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

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What promise we once had, before my plan was shot in the head like JFK.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The way I see it is, there are going to be people that oppose any changes to the game at all, and anything I do with this plan will be met with opposition because it imposes on the rights of regions. I don't ever see it passing the ME and likely the IDS regardless of what we do here.

I'd love to see a bicameral system put in place, and I think it is a shot in the arm that Atlasia needs, especially since we will have elections so often to the House.

My original plan attempted to strike a balance between regions and at-large, but it was voted down by those who didn't want any change anyway, so I'm going to be more flexible this time around. I honestly don't see the IDS or ME voting for it either way, but I'd be happy if they did. I'm just managing expectations here.

For reference, my memorandum I published during my October 2013 campaign is below:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16CprQX313EgE37ashRbVCTWxz8TayYtbvmXjeV13OD8/edit

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I echo my sentiments above. At this current juncture, I would like to see us accomplish something in the realm of game reform before my term ends.

Friends, I am in the midst of studying for the bar that I take in July and I am going my damnest to juggle that while being a real human being at the same time (and that isn't easy); I can't rehash the past, I can't worry about who hates me or who doesn't. Maybe someday someone can author an alternate history piece where I did cum on handsome boys and join Liebor. Then we could all have that discussion.

My position on consolidation and a bicameral legislature has been clear from the start: I support it; I think we need it, I think it would give this overwhelmingly stale game new life. I just wish everyone else thought like I did, sometimes at least...

 

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

If we want to have 10 house seats, i am okay with that too. I think we need an even number so we can have the fun of tie breaking votes.

I merely put 8 in my original proposal because I wanted most of the elections to be competitive since we don't always have that these days.

EDIT: Actually, we need an odd number because there isn't a president of the house to break the tie.... ignore my last comment. Carry on.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The administration is fine with an 11 member house. I had argued for less so we'd have more competitive elections, but I won't oppose something larger assuming we don't enact this with a 5 region country.

I would be more supportive of an all region senate and all at-large house. I like balance. And for you anti-regionalists, the at-large seats almost out number the regional seats 2 to 1! How about that!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Maybe have it mirror the US house and senate? Or at least have bills pass the house first and then go to the senate for the next step? I'm not sure if we want to have matching bills back and forth like we do in the US or if we could keep up with such a thing.

Obviously, we can't have both sides doing whatever because then we've never know where things were going.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Anyone else have any ideas they want to add?

I thought that bills could start in the House and then be sent to the Senate for final changes and a final vote before it became law. The VP would act as a liaison between both houses. The House would elect a speaker and the senate would retain its non-partisan PPT as I laid out in my plan.

If we decide to also want both houses to pass the same bill before it's signed by the President, we can, we just will have less bills and more debate than we do now, which might not be a bad thing considering the lack of bills in the queue.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Right, but we can't have them both passing independent bills free of input from each branch because they may contradict each other. That wouldn't work at all.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Anyone else have any ideas they want to add?

I thought that bills could start in the House and then be sent to the Senate for final changes and a final vote before it became law. The VP would act as a liaison between both houses. The House would elect a speaker and the senate would retain its non-partisan PPT as I laid out in my plan.

If we decide to also want both houses to pass the same bill before it's signed by the President, we can, we just will have less bills and more debate than we do now, which might not be a bad thing considering the lack of bills in the queue.

Yes, I like this. I don't think a pure American system is tenable because there isn't enough time in the day to have bills go back and forth to ensure the same version is passed by both houses.

That was my thought as well. If we do the mirror rule, we'd cut down severely on the amount of bills passed per session, so I think A -> B is a more realistic goal. Maybe the VP could work with the PPT and Speaker to make sure the bill is acceptable before it's sent to the senate for fear of it being rejected there.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Absolutely, so let's get an amendment to that affect and get this amendment through the senate! I don't have much time left with you all. I want to see this through.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

So let's just keep the current proposal. I think it strikes a nice balance between all branches of government and certainly is the most realistic chance we have at actually passing it.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Is 11 members enough for a party-list proportional system to work?   Or would we need more?

I'd wager to say less is more in this case. I think we all want to see competitive elections, and 11 is enough, with a 6 member senate, to achieve that goal. I don't want to get in the situation where the House is uncontested and all 11 people who run will get in, sans maybe 1 or 2 people.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Where are we now on this? Can we keep the original plan as we have it? I'm OK with a Russian Monarchy too if you just install Cinci and me as leaders forever, provided we can take months off at a time.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What do you mean by original plan? We do have to insert some kind of responsbilities into the text because thep resent text of Article 1 is designed for unicamerialism. You had suggested that the house have first crack at all bills, regardless of who introduced them and then Senate would have to pass them subsequently. I like this structure. It is relatively simple and will avoid cluttered mess, whilst still ensuring that both chambers are equally important.

That still leaves the issue of confirmation hearings as well.

Yes, that's what I mean. I am trying to avoid this veering offtrack and becoming a debate between this and a parliamentary system with a figurehead president, which I think would do the opposite of what we want government reform to accomplish.

We do need to amend this for what I outlined above. As for confirmation hearings, I say we leave them to the Senate. The House has the power to have first crack at bills which the Senate retains their oversight duties like confirmation hearings for cabinet members and Supreme Court justice nominees.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Its possible. Have we decided the election method for the house yet?

Election for what? I thought we agreed the House would be elected entirely on an at-large basis every two months and the Senate would be two per region every 6 months?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Do we want to re-write that text or just strike what we want to move to the House? We want the House to have the power to introduce bills and pass them prior to the Senate...perhaps have them conduct impeachment hearings, and have the Senate be the final gatekeeper to pass the bills and retail the power to conduct confirmation hearings, vote on treaties, etc.

Do we want constitutional amendments to only be introduced in the Senate?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The lowest I'd go in the House is 9, 7 is too few. And we should have an even number of senators so the VP can continue to break ties, since I think that alone makes that position relevant.

As others have said, this goes into effect if we consolidate the regions, otherwise, we may as well continue on with the same old status quo we've lived with for years.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

You all are going to have to deal with me haunting the Senate if we don't get this passed before I leave office. I've tried once unsuccessfully to ram this plan down the throats of all Atlasians, I want to see yet another attempt through!