor sub-5 parties and "fully independent Indies". Parliamentary groups would each have a leader (or speaker) and a whip, like the current constitution plans for political parties, and have a quota of PMBs like Purple State proposed earlier. A group speaker's would be responsible for addressing the group's response to a NCM, confidence vote, PM vote, law or whatever. He could also delegate this power to another member of the group at any time. Small (small defined as sub-5 members) political parties that would choose to caucus with a larger group would have access to these "advantages". Non-inscrits could choose a "delegate" that has less powers than the other leaders and would not have a whip. I assume non-inscrits MPs should have the right to introduce one piece of legislation per session. This whole thing is just an idea, but I feel that it would allow smaller political parties that do not have 5 members to have a voice.

I also had this idea concerning the election of the Prime Minister while reading the Constitution of the Fourth Republic like we all do in our spare time. Two alternatives, with many sub-alternatives. Basically:

1

Senators and MPs assemble in Congress and elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). For example, Smid declares as RPP candidate, Lief declares as SDP candidate, Franzl declares as DA candidate, realistic declares as JCP candidate, and maybe some Indie. Here we have three scenarios that break off:

1. In the first and second rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win, and in the third round he needs a simple plurality of votes cast. No candidate is eliminated after each round, but one may choose to drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. No one drops out, then it remains as in round one. Candidates may now choose to drop out, and their voters vote the way they wish. If one candidate has 39 votes, he wins.

Round three. No one drops out, then it remains as in round one and two and Smid wins by plurality. If a candidate dropped out before round two or three, then whichever candidate has the most votes wins.

Pros: There is a guaranteed winner after 3 rounds, so there is no chance it goes into 13 rounds of voting.
Cons: The winner may lack a stable majority in Parliament. For this reason, I do not recommend adopting this system.

2. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. No candidate is eliminated after each round, but one may choose to drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately.

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: It could potentially take for ever for one to get a majority. In France in 1953, Coty won after 13 rounds of voting.

3. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The candidate receiving the least votes is eliminated after each round, he doesn't have to endorse another candidate immediately. In addition, a candidate may drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid. Lief is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 34
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19

Round three. Assume all Lief votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: A high number of candidates in the first round means that it could take a long time.

4. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The second round is only between the top two candidates in the first round.

Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid and all votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.

2

MPs only elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). The same scenarios (1, 2, 3, 4) from Alternative 1 apply, but only the House votes (composition RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 ). So on and so forth.

Anyways, this is all just an alternative.

Lastly, if you want more fun in this, courtesy of the Fourth Republic. The elected Prime Minister, in a speech to the House, outlines his political agenda and his government's policy. All MPs vote in a confidence vote, which requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. Voluntary and voting abstentions are therefore counted in this total. Members not voting are not counted in this total. If it passes, the Prime Minister names his cabinet and must/could (two alternatives, you see) proceed to a second confidence vote in the House with the same rules as in this first vote. A NCM can be proposed at any time, and requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. If it passes, the PM and his cabinet must resign immediately and a new vote is held. Just an idea.

As said above, the part that I really have a major issue with is Article 5, Section 1, Clause i and parts of Article 4. My other proposals are just things that I feel could add to the game and could make this more fun. I probably won't defend them to the death, though.

On a last note, I really like Article 2, Section 1, Clause i and the general idea of constituencies. Though I feel there should be boundary commission that sets the borders of these constituencies so that people don't just go around randomly creating their constituencies out of the blue, which would be a disastrous idea.

I also apologize for this very long post.     


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Smid on April 04, 2009, 09:05:10 AM
Hashemite,

I'd been meaning to respond to this post for quite some time and I apologise for the length of time it has taken and thanks for posting it again here. You succinctly summarise the advantages and disadvantages of each, so I won't go into them at length. Likewise, since we're building the Constitution from scratch, I won't address the concerns you had with my earlier proposal - those things will either not be incorporated as we construct our Constitution, or we can discuss them at that time.

I'm snipping your post down to the format I support:
3. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The candidate receiving the least votes is eliminated after each round, he doesn't have to endorse another candidate immediately. In addition, a candidate may drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid. Lief is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 34
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19

Round three. Assume all Lief votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: A high number of candidates in the first round means that it could take a long time.

MPs only elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). The same scenarios (1, 2, 3, 4) from Alternative 1 apply, but only the House votes (composition RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 ). So on and so forth.

Anyways, this is all just an alternative.

Lastly, if you want more fun in this, courtesy of the Fourth Republic. The elected Prime Minister, in a speech to the House, outlines his political agenda and his government's policy. All MPs vote in a confidence vote, which requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. Voluntary and voting abstentions are therefore counted in this total. Members not voting are not counted in this total. If it passes, the Prime Minister names his cabinet and must/could (two alternatives, you see) proceed to a second confidence vote in the House with the same rules as in this first vote. A NCM can be proposed at any time, and requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. If it passes, the PM and his cabinet must resign immediately and a new vote is held. Just an idea.

In terms of the votes held, I like the idea that there is a pause in voting as each candidate is eliminated (which can lead to strategic negotiations in between voting rounds) but if there are concerns about the length of time it will take to elect a PM, we could speed it up through IRV (when I said STV in my earlier post, I actually meant IRV. It's something of a nasty habit of mine to accidentally do that at times).

As I've mentioned previously, I prefer the idea that only the Lower House elects the PM, rather than a joint sitting of the Lower and Upper Houses.

I also like the idea of the elected PM having to give a speech upon their election which then becomes a Confidence Vote where everyone votes on them. Actually, I really like that idea.

Again, as I've previously indicated, I really like the idea of at any time the Parliament may choose to move a No Confidence Vote in the PM. The way you've detailed it is exactly what I think.


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Hash on April 04, 2009, 12:38:50 PM
3. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The candidate receiving the least votes is eliminated after each round, he doesn't have to endorse another candidate immediately. In addition, a candidate may drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid. Lief is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 34
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19

Round three. Assume all Lief votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: A high number of candidates in the first round means that it could take a long time.

MPs only elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). The same scenarios (1, 2, 3, 4) from Alternative 1 apply, but only the House votes (composition RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 ). So on and so forth.

Anyways, this is all just an alternative.

Lastly, if you want more fun in this, courtesy of the Fourth Republic. The elected Prime Minister, in a speech to the House, outlines his political agenda and his government's policy. All MPs vote in a confidence vote, which requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. Voluntary and voting abstentions are therefore counted in this total. Members not voting are not counted in this total. If it passes, the Prime Minister names his cabinet and must/could (two alternatives, you see) proceed to a second confidence vote in the House with the same rules as in this first vote. A NCM can be proposed at any time, and requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. If it passes, the PM and his cabinet must resign immediately and a new vote is held. Just an idea.

In terms of the votes held, I like the idea that there is a pause in voting as each candidate is eliminated (which can lead to strategic negotiations in between voting rounds) but if there are concerns about the length of time it will take to elect a PM, we could speed it up through IRV (when I said STV in my earlier post, I actually meant IRV. It's something of a nasty habit of mine to accidentally do that at times).

As I've mentioned previously, I prefer the idea that only the Lower House elects the PM, rather than a joint sitting of the Lower and Upper Houses.

I also like the idea of the elected PM having to give a speech upon their election which then becomes a Confidence Vote where everyone votes on them. Actually, I really like that idea.

Again, as I've previously indicated, I really like the idea of at any time the Parliament may choose to move a No Confidence Vote in the PM. The way you've detailed it is exactly what I think.

The IRV you propose is a good (and interesting) idea, actually. But I also like the idea, as you said, of having a waiting period (not too long, though) between rounds of voting that allows candidates to drop out and adds some political strategy games to this.

I would have no qualms with a lower house only or joint upper-lower sitting to elect the Prime Minister. Both are perfectly fine, and maybe just lower house could actually be preferable to a joint sitting.

I also like the speech+confidence vote after the PM's election so that the Prime Minister needs to lay out his policies to prevent, in part, a do-nothing useless PM from taking office. I don't think the system of including voluntary abstentions will lead to massive instability since we don't have Communists abstaining every damn time in this game like we had in France. Comes worse, we could exclude voluntary abstentions from the final vote count on confidence votes.

I'm happy you like my proposal.


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Devilman88 on April 04, 2009, 01:17:13 PM
I don't think we have the active members to run a Universalism style of government. But know matter what I know I will be very active.


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 06, 2009, 11:21:25 PM
Some thoughts upon actually reading the Smid proposal:

Chapter 2

Why should members need a constituency name?  And why the difficulty in changing states?

Here's an odd idea: make the PM be elected by the Senate, subject to approval by the Lower House.  But the Lower House can also kick the PM out of office.  Would give people more of an incentive to get elected to the Senate.

Might want to specify posted 15 posts on the entirety of the Atlas Forum.

Chapter 3

To mollify the people whining about elections, do what I did in the Midwest: hold elections every two months.  And lower the number of Senators down to 10, so it doesn't get too crazy.  Both more and more competitive elections are necessary.

I'd support STV.

Chapter 4

The initial provisions seem somewhat self-defeating; how could anyone create a party with more than five people without somehow magically teleporting to that number first?

Make it three people, I'd say.  If they're active enough to make by-laws and elect people, why not recognize them?

I do like the strong party system, though.

Chapter 5

Obviously my Upper-House-election idea would kind of invalidate parts of this... and I think restricting the PMship to a party leader is kind of annoying, even though I understand it would encourage coalition-building.

Jee, what's up with the time period for people to oppose a PM candidate's nomination?  So many time restrictions!

Chapter 6

Good, I think; will support the party system.  Perhaps let the number of laws able to be proposed by the opposition be set in the House Standing Orders, so as to have recriminations and nasty, bitter arguments about them.

It also is unclear to me what the regulations are for the Senate.

Chapter 7

Obviously I support the abolition of regions.  You also misspelled every Midwestern state (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Image:Midwestnewnames.PNG).

Chapter 8

Justices should be elected by the Senate every twelve months.  I think five is a bit too many considering the workload and that they'd have to resign their seat.


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 08, 2009, 12:01:08 PM
Where did Smid go?

And where is anyone else?

Should I just have a discussion with myself?


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 08, 2009, 12:44:23 PM
Where did Smid go?

And where is anyone else?

Should I just have a discussion with myself?

I hope that all the delegates will contribute if there is discussion. Just because someone may slightly favor universalism or non-universalism, we can all try to make the proposals as good as possible.

Perhaps discussion on the relationship between the upper and lower house would be appropriate? Or how the PM election would go? Or what to do with the regions?


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Hash on April 08, 2009, 06:07:18 PM

I already posted 4-5 different proposals to that regard.


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 14, 2009, 02:05:43 PM
If there is no additional substantive discussion on this proposal by Friday at midnight EST I will call for a vote to end discussion and scrap this proposal.

The lack of participation and activity here is unacceptable.

~Presiding Officer Purple State


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 14, 2009, 08:43:36 PM
For reference, Hashemite's large post:

I read over this thread and the actual codified proposal in the formal language in the other thread. I am, overall, strongly in favour of this, with a few minor quirks.

Firstly, moving away from the British Westminster proposal a bit, I don't think the Prime Minister absolutely needs to be the leader of a political party. I think any person that fits certain requirements (activity, and something else maybe) should be allowed to be Prime Minister. This would also allow Independents who are nonetheless able to build a majority coalition around them to become Prime Minister. This is pretty much the only part of this where I have a problem.

Secondly, I disagree with parts of Article 4 on Political Parties, though I agree with the gist of the article. I do not think that political parties should be considered political parties after they have five members. Since all voters are MPs anyways, I think political parties of any size should be allowed. However, I propose a system similar to the one used in the French Parliament concerning parliamentary groups. A parliamentary group should have atleast 5 (or 10, whatever) members. Large political parties should have no trouble forming a group. Smaller parties or Independents that do not pass this threshold can choose to (i) caucus (apparentée) with a larger group or (ii) to sit as non-inscrits, which is not a group per se but a grouping of minor sub-5 parties and "fully independent Indies". Parliamentary groups would each have a leader (or speaker) and a whip, like the current constitution plans for political parties, and have a quota of PMBs like Purple State proposed earlier. A group speaker's would be responsible for addressing the group's response to a NCM, confidence vote, PM vote, law or whatever. He could also delegate this power to another member of the group at any time. Small (small defined as sub-5 members) political parties that would choose to caucus with a larger group would have access to these "advantages". Non-inscrits could choose a "delegate" that has less powers than the other leaders and would not have a whip. I assume non-inscrits MPs should have the right to introduce one piece of legislation per session. This whole thing is just an idea, but I feel that it would allow smaller political parties that do not have 5 members to have a voice.

I also had this idea concerning the election of the Prime Minister while reading the Constitution of the Fourth Republic like we all do in our spare time. Two alternatives, with many sub-alternatives. Basically:

1

Senators and MPs assemble in Congress and elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). For example, Smid declares as RPP candidate, Lief declares as SDP candidate, Franzl declares as DA candidate, realistic declares as JCP candidate, and maybe some Indie. Here we have three scenarios that break off:

1. In the first and second rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win, and in the third round he needs a simple plurality of votes cast. No candidate is eliminated after each round, but one may choose to drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. No one drops out, then it remains as in round one. Candidates may now choose to drop out, and their voters vote the way they wish. If one candidate has 39 votes, he wins.

