SENATE BILL: The Bicameral Birthing Amendment of 2014 (sent to the Regions?)

[Adam Griffin]

So I haven't had a lot of time to think about what differences would exist; as I said before, I didn't spend much time contemplating/trying to draft ideas ahead of the basic framework that was proposed because debate would need to occur, anyway.

I would definitely like to see a majority/minority leader system in place, where a party or parties will have to build a coalition in order to govern. We may not be in a two-party system forever.

Here's a cheat-sheet for us to consider if we're to go with a standard that mimics real life:

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

THe amendment 61:49 has been adopted.


I would prefer we keep it as simple as possible though. The very reason that we won't be in a two party system for ever make me leary of establishing a system that requires conferences or caucuses to function. The nice thing about the committees was that they could be dispensed with, without jeopardizing basic functions, where as in such a scenario and with so few people in the Senate especially it is not practical. You could possibly do it with 11 in the House though.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I am all in favor of introducing the bills in the House and then passing them there and sending them to the Senate. We could allow both senators and house members to introduce laws, obviously, but they would all start in the house.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

How would sponsorship of bills introduced by Senators work when the bills go to the House?  Will bills require a sponsor on the House as well?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I honestly am fine with it either way. We could assume a House member would sponsor a bill, but I could see a situation where no one would want to, and that may block out some people's voices from being heard.

[TNF]

What's our current text on this? I have an amendment I'd like to propose.

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Article 1, Section 4 of the Third Constitution of Atlasia is amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 3: The Addition of the House

1. Article 1, Section 8 of the Third Constitution shall be entitled “The House” and shall read:
   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 4: House Districts and Elections

1. Article 1, Section 9 of the Third Constitution shall be entitled “Elections to the House” and shall read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Keep in mind I also intended the leadership in the house to be partisan. I know a lot of us talked about making the PPT partisan in the past, but I felt it would be better served with a partisan house and a nonpartisan senate. Keeping with my balance theme...

[TNF]

This is what I'm basically thinking (will write a full amendment soon):

House of Representatives:

- Elected in January, May, September by party-list proportional representation (nationwide)
- Consists of 20 members
- Four month term
- ALL legislation must originate in the House
- The President's cabinet is shared by both the President and the House; the President nominates members of the cabinet, who must be members of the House of Representatives. The President also nominates the First Secretary, who acts as head of the cabinet and is responsible for maintaining the House queue. The cabinet must consist of a working majority of the House, and so it makes sense that the House would essentially be subject to partisan control.
- The First Secretary would maintain the queue and have the power to authorize which bills make it to the floor for votes. 10 bills would be allowed on the floor at a time: 5 of those bills would be selected by the First Secretary, 2 of those bills would be selected by the Opposition Leader, 2 of those bills would be selected by the President, and the final bill would be the oldest bill introduced that has not been otherwise selected.
- The Opposition Leader would represent the second-largest party in the House and would be given the option of maintaining a Shadow Cabinet.
- The President may dismiss members of the cabinet (including the First Secretary) but he may only do so subject to the approval of a vote of the House. The House may likewise reject any appointments to the cabinet by the President; all confirmations would be done by majority vote.
- The Opposition Leader may call for a vote of no confidence in the First Secretary and/or the Cabinet, in which case a majority vote for approval would be needed to dismiss the cabinet and/or the First Secretary from office. In the event that the cabinet or First Secretary is dismissed, the President will have the opportunity to either appoint a new cabinet/First Secretary (subject to House approval), or may call for early elections.
- In the event that early elections to the House are called, a voting booth to elect a new House shall be established two weeks afterward to elect the new House. In the meantime, the President shall appoint a caretaker government (subject to the approval of the House) that will maintain existing legislative affairs until the new vote is finished
- The election of a new House before the expiration of the term of the old one will simply mean said new House will serve out the term of the old House. For example, if a new House election is held in March, it will be subject to election again in May
- The House will consider all legislation and pass it via majority vote for action in the Senate.

