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

[bore]

The obvious problem that strikes me here is this can only work with fewer regions, otherwise we will simply have too many offices. Yet this would go into effect on passage of the fix the regions, which doesn't actually change the number of regions, only provides a method of doing so. So we would have a bicameral senate and 5 regions straight away.

[bore]

Why not reduce the senate to 5, then? That would also give more influence to the regional senators, which would help get this passed.

[bore]

Lumine, it needs to be remembered that we would only get an 11 seat second chamber after shaving off two regions and 4 senate seats- there would actually be a net reduction in offices under Griffin's plan.

[bore]

Nay , because of the reduction in the size of the house- I would not mind a fully regional senate.

[bore]

Offering an amendment:

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]

[bore]

June 03, 2014, 09:21:03 pm (10:21 PM EDT)


Good thing I will be on tomorrow morning. Or Cincy, probably Cincy.


I support the bore amendment, but you might want to leave that last line in and just change it from one to two.

I think it is a carryover designed to prevent a Region from trying to take more then there fair share like the Pacific tried to do back in 2011.

Good point. Seeing as the amendment is already being processed, whoever offers the next amendment should offer that as well, to avoid wasting time on processing.

[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]

[bore]

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

[bore]

The other problem I see with TNF's proposal is the senate and the president are basically powerless. In the RL, sure delaying a bill for two years has an effect but in atlasia it just doesn't- no one will run for the senate when the house is where the action clearly is.

I don't disagree that a unicameral legislature or a bicameral one with only revising powers is better than the US's system, but it's far less fun to play.

[bore]

This is remarkable similar to the debate over how to deal with the late term At-Large vacancies, which Parties can fill. But of course there, it is a shorter period time then seven or eight weeks obviously. Also if there are multiple indy vacancies that could be rather problematic.

With PR, how many indies would be expected to be able to win? Is it possible for more then oen to win?

I wouldn't expect many indies to win for the simple reason that the vast majority of registered indies are semi retired old timers who don't really run for things.

But with an 11 seat at large election you wouldn't need a huge amount of votes to be elected, so it's certainly not impossible.

[bore]

Nay

[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?

[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.

[bore]

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

[bore]

Presumably JCL means that each region has 2 separate regionwide elections and there is one nationwide election by either STV or FPTP.

Personally I think that districts could be fun, especially if they were FPTP, but that would require limiting regional moves (IIRC that amendment passed the senate, so it would just need to be ratified by more regions).

Although, as I said before, I'll support anything that makes this amendment easier to pass.

[bore]

If we're doing districts we have to change state moves. There is no other option.

[bore]

The intent is to not divide the regions into districts. All citizens within each region will get to vote on both assembly races.

 

If we're doing districts we have to change state moves. There is no other option.

Sure, I know that that wouldn't need to be changed for your proposed system (though it still should be, IMO) but for a district system it would be.

[bore]

Nor is consolidating to three regions.

Due to the number of offices a bicameral structure creates, we have no choice but consolidation.

[bore]

So, let me get this straight...if we create more offices, we'll have to destroy two of the Regions to solve the problem of...too many offices? If that's the case, why create more offices two begin with?

You'll be pleased to know that the strawman you just erected isn't actually relevant to the debate.

The bicameral system is not being proposed to reduce the number of offices (though it will, likely, have that effect, but only slightly) - it is proposed because some people think that a bicameral system would be more fun to play than a unicameral one. However, because a bicameral system must lead to an increase in federal offices, because there are only a finite number of players, we need to decrease the number of regional offices.

Consolidation is a necessary byproduct, but a byproduct is all it is.

[bore]

So, let me get this straight...if we create more offices, we'll have to destroy two of the Regions to solve the problem of...too many offices? If that's the case, why create more offices two begin with?

You'll be pleased to know that the strawman you just erected isn't actually relevant to the debate.

The bicameral system is not being proposed to reduce the number of offices (though it will, likely, have that effect, but only slightly) - it is proposed because some people think that a bicameral system would be more fun to play than a unicameral one. However, because a bicameral system must lead to an increase in federal offices, because there are only a finite number of players, we need to decrease the number of regional offices.

