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

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm ok with balance, but I just think party lists in general are a bad idea.
What is an open party list exactly? Anything that entails simply voting for a party over a person sounds like a bad idea to me.

An open party list involves voting for a party, but you can at the same time vote a preference of one party member over another.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'll catch up with a more detailed response later, but party-list for the House isn't the end of the world. We still have the Senate, the Presidency and all the regional offices. Also, I envision the House being a place for newer players and not for people like us...and when exactly have new players without a solid party base managed to break through and win even a regional seat? In other words, a n00b House election is still going to revolve around the parties by and large.

You haven't lost me yet on PR, of course you haven't won me on the closed list version yet.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It would also help to know where are collegues are on this

Pro/Anti-PR and then if Pro, Open v. Closed.


At some point we have to decide what to go with.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Why can't everyone just be like me? Who needs a party to like them?

I guess I'd be more open to party lists if I understood them better, as I fear the dark, black hole that is the unknown, but say, if I ever wanted to be in the house so I could hold every office ever in Atlasia, I'd be screwed with a party list.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

So this 'bicameral legislature' idea is still being considered?

Just my two cents: personally, I was first completely against this.  Then, I became more open to the idea and even started liking it.  Now I think it's a really bad idea after seeing how slow it takes a unicameral legislature to pass a bill.  I don't mean to point fingers at anyone, but ever so often the Senate gets bills which take one, two, three - I think even at one point during my time here, four months - to agree to a final vote on.

Obviously, a bicameral legislature would stall the process even further.  Now, maybe most folks here really like debate and wouldn't mind working on the same thing for months at a time, but I personally would get pretty damn frustrated to see half my legislation not even make it to the floor by the time I'd been up for reelection twice since proposing it.

I realize I sound like an extreme pessimist here, but given what I've seen from the Senate over the three years I've been here, I don't think a bicameral legislature would be a very good idea, especially with Senate terms being as short as they are.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Reaming more efficiency out of the rules in this regard is difficult, for the Senate perspective at least. You could go down to 24 hour mininum debate instead of 72 and shorten all votes to three days, but the biggest delaying factor is lack of contributing debate/participation. The legislature, regardless of what system it operates under, has to exist under a realm of trust that by participating now on someone else's bill, there's will come up quicker. To the extent this has been undermined in order to promote alternative structures, is unfortunate if for no other reason then such would not reduce the number of "disinterested members" but merely change the division of them from a random one to a political one, leaving the net number the same and thus the same amount of "disinterest induced delays".

Judging from the looks of it, few seem interested in opining their opinions on to be or not to be PR and open versus closed in that regard.

[bore]

I'll repeat what I said at the labor convention:

With regard to game reform, I think I've made it clear throughout my active time that I consider this the most important issue.

The important principle, for me, is we need to remember that atlasia is a game, and must be treated as a game. That means that we can support things we wouldn't in real life if it makes the game easier, like having the SoFE administering federal amendments and vice versa. In real life, I agree that the personality driven approach of the US is a bad idea, it would be far better to have a parliamentary system. In the game though, I would rather have an active intelligent right winger like shua in the senate than an inactive left wing hack. Not so in real life. So I think oakvale has a point, in an elections game we do have to be voting, to some extent on personality.

[moderate hero] With regard to nationalisation I favour the nationalisation of natural monopolies [/moderate hero]

Bicameralism, where both houses have veto powers is almost always a bad idea in real life- it slows down the legislative process and has to many veto points. But, surely the point of atlasia, as a game is that we debate bills?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I view that as one of the positives of it in real life.


I would say debate of issues is one of the key focal points provided it drives the discourse into the electoral realm as well.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

In the game though, I would rather have an active intelligent right winger like shua in the senate than an inactive left wing hack.

aw, thanks bore!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You know I stated back in November when the first attempt at the Fix the Regions Failed, that the most Regionalist Senator was the Inactivity of Anti-Regionalist Senators. It appears the most anti-reform Senator is Mr. Generalized Inactivity.

The question as I last understood it, still stands.

Scott is dubious and bore is willing to accept bicamerialism for the benefits of the game. Bore, what is your thoughts on open versus closed list PR, if you have already stated a preference please link me, since I must have missed it in that case. Adam is pro-closed list, Tyrion is dubious about PR. Shua seems somewhat willing to consider open list PR and I am presently for open list as well. I would assume TNF is for closed list PR? I think I remember him stating so somewhere in this mess.

[bore]

You know I stated back in November when the first attempt at the Fix the Regions Failed, that the most Regionalist Senator was the Inactivity of Anti-Regionalist Senators. It appears the most anti-reform Senator is Mr. Generalized Inactivity.