Round three. No one drops out, then it remains as in round one and two and Smid wins by plurality. If a candidate dropped out before round two or three, then whichever candidate has the most votes wins.

Pros: There is a guaranteed winner after 3 rounds, so there is no chance it goes into 13 rounds of voting.
Cons: The winner may lack a stable majority in Parliament. For this reason, I do not recommend adopting this system.

2. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. No candidate is eliminated after each round, but one may choose to drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately.

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: It could potentially take for ever for one to get a majority. In France in 1953, Coty won after 13 rounds of voting.

3. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The candidate receiving the least votes is eliminated after each round, he doesn't have to endorse another candidate immediately. In addition, a candidate may drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid. Lief is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 34
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19

Round three. Assume all Lief votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: A high number of candidates in the first round means that it could take a long time.

4. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The second round is only between the top two candidates in the first round.

Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid and all votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.

2

MPs only elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). The same scenarios (1, 2, 3, 4) from Alternative 1 apply, but only the House votes (composition RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 ). So on and so forth.

Anyways, this is all just an alternative.

Lastly, if you want more fun in this, courtesy of the Fourth Republic. The elected Prime Minister, in a speech to the House, outlines his political agenda and his government's policy. All MPs vote in a confidence vote, which requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. Voluntary and voting abstentions are therefore counted in this total. Members not voting are not counted in this total. If it passes, the Prime Minister names his cabinet and must/could (two alternatives, you see) proceed to a second confidence vote in the House with the same rules as in this first vote. A NCM can be proposed at any time, and requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. If it passes, the PM and his cabinet must resign immediately and a new vote is held. Just an idea.

As said above, the part that I really have a major issue with is Article 5, Section 1, Clause i and parts of Article 4. My other proposals are just things that I feel could add to the game and could make this more fun. I probably won't defend them to the death, though.

On a last note, I really like Article 2, Section 1, Clause i and the general idea of constituencies. Though I feel there should be boundary commission that sets the borders of these constituencies so that people don't just go around randomly creating their constituencies out of the blue, which would be a disastrous idea.

I also apologize for this very long post.     



And of course my proposed revisions are to Smid's proposal (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=93812).


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 17, 2009, 12:17:26 PM
Seriously, no one is willing to draft an article or something? Instead of repeating those ideas over and over put them into some sort of written article for people to critique and then vote on.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 17, 2009, 12:33:24 PM
And of course my proposed revisions are to Smid's proposal (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=93812).

That seems like the most comprehensive proposal yet enumerated to me...


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 17, 2009, 01:39:54 PM
And of course my proposed revisions are to Smid's proposal (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=93812).

That seems like the most comprehensive proposal yet enumerated to me...

I can't bring anything to a vote until you present an article. Write up (or take from that link) one article and stick it up here to get debate going.

EDIT: I will try to write something up quickly so we can get something going. Expect it in the next 20 minutes or so.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 17, 2009, 02:12:56 PM
Article _: The House of Commons

Section 1: Formation
1. Any person who registered as a citizen of Atlasia shall serve as a Member of Parliament, herein MP, in the House of Commons, herein Lower House.
    i. Upon registering to Atlasia, they must provide:
       a. name,
       b. state of residency, and
       c. political party to which they belong, or as independent.
    ii. Any MP may change their state of residency no more frequently than once every six months.
2. The Lower House shall be presided over by the Commons Speaker, elected by the MP's, who shall be responsible for chairing debate that occurs within the Lower House and who shall have the power to break ties in the Lower House.
    i. All debate and votes shall be initiated by the Speaker. No debate shall occur without the presence of a Speaker.
    ii. The Speaker shall be required to maintain a weekly-updated public list of current members of the House who are qualified under Section 2, Clause 4.

Section 2: Powers
1. MP's shall have the power to debate and vote on Bills and Motions that come before the Lower House.
2. The Lower House shall be responsible for electing Senators to the Upper House.
3. MP's shall be responsible for electing a President, who shall be serve as the Head of State of Atlasia.
4. The qualifications to vote in the election of a Senator or the President include:
    i. a minimum total post count on the forum of 25
    ii. 15 posts in the previous 8 weeks
    iii. participation in parliamentary debate on at least two Bills in the previous 60 days
    iv. registered as a MP in the Lower House more than 10 days prior to the election.
5. Section 2, Clause 4 iii - iv. shall only be enacted after the first election of Senators and President under this Constitution. Following said election, this clause shall cease to operate.

Section 3: Confidence Votes
1. The Lower House may not conduct debate on any Bills or Motions, except for a confidence motion, without the presence a Prime Minister.
2. If a confidence motion is moved, the Lower House must cease to debate all other Bills and Motions until the motion is resolved. The motion shall last for 72 hours.
3. Confidence motions shall not be moved more often than once a month by the Lower House.
4. A confidence motion shall be deemed as carried with a vote of confidence or lost with a vote of no confidence by a majority of all MP's.
5. Immediately upon the passage of a vote of no confidence against the Government, the Senate and Prime Minister shall become vacant and new elections shall be held.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Devilman88 on April 17, 2009, 02:17:36 PM
It sounds like what we have now but with citizens in a lower house.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 17, 2009, 02:39:52 PM
Article _: The Prime Minister

Section 1: Powers of the Prime Minister
1. The Prime Minister shall serve as the Head of Government in Atlasia.
2. Any citizen may serve as Prime Minister with the confidence of the Lower House.
3. The Prime Minister, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ministers from either of the two Houses who shall constitute the Cabinet. These officers shall be responsible for certain policy portfolios and the management of their departments. The Prime Minister shall have power to dismiss any member of his Cabinet.

Section 2: Election of the Prime Minister
1. Upon the vacancy of the office of the Prime Minister or the success of a confidence motion in the Lower House, the President shall nominate a new Prime Minister from the citizens of Atlasia.
2. Upon nomination, the Commons Speaker shall allow for 48 hours of debate and discussion on the nominee. Debate shall conclude with a final statement of intent by the nominee and a final dissent by the head of the largest opposition party, to be determined by the Speaker.
    i. The head of the largest opposition party may appoint a MP to give the final dissent in his stead.
    ii. The citizen that issues the final dissent must vote nay in the subsequent confidence vote.
3. At the conclusion of debate, a confidence motion on the nominee shall begin immediately and last for 72 hours. The motion to elect the Prime Minister shall read: “That – this House expresses confidence in [Name of Candidate] to form a Government in this place."
4. If the confidence motion is carried, the Prime Minister shall assume office upon swearing the oath of office and may immediately begin to form a government. If the confidence motion is lost, the issuer of the final dissenting opinion shall automatically be nominated for the position of Prime Minister. There shall be 24 hours of debate and discussion, followed by a confidence motion on the nominee. If the confidence motion is lost, Section 2, Clauses 1-4 of this Article shall be repeated until a Prime Minister is confirmed by a vote of confidence.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 17, 2009, 02:43:10 PM
So those are two parts to discuss. Get to it.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Devilman88 on April 17, 2009, 02:45:36 PM
What about the upper house?


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Hash on April 17, 2009, 04:05:02 PM
I note that none of my propositions have been included in the proposed articles.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 17, 2009, 05:53:13 PM
I note that none of my propositions have been included in the proposed articles.

Smid's proposals give a lot of room to the lower house to determine the methods of electing the Prime Minister; I'd assume that your proposals would be debated then.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 17, 2009, 05:57:51 PM
If you insist, I can copy-paste, with a few modifications...

Chapter __ The Lower House

2(1) Any person who registers in Atlasia shall be deemed to hold a seat in the Lower House. When registering, they must provide:
(i)   the name of their state of fantasy registry
(ii)   the political party to which they belong, unless they are an independent.

2(2) Any Member of Parliament may change their state of location no more frequently than once every two months; however they may change the party with which they are affiliated as frequently as they wish.

2(3) Any Member of Parliament seated in the Lower House shall be entitled to debate Bills and Motions that come before the Lower House, except for the Speaker of the House.

2(4) Any Member of Parliament entitled to debate a Bill or Motion before the Lower House shall also be entitled to vote on that Bill or Motion, even if they did not participate in the debate concerning that Bill or Motion. 

2(5) The Lower House shall be presided over by the Speaker of the Parliament, elected by the Members of the Lower House, whose role shall be to chair the debate that occurs within the Parliament and who shall not vote, except to break ties.

2(6) The Lower House shall be responsible for electing Senators.

2(7) Members of the Lower House shall be responsible for approving the selection of a Prime Minister, whose Government shall be responsible for the governance of Atlasia.

2(8 ) To qualify to vote in the election of a Senator or to vote in confidence and no confidence motions in the Prime Minister, a Member of Parliament must meet the following requirements: (i) a minimum total post count on the forum of 25;
(ii) have posted more than 15 times in the previous 8 weeks;
(iii) participated in parliamentary debate on at least two Bills in the previous 8 weeks; and
(iv) have registered as a Member of Parliament in the Lower House more than 1 week prior to the election.

2(9) The only exception to the qualification to vote in the election of a Senator or to vote in a confidence motion for a Prime Minister is to allow Members of Parliament to vote for the first Prime Minister and for the first elected Senators.

2(10) Following the first election of Prime Minister and Senators, Section 2(9) shall cease to operate.

2(11) The Lower House may not conduct debate on any matter if it does not have a Speaker.

2(12) The Lower House may not conduct debate on any Bills or motions, except for a confidence motion if it does not have a Prime Minister.

2(13) If a motion of no confidence is moved, the Lower House must cease to debate all other Bills and motions until the motion of no confidence is resolved.

2(14) The Speaker is required to maintain on a weekly basis a public list of current members of the House who are qualified according to Section 2(8 ).


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Hash on April 17, 2009, 05:58:17 PM
I note that none of my propositions have been included in the proposed articles.

Smid's proposals give a lot of room to the lower house to determine the methods of electing the Prime Minister; I'd assume that your proposals would be debated then.

Section 2/PM article is clear on the method of election of the Prime Minister. The said method does not include any of my proposals.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: afleitch on April 17, 2009, 06:05:25 PM
2(12) The Lower House may not conduct debate on any Bills or motions, except for a confidence motion if it does not have a Prime Minister.

As long as it is codified that a PM who has just lost a vote of no confidence, remains as PM until his successor is formally confirmed. And also that if the PM is incapcitated, a 'Deputy' (whether formal or nominated) can assume that position temporarily.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 17, 2009, 06:07:13 PM
Chapter _ The Upper House

3(1) The Upper House shall comprise of 12 Senators, elected by the Lower House by the method allowed by the House of Representatives Standing Orders.

3(2) Senators cannot be Members of Parliament in the Lower House while serving as Senators and shall be determined to have resigned their seat in the Lower House upon the declaration of their election, unless they resign in writing to the Speaker prior to their election.

3(3): The first election of Senators shall be by the following method: All Members of Parliament shall elect by a method of Single Transferable Vote, the number of Senators referred to in Section 3(1).

3(4) The Upper House shall be presided over by the President Pro Tempore, elected by the Senators, whose role shall be to chair the debate that occurs within the Parliament.

3(5) Senators shall be elected to four-month terms in office, with elections occurring over the first weekend of:
(i)   January, May, and September, for Class A Senators,
(ii)   February, June, and October, for Class B Senators,
(iii)   March, July, and November, for Class C Senators, and
(iv)   April, August, and December, for Class D Senators.

3(6) Senators shall be responsible for electing the Prime Minister.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 17, 2009, 06:08:07 PM
I note that none of my propositions have been included in the proposed articles.

Smid's proposals give a lot of room to the lower house to determine the methods of electing the Prime Minister; I'd assume that your proposals would be debated then.

Section 2/PM article is clear on the method of election of the Prime Minister. The said method does not include any of my proposals.

Oh, goodness.  Smid's original proposal, which I've been operating on the presumption is the Universalist Manifesto, doesn't have a president at all; I'm not sure where the one there appeared from.  In my slight modifications, rest assured there will not be one.

2(12) The Lower House may not conduct debate on any Bills or motions, except for a confidence motion if it does not have a Prime Minister.

As long as it is codified that a PM who has just lost a vote of no confidence, remains as PM until his successor is formally confirmed. And also that if the PM is incapcitated, a 'Deputy' (whether formal or nominated) can assume that position temporarily.

Sure.  That's why I was hoping there would be more debate on this earlier; I certainly have no idea how a parliamentary system really works ;)

I plan to add this in my revised part about Prime Minister, so yell at me if you don't see it there.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 17, 2009, 06:11:01 PM
Chapter _ Political Parties

4(1)(a) Members of Parliament and Senators must declare the political party to which they belong, unless they are an independent.

4(1)(b) Political Parties must contain at least three members of either House of Parliament.

4(2) Each political party must declare:
(i)   a party leader, who must be a Member of the Lower House unless that party is comprised solely of Senators; and
(ii)   a party whip.