Consolidation is a necessary byproduct, but a byproduct is all it is.

But is consolidation the only solution capable of balancing out the number of offices? If you include consolidation in this, it won't have a chance of passing anyway.

Sorry if this has already been proposed, but why not just eliminate the At-Large seats and reduce the Senate to five offices? That would empower the Regions while ensuring that there aren't too many offices.

Consolidation isn't the only solution, no. For instance, we could make the upper chamber 3 and the lower chamber 6 or something, but that has serious downsides ( a 3 person chamber is very susceptible to activity issues, and the difference between the two isn't big enough, also, you wouldn't get the parliamentary feel that this bill would provide) as well.

And with regard to this amendment's passage, I think most of us involved in game reform efforts have accepted nothing will pass, but we try anyway.

[bore]

I'd suggest that we separate the bill from the Fix the Regions bill before we put it to a vote.

Well, the problem would be dealing with the amount of offices, since we would have seventeen Atlasians serving in the Senate and House with the current project, something that it may be really hard to maintain with the current activity levels and with most of the regional governments in crisis. As many others noted during the discussion it doesn't seem really feasible unless we reduce the House and the Senate, and that would affect its own efficiency as well...

Exactly. JCL is just trying to kill it; it's tied to FTRA for two reasons: the first being that the number of offices have to be dealt with before we even consider adding new ones, and the second being an incentive to actually ratify FTRA in the first place. Bicameralism without FTRA would be a disaster. You can have 5 regions and 1 chamber (and even that's debatable from the perspective of activity), or you can have 3 regions and 2 chambers; there's no mix and match approach that will work as intended.

Griffin's right. There's no way the numbers can be made to work short of consolidation, or two or three regions voluntarily abolishing their legislatures. And the second is not going to happen.

[bore]

Aye

[bore]

Given that the sponsor indicated that he was ready for a final vote three days ago, and given that we haven't really heard anything else substantive on this matter, I'm going to open a final vote.

Senators, a final vote is now open on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

So what your saying is what I've been saying for the past several weeks doesn't matter to this debate?

Well, you're neither a senator, nor have any senators actually put forward your views in an amendment or as a point, so, procedurally, yes, what you're saying doesn't matter.

[bore]

Given that the sponsor indicated that he was ready for a final vote three days ago, and given that we haven't really heard anything else substantive on this matter, I'm going to open a final vote.

Senators, a final vote is now open on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

So what your saying is what I've been saying for the past several weeks doesn't matter to this debate?

Well, you're neither a senator, nor have any senators actually put forward your views in an amendment or as a point, so, procedurally, yes, what you're saying doesn't matter.

Cassius speaks on my behalf.

Not in this thread he didn't.

[bore]

Given that the sponsor indicated that he was ready for a final vote three days ago, and given that we haven't really heard anything else substantive on this matter, I'm going to open a final vote.

Senators, a final vote is now open on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

So what your saying is what I've been saying for the past several weeks doesn't matter to this debate?

Well, you're neither a senator, nor have any senators actually put forward your views in an amendment or as a point, so, procedurally, yes, what you're saying doesn't matter.

Cassius speaks on my behalf.

And he's voted now. Most of the Senate disagrees with this view.

I sympathize with it and continue to be rather skeptical about consolidation as an independent question. But as I see it, this is a somewhat acceptable structure, "should it come to pass" and I promised I would vote Aye if it had a regional Senate. I wish that what JCL and Cassius wanted was practical, because I would be more then willing to jump on board.

What we want is practical. I'm gonna just say it loud and clear. Even if I were not a resident of the Mideast I would oppose consolidation because of the deliberate targeting of the region while the the western two simply get to merge into one while the IDS and Northeast benefit by splitting much of said region between the two. I'm more than willing to show how my proposal would work if this fine body would like. In both three and current map scenario.

Unless you've somehow discovered a new law of mathematics it can't. The numbers simply don't fit.