The question as I last understood it, still stands.

Scott is dubious and bore is willing to accept bicamerialism for the benefits of the game. Bore, what is your thoughts on open versus closed list PR, if you have already stated a preference please link me, since I must have missed it in that case. Adam is pro-closed list, Tyrion is dubious about PR. Shua seems somewhat willing to consider open list PR and I am presently for open list as well. I would assume TNF is for closed list PR? I think I remember him stating so somewhere in this mess.

I don't have an opinion on the type of PR used. I'll just go with the flow of what most people want and what is most likely to get this ratified.

[Goldwater]

So, let me get this straight. In closed list PR, you simply vote for a party and the order of the candidate list is predetermined by that party, while in open list PR you vote for the party and the order of the candidate list within that party. Am I correct?

FTR, I would oppose PR in general for most offices but I think it would work for the lower house elections. I'm just making sure I understand the differences between the two types of PR...

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

You are correct, Sen. Goldwater, which is why I support closed-list PR in the lower house of a bicameral system with some regional consolidation if we're concerned about expanding the number of offices too much. Ain't no party like a party party because a party party has the Labor Party.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I do thank the Senators for their posts, though I must say thaT Iw ould have preferred their be more then two of them in response to a PM I sent to all the Senators not yet opining on the matter.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I guess I can stomach a Party list for the house since I hope it is all elected at-large, but that's as far as my support goes. Of course, I am just a private citizen, you don't have to listen to me anymore, but I do want the final product to have a high chance of passing and actually becoming something.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Why are we not considering FPTP or IRV in the lower house? It would promote more activity if we had competitive 1-1 or 1-1-1 elections rather than party lists? If we plan on having a lower house with two reps per district and 1 national at large wouldn't FPTP and IRV be a better arrangement? I'm supportive of going to a bicameral system but my concerns are what I've addressed here.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

We should just scrap the party lists entirely; I don't think there will be broad enough support for us to achieve any real reform unless we just want to see this fail at the ballot box.

Perhaps I'll run a poll to see what the majority think on the matter later today, after my last 100 MBE problems...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why are we not considering FPTP or IRV in the lower house? It would promote more activity if we had competitive 1-1 or 1-1-1 elections rather than party lists? If we plan on having a lower house with two reps per district and 1 national at large wouldn't FPTP and IRV be a better arrangement? I'm supportive of going to a bicameral system but my concerns are what I've addressed here.

I think the idea behind Party List would replace the current wording regarding districts and such in the text, not work with it, and operate on an at-large basis like the current At-Large SEnate seats but with Partly List PR instead of STV.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Like I said before I think the best way to resolve this one way or the other is a series of votes. I would recommend an amendment vote on whether or not to have PR and thne another on what form that takes, either open list or closed list with such left as TBD in the first amendment of course.

[bore]

As I said before, I'll vote for the most popular option, so I'd need to see the results of a poll.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I have opened up a poll to gage where the public stands on this issue. Hopefully after a few days we will know what the most realistic way is going forward.

[Lumine]

I don't wish to state something that sounds definitive with the poll opened for less than two days, but so far the results don't seem particularly encouraging as Duke predicted. FPTP seems like a reasonable choice for Federalists and Laborites, but smaller parties will probably suffer even more than with the current system. Should we measure public opinion on that as well once Duke's poll has the final results?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

So far, over 70% oppose party lists. Yes, we only have 24 votes so far, but considering this needs to pass 4/5 regions(I think), 70% is a pretty large opposition if we decide to make the lower house based on party lists.

Something to consider if the Senate is serious about this reform.

[Barnes]

So far, over 70% oppose party lists. Yes, we only have 24 votes so far, but considering this needs to pass 4/5 regions(I think), 70% is a pretty large opposition if we decide to make the lower house based on party lists.

Something to consider if the Senate is serious about this reform.

If I can chime here again as well, Duke is absolutely right.  While I would love to see some kind of list system, it is simply not worth having if the entire prospect of bicameralism is threatened because of it. 

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it now, the entire political aspect of Atlasia has become stagnant: I firmly believe that a shake-up of this magnitude will help to change the game for the better, rejuvenate interest, and create the possibility for a new and different future.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I don't wish to state something that sounds definitive with the poll opened for less than two days, but so far the results don't seem particularly encouraging as Duke predicted. FPTP seems like a reasonable choice for Federalists and Laborites, but smaller parties will probably suffer even more than with the current system. Should we measure public opinion on that as well once Duke's poll has the final results?

A version of this plan would allow for IRV in the event of no one achieving 50% + 1 alongside FPTP to encourage our smaller parties to be competitive.