Northern Regional Committee

[/]

can we really sustain a bicameral legislature?

I would prefer a unicameral one, but from what I've read in this thread so far it seems most wouldn't.

My ideal legislature would be a single six-member body with three being elected from single-member districts and three being elected at-large. What are everyone's thoughts on this?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

can we really sustain a bicameral legislature?

I would prefer a unicameral one, but from what I've read in this thread so far it seems most wouldn't.

My ideal legislature would be a single six-member body with three being elected from single-member districts and three being elected at-large. What are everyone's thoughts on this?

not a fan of even-numbered legislatures, but i could see either a seven-member legislature (four regional, three at-large) with no governor or a five-member legislature (three regional, two at-large) with a governor.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

can we really sustain a bicameral legislature?

I would prefer a unicameral one, but from what I've read in this thread so far it seems most wouldn't.

My ideal legislature would be a single six-member body with three being elected from single-member districts and three being elected at-large. What are everyone's thoughts on this?

Since that this is a fusion of two large regions (most of the NE, half of the ME), I think bicameralism would be a complement to this.

[/]

Evergreen brings up a good point regarding the number of legislators; seven seems fine to me with either four regional and three at-large or three regional and four at-large. I would prefer the latter because districts are really hard to create when you only have fourteen areas to district with and the at-large elections would probably be more interesting with more seats. Or maybe they would be interesting with less seats, I don't really know.

Regarding RGN's idea, I agree that a larger region would probably require a larger total legislature, but we do have to consider that most regional legislatures were basically empty and unused before the merger. I still think a smaller/unicameral legislature size would be preferable, but I'd like to see what everyone has to say first. I also think a unicameral legislature would expedite the legislative process in a very significant manner, while a bicameral legislature would likely slow things down.

The legislative process would probably also be much more effective if we had, say, a Prime Minister in the legislature as opposed to a separate head of government. If you guys wanted, I suppose we could make some sort of nominal head of state position with no real governing power, preferably called "King" so we could have a "King in the North."

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

Evergreen brings up a good point regarding the number of legislators; seven seems fine to me with either four regional and three at-large or three regional and four at-large. I would prefer the latter because districts are really hard to create when you only have fourteen areas to district with and the at-large elections would probably be more interesting with more seats. Or maybe they would be interesting with less seats, I don't really know.

Regarding RGN's idea, I agree that a larger region would probably require a larger total legislature, but we do have to consider that most regional legislatures were basically empty and unused before the merger. I still think a smaller/unicameral legislature size would be preferable, but I'd like to see what everyone has to say first. I also think a unicameral legislature would expedite the legislative process in a very significant manner, while a bicameral legislature would likely slow things down.

The legislative process would probably also be much more effective if we had, say, a Prime Minister in the legislature as opposed to a separate head of government. If you guys wanted, I suppose we could make some sort of nominal head of state position with no real governing power, preferably called "King" so we could have a "King in the North."

I was thinking of a three man senate plus five man house of representatives. The bill will originate from the HoR then it will be voted. after that, it will go to the senate for debate and another approval before being sent to the governor's desk

[/]

Evergreen brings up a good point regarding the number of legislators; seven seems fine to me with either four regional and three at-large or three regional and four at-large. I would prefer the latter because districts are really hard to create when you only have fourteen areas to district with and the at-large elections would probably be more interesting with more seats. Or maybe they would be interesting with less seats, I don't really know.

Regarding RGN's idea, I agree that a larger region would probably require a larger total legislature, but we do have to consider that most regional legislatures were basically empty and unused before the merger. I still think a smaller/unicameral legislature size would be preferable, but I'd like to see what everyone has to say first. I also think a unicameral legislature would expedite the legislative process in a very significant manner, while a bicameral legislature would likely slow things down.

The legislative process would probably also be much more effective if we had, say, a Prime Minister in the legislature as opposed to a separate head of government. If you guys wanted, I suppose we could make some sort of nominal head of state position with no real governing power, preferably called "King" so we could have a "King in the North."

I was thinking of a three man senate plus five man house of representatives. The bill will originate from the HoR then it will be voted. after that, it will go to the senate for debate and another approval before being sent to the governor's desk

That's a good idea too.

It kind of looks like we skipped the timeline of debate Truman made, though, so I think we should be talking about the Senate elections now.

