Bicameralism Discussion Thread

[Senator Cris]

The Bicameral Birthing Amendment, that provides 3 regions, a Senate of 6 (2 per region) and an House of 11, was approved by the Senate, but wasn't approved by the majority of regions (was approved only by Midwest and IDS), but the Amendment received 36 Ayes, 32 Nays and 3 Abstentions nationwide. So, the majority of Atlasian citizens voted Aye at the Referendum.
I think that the debate on bicameralism should go forward and I have presented a plan that provides 5 regions and bicameralism, with a reduction of the number of regional office holders.
Have you others ideas? Plans?
I think that we need a thread to discuss about bicameralism.

[ilikeverin]

Bicameralism is only feasible if we abolish the regions; otherwise it will lead to further gridlock and detachment of the public from legislating bodies.  Any proposal that would limit the number of regional officeholders would need to create those changes at the regional level, which I'm sure would be a nightmare.

[Oakvale]

Why. Won't. This. Die?

If we must have "game reform", something that's virtually always been a canard in the past, why not consider both bringing back districts instead of dull at-large elections along with consolidation? District Senate elections would give the regions a strong role and hopefully take some of the sting out of consolidation as regards possible dilution of regional power.

e: There is of course a reason that districts were abolished in the first place, but I don't think it's beyond  plausibility that we could make it work this time. At-large elections are the worst part of the game, to the point where I'd even favour some kind of electoral college system for the Presidency, although that would be presumably all too easy to game.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I've yet to see any compelling argument in favor of bicameralism beyond general consternation at the present situation. There's very rarely any specific argument in favor of why it would be better than what we have now, and certainly none that have actually been convincing.

[Barnes]

This proposal is obviously dead, and anything in a similar vein would likely suffer a similar fate.  Personally, I think that's rather sad, but that's just how the cookie crumbled.

Now, on the issue of game reform itself, this is obviously a broad and generally undefined topic used by just about everyone to show that they aren't conservative cogs in an impenetrable machine of intransigence.  There have been many bad ideas proposed, as well as many good ideas.  Over the ten years this game has been running, many of both camps have been adopted, reformed, repealed, ignored, forgotten, vilified, and praised.  But that's the entire point of a game - it's meant to be fun, people are actually supposed to enjoy it - therefore you tweak with it and change it to better suit the times.

People often seem, for some unknown reason to me, to forget that this is an election game.  It is focused, and always has been, around elections.  Parties, policies, platforms, and all the rest, exist in order to make for interesting races and results.  If I wanted to play a policy game, I'd just go over to PoliticsUK and get my job back as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

But I don't want to do that, I want to participate in interesting, cliffhanger elections that make fascinating results.  Whatever reforms are proposed, they should all have that idea in mind - what can make elections and everything concerned with them fun and memorable?

I really don't understand why some players are so opposed to altering anything in a game so that it can be more enjoyable.  Please don't mistake me, to achieve this we don't necessarily have to burn down the whole house and rebuild it from the embers; there are many things that can be done very easily that will leave the main structure intact.

"Reform" simply doesn't go away, and it isn't really a movement proposed by some people and opposed by others.  It is the natural and necessary alterations made to this game so that we can all enjoy it more.  If anyone is really so intractable opposed to anything that would achieve that, are they really useful players who actually care about how the game community?

Anyway, that's my opinion.

[Deus Naturae]

Do you seriously believe that opponents of the latest reform scheme do so because they deliberately want to make the game less enjoyable? No one is saying that we shouldn't try to make the game more enjoyable...the debate is over what, if anything, is capable of creating more enjoyment.

[Maxwell]

Now, more than ever, I think consolidation is necessary.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I definitely did not propose my plan to make the game "less fun." I've fought my whole career to make the game more fun to play and interact. I see consolidation and bicameralism as a realistic fundamental change to Atlasia that may spur renewed interest in a game that has grown stale over the last few years. We've played the same game for 10 years now!

I do prefer the status quo to anything else aside from my plan, as I feel a European type system would completely kill any interest in Atlasia going forward. Personally, I'd no longer play this game if we moved towards a parliamentary system, which might please some people

[Barnes]

Do you seriously believe that opponents of the latest reform scheme do so because they deliberately want to make the game less enjoyable? No one is saying that we shouldn't try to make the game more enjoyable...the debate is over what, if anything, is capable of creating more enjoyment.

Did I in any way say that? I don't believe I did. 

I really don't understand why some players are so opposed to altering anything in a game so that it can be more enjoyable.  Please don't mistake me, to achieve this we don't necessarily have to burn down the whole house and rebuild it from the embers; there are many things that can be done very easily that will leave the main structure intact.

The point I'm trying to make is that there has always been a resistance (if only misguided, not malignant) to any type of change - however comprehensive.  I thought I had made that pretty clear.

I definitely did not propose my plan to make the game "less fun." I've fought my whole career to make the game more fun to play and interact. I see consolidation and bicameralism as a realistic fundamental change to Atlasia that may spur renewed interest in a game that has grown stale over the last few years. We've played the same game for 10 years now!

I do prefer the status quo to anything else aside from my plan, as I feel a European type system would completely kill any interest in Atlasia going forward. Personally, I'd no longer play this game if we moved towards a parliamentary system, which might please some people

Duke, you know that I've never in any way doubted your intentions.

I've made my preference for some kind of parliament known, but I'm well aware that it won't be adopted, and I'm fine with that. 

This again goes back to my earlier point, there are plenty of things that can be changed with the current system to make it better.  That's why people shouldn't try to turn the defeat of one plan (and yes, bicameralism is dead and buried, we all agree) into a way to defeat any ideas on improvement.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Oh no, dear Barnesy, I never accused you of wanting me to disappear or that you doubted me, but surely some have, as horrific as that sounds! If only those doubters would just fall to their knees and submit themselves, but alas....

[Barnes]

Oh no, dear Barnesy, I never accused you of wanting me to disappear or that you doubted me, but surely some have, as horrific as that sounds! If only those doubters would just fall to their knees and submit themselves, but alas....

[ilikeverin]

To be frank, this idea needs to die. The virtue of consolidation is that it creates larger concentrations of active players in the remaining regions. There's a real cost involved in destroying a region and its years of history, and this experiment -which would disperse active players - is not worth that cost. And how would a Senate that barely functions with 10 members manage with only 6?

More to the point, what is the benefit of a second house? Why is worth abolishing regions and sacrificing almost half of the Senate's seats? I don't think these questions have a satisfying answer. We should move on.

Precisely.  There's no sense to half-assing matters.  We shouldn't sacrifice the history and integrity of the regions just so we can make minor adjustments to the number of national legislators; if we're to put regions on the chopping block (and my beloved Midwest for some reason is always the sacrificial lamb), we must do it knowing the mutton of regionalism will be cooked into delicious activity, not left half raw.

I'm entirely in favor of replacing regional senate seats with district seats as an interim measure.

[free my dawg]

I am strongly opposed to bicameralism. I see no way to do this without total dissolution of the regions, which would be a blatant and unacceptable power grab.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I am working with others to put forward a reform proposal but one that does not include bicameralism.