4(3) If a Senator resigns from the Senate, the leader of the political party to which that Senator belonged at the time of his or her resignation may appoint his or her replacement Senator. If the Senator was not a member of a political party at the time of his or her resignation, the following rules shall apply:
(i)   If the Senator was an independent at the time of his or her resignation, the leader of the political party to which he or she belonged when elected may appoint his or her replacement Senator.
(ii)   If the Senator was an independent at the time of his or her resignation and also at the time of his or her election, the replacement Senator shall be elected by the Lower House using whatever method is specified in the House of Representatives Standing Orders for the election of Senators.

4(4) Each party must provide a copy of its by-laws in a publicly accessible place. The Parliament may pass an Act of Parliament to create a single set of by-laws that are adopted by all parties until the party has published its own set.

4(5) Unless a party's by-laws state otherwise, the party leader has the power to expel any party members for whatever reason he/she deems appropriate,

4(6) Unless a party's by-laws state otherwise, the party leader has the power to appoint the party's whip and spokespeople for the party for particular portfolios.

4(7)(a) Unless a party’s by-laws state otherwise, the party whip is responsible for the allocation of the party’s quota of Private Members’ Bills to party members for introduction.

4(7)(b) Where a party governs in coalition with another party, the Prime Minister shall appoint a whip from one of the parties to be “the Chief Government Whip” and responsible for allocating the number Private Members’ Bills to each party as they see fit, as referenced in section 6(5)(i).

4(7)(c) Each party whip in a coalition Government allocates their party’s Private Members’ Bills, based on the number allocated to that party by the Chief Government Whip.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 17, 2009, 06:17:56 PM
Chapter _ The Prime Minister and the Executive Branch

5(1) The Prime Minister may be any member of the Lower House who is able to gain the confidence of a majority of Upper House Members of Parliament.

5(2) The Prime Minister shall be elected by Members of the Upper House.

5(3) The procedures used to elect a Prime Minister shall be enumerated in the Senate Standing Orders.

5(4) A Prime Minister may be removed from office by the Lower House.  The procedures of removal shall be enumerated in the House of Representatives Standing Orders.

5(5) Should a Prime Minister be removed by Vote of No-Confidence, the Speaker of the House of Representatives will serve in his stead until a new vote of confidence is passed.

5(6) A Prime Minister may resign as the Prime Minister, at which time a confidence motion must be moved to appoint a new Prime Minister, subject to Section 5(3) (a) to (f).

5(7) The Prime Minister may appoint Ministers who shall be responsible for certain policy portfolios and the management of their departments.

5(8) The Prime Minister may appoint any Member of the Lower House or the Senate to be a Minister of the Government.

5(9) The Prime Minister shall follow his or her party's by-laws when appointing Ministers.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 17, 2009, 06:20:36 PM
Chapter _ The Passage of Legislation

6(1) There shall be two types of Bills moved in the Parliament, known as:
(i)   Government Bills, and
(ii)   Private Members’ Bills.

6(2) Government Bills are Bills moved by a Government Minister, and must relate to the portfolio of that Minister.

6(3) Private Members’ Bills are any Bill moved by are Private Member of Parliament or the Senate, and may relate to any matter.

6(4) The number of Government Bills allowed to be moved and debated in any month is unrestricted.

6(5) The number of Private Members’ Bills shall be limited by the Standing Orders of the relevant House.

6(6) Bills shall be introduced to the Parliament according to the Standing Orders of the relevant House.

6(7) Any Bills that pass one House of Parliament are referred to the other House for ratification.

6(8) If the House ratifying a Bill moves and passes any amendments to the Bill, upon passing the Bill, it is referred back to the initial House to ratify the amendments.

6(9) If a Bill is referred to the initial House for the ratification of amendments, the initial House may move further amendments, vote in favour of the amended Bill, or vote against the amended Bill.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 17, 2009, 06:24:27 PM
Chapter _ The Judiciary

8(1) Legal disputes shall be heard in the High Court of Atlasia.

8(2) The High Court of Atlasia shall be the Court of Last Resort.

8(3) There shall be three Justices of the High Court of Atlasia.

8(4) Justices of the High Court of Atlasia shall be selected to serve four-month terms.

8(5) Justices of the High Court of Atlasia may serve more than one term.

8(6) Justices of the High Court of Atlasia shall be selected by the Upper House of Atlasia.

8(7) The qualification of a Member of Parliament or a Senator to vote in the election of a Justice of the High Court of Atlasia shall be the same as that in Section 2(8).

8(8 ) Justices of the High Court must resign any other office they occupy, including the office of Member of Parliament in the Lower House, or the office of Senator.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 17, 2009, 06:25:53 PM
Chapter _ Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered, or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the Lower House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the Lower House, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by the Lower House, it shall be referred to the Senate for ratification,
(v)   The Bill may be debated in the Senate as any other Bill,
(vi)   The Bill shall be voted on by Senators, as any other Bill.

9(2) Voting to change the constitution referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (vi) shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).


Title: Re: Constitution Development: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Smid on April 17, 2009, 07:03:42 PM
Sorry about the delay in responding, I just saw these.

Why should members need a constituency name?  And why the difficulty in changing states?

Regarding the constituency name, this is to allow people to incorporate local information in their speeches to the House: for example "As I talk to local small businesspeople in my constituency of Staten Island, they tell me of the pressures placed on them from the global financial crisis. Yesterday I had the great pleasure of speaking to a dry cleaner and he implored me to vote in favour of this Bill, saying that if this Bill doesn't pass, financial reality will force him to close his doors and put three people out of work..."

I think that sounds more interesting than just saying "This Bill helps alleviate pressures on small business and allow them to hire more people, during these difficult times." The whole aim of the constituency name was simply to allow local factors in speeches on Bills.

Regarding the difficulty in changing seats - this was for a few reasons: firstly, I think it makes things more realistic, you don't have reallied MPs and Congressmen changing seats/states, except in fairly rare circumstances. Since everyone's a Member of Parliament in the Lower House, we should have some restrictions on seat-changing.

My main issue with seat-changing, however, is that it virtually makes Regions pointless. As I mentioned during the discussion on Regional boundaries in the DWTL Region Shrinking Plan a few weeks ago, it doesn't matter which states we put into a Region or how many members are enrolled in those states if we don't have some form of restriction on transfers. If the South was broken up right now and members put in two different Regions, I think it would be naive to think that the various RPP members wouldn't transfer into one or the other Regions it was split into to ensure the party still maintains a political grip on a region. Likewise if the Pacific was broken up, I am sure the various JCP members would transfer into one or the other Regions for the same reason. While my plan does not incorporate regional governments (since I think they'd be a drain on talent from the Lower House), I have maintained Regional Caucusing (effectively the same as elections presently) for Senate elections and for the passing of Constitutional Amendments. If we are to maintain the influence of Regions, I think it is important that we ensure there are protections to prevent them being abused. It's pointless having any form of boundary commission if as soon as they bring out a plan, people just move around to negate the effects of the planned boundary.

I guess the short answer would be - I think that carpetbagging is not a good thing and that is why I aim to restrict it, but there may be others who prefer its fluidity. Anyway, that's why I've tried to impose restrictions.

Here's an odd idea: make the PM be elected by the Senate, subject to approval by the Lower House.  But the Lower House can also kick the PM out of office.  Would give people more of an incentive to get elected to the Senate.

That's certainly an option. One reason that I took the Senate out of the PM election process was to cause a conflict - to make people and parties decide whether they'd prefer to run for Senate or simply hold a seat in the Lower House. They'd have to balance and weigh up their options to decide which they'd prefer, it creates an additional level of strategy within the game.

Might want to specify posted 15 posts on the entirety of the Atlas Forum.

Sure, it doesn't change the meaning or the intent.

To mollify the people whining about elections, do what I did in the Midwest: hold elections every two months.  And lower the number of Senators down to 10, so it doesn't get too crazy.  Both more and more competitive elections are necessary.

That's cool, I wasn't too fussed about the number in the Upper House or the frequency of elections. There were to be elections every two months anyway (three classes of Senators, each elected to six-month terms, each class elected two months apart).


I don't mind STV and I don't mind Regional Caucusing. If we're not having regional governments, then it's probably important to leave some form of regionalism in and I thought Senate elections would be a good way to do that. Mind you, if we reduce the number of Senators from 15 to 10, we could have one election using STV and the other using Regional Caucusing (effectively what we have now).

The initial provisions seem somewhat self-defeating; how could anyone create a party with more than five people without somehow magically teleporting to that number first?

Make it three people, I'd say.  If they're active enough to make by-laws and elect people, why not recognize them?

This is mainly for people breaking away. If a party gets too large, it won't have enough positions for its members - cabinet or senatorial - and this may lead to dissent within the party's backbench and lead to a number of members leaving. I'd prefer to set the bar somewhat higher to keep things at least a little stable, though. If a party has the ability to introduce legislation, that's a pretty important privilege and I'd rather make it not too easy to achieve. Also, if five independents get together, they should be able to form a party (and since independents wouldn't have the right to introduce legislation, they gain substantial benefit from being able to form a party - again, I therefore don't want to make it too easy to gain that benefit).

I do like the strong party system, though.

Yeah, that's something I like about it. The party can even have by-laws determining whether they require a binding caucus (ie, when the party makes a decision about a Bill, all the members have to vote the way the party determines, even if they disagree with the Bill personally, unless the Leader declares the matter to be a conscience vote - personally I don't like binding caucuses, it's more common among left-wing parties, but I think parties should be able to determine their own rules to govern how things like that work).

Obviously my Upper-House-election idea would kind of invalidate parts of this... and I think restricting the PMship to a party leader is kind of annoying, even though I understand it would encourage coalition-building.

Yeah, that was pretty much my objective there.

Jee, what's up with the time period for people to oppose a PM candidate's nomination?  So many time restrictions!

The time restrictions are to try to ensure there are set rules for these sorts of elections - same as time limits/restrictions presently for elections. They are to set minimum lengths of time as much as maximum lengths - they're not purely restrictions. If the rules state that there is 24 hours to speak against a nomination for Prime Minister, it's not just to limit it to that length of time - it's also to prevent the Speaker from moving the vote to quickly to try to cause it to fail/succeed. It's to create a window, rather than a restriction.

Good, I think; will support the party system.  Perhaps let the number of laws able to be proposed by the opposition be set in the House Standing Orders, so as to have recriminations and nasty, bitter arguments about them.

It also is unclear to me what the regulations are for the Senate.

A good idea about the House Standing Orders. I'm giving that some more thought. I'm a little worried that a government will be most likely in coalition - and therefore the balance may be weighted a little too much in favour of the Opposition, leading to more benefits to them (and thus reducing some of the incentive to push to topple the PM). I'm going to continue thinking about this idea. The regulations for both houses would be set out in the Standing Orders (each House would need to pass its own Standing Orders, which would only detail the regulations for the relevant House).

Obviously I support the abolition of regions.  You also misspelled every Midwestern state (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Image:Midwestnewnames.PNG).

I noticed that, but wasn't sure which state was which, so figured I'd put it in as is and let it be amended accordingly.

Justices should be elected by the Senate every twelve months.  I think five is a bit too many considering the workload and that they'd have to resign their seat.

Fair point. The legal side of Atlasia is not my forte (my experience is predominantly in parliamentary procedure - and I do have RL experience there). Chapters 7 and 8 were mostly put up as a bit of a framework for further adaptation and amendment by people who know that stuff and are more interested in it than I am.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 18, 2009, 08:54:45 PM
I note that none of my propositions have been included in the proposed articles.

Smid's proposals give a lot of room to the lower house to determine the methods of electing the Prime Minister; I'd assume that your proposals would be debated then.

Section 2/PM article is clear on the method of election of the Prime Minister. The said method does not include any of my proposals.

I asked a number of times for universalist advocates to state their ideas in article form. No such actions were taken so I proceeded to do my best to adapt what I could.

I ask that, now that we have a number of articles out, we focus on each one individually and one at a time, rather than make a mess of them. Also, could we try to stay to a clear format for all the articles? I am willing to begin discussion on whichever article you think is most important to begin with. Your move.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 19, 2009, 09:33:32 PM
Okay then, I will start.

I will repost this. Anyone please quote this and show the edits you would like to make.

Article _: The House of Commons

Section 1: Formation
1. Any person who registered as a citizen of Atlasia shall serve as a Member of Parliament, herein MP, in the House of Commons, herein Lower House.
    i. Upon registering to Atlasia, they must provide:
       a. name,
       b. state of residency, and
       c. political party to which they belong, or as independent.
    ii. Any MP may change their state of residency no more frequently than once every six months.
2. The Lower House shall be presided over by the Commons Speaker, elected by the MP's, who shall be responsible for chairing debate that occurs within the Lower House and who shall have the power to break ties in the Lower House.
    i. All debate and votes shall be initiated by the Speaker. No debate shall occur without the presence of a Speaker.
    ii. The Speaker shall be required to maintain a weekly-updated public list of current members of the House who are qualified under Section 2, Clause 4.