The Senate
- Elected in January and in July
- Consists of 10 members
- Elected every six months by IRV in the regions
- Each Region gets two Senators
- The Senate has no legislative power. It cannot change laws proposed by the House of Representatives, however...
- ...the Senate has the power to critique and delay the implementation of said laws. A majority vote of the Senate can delay the implementation of a law for three months, a 2/3rds vote can delay the implementation of a law for six months, and a unanimous vote by the Senate can veto a law proposed by the House in its entirety.
- Otherwise the Senate will vote to approve the law passed by the House
- Vice President can break ties

The President
- Elected in conjunction with the House of Representatives for a four month term
- Limited to two consecutive terms in office, with non-consecutive terms permitted if time has passed between the first two consecutive terms and the next possible run for office
- Appoints Cabinet and First Secretary from majority party in the House
- All appoints subject to approval by the House
- if legislation is passed by the House and then approved by the Senate, the President may sign said act into law or delay it's implementation for a period of six months
- six month delay may be overridden by a 2/3rds vote of the House and a 2/3rds vote of the Senate
- in the event of a vacancy, Vice President assumes title of acting President, with an early election held two weeks later to fill out the term of the Presidency

Supreme Court
- Six members serving a single, non-consecutive and non-renewable 12 month term
- 3 members appointed by the President and subject to confirmation by the House
- 3 members chosen at random by drawing lots

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The only issue I have with that is 30 offices are far too many. We'd never fill them all or if we did, they'd hardly ever be competitive.

[TNF]

The only issue I have with that is 30 offices are far too many. We'd never fill them all or if we did, they'd hardly ever be competitive.

I was just throwing numbers around, and yeah, 30 is probably way too many. Perhaps 5 Senators and 10 members of the House?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The only issue I have with that is 30 offices are far too many. We'd never fill them all or if we did, they'd hardly ever be competitive.

I was just throwing numbers around, and yeah, 30 is probably way too many. Perhaps 5 Senators and 10 members of the House?

We have it set in the bill already at 11 in the house and 6 in the senate. I think most of us agree on that. We want an odd number in the House so there won't be any ties, much like the House of Reps is set up in the US.

[TNF]

That sounds good. I really hope we can somehow get parliamentarianism out of this, that'd be fun.

[bore]

The only way TNF's numbers could ever work is if regions were abolished.

[Cincinnatus]

The only way TNF's numbers could ever work is if regions were abolished.

That's his point, of course.

[Lumine]

This is what I'm basically thinking (will write a full amendment soon):

House of Representatives:

- Elected in January, May, September by party-list proportional representation (nationwide)
- Consists of 20 members
- Four month term
- ALL legislation must originate in the House
- The President's cabinet is shared by both the President and the House; the President nominates members of the cabinet, who must be members of the House of Representatives. The President also nominates the First Secretary, who acts as head of the cabinet and is responsible for maintaining the House queue. The cabinet must consist of a working majority of the House, and so it makes sense that the House would essentially be subject to partisan control.
- The First Secretary would maintain the queue and have the power to authorize which bills make it to the floor for votes. 10 bills would be allowed on the floor at a time: 5 of those bills would be selected by the First Secretary, 2 of those bills would be selected by the Opposition Leader, 2 of those bills would be selected by the President, and the final bill would be the oldest bill introduced that has not been otherwise selected.
- The Opposition Leader would represent the second-largest party in the House and would be given the option of maintaining a Shadow Cabinet.
- The President may dismiss members of the cabinet (including the First Secretary) but he may only do so subject to the approval of a vote of the House. The House may likewise reject any appointments to the cabinet by the President; all confirmations would be done by majority vote.
- The Opposition Leader may call for a vote of no confidence in the First Secretary and/or the Cabinet, in which case a majority vote for approval would be needed to dismiss the cabinet and/or the First Secretary from office. In the event that the cabinet or First Secretary is dismissed, the President will have the opportunity to either appoint a new cabinet/First Secretary (subject to House approval), or may call for early elections.
- In the event that early elections to the House are called, a voting booth to elect a new House shall be established two weeks afterward to elect the new House. In the meantime, the President shall appoint a caretaker government (subject to the approval of the House) that will maintain existing legislative affairs until the new vote is finished
- The election of a new House before the expiration of the term of the old one will simply mean said new House will serve out the term of the old House. For example, if a new House election is held in March, it will be subject to election again in May
- The House will consider all legislation and pass it via majority vote for action in the Senate.

