Government Proposal Debate (Closed)

[Smid]

A Universal Parliamentary Model

I believe that a parliamentary model is the best for improving the game play for active members of Atlasia and people who wish to be more active in Atlasia, however do not hold an elected office.

Personally, when I first became involved in the Fantasy Elections board, I found that there weren't many opportunities to become active, other than by voting in the actual elections. I didn't hold any position, I wasn't involved with any party, I just sort of watched and voted and that was about all. I don't think I even posted anything in Atlasia until Lief appointed me CJO of the Northeast.

Unless a participant holds a position, it is very difficult to be active on this board. A parliamentary model with a universal Lower House would rectify this. If every registered participant is a member of a Lower House, then every registered participant can be involved in the day-to-day, week-to-week activities of Atlasia. They can debate Bills and they can vote on them. They can participate in Leadership ballots and move amendments to Bills. It is simply incorrect to assume that universal membership of the Lower House would stifle activity - it would actually increase the opportunity to be involved for the majority of registered participants.

Obviously, a participant will only be as active as they wish to be - a person not interested in getting involved in debates on Bills wouldn't be forced to, however the opportunity is at least present.

An elected Upper House, slightly expanded on the numbers currently in the Senate would ensure that there are elections for positions and that those positions have a degree of power. If the Upper House were expanded to 15, each Senator would still have 1/15th of a say in whether a Bill passes or fails. This is obviously greater power than a regular participant in the Lower House who does not hold an elected position - which creates an incentive to run for the Upper House.

Before Bills become law, they would need to pass through both Houses of Parliament and any amendments to them would need to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. Just because a Bill passes the Lower House, doesn't mean that it will automatically pass the Upper House, filled with elected representatives. Since the Upper House needs to also pass any Bills and since the membership of the Upper House is exclusive to elected representatives, elections will play an essential role in the game - a party that doesn't contest elections will find that it must rely on another party to support its legislative agenda, even if it has an absolute majority.

The Prime Minister would be elected from the Lower House - and while some may prefer the Senators also vote in that leadership ballot, I'd prefer just Lower House members are entitled to vote (the exact method would be determined later in the Convention). Again - an important election that would lead to the winner being able to set a legislative agenda. If a party didn't contest these elections, they would be able to introduce fewer Bills, so campaigning and winning the election for Prime Minister is an essential part of the game.

Whether you look at the Prime Ministerial elections or the Upper House elections - a Parliamentary model still revolves around elections, it is an elections sim with enhanced government sim aspects.

Presently, an unelected member of Atlasia is less able to contribute to debate or be actively involved in Atlasia generally. If we want to ponder the reason behind zombie voters, we need look no further than the inability to be involved. If we improve the ability to actively participate in Atlasia, people will be able to participate in more than just votes and therefore the number of zombie voters would be decreased. Furthermore, if it is possible to be actively involved in Atlasia, then there can more easily be a requirement of participation in determining eligibility to vote. If someone has the ability to debate Bills and doesn't, then they should probably lose their ability to vote in the elections. A model that does not guarantee universal participation to anyone who is interested in being involved cannot restrict votes to active members. The only way that can be done is by providing an opportunity to participate.

This is therefore the principal reason I support a universal Lower House - because it allows for anyone and everyone to participate in more than just voting.

Whichever model is chosen, elected positions will still be more important than unelected ones, and allowing a universal Lower House is no exception.

I believe that a Parliamentary model with a universal Lower House and an elected Upper House provides the best balance between universal participation and elections, it improves the ability of the average participant to be involved, while at the same time creating important roles for which people will need to campaign and contest elections.

My argument thus far has been in favour of a universal Lower House - to improve participation, however it could be put that we have a presidential model with this universal participation model - by simply adding a Lower House to the current game. There is, however, a reason I believe that a Parliamentary model would work best:

Therefore, as a final point - and this is the reason I support a parliamentary model over a presidential model for any system with a universal Lower House - if we are placing the power to pass Legislation in the hands of the Legislature, comprised of both Houses of Parliament, it is important that the power remains in the hands of the legislature rather than the executive. The executive should have a role in setting the legislative agenda, but a President popularly elected should not have the ability to veto legislation and should be answerable to the House. If all participants are able to vote on legislation, then for a Bill to pass the House, it must have fairly strong support (certainly a majority of people who voted - and since everyone is entitled to vote, one would assume a majority of those who care one way or the other about the legislation). It is therefore important that the President not be entitled to overturn the Bill. Instead, I believe it makes far more sense to elect a Prime Minister to the Lower House and to allow them to appoint their Ministers - and this executive branch of PM and Ministers set the legislative agenda and not be able to veto Bills.

Sorry if I'm overly verbose - I get that way when I'm tired. I'm off to bed now, so if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them in the morning.