Section 2: Powers
1. MP's shall have the power to debate and vote on Bills and Motions that come before the Lower House.
2. The Lower House shall be responsible for electing Senators to the Upper House.
3. MP's shall be responsible for electing a President, who shall be serve as the Head of State of Atlasia.
4. The qualifications to vote in the election of a Senator or the President include:
    i. a minimum total post count on the forum of 25
    ii. 15 posts in the previous 8 weeks
    iii. participation in parliamentary debate on at least two Bills in the previous 60 days
    iv. registered as a MP in the Lower House more than 10 days prior to the election.
5. Section 2, Clause 4 iii - iv. shall only be enacted after the first election of Senators and President under this Constitution. Following said election, this clause shall cease to operate.

Section 3: Confidence Votes
1. The Lower House may not conduct debate on any Bills or Motions, except for a confidence motion, without the presence a Prime Minister.
2. If a confidence motion is moved, the Lower House must cease to debate all other Bills and Motions until the motion is resolved. The motion shall last for 72 hours.
3. Confidence motions shall not be moved more often than once a month by the Lower House.
4. A confidence motion shall be deemed as carried with a vote of confidence or lost with a vote of no confidence by a majority of all MP's.
5. Immediately upon the passage of a vote of no confidence against the Government, the Senate and Prime Minister shall become vacant and new elections shall be held.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 19, 2009, 10:55:42 PM
Why don't we use my draft?  It's based off Smid's, which is the most complete proposed Constitution we have to date. (and I'm not trying to pick a fight here--I'm sure I could find a way to fit my proposals into yours--I just think that going with the more endogenous proposal might be a better idea)

Chapter __ The Lower House

2(1) Any person who registers in Atlasia shall be deemed to hold a seat in the Lower House. When registering, they must provide:
(i)   the name of their state of fantasy registry
(ii)   the political party to which they belong, unless they are an independent.

2(2) Any Member of Parliament may change their state of location no more frequently than once every two months; however they may change the party with which they are affiliated as frequently as they wish.

2(3) Any Member of Parliament seated in the Lower House shall be entitled to debate Bills and Motions that come before the Lower House, except for the Speaker of the House.

2(4) Any Member of Parliament entitled to debate a Bill or Motion before the Lower House shall also be entitled to vote on that Bill or Motion, even if they did not participate in the debate concerning that Bill or Motion. 

2(5) The Lower House shall be presided over by the Speaker of the Parliament, elected by the Members of the Lower House, whose role shall be to chair the debate that occurs within the Parliament and who shall not vote, except to break ties.

2(6) The Lower House shall be responsible for electing Senators.

2(7) Members of the Lower House shall be responsible for approving the selection of a Prime Minister, whose Government shall be responsible for the governance of Atlasia.

2(8 ) To qualify to vote in the election of a Senator or to vote in confidence and no confidence motions in the Prime Minister, a Member of Parliament must meet the following requirements: (i) a minimum total post count on the forum of 25;
(ii) have posted more than 15 times in the previous 8 weeks;
(iii) participated in parliamentary debate on at least two Bills in the previous 8 weeks; and
(iv) have registered as a Member of Parliament in the Lower House more than 1 week prior to the election.

2(9) The only exception to the qualification to vote in the election of a Senator or to vote in a confidence motion for a Prime Minister is to allow Members of Parliament to vote for the first Prime Minister and for the first elected Senators.

2(10) Following the first election of Prime Minister and Senators, Section 2(9) shall cease to operate.

2(11) The Lower House may not conduct debate on any matter if it does not have a Speaker.

2(12) The Lower House may not conduct debate on any Bills or motions, except for a confidence motion if it does not have a Prime Minister.

2(13) If a motion of no confidence is moved, the Lower House must cease to debate all other Bills and motions until the motion of no confidence is resolved.

2(14) The Speaker is required to maintain on a weekly basis a public list of current members of the House who are qualified according to Section 2(8 ).


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 19, 2009, 11:09:11 PM
I just figured mine was formatted a little more cleanly. It also basically incorporated Smid's stuff.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 22, 2009, 11:19:19 AM
Sorry about the delay in responding, I just saw these.

Why should members need a constituency name?  And why the difficulty in changing states?

Regarding the constituency name, this is to allow people to incorporate local information in their speeches to the House: for example "As I talk to local small businesspeople in my constituency of Staten Island, they tell me of the pressures placed on them from the global financial crisis. Yesterday I had the great pleasure of speaking to a dry cleaner and he implored me to vote in favour of this Bill, saying that if this Bill doesn't pass, financial reality will force him to close his doors and put three people out of work..."

I think that sounds more interesting than just saying "This Bill helps alleviate pressures on small business and allow them to hire more people, during these difficult times." The whole aim of the constituency name was simply to allow local factors in speeches on Bills.

Regarding the difficulty in changing seats - this was for a few reasons: firstly, I think it makes things more realistic, you don't have reallied MPs and Congressmen changing seats/states, except in fairly rare circumstances. Since everyone's a Member of Parliament in the Lower House, we should have some restrictions on seat-changing.

{weakening of regions}

I guess the short answer would be - I think that carpetbagging is not a good thing and that is why I aim to restrict it, but there may be others who prefer its fluidity. Anyway, that's why I've tried to impose restrictions.

OK, I see your point on constituencies (though of course that opens the door to the whole is Atlasia the United States or is it its own country question).  What would happen if there were a boundary dispute?

Re: weakening of regions, :)

Quote
Here's an odd idea: make the PM be elected by the Senate, subject to approval by the Lower House.  But the Lower House can also kick the PM out of office.  Would give people more of an incentive to get elected to the Senate.

That's certainly an option. One reason that I took the Senate out of the PM election process was to cause a conflict - to make people and parties decide whether they'd prefer to run for Senate or simply hold a seat in the Lower House. They'd have to balance and weigh up their options to decide which they'd prefer, it creates an additional level of strategy within the game.

That's actually why I moved the PM election to the Senate in my draft; with PM elections in the House, I don't think there's much reason to be the Senate.  I want to have competitive elections, and the surest way to do that is to give people a reason to desire being elected.  Being able to choose the PM might be that reason.

Quote
To mollify the people whining about elections, do what I did in the Midwest: hold elections every two months.  And lower the number of Senators down to 10, so it doesn't get too crazy.  Both more and more competitive elections are necessary.

That's cool, I wasn't too fussed about the number in the Upper House or the frequency of elections. There were to be elections every two months anyway (three classes of Senators, each elected to six-month terms, each class elected two months apart).

Oh, right.  Silly me :)  As you can see, I fussed with it a bit (now there's monthly elections, with Senators elected for four month terms), but this isn't a particularly strong issue for me.

Quote

I don't mind STV and I don't mind Regional Caucusing. If we're not having regional governments, then it's probably important to leave some form of regionalism in and I thought Senate elections would be a good way to do that. Mind you, if we reduce the number of Senators from 15 to 10, we could have one election using STV and the other using Regional Caucusing (effectively what we have now).

Huh.  Maybe there might be some reason for leaving regional-type governments in if they were strictly designed... but, at the same time, look at the pattern of Senate elections now.  Though the STV and regional elections have approximately the same amount of candidates, they're much more boring, because 7 candidates for 5 STV slots is significantly more exciting than 1.4 candidates for each regional seat!

Quote
The initial provisions seem somewhat self-defeating; how could anyone create a party with more than five people without somehow magically teleporting to that number first?

Make it three people, I'd say.  If they're active enough to make by-laws and elect people, why not recognize them?

This is mainly for people breaking away. If a party gets too large, it won't have enough positions for its members - cabinet or senatorial - and this may lead to dissent within the party's backbench and lead to a number of members leaving. I'd prefer to set the bar somewhat higher to keep things at least a little stable, though. If a party has the ability to introduce legislation, that's a pretty important privilege and I'd rather make it not too easy to achieve. Also, if five independents get together, they should be able to form a party (and since independents wouldn't have the right to introduce legislation, they gain substantial benefit from being able to form a party - again, I therefore don't want to make it too easy to gain that benefit).

Okay, I can see your point that it would make things better for introducing bills, but I've always considered the massive coalition building necessary for countries with fractured parties to be pretty interesting (witness the latest Knesset elections; frustrating for Israelis, interesting for everyone else!)... placating the desires of several squabbling factions seems to me more exciting than defaulting to any one person.

Quote
Jee, what's up with the time period for people to oppose a PM candidate's nomination?  So many time restrictions!

The time restrictions are to try to ensure there are set rules for these sorts of elections - same as time limits/restrictions presently for elections. They are to set minimum lengths of time as much as maximum lengths - they're not purely restrictions. If the rules state that there is 24 hours to speak against a nomination for Prime Minister, it's not just to limit it to that length of time - it's also to prevent the Speaker from moving the vote to quickly to try to cause it to fail/succeed. It's to create a window, rather than a restriction.

Personally, my thought was that it didn't necessarily go long enough.  I could imagine thigns working out with your time scheduling if things were basically planned out beforehand... but if suddenly someone had a brilliant bolt of inspiration and wanted to topple the government, it would be quite difficult under your plan.

Quote
Good, I think; will support the party system.  Perhaps let the number of laws able to be proposed by the opposition be set in the House Standing Orders, so as to have recriminations and nasty, bitter arguments about them.

It also is unclear to me what the regulations are for the Senate.

A good idea about the House Standing Orders. I'm giving that some more thought. I'm a little worried that a government will be most likely in coalition - and therefore the balance may be weighted a little too much in favour of the Opposition, leading to more benefits to them (and thus reducing some of the incentive to push to topple the PM). I'm going to continue thinking about this idea. The regulations for both houses would be set out in the Standing Orders (each House would need to pass its own Standing Orders, which would only detail the regulations for the relevant House).

Obviously I support the abolition of regions.  You also misspelled every Midwestern state (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Image:Midwestnewnames.PNG).

I noticed that, but wasn't sure which state was which, so figured I'd put it in as is and let it be amended accordingly.

Justices should be elected by the Senate every twelve months.  I think five is a bit too many considering the workload and that they'd have to resign their seat.

Fair point. The legal side of Atlasia is not my forte (my experience is predominantly in parliamentary procedure - and I do have RL experience there). Chapters 7 and 8 were mostly put up as a bit of a framework for further adaptation and amendment by people who know that stuff and are more interested in it than I am.

I'm not very interested in it myself, actually ;)


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 22, 2009, 11:20:48 AM
I just figured mine was formatted a little more cleanly. It also basically incorporated Smid's stuff.

Okay.  The big difference I see between yours and Smid's/mine (which have their differences, but I assume they'll be ironed out) is that you have the election of a President in there; neither of our proposals have one.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Smid on April 22, 2009, 09:50:07 PM
I just figured mine was formatted a little more cleanly. It also basically incorporated Smid's stuff.

Okay.  The big difference I see between yours and Smid's/mine (which have their differences, but I assume they'll be ironed out) is that you have the election of a President in there; neither of our proposals have one.

The main reason for me leaving out the President was because in a bicameral universal system, each Bill has had to pass a majority of Atlasians, and therefore I wished to remove the power of veto from the President (so he's not going against the will of the people, although I think it more likely the President won't exercise that power, and therefore doesn't really have a role). If we water down the President's powers to that extent, it becomes a little pointless having one. That said, if we had some form of reserve powers for the President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power) that could be incorporated, there wouldn't be a problem having a President... I just can't think of any powers they should have, is all. Perhaps removing fixed terms and allowing them to dissolve the Senate/a class of Senators at their discretion might be something they could do. I think dismissing the PM is pointless, since that can happen easily through confidence motions so should be the responsibility of the House.

I'm having another thought begin to form, I might post it shortly... I want to develop it a little first. It would involve both Houses voting for PM, as per your suggestion, but only the Lower House voting for President, removing fixed terms on the Senate, and allowing the President to dissolve the Senate for elections perhaps the Lower House can set election dates for the President (thus creating a counter-point to each other... the Senate can't impeach the President, the President can't interfere with the Lower House, the Lower House can't dissolve the Senate - basically a government version of rock, scissors, paper).

Actually, if the Lower House can call a snap election on the President, perhaps give the President the power of veto - if the Lower House doesn't like a veto, they can vote to call an election for President. Anyway, just kicking around an idea here.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 22, 2009, 11:10:11 PM
If you could incorporate your ideas into the sort of the formatting I laid out (looks nicer IMO) then we could work from there.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Smid on April 23, 2009, 12:57:54 AM
If you could incorporate your ideas into the sort of the formatting I laid out (looks nicer IMO) then we could work from there.

It certainly does look nicer putting it together in that sort of a format, but that new idea is more at the brainstorming stage at the moment, so I'd prefer to hear what others think of that before I try to codify it. I might try putting it together roughly (ready for extensive amendment) in case it makes things clearer, but it's a new position that I haven't discussed before (predominantly because I didn't think it necessary) and it needs a lot more work yet.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 26, 2009, 06:02:39 PM
Just bumping this to maybe get something going. So far universalism has been greatly outpaced by the other proposals, but there seems to be some promising ideas here. Get something ready for vote and I'll bring it right up.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 26, 2009, 10:40:02 PM
Okay, here is my equivalent of PurpleState's version:

Article _: The House of Commons

Section 1: Formation
1. Any person who registered as a citizen of Atlasia shall serve as a Member of Parliament, herein MP, in the House of Commons, herein Lower House.
    i. Upon registering to Atlasia, they must provide:
       a. name,
       b. state of residency, and
       c. political party to which they belong, or as independent.
    ii. Any MP may change their state of residency no more frequently than once every two months.
2. The Lower House shall be presided over by the Commons Speaker, elected by the MP's, who shall be responsible for chairing debate that occurs within the Lower House and who shall not vote, except to break ties.
    i. All debate and votes shall be initiated by the Speaker. No debate shall occur without the presence of a Speaker.
    ii. The Speaker shall be required to maintain a weekly-updated public list of current members of the House who are qualified under Section 2, Clause 4.