The Senate
- Elected in January and in July
- Consists of 10 members
- Elected every six months by IRV in the regions
- Each Region gets two Senators
- The Senate has no legislative power. It cannot change laws proposed by the House of Representatives, however...
- ...the Senate has the power to critique and delay the implementation of said laws. A majority vote of the Senate can delay the implementation of a law for three months, a 2/3rds vote can delay the implementation of a law for six months, and a unanimous vote by the Senate can veto a law proposed by the House in its entirety.
- Otherwise the Senate will vote to approve the law passed by the House
- Vice President can break ties

The President
- Elected in conjunction with the House of Representatives for a four month term
- Limited to two consecutive terms in office, with non-consecutive terms permitted if time has passed between the first two consecutive terms and the next possible run for office
- Appoints Cabinet and First Secretary from majority party in the House
- All appoints subject to approval by the House
- if legislation is passed by the House and then approved by the Senate, the President may sign said act into law or delay it's implementation for a period of six months
- six month delay may be overridden by a 2/3rds vote of the House and a 2/3rds vote of the Senate
- in the event of a vacancy, Vice President assumes title of acting President, with an early election held two weeks later to fill out the term of the Presidency

Supreme Court
- Six members serving a single, non-consecutive and non-renewable 12 month term
- 3 members appointed by the President and subject to confirmation by the House
- 3 members chosen at random by drawing lots

In all fairness, I would love to have a parliamentary system, so some of this ideas serve a good starting point. I would advocate staying with the numbers we already have unless we actually choose to go for a Westminster system (in which case a bigger House size looks more reasonable), and I'm rather conflicted between having elections every two or three months or staying with a four month terms (which does seem rather high in light of RL time demands for some members). Six members for the Supreme Court seems a little bit high, I suspect we would have problems to find members to serve there soon with such a large number and non-renewable terms.

I do enthusiastically support the votes of no confidence, the possibility of an early election and the Shadow Cabinet for the opposition (s) leader (s). The Cabinet we installed in the Progressive Union was certainly not suited to a Presidential system, but the idea had a lot of potential even with the contraints we had.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Is a parliamentary system a good idea? I mean, I don't even know how that works, and I'm not sure it would excite many people except for a few people. I certainly can't see it having mass appeal, but I could be wrong.

I'd be okay if we want to use some of its politicking, but I don't want to drive off any new players because they don't know how a parliamentary system works.

As for the Court, yeah, 6 is too high given we have a hard time filling the 3 slots. I'm happy with an 11 member house, 6 member senate, and 3 member court, and I think that's the most workable plan we can pass that actually has a chance at getting implemented. I know some have wanted us to use a European style system, but again, I am concerned that will lead to confusion and would stand little chance at passing the referendum.

[Lumine]

Hmmmm... Well, if we wanted to go for an acceptable hybrid, we could always attempt to redefine the Presidency itself and turn it into something similar to a PM (with PMQ's, votes of confidence and such), although it would be a strange system that way.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Hmmmm... Well, if we wanted to go for an acceptable hybrid, we could always attempt to redefine the Presidency itself and turn it into something similar to a PM (with PMQ's, votes of confidence and such), although it would be a strange system that way.

I just fear that, while I acknowledge there are some that want a parliamentary system, the vast majority wouldn't understand it, and thus fewer people would participate in the game. I could be wrong, but I can say that, had we had a parliamentary system back in 2008, I never would have joined Atlasia. Imagine life without me?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I oppose both Judicial term limits or abolishing the regions. I also am not to keen on turning the Senate into a House of Lords.

[TNF]

I oppose both Judicial term limits or abolishing the regions. I also am not to keen on turning the Senate into a House of Lords.

So you think it's a good idea to have people serve for life on an imaginary court on the internet?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Popping back in here to say that parliamentarianism is a nice thing and it might be fun.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I oppose both Judicial term limits or abolishing the regions. I also am not to keen on turning the Senate into a House of Lords.

So you think it's a good idea to have people serve for life on an imaginary court on the internet?

A game built on voluntary participation and in which the discriminatory rulings that could be produced from a politicized court selection process would be very destructive to the said game. 

[TNF]

I oppose both Judicial term limits or abolishing the regions. I also am not to keen on turning the Senate into a House of Lords.

So you think it's a good idea to have people serve for life on an imaginary court on the internet?

A game built on voluntary participation and in which the discriminatory rulings that could be produced from a politicized court selection process would be very destructive to the said game. 

Every Court in the history of the real life United States has been political, even with lifetime judicial tenure.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I oppose both Judicial term limits or abolishing the regions. I also am not to keen on turning the Senate into a House of Lords.

So you think it's a good idea to have people serve for life on an imaginary court on the internet?

A game built on voluntary participation and in which the discriminatory rulings that could be produced from a politicized court selection process would be very destructive to the said game. 

Also, what does Judicial Term Limits have to do with establishing a Bicameral legislature?
Every Court in the history of the real life United States has been political, even with lifetime judicial tenure.

Not as political as it would be if political considerations regarding post judiciary job prospects were an increasingly important consideration by structural design. As I said last year, it replaces equal justice, with justice whose uneveness is determined by the calendar. Hardly a solid foundation to build the court on.