Section 2: Powers
1. MP's shall have the power to debate and vote on Bills and Motions that come before the Lower House.
2. The Lower House shall be responsible for electing Senators to the Upper House.
3. MP's shall be responsible for approving the selection of a Prime Minister, whose Government shall be responsible for the governance of Atlasia.
4. The qualifications to vote in the election of a Senator or the President include:
    i. a minimum total post count on the forum of 25
    ii. 15 posts in the previous 8 weeks
    iii. participation in parliamentary debate on at least two Bills in the previous 8 weeks
    iv. registered as a MP in the Lower House more than one week prior to the election.
5. Section 2, Clause 4 iii - iv. shall only be enacted after the first election of Senators and President under this Constitution. Following said election, this clause shall cease to operate.

Section 3: Confidence Votes
1. The Lower House may not conduct debate on any Bills or Motions, except for a confidence motion, without the presence a Prime Minister.
2. If a confidence motion is moved, the Lower House must cease to debate all other Bills and Motions until the motion is resolved. The motion shall last for 72 hours.
3. A confidence motion shall be deemed as carried with a vote of confidence or lost with a vote of no confidence by a majority of all MP's.
4. Immediately upon the passage of a vote of no confidence against the Government, the Senate and Prime Minister shall become vacant and new elections shall be held.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Devilman88 on April 26, 2009, 11:29:21 PM
This could live with that.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 26, 2009, 11:34:12 PM
Formatted well and makes sense, I suppose, though I still oppose the system entirely.

I'm assuming the House can introduce bills as well, yes?


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Devilman88 on April 26, 2009, 11:43:23 PM
Formatted well and makes sense, I suppose, though I still oppose the system entirely.

I'm assuming the House can introduce bills as well, yes?

The only reason why I don't like this system is because it would take away the elections, which in part is the best thing about Atlasia. That is why I think if we make more offices to fill and have more elections, active will go up.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 26, 2009, 11:46:19 PM
Formatted well and makes sense, I suppose, though I still oppose the system entirely.

I'm assuming the House can introduce bills as well, yes?

The only reason why I don't like this system is because it would take away the elections, which in part is the best thing about Atlasia. That is why I think if we make more offices to fill and have more elections, active will go up.

It does place the emphasis more on a government sim rather than an election sim, which I'm not sure is the brightest idea in light of the recent uptick in election activity. One of my bigger reasons for opposing this system is not only that, it's that the House and the Senate are virtually identical bodies that only differ in size. There's no point in having an upper house in a universal system because everyone has the same powers, so there's no incentive to run for the Senate, and if you take the Senate out, you eliminate all elections. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

If you're interested, I wrote a more detailed critique of Universalism lower on the board.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 26, 2009, 11:48:56 PM
I would just recommend that s1(4) and (5) mention the PM as well.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 27, 2009, 07:14:29 AM
Formatted well and makes sense, I suppose, though I still oppose the system entirely.

I'm assuming the House can introduce bills as well, yes?

The only reason why I don't like this system is because it would take away the elections, which in part is the best thing about Atlasia. That is why I think if we make more offices to fill and have more elections, active will go up.

It does place the emphasis more on a government sim rather than an election sim, which I'm not sure is the brightest idea in light of the recent uptick in election activity. One of my bigger reasons for opposing this system is not only that, it's that the House and the Senate are virtually identical bodies that only differ in size. There's no point in having an upper house in a universal system because everyone has the same powers, so there's no incentive to run for the Senate, and if you take the Senate out, you eliminate all elections. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I specifically stated I amended Smid's proposal to deal with this; the Senate is now the House who is able to propose Prime Ministers, not the House, making getting elected to the Senate a Good Thing (tm).  I'm open to more ideas for how to make the Houses less overlappy.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on April 27, 2009, 08:45:50 AM
Formatted well and makes sense, I suppose, though I still oppose the system entirely.

I'm assuming the House can introduce bills as well, yes?

The only reason why I don't like this system is because it would take away the elections, which in part is the best thing about Atlasia. That is why I think if we make more offices to fill and have more elections, active will go up.

It does place the emphasis more on a government sim rather than an election sim, which I'm not sure is the brightest idea in light of the recent uptick in election activity. One of my bigger reasons for opposing this system is not only that, it's that the House and the Senate are virtually identical bodies that only differ in size. There's no point in having an upper house in a universal system because everyone has the same powers, so there's no incentive to run for the Senate, and if you take the Senate out, you eliminate all elections. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I specifically stated I amended Smid's proposal to deal with this; the Senate is now the House who is able to propose Prime Ministers, not the House, making getting elected to the Senate a Good Thing (tm).  I'm open to more ideas for how to make the Houses less overlappy.

Ah, so ignore my last post. I think the Senate really needs to have powers far and above the House. Perhaps only the Senate can propose legislation. Although that would simply make it our current form with referendum-like governance.

You just need to give the Senate a true purpose beyond choosing the PM.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on May 03, 2009, 04:18:55 PM
Bump. Any ideas left out there? Or would Smid/ilikeverin like me to just bring the above House of Commons proposal to a vote?


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on May 03, 2009, 05:19:46 PM
I'd be up for that, but it might be a good idea to wait for Smid... he seemed to have thought of something and forgotten about it, so perhaps we can make him remember it yet again :)


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on May 03, 2009, 05:24:03 PM
Ooh, I just thought of something fun about my proposal... I was thinking about what would happen if the Senate only nominated one candidate for the House of Commons to choose for Prime Minister, and considering adding in a "NOTA" option... then I realized that the House of Commons could simply do a VoNC and get rid of that Senate entirely.  That's kinda fun!


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on May 03, 2009, 05:45:30 PM
Ooh, I just thought of something fun about my proposal... I was thinking about what would happen if the Senate only nominated one candidate for the House of Commons to choose for Prime Minister, and considering adding in a "NOTA" option... then I realized that the House of Commons could simply do a VoNC and get rid of that Senate entirely.  That's kinda fun!

Being as I looked at that and kinda sorta understood...put it in writing in the Article.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on May 03, 2009, 05:56:35 PM
Ooh, I just thought of something fun about my proposal... I was thinking about what would happen if the Senate only nominated one candidate for the House of Commons to choose for Prime Minister, and considering adding in a "NOTA" option... then I realized that the House of Commons could simply do a VoNC and get rid of that Senate entirely.  That's kinda fun!

Being as I looked at that and kinda sorta understood...put it in writing in the Article.

The Vote of No Confidence thing is already in the Article (last clause); the NOTA clause isn't really necessary, I don't think, because Commons could just use the VoNC in lieu of NOTA.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on May 03, 2009, 05:58:38 PM
Ooh, I just thought of something fun about my proposal... I was thinking about what would happen if the Senate only nominated one candidate for the House of Commons to choose for Prime Minister, and considering adding in a "NOTA" option... then I realized that the House of Commons could simply do a VoNC and get rid of that Senate entirely.  That's kinda fun!

Being as I looked at that and kinda sorta understood...put it in writing in the Article.

The Vote of No Confidence thing is already in the Article (last clause); the NOTA clause isn't really necessary, I don't think, because Commons could just use the VoNC in lieu of NOTA.

So the net of that thinking out loud shpiel was that we can keep it as is? In that case I will give Smid untill tomorrow to comment and then I will bring your formatted Article to a vote.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Smid on May 03, 2009, 08:57:01 PM
Sorry I've been AWOL a bit of late. Work's been quite busy, which means that while I'll peruse the boards every now and then (I've usually got the page open at the back of my windows somewhere), and comment at times, I haven't had many chances to sit and draft anything longer than a PM or two. I've been giving thought to what I was suggesting, and even bounced an idea or two off someone who hasn't been involved in developing the universal proposal to try to get a different perspective on it.

At the forefront of my mind has been the development of the inclusion of a presidential position, the role of the office and the limitations posed upon it.

I've been thinking of moving away from fixed terms, and imposing a maximum time limit for terms instead. Additionally, for the role of the President, I'm thinking of removing the power to veto (since a Bill would need to pass with a majority in both Houses, so it would clearly be representative of the views of the majority of active Atlasians), however allowing the President to amend the Bill and refer it back to the Senate. If the Senate approves the President's amendments, the Bill becomes law. If the Senate does not approve of the President's amendments (and those amendments could quite radically change the Bill if the President wishes), the Senate may further amend the Bill and send it back to the President. The President would then have two options - they can either support the Bill as amended by the Senate, or they can call a "Double Dissolution" election, dismissing the Senate and their own position, whereupon elections will be held for all Senators and for the Presidency.

That sounds more complex than it actually would be in practice, a flow diagram would definitely help. I might see if I can do one up and edit the post later today. For a term-limited President, this would cause them a greater internal conflict - pass a Bill they don't like, or lose a term even if they win an election.

If we remove fixed terms and impose maximum term lengths, one slight twist on term limits (and this is a thought I've only just had) would be to state when a President can no longer run for election (until a certain period of time has passed) rather than how many elections they can contest. This would slightly reduce the internal conflict I mentioned in the previous paragraph and may lead to more frequent DD elections. For example, say under fixed terms, we would have presidential elections every three months. If we have a term limit of two terms, then the President may serve for a maximum of six months. Perhaps instead of doing that, we could have a maximum term length of three months between elections, but allow the President to run in as many presidential elections as he or she sees fit until six months have passed since they were first elected (and allow them to serve out their full final term, even if it extends beyond their six months). After vacating the office (if they are excluded from contesting an election due to being term-limited) they may not contest an election for four months from the end of their term (regardless of how many elections are called in that time).

I've also been thinking of limiting the powers of the Lower House, since that seems to be a sticking point for most non-universalists. Perhaps preventing the Lower House from introducing fresh Bills would create an incentive to run for the Senate, thereby making Senate elections more competitive.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on May 03, 2009, 09:11:46 PM
I've also been thinking of limiting the powers of the Lower House, since that seems to be a sticking point for most non-universalists. Perhaps preventing the Lower House from introducing fresh Bills would create an incentive to run for the Senate, thereby making Senate elections more competitive.

     I definitely think limiting the lower house's powers would be a good idea. Maybe we should also implement Brandon's idea of a minimum activity level to retain it, so if it turns out that the lower house routinely gets ~5 people voting on bills we can put it out of its misery.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Smid on May 03, 2009, 10:30:08 PM
I've also been thinking of limiting the powers of the Lower House, since that seems to be a sticking point for most non-universalists. Perhaps preventing the Lower House from introducing fresh Bills would create an incentive to run for the Senate, thereby making Senate elections more competitive.

     I definitely think limiting the lower house's powers would be a good idea. Maybe we should also implement Brandon's idea of a minimum activity level to retain it, so if it turns out that the lower house routinely gets ~5 people voting on bills we can put it out of its misery.

Perhaps the minimum activity requirement could be more along the lines of a minimum number of votes and speeches to reach "quorum" and if quorum is failed, the Bill passes regardless of the Lower House vote (since by that stage it will have been passed by the Senate). In other words, the Lower House forfeits its rights on that legislation, rather than perpetual. I mean, we still have regional governments under the current model, despite months (years?) of inactivity in the majority of them. I think the Lower House can provide the necessary experience for new members, which is currently at times the way Regional Assemblies have worked - although this would cover everyone, not just people fortunate enough to register in a region with an active Assembly.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on May 03, 2009, 10:35:04 PM
I've also been thinking of limiting the powers of the Lower House, since that seems to be a sticking point for most non-universalists. Perhaps preventing the Lower House from introducing fresh Bills would create an incentive to run for the Senate, thereby making Senate elections more competitive.

     I definitely think limiting the lower house's powers would be a good idea. Maybe we should also implement Brandon's idea of a minimum activity level to retain it, so if it turns out that the lower house routinely gets ~5 people voting on bills we can put it out of its misery.

Perhaps the minimum activity requirement could be more along the lines of a minimum number of votes and speeches to reach "quorum" and if quorum is failed, the Bill passes regardless of the Lower House vote (since by that stage it will have been passed by the Senate). In other words, the Lower House forfeits its rights on that legislation, rather than perpetual. I mean, we still have regional governments under the current model, despite months (years?) of inactivity in the majority of them. I think the Lower House can provide the necessary experience for new members, which is currently at times the way Regional Assemblies have worked - although this would cover everyone, not just people fortunate enough to register in a region with an active Assembly.

     If both houses vote concurrently (which seems to be what you're implying), then that would be acceptable. It just should not be the case that bills get slowed down waiting to see whether or not the lower house will manage to fulfill a quorum. Maybe the lower house should be given a deadline of 48 hours after the cessation of voting in the upper house to achieve a quorum or forfeit its right to vote on that bill.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Smid on May 04, 2009, 12:28:26 AM
     If both houses vote concurrently (which seems to be what you're implying), then that would be acceptable. It just should not be the case that bills get slowed down waiting to see whether or not the lower house will manage to fulfill a quorum. Maybe the lower house should be given a deadline of 48 hours after the cessation of voting in the upper house to achieve a quorum or forfeit its right to vote on that bill.

No, the procedure would be:

Bill is introduced in the Senate,
Bill is voted on "in principle" in the Senate,
Amendments are moved and voted on in the Senate,
Amended Bill is passed by the Senate. Progresses to the Lower House.
Amendments are moved and voted on in the Lower House,
Bill is voted on in the Lower House, including any amendments that have been moved (otherwise, it's just the Bill, as amended by the Senate).
If there are amendments moved by the Lower House, the Bill is sent back to the Upper House for the amendments to be ratified, if the Bill was not amended by the Lower House, it gets sent to the President.
If the Senate ratifies amendments made by the Lower House, the Bill is sent to the President. If the Senate does not approve the amendments made by the Lower House, the Bill fails.

I'm trying to put together a flow chart for the presidential amendments, Double Dissolution concept, but I can likewise incorporate this element to the flow diagram.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 04, 2009, 12:36:50 AM
I don't my name being mentioned as someone you've been chatting with about this proposal, Smid. It's quite alright. :)

In any case I do like some of the improvements here and think it makes it a far better proposal than previously (though I still favor Parliamentary Bicameralism) but I do find the term limit idea a bit confusing. I think term limits would be a bit hard to follow implemented under a system that could be dissolved fairly often, and it might be better if you ignored term limits altogether here. (Then again, you could keep the fixed term limits idea and force people out of office even if their term wasn't lived out in full, as a way to encourage them to work together to avoid dissolution in the first place.)


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on May 04, 2009, 12:45:31 AM
     If both houses vote concurrently (which seems to be what you're implying), then that would be acceptable. It just should not be the case that bills get slowed down waiting to see whether or not the lower house will manage to fulfill a quorum. Maybe the lower house should be given a deadline of 48 hours after the cessation of voting in the upper house to achieve a quorum or forfeit its right to vote on that bill.

No, the procedure would be:

Bill is introduced in the Senate,
Bill is voted on "in principle" in the Senate,
Amendments are moved and voted on in the Senate,
Amended Bill is passed by the Senate. Progresses to the Lower House.
Amendments are moved and voted on in the Lower House,
Bill is voted on in the Lower House, including any amendments that have been moved (otherwise, it's just the Bill, as amended by the Senate).
If there are amendments moved by the Lower House, the Bill is sent back to the Upper House for the amendments to be ratified, if the Bill was not amended by the Lower House, it gets sent to the President.
If the Senate ratifies amendments made by the Lower House, the Bill is sent to the President. If the Senate does not approve the amendments made by the Lower House, the Bill fails.

I'm trying to put together a flow chart for the presidential amendments, Double Dissolution concept, but I can likewise incorporate this element to the flow diagram.

     I do think that certain mechanisms should be incorporated to make sure a bill doesn't languish for whatever period of time in the lower house waiting for a quorum that would not be realized. Perhaps the PM should be able to temporarily dissolve the lower house without affecting the function of the upper house if he determines that it is too inactive.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Smid on May 04, 2009, 02:04:23 AM
I don't my name being mentioned as someone you've been chatting with about this proposal, Smid. It's quite alright. :)

In any case I do like some of the improvements here and think it makes it a far better proposal than previously (though I still favor Parliamentary Bicameralism) but I do find the term limit idea a bit confusing. I think term limits would be a bit hard to follow implemented under a system that could be dissolved fairly often, and it might be better if you ignored term limits altogether here. (Then again, you could keep the fixed term limits idea and force people out of office even if their term wasn't lived out in full, as a way to encourage them to work together to avoid dissolution in the first place.)

Cheers. I didn't want to say anything earlier in case people interpretted "talking" to mean "we have reached an agreement" and I didn't want to make it look like I was putting words in your mouth, as it may have appeared if I'd said "I've been talking with Marokai, and here are a few suggestions on how we can make this thing better."

I do think that certain mechanisms should be incorporated to make sure a bill doesn't languish for whatever period of time in the lower house waiting for a quorum that would not be realized. Perhaps the PM should be able to temporarily dissolve the lower house without affecting the function of the upper house if he determines that it is too inactive.

Time periods are essential in a universal system, otherwise it would get bogged down for too long. If there aren't enough votes cast on a Bill within a certain length of time, then it can be assumed the Lower House has no qualms with the legislation and it's considered passed.

I have done up a flow chart and put it in the gallery because I'm heading home and will therefore be on another computer soon. I'll post it here and explain it later, though (since I don't want to miss my train). I'm not terribly adept at PowerPoint, so my flow chart is actually an organisation chart. Each junction is effectively a yes/no question, and you'll just have to follow it down. It's spread across four pages to make it less jumbled (with relevant instructions at the bottom of each), consequently, it may still look a little complex, but if you follow it down - well, Diagram 1 is really no different to the current Senate procedure (with the addition of a vote when a Bill is first introduced, which could kill the Bill right then and there... other than that, Diagram 1 is identical to the current system... but more on all that later - better yet, don't wander over, leave it until I post it here).


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Smid on May 04, 2009, 09:40:43 AM
Okay, I suspect this will be long and possibly complex (if I can't explain things clearly).

Firstly, assume we limit the introduction of legislation to the Senate, and allow the Lower House to vote on Bills, amend Bills, but not introduce Bills. This first Diagram displays the procedure by which a Bill would be introduced to the Senate:

()

Larger version: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2482_04_05_09_2_51_15.png

The Bill is introduced to the Senate, the same as it is now, however before the Bill is amended, it is debated "in principle" and then voted on. If Senators think the Bill is a good one, or that it is reasonable but could be improved with amendments, they vote in favour. If they don't think there is any way the Bill could be improved by amending it, that there is no way they could support the Bill without it being so drastically changed it would become something else entirely, they vote against the Bill. If the Bill passes this "First Reading," it proceeds to amendments. If it fails the First Reading, the Bill fails.

Amendments are moved and debated. They're voted on the same as amendments presently are. Eventually, there will be no more amendments. The Bill, as amended, is now voted on. This is the "Second Reading." If the Bill passes this Second Reading, it is then sent to the Lower House. If it fails the Second Reading, the Bill fails.

Diagram 1 is therefore not really any different to current Senate procedure, except that it basically introduces a stage at which the Bill could be tabled immediately upon introduction, and instead of being sent to the President for signature/veto, it's sent to the Lower House.

()

Larger version: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2482_04_05_09_2_52_02.png

Once the Bill arrives in the Lower House, MPs now have the chance to move amendments. If no one has any amendments to move, the Bill progresses directly to a vote. If the Bill passes the vote, it is sent to the President for signature/amendments. If the Bill fails at that stage, it fails.

If amendments are moved, they are debated and voted on, exactly as per normal. If no amendments are successful, the Bill is voted on, and if it succeeds, it is sent to the President for signature/amendments. If the Bill fails, it fails. If there are amendments successfully made to the Bill, it is now different to what the Senate passed, so therefore it must be sent to the Senate for the amendments to be ratified.

()

Larger version: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2482_04_05_09_2_52_38.png

The Senate moves a simple Aye/Nay vote on the Bill as amended. If the Lower House amendments are approved by the Senate, the Bill is sent to the President for signature/amendment. If the amendments are not approved by the Senate, the Lower House amendments are removed from the Bill (all of them). The Senate now has the same Bill it passed earlier (the Bill as previously amended by the Senate). Senators may move further amendments (including any Lower House amendments they thought improved the Bill, since the earlier vote was on all amendments, not on individual amendments). It's also possible the Senate moves no further amendments, but it's up to the Senate to decide that.

Once the Senate has no further amendments, it votes on the Bill, and the Bill is returned to the Lower House. The Lower House can no longer amend the Bill, but simply votes Aye/Nay on it. If it votes against the Bill, the Bill fails. If it votes in favour of the Bill, it progresses to the President.

()

Larger version: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2482_04_05_09_2_53_46.png

Once the Bill is presented to the President, the President has two options: sign the Bill or amend the Bill (no outright veto). If they sign the Bill, it becomes law, precisely as is currently the case. If they have additional amendments, they propose the amendments (which may alter the Bill - indeed, the President may deliberately move amendments that he or she knows will be unacceptable to the Senate, in an attempt to get the Senate to kill the Bill).

The Senate then considers the President's amendments, the same way it previously considered amendments moved by the Lower House. If the Senate approves the Presidential amendments, the Bill becomes law (other option, Bill returns to President, who must now sign the Bill into law). If the Presidential amendments are not supported by the Senate, the amendments are stripped from the Bill, which is again voted on (the Senate can no longer add amendments). This gives the Senate the option of killing the Bill. If they vote up the Bill again, it is sent to the President. If the President signs the Bill into law, it becomes law. If the President refuses to sign the Bill, he calls a Double Dissolution election.

We obviously still need to work out the finer details of a DD election (probably in an Act, rather than in the Constitution), but it would probably be for the first weekend more than five days from the date on which it is called (no lengthy campaign period), and last for 72 hours, etc (whatever the normal rules for elections would be).

In a normal General Election (GE), half the Senate (let's say there are 10 Senators, a GE would elect 5 Senators) would be elected and also the President (at each GE - ie, no mid-term Senate elections, but the Senate has a longer term than the President). At a DD, the President and the WHOLE Senate is up for election. Assuming we just use STV-At Large for Senate elections, this would have the effect of doubling the number of positions to be elected, and therefore halve the quota required to be elected (changing the dynamic and improving the chances of very small minor parties and independents). Since this will affect the electability of incumbent Senators, there is a reason for them to kill the Bill in that final step if they so desire. The last five Senators elected would be the first five to be up for re-election at the next GE.

It probably looks quite time consuming, but at most of those steps, there probably won't be amendments. The process for the average Bill would probably be (passes through Diagram 1, then follow left branch of Diagrams 2 and 4):

- Introduced in the Senate
- Passes First Reading
- Amended (or not) by the Senate
- Passes Second Reading
- Passes Lower House
- President signs Bill into Law.

It's only controversial pieces of legislation that would take a more circuitous route and require greater wrangling by parties eager to push their agenda. So most Bills would be completely uncomplicated, but if a party wants to try to block a Bill, it could use the more complex elements of procedure to its advantage.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on May 04, 2009, 12:49:26 PM
I would prefer not to have a President; IMO, one of the strengths of the original proposal is that there isn't one.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: bgwah on May 04, 2009, 03:48:06 PM
I would prefer not to have a President; IMO, one of the strengths of the original proposal is that there isn't one.

The less this system looks like the United States, the more likely it is to fail. IMO... And lack of a President is a pretty glaring omission.

A semi-random thought: It might sound silly, but we shouldn't use words like "Parliament." Can't we just stick with Congress? Even if the proposed system resembles a parliament far more or w/e?

I just worry that new players may see all of these things like "Prime Minister" and "Parliament" and be totally uninterested because they're interested in American government and elections (after all, they're at the U.S. Election Atlas). Let us not forget the failure of Antilla.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: afleitch on May 04, 2009, 03:56:54 PM
I would prefer not to have a President; IMO, one of the strengths of the original proposal is that there isn't one.

The less this system looks like the United States, the more likely it is to fail. IMO... And lack of a President is a pretty glaring omission.


Doesn't seem to have affected things on here for the past 6 months...

(ducks)


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: bgwah on May 04, 2009, 04:34:12 PM
That's fine. I'm just telling you, as someone who is more representative of an average Atlasian, that a lot of your guys' proposals are not interesting at all and will fail to attract any significant number of people.

The elections are always what have been fun in Atlasia. Not this government-simulation-bullsh**t.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: afleitch on May 04, 2009, 04:45:45 PM
That's fine. I'm just telling you, as someone who is more representative of an average Atlasian, that a lot of your guys' proposals are not interesting at all and will fail to attract any significant number of people.

The elections are always what have been fun in Atlasia. Not this government-simulation-bullsh**t.

There is a division between those who participate in government and vote, and those who just vote, The latter will not see anything change; they still get to turn out and vote (regardless of the government system) Those who participate in government either are part of the ConCon already or follow it. So a game is being designed for those who actually want to play both sides of it; doesn't mean it will put anyone else off. Besides as we know it's easier to change voting systems than government systems - so any 'fall out' can be easily re-dressed through legislation (by those who play that side of the game :) )


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: bgwah on May 04, 2009, 05:18:13 PM
Oh, what a bunch of drivel... We saw the same people (Verin and a bunch of foreigners, among others) try their wacky ideas out in Antilla and it was a spectacular failure. And now the same people are trying to turn Atlasia into Antilla 2.0, and I'm simply pointing out that we should learn from past mistakes.

The simple fact that our current system has lasted, with minor changes here and there, for over five years should suggest that we're already doing something right. I highly doubt there are many other (if any) simulations out there that have lasted as long.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: afleitch on May 04, 2009, 05:35:59 PM
Oh, what a bunch of drivel... We saw the same people (Verin and a bunch of foreigners, among others) try their wacky ideas out in Antilla and it was a spectacular failure. And now the same people are trying to turn Atlasia into Antilla 2.0, and I'm simply pointing out that we should learn from past mistakes.

The simple fact that our current system has lasted, with minor changes here and there, for over five years should suggest that we're already doing something right. I highly doubt there are many other (if any) simulations out there that have lasted as long.

Drivel? You know why Antilla didn't work? Because as I've learned people don't have the time for two games on the one forum. It was created because at the time there wasn't a hope in hell's chance of anything happening on this game that remotely reflected the game people wanted. I've been playing it for 4 years and it's been immensely difficult to change (which is why we shouldn't rush this).

If you want to keep things as it, make a case for it. Simple as that.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: bgwah on May 04, 2009, 05:40:48 PM
Drivel? You know why Antilla didn't work? Because as I've learned people don't have the time for two games on the one forum. It was created because at the time there wasn't a hope in hell's chance of anything happening on this game that remotely reflected the game people wanted.

Sorry, but I don't buy that.

Quote
If you want to keep things as it, make a case for it. Simple as that.

I wouldn't have called for a Convention if I wanted things to stay exactly the same. But I clearly don't support such far-reaching and sweeping changes as some of you do. And I fully intend to make a case against such changes.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on May 04, 2009, 06:33:51 PM
Go ahead.  I have yet to hear it.

(Though I do agree with you on the nomenclature)


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on May 04, 2009, 09:04:12 PM
Quote
If you want to keep things as it, make a case for it. Simple as that.

I wouldn't have called for a Convention if I wanted things to stay exactly the same. But I clearly don't support such far-reaching and sweeping changes as some of you do. And I fully intend to make a case against such changes.

I would greatly appreciate your input in discussions in this board. I would recommend you pick whichever proposal you agree with most and attempt to shape it. The proposal outlines pretty much cover all the possible forms we can take. The outlines are broad enough and changeable enough to allow flexibility.

I really hope that all the delegates would contribute, discuss, debate, etc. If you don't like the way a proposal is going, make your voice heard, write your own Article. But bear in mind there are different proposals. You shouldn't argue that Universalism be less universal. Instead, ignore it and work on shaping a different proposal that you do agree with in theory, while the universalists work on their project.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on May 20, 2009, 05:03:28 PM
Should we get something moving?


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on May 20, 2009, 06:26:35 PM

If Smid could put his plan into an article? Or just tell me what to bring up and I'll do it.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Bacon King on May 21, 2009, 12:59:38 PM
I agree that we should have a "Congress" not a "Parliament" and  a "President" not "Prime Minister", for the reasons bgwah stated.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on May 22, 2009, 10:57:12 AM

If Smid could put his plan into an article? Or just tell me what to bring up and I'll do it.

Actually I'm not sure what to bring up anymore :P

I agree that we should have a "Congress" not a "Parliament" and  a "President" not "Prime Minister", for the reasons bgwah stated.

I agree, but I think those differences are largely cosmetic and can be changed in final drafting.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on May 22, 2009, 01:26:04 PM

If Smid could put his plan into an article? Or just tell me what to bring up and I'll do it.

Actually I'm not sure what to bring up anymore :P

I am largely running blind on where to direct universalism. I don't want to step on anyone's toes and appear to push an agenda that goes against the wishes of the more universalist delegates. I am relying on you and Smid to tell me what to bring forward. Just tell me what you want from the discussion thus far and I'll bring it right up to a vote.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on May 23, 2009, 06:33:47 PM
How about we bring forward two relatively uncontroversial portions?

Chapter _ The Judiciary

8(1) Legal disputes shall be heard in the High Court of Atlasia.

8(2) The High Court of Atlasia shall be the Court of Last Resort.

8(3) There shall be three Justices of the High Court of Atlasia.

8(4) Justices of the High Court of Atlasia shall be selected to serve four-month terms.

8(5) Justices of the High Court of Atlasia may serve more than one term.

8(6) Justices of the High Court of Atlasia shall be selected by the Upper House of Atlasia.

8(7) The qualification of a Member of Parliament or a Senator to vote in the election of a Justice of the High Court of Atlasia shall be the same as that in Section 2(8).

8(8 ) Justices of the High Court must resign any other office they occupy, including the office of Member of Parliament in the Lower House, or the office of Senator.

Chapter _ Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered, or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the Lower House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the Lower House, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by the Lower House, it shall be referred to the Senate for ratification,
(v)   The Bill may be debated in the Senate as any other Bill,
(vi)   The Bill shall be voted on by Senators, as any other Bill.

9(2) Voting to change the constitution referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (vi) shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on May 23, 2009, 08:38:47 PM
Sounds good. I hereby bring the following articles to the floor for a vote. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain on each article respectively. All numbering is simply to denote some number and is subject to change based on eventual placement. Brackets [] denote subject to change due to crafting of other Articles.

Quote
Article _: The Judiciary

8(1) Legal disputes shall be heard in the High Court of Atlasia.

8(2) The High Court of Atlasia shall be the Court of Last Resort.

8(3) There shall be three Justices of the High Court of Atlasia.

8(4) Justices of the High Court of Atlasia shall be selected to serve four-month terms.

8(5) Justices of the High Court of Atlasia may serve more than one term.

8(6) Justices of the High Court of Atlasia shall be selected by the Upper House of Atlasia.

8(7) The qualification of a Member of Parliament or a Senator to vote in the election of a Justice of the High Court of Atlasia shall be the same as that in Section [2(8 )].

8(8 ) Justices of the High Court may not hold any other office, including the office of Member of Parliament in the Lower House, or the office of Senator.

Quote
Article _: Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered, or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the Lower House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the Lower House, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by the Lower House, it shall be referred to the Senate for ratification,
(v)   The Bill may be debated in the Senate as any other Bill,
(vi)   The Bill shall be voted on by Senators, as any other Bill.

9(2) Voting to change the constitution referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (vi) shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: ilikeverin on May 23, 2009, 09:42:12 PM
I vote "Yup" to both, o/c :)


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Devilman88 on May 23, 2009, 10:39:12 PM
Aye to both.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on May 23, 2009, 11:54:12 PM
     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Purple State on May 24, 2009, 12:08:07 AM
     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on May 24, 2009, 01:26:38 AM
     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.

     Even if it is a majority of all Atlasians, I still don't like it. That's how you end up with hundreds of amendments cheapening the process like in California or Texas.

     Aye, Abstain.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Smid on May 24, 2009, 02:58:08 AM
Aye, Aye.

I recognise PiT's concerns, perhaps we can move an amendment to that later.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 24, 2009, 03:23:28 AM
Aye, Abstain


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Hash on May 24, 2009, 06:52:35 AM
Aye/Aye.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Daniel Adams on May 24, 2009, 12:52:20 PM
Aye, Abstain.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: MaxQue on May 24, 2009, 01:47:11 PM
Nay, Abstain


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Bacon King on May 24, 2009, 03:39:56 PM
aye, abstain


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: CultureKing on May 24, 2009, 09:20:39 PM
Aye, Nay


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: ilikeverin on May 24, 2009, 10:15:59 PM
     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.

     Even if it is a majority of all Atlasians, I still don't like it. That's how you end up with hundreds of amendments cheapening the process like in California or Texas.

I can understand that argument IRL, but here on the forum I think our population is small and sane enough that we'd not do such things. (and even if we did we'd be able to fix it no problem)  This also allows reforms to be made easier, requiring fewer active members to counteract "no-change zombies" (which I don't intend to refer to people who oppose significant change to the government structures here but instead the occasional voter who happens to wander around and takes the default option on every issue, which is usually "no").


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Purple State on May 24, 2009, 10:21:37 PM
     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.

     Even if it is a majority of all Atlasians, I still don't like it. That's how you end up with hundreds of amendments cheapening the process like in California or Texas.

I can understand that argument IRL, but here on the forum I think our population is small and sane enough that we'd not do such things. (and even if we did we'd be able to fix it no problem)  This also allows reforms to be made easier, requiring fewer active members to counteract "no-change zombies" (which I don't intend to refer to people who oppose significant change to the government structures here but instead the occasional voter who happens to wander around and takes the default option on every issue, which is usually "no").

Each side makes a strong point (grateful I don't get a vote ;)). I will bring the matter to a vote after this and allow the delegates to decide between the two.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: ilikeverin on May 24, 2009, 10:25:40 PM
     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.

     Even if it is a majority of all Atlasians, I still don't like it. That's how you end up with hundreds of amendments cheapening the process like in California or Texas.

I can understand that argument IRL, but here on the forum I think our population is small and sane enough that we'd not do such things. (and even if we did we'd be able to fix it no problem)  This also allows reforms to be made easier, requiring fewer active members to counteract "no-change zombies" (which I don't intend to refer to people who oppose significant change to the government structures here but instead the occasional voter who happens to wander around and takes the default option on every issue, which is usually "no").

Each side makes a strong point (grateful I don't get a vote ;)). I will bring the matter to a vote after this and allow the delegates to decide between the two.

Makes sense to me.  I hardly noticed the caveat in there when I first posted it, but I'm not unhappy about it now; it's how constitutional amendments work in the Midwest, which has always kept our system, well, interesting ;)

(no matter how you feel about the ilikeverinship elections now, do note how easy it will be to change them to something more in line with the status quo!)


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on May 25, 2009, 03:25:47 PM
     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.

     Even if it is a majority of all Atlasians, I still don't like it. That's how you end up with hundreds of amendments cheapening the process like in California or Texas.

I can understand that argument IRL, but here on the forum I think our population is small and sane enough that we'd not do such things. (and even if we did we'd be able to fix it no problem)  This also allows reforms to be made easier, requiring fewer active members to counteract "no-change zombies" (which I don't intend to refer to people who oppose significant change to the government structures here but instead the occasional voter who happens to wander around and takes the default option on every issue, which is usually "no").

     I agree that the populace of Atlasia is sane enough to not pass dumb amendments, but I think it never hurts to set the bar for amendments higher. In both Atlasia & real life the important amendments have gotten passed anyway.

     That aside, I'm not aware of how many really significant changes have been blocked by "no-change zombies". Also, I think if it were introduced without much fanfare we would be able to get an amendment through without zombies appearing to vote against it.

     Furthermore, I think that it is annoying to deal with a Constitution with a large number of amendments. Just look at the wiki page; each amendment has its own page, complicating matters for people who want to familiarize themselves with Constitutional matters or want to see if an exact matter is touched on that they do not see in the main body of the text. Even if we overturn a bad amendment that gets passed, that's two more pages for amendments that end up taking up space on the list of amendments.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: ilikeverin on May 25, 2009, 05:13:48 PM
     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.

     Even if it is a majority of all Atlasians, I still don't like it. That's how you end up with hundreds of amendments cheapening the process like in California or Texas.

I can understand that argument IRL, but here on the forum I think our population is small and sane enough that we'd not do such things. (and even if we did we'd be able to fix it no problem)  This also allows reforms to be made easier, requiring fewer active members to counteract "no-change zombies" (which I don't intend to refer to people who oppose significant change to the government structures here but instead the occasional voter who happens to wander around and takes the default option on every issue, which is usually "no").

     I agree that the populace of Atlasia is sane enough to not pass dumb amendments, but I think it never hurts to set the bar for amendments higher. In both Atlasia & real life the important amendments have gotten passed anyway.

     That aside, I'm not aware of how many really significant changes have been blocked by "no-change zombies".

You're about to :P

Quote
Also, I think if it were introduced without much fanfare we would be able to get an amendment through without zombies appearing to vote against it.

Maybe, but doesn't that kind of defeat the point of increasing activity?

Quote
     Furthermore, I think that it is annoying to deal with a Constitution with a large number of amendments. Just look at the wiki page; each amendment has its own page, complicating matters for people who want to familiarize themselves with Constitutional matters or want to see if an exact matter is touched on that they do not see in the main body of the text. Even if we overturn a bad amendment that gets passed, that's two more pages for amendments that end up taking up space on the list of amendments.

Then just do what the Midwest does (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Midwest_Constitution_(As_Amended)) and have a Constitution-as-Amended.

Come to think of it, why couldn't we have a national constitution as short and as simple as the regional ones?


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on May 25, 2009, 09:33:32 PM
Also, I think if it were introduced without much fanfare we would be able to get an amendment through without zombies appearing to vote against it.

Maybe, but doesn't that kind of defeat the point of increasing activity?

     But if we succeed in increasing activity, I imagine that no-change zombies would become less of a problem, as more active citizens would also be easier to convince of the necessity of a given change.

     Furthermore, I think that it is annoying to deal with a Constitution with a large number of amendments. Just look at the wiki page; each amendment has its own page, complicating matters for people who want to familiarize themselves with Constitutional matters or want to see if an exact matter is touched on that they do not see in the main body of the text. Even if we overturn a bad amendment that gets passed, that's two more pages for amendments that end up taking up space on the list of amendments.

Then just do what the Midwest does (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Midwest_Constitution_(As_Amended)) and have a Constitution-as-Amended.

Come to think of it, why couldn't we have a national constitution as short and as simple as the regional ones?

     A Constitution-as-Amended would be a wonderful idea. I find it quite cumbersome to have a Constitution whose original text is separated from its amendments.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Purple State on May 25, 2009, 10:33:22 PM
Final Judiciary Vote Count
Aye = 9
Nay = 1

Final Amendments Vote Count
Aye = 4
Nay = 1
Abstain = 5

Quorum: Achieved
Results: Judiciary passes, Amendments fails



If you put up separate versions with majority and two-thirds for the Amendments article, I will be happy to bring up a vote between the two and NOTA to get it passed.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 25, 2009, 11:40:44 PM
I would easily vote for an amendments section that requires a two thirds majority. I think a simple majority cheapens the process, considering the importance of Constitutional Amendments.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Smid on May 26, 2009, 12:03:42 AM
I would easily vote for an amendments section that requires a two thirds majority. I think a simple majority cheapens the process, considering the importance of Constitutional Amendments.

Yeah, that's cool. A few options would be two thirds of both Houses, two thirds of a joint sitting of both Houses (ie, everyone votes together, rather than passed by the Senate and then by the House, each with a two thirds majority), or passed by the Senate (simple majority) and then the House (two thirds majority).


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on May 27, 2009, 08:25:02 PM
I would easily vote for an amendments section that requires a two thirds majority. I think a simple majority cheapens the process, considering the importance of Constitutional Amendments.

Yeah, that's cool. A few options would be two thirds of both Houses, two thirds of a joint sitting of both Houses (ie, everyone votes together, rather than passed by the Senate and then by the House, each with a two thirds majority), or passed by the Senate (simple majority) and then the House (two thirds majority).

Do you want to create the new versions, then?  I'm not sure which two-thirds proposal people would favor.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Smid on May 27, 2009, 08:30:26 PM
Personally, I'd prefer the passed (normally) by the Senate, and then requires a 2/3rd majority of the House. Two-thirds of a joint sitting would probably be easiest to manage, because you could just open a thread and have everyone vote in it.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on May 31, 2009, 11:08:25 PM
Bump. Need your thoughts guys.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on June 09, 2009, 11:01:07 PM
Okay, here are three possible articles, each with their own spin on it.

Option 1, which is that it is like any other bill:

Quote
Article _: Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered, or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the Lower House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the Lower House, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by the Lower House, it shall be referred to the Senate for ratification,
(v)   The Bill may be debated in the Senate as any other Bill,
(vi)   The Bill shall be voted on by Senators, as any other Bill.

9(2) Voting to change the constitution referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (vi) shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).

Option 2, which is most similar to the system today.  Basically, the bill would have to be approved by two-thirds of one of the Houses of Congress to be put to a full vote:

Quote
Article _: Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered, or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the either House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the House in which it was introduced, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by that House, it shall be referred to a joint session of the Houses of Congress, in which all members may vote.
(v)   The Bill requires two-thirds of all members to be approved.

9(2) Voting to change the constitution referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (v) shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).

And Option 3, an interesting third idea based off Smid's idea.  It would give the Senate more power.

Quote
Article _: Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered, or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the Upper House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the Upper House, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by the Upper House, it shall be referred to the House for ratification,
(v)   The Bill may be debated in the House as any other Bill,
(vi)   The Bill shall be voted on by Representatives, requiring a two-thirds majority.

9(2) Voting to change the constitution referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (vi) shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).

I suggest preferential voting.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: ilikeverin on June 16, 2009, 07:33:41 PM
Okay, here are three possible articles, each with their own spin on it.

Option 1, which is that it is like any other bill:

Quote
Article _: Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered, or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the Lower House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the Lower House, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by the Lower House, it shall be referred to the Senate for ratification,
(v)   The Bill may be debated in the Senate as any other Bill,
(vi)   The Bill shall be voted on by Senators, as any other Bill.

9(2) Voting to change the constitution referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (vi) shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).

Option 2, which is most similar to the system today.  Basically, the bill would have to be approved by two-thirds of one of the Houses of Congress to be put to a full vote:

Quote
Article _: Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered, or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the either House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the House in which it was introduced, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by that House, it shall be referred to a joint session of the Houses of Congress, in which all members may vote.
(v)   The Bill requires two-thirds of all members to be approved.

9(2) Voting to change the constitution referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (v) shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).

And Option 3, an interesting third idea based off Smid's idea.  It would give the Senate more power.

Quote
Article _: Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered, or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the Upper House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the Upper House, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by the Upper House, it shall be referred to the House for ratification,
(v)   The Bill may be debated in the House as any other Bill,
(vi)   The Bill shall be voted on by Representatives, requiring a two-thirds majority.

9(2) Voting to change the constitution referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (vi) shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).

I suggest preferential voting.

Hello?

(and the "preferential voting" thing was to determine which of these should be used)


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Discussion Open)
Post by: Purple State on June 16, 2009, 08:03:55 PM
Sorry about the delay. I like your idea for preferential voting, otherwise I would have to hold two votes to weed out one option first and then pick between the remaining two.

I bring the following motion for a vote. There are three options in this vote. Please indicate your first and second preference by indicating with a 1 and 2. Voting shall last for 48 hours at the discretion of the presiding officer.

Option 1
Quote
Article _: Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the Lower House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the Lower House, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by the Lower House, it shall be referred to the Senate for ratification,
(v)   The Bill may be debated in the Senate as any other Bill,
(vi)   The Bill shall be voted on by Senators, as any other Bill.

9(2) Voting on changes to the constitution, referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (vi), shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).


Option 2
Quote
Article _: Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered, or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the either House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the House in which it was introduced, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by that House, it shall be referred to a joint session of the Houses of Congress, in which all members may vote.
(v)   The Bill requires two-thirds of all members to be approved.

9(2) Voting on changes to the constitution, referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (v), shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).


Option 3
Quote
Article _: Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered, or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the Upper House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the Upper House, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by the Upper House, it shall be referred to the House for ratification,
(v)   The Bill may be debated in the House as any other Bill,
(vi)   The Bill shall be voted on by Representatives, requiring a two-thirds majority.

9(2) Voting on changes to the constitution, referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (vi), shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on June 16, 2009, 08:11:51 PM
[  ] Option 1
[1] Option 2
[2] Option 3


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: ilikeverin on June 16, 2009, 08:58:29 PM
1. Option 3
2. Option 1
3. Option 2


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Devilman88 on June 16, 2009, 09:13:16 PM

[ 3 ] Option 1
[1] Option 2
[2] Option 3


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: MaxQue on June 20, 2009, 12:39:42 AM
[2] Option 1
[1] Option 2
[ ] Option 3


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Daniel Adams on June 20, 2009, 11:55:40 AM
[ ] Option 1
[1] Option 2
[2] Option 3


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Purple State on June 20, 2009, 09:51:37 PM
I gave it four days and not even the universalists bothered to vote. This motion lacks any sort of quorum and thus fails.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: ilikeverin on June 20, 2009, 09:58:17 PM
I gave it four days and not even the universalists bothered to vote. This motion lacks any sort of quorum and thus fails.

Sportsmanlike of you.

Well, given that it got the most votes of the people that did vote, I motion for a vote on the most default of articles:

Quote
Article _: Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered, or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the either House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the House in which it was introduced, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by that House, it shall be referred to a joint session of the Houses of Congress, in which all members may vote.
(v)   The Bill requires two-thirds of all members to be approved.

9(2) Voting on changes to the constitution, referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (v), shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).

Maybe a simple up or down vote on an article that essentially changes nothing will encourage people to vote, because then they don't even have to think.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Daniel Adams on June 22, 2009, 02:28:09 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Bacon King on June 22, 2009, 03:43:06 PM
Sure, aye.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: ilikeverin on June 22, 2009, 06:08:41 PM
Premature, as Purple State hasn't commented, but the sentiment is appreciated ;)


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Purple State on June 22, 2009, 11:35:50 PM
Premature, as Purple State hasn't commented, but the sentiment is appreciated ;)

At this point I am half ready to just call a motion to end the Convention. We are consistently missing a quorum and it appears that popular sentiment plans on rejecting any Constitution this Convention creates.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Hash on June 23, 2009, 08:29:50 AM
Aye

Though this proposal, or basically any other proposal which isn't the status-quo has no chance.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: ilikeverin on June 23, 2009, 11:24:44 AM
Though this proposal, or basically any other proposal which isn't the status-quo has no chance.

Oh, why, I hadn't noticed the tone of debate for the past two months :P

I just seek to provide Atlasians with a valid alternative to the status quo.  I know they're going to vote it down, but it's wrong to go down without a fight, or at least an informed debate on the subject.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Hash on June 23, 2009, 04:30:02 PM
Though this proposal, or basically any other proposal which isn't the status-quo has no chance.

Oh, why, I hadn't noticed the tone of debate for the past two months :P

I just seek to provide Atlasians with a valid alternative to the status quo.  I know they're going to vote it down, but it's wrong to go down without a fight, or at least an informed debate on the subject.

I'm all for it, obviously. But I doubt this convention will even go to its term, as it's becoming increasingly likely (and not an entirely bad idea, seeing how little delegates care and how everybody just wants bad ol' status-quo to win).


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: ilikeverin on June 24, 2009, 11:04:26 AM
Though this proposal, or basically any other proposal which isn't the status-quo has no chance.

Oh, why, I hadn't noticed the tone of debate for the past two months :P

I just seek to provide Atlasians with a valid alternative to the status quo.  I know they're going to vote it down, but it's wrong to go down without a fight, or at least an informed debate on the subject.

I'm all for it, obviously. But I doubt this convention will even go to its term, as it's becoming increasingly likely (and not an entirely bad idea, seeing how little delegates care and how everybody just wants bad ol' status-quo to win).

Yeah, I agree.

Still, bashing my head against a break wall is hours of fun.  Purple State should be more impartial here and open this to a vote.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Purple State on June 24, 2009, 08:51:11 PM
Though this proposal, or basically any other proposal which isn't the status-quo has no chance.

Oh, why, I hadn't noticed the tone of debate for the past two months :P

I just seek to provide Atlasians with a valid alternative to the status quo.  I know they're going to vote it down, but it's wrong to go down without a fight, or at least an informed debate on the subject.

I'm all for it, obviously. But I doubt this convention will even go to its term, as it's becoming increasingly likely (and not an entirely bad idea, seeing how little delegates care and how everybody just wants bad ol' status-quo to win).

Yeah, I agree.

Still, bashing my head against a break wall is hours of fun.  Purple State should be more impartial here and open this to a vote.

I am fine being impartial, but if this vote won't even reach a quorum I don't want to waste your time and energy with writing up something your peers will neither pass, nor reject.

Perhaps we should close down the current proposals (but keep them on record just in case) and find ways to amend the current Constitution to better serve Atlasia. In the process we could consolidate all current amendment in order to clean the Constitution up, etc.

If you insist, I will be happy to open a vote up and include all those that have voiced their votes already.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on June 24, 2009, 09:14:49 PM
     Aye


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: ilikeverin on June 24, 2009, 11:20:52 PM
If you insist, I will be happy to open a vote up and include all those that have voiced their votes already.

I would appreciate that.  Let's let these things come up for a vote before we insist they're dead.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Purple State on June 24, 2009, 11:23:18 PM
I bring the following to a vote of the delegates. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain. This vote shall last for 48 hours:

Quote
Article _: Changing the Constitution
9(1) Any section of this Constitution may be altered, or deleted, or a new section added, by the following procedure:
(i)   A Bill containing the reworded section, or the section to be deleted, or the section to be added must be introduced to the either House of Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill,
(ii)   The Bill may be debated as any other Bill,
(iii)   The Bill shall be voted on by Members of the House in which it was introduced, as any other Bill,
(iv)   If the Bill is passed by that House, it shall be referred to a joint session of the Houses of Congress, in which all members may vote.
(v)   The Bill requires two-thirds of all members to be approved.

9(2) Voting on changes to the constitution, referred to in Section 9(1)(iii) and (v), shall be open for one week.

9(3) The qualification to vote for or against a Bill to amend the Constitution, whether in a House of Parliament or in a Regional Caucus shall be the same as that in Section 2(8 ).

I will be counting the votes already registered by Dan Adamas, BK, Hash and PiT.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: ilikeverin on June 24, 2009, 11:24:40 PM
Yup


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 24, 2009, 11:37:32 PM
Abstain (This is a pointless exercise.)


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: MaxQue on June 26, 2009, 02:15:00 AM
Aye, even if that will not reach the quorum and than the proposition will never pass.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Purple State on June 26, 2009, 02:18:06 PM
I won't be available to close the booth tonight. However, at exactly 12:24am EST on June 27, 2009, this vote will conclude, with a 24 hour extension if a quorum is not reached.


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: ilikeverin on June 27, 2009, 11:09:34 AM
I doubt we've reached a quorum; in any case, I'm starting to wonder whether this Convention could even reach a quorum to close itself :P


Title: Re: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
Post by: Purple State on June 27, 2009, 08:34:30 PM
I doubt we've reached a quorum; in any case, I'm starting to wonder whether this Convention could even reach a quorum to close itself :P

A PM blitz would take care of that. But I hardly want to whip up delegates for every damn motion vote.