Sorry Truman

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

Evergreen brings up a good point regarding the number of legislators; seven seems fine to me with either four regional and three at-large or three regional and four at-large. I would prefer the latter because districts are really hard to create when you only have fourteen areas to district with and the at-large elections would probably be more interesting with more seats. Or maybe they would be interesting with less seats, I don't really know.

Regarding RGN's idea, I agree that a larger region would probably require a larger total legislature, but we do have to consider that most regional legislatures were basically empty and unused before the merger. I still think a smaller/unicameral legislature size would be preferable, but I'd like to see what everyone has to say first. I also think a unicameral legislature would expedite the legislative process in a very significant manner, while a bicameral legislature would likely slow things down.

The legislative process would probably also be much more effective if we had, say, a Prime Minister in the legislature as opposed to a separate head of government. If you guys wanted, I suppose we could make some sort of nominal head of state position with no real governing power, preferably called "King" so we could have a "King in the North."

I was thinking of a three man senate plus five man house of representatives. The bill will originate from the HoR then it will be voted. after that, it will go to the senate for debate and another approval before being sent to the governor's desk

That's a good idea too.

It kind of looks like we skipped the timeline of debate Truman made, though, so I think we should be talking about the Senate elections now.

Sorry Truman

I think we should make districts, just like the one proposed. Three districts. One senator per district then two house seats each for the top two most populous district then one house seat for the least populous district. Hahaha. This is just preliminary discussion I guess

[Blair]

I'd really not support having a bicameral chamber- the whole point of the concon was to reduce the number of offices, and make the process much cleaner. The problem with a two chamber system is A.) it's harder to maintain B.) Slows legislation

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

I'd really not support having a bicameral chamber- the whole point of the concon was to reduce the number of offices, and make the process much cleaner. The problem with a two chamber system is A.) it's harder to maintain B.) Slows legislation

It will indeed slow legislation, but it will ensure a thorough review of the bills. If one can say that the regional legislatures are avenues for trivial bills/issues, I think it won't hamper the activity. However, the legislation as I say will slow down a little bit. It won't pose a big problem. If the national government did it, why won't we do it?

[/]

I think the point Blair brings up is good. Considering the nature of the game, I'd say legislative expediency is probably more important than thorough review at this point.

I'd like to reiterate the suggestion of a unicameral seven-member legislature with either three regional and four at-large representatives or four regional and three-at large representatives. One member of the legislature would be elected among his peers as head of government, with a separate public election for nominal head of state also being held.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

I think the point Blair brings up is good. Considering the nature of the game, I'd say legislative expediency is probably more important than thorough review at this point.

I'd like to reiterate the suggestion of a unicameral seven-member legislature with either three regional and four at-large representatives or four regional and three-at large representatives. One member of the legislature would be elected among his peers as head of government, with a separate public election for nominal head of state also being held.

Fast tracking legislations isn't good. although I'm not saying that is similar to the expediency of the legislation. This will ensure that a bill is worthy of passing if it was approved by both chambers. A three man senate and a five man HoR (or even three) will reduce the offices a little bit. If you're talking about seperating the powers of the current governor, the head of government will be picked by a joint session of the two chambers

[/]

I think the point Blair brings up is good. Considering the nature of the game, I'd say legislative expediency is probably more important than thorough review at this point.

I'd like to reiterate the suggestion of a unicameral seven-member legislature with either three regional and four at-large representatives or four regional and three-at large representatives. One member of the legislature would be elected among his peers as head of government, with a separate public election for nominal head of state also being held.

Fast tracking legislations isn't good. although I'm not saying that is similar to the expediency of the legislation. This will ensure that a bill is worthy of passing if it was approved by both chambers. A three man senate and a five man HoR (or even three) will reduce the offices a little bit. If you're talking about seperating the powers of the current governor, the head of government will be picked by a joint session of the two chambers

Just looking at what we've seen over the past few years, I sincerely doubt legislative fast tracking will be too much of a problem. If we wanted to introduce a system of checks and balances (which I very much recommend), the head of state could have veto power over passed legislation, though the head of government would still be elected by the legislature.

I'd like to see what the rest of the committee thinks regarding a unicameral vs. bicameral system, but once more, I think Truman said we should get to discussing the Senate elections first.

[cinyc]

Increasing the number of offices isn't a good idea.  At least one of the old "regions" was taken over by expansion in the number of Nyman offices.  So the supposed increase in regional size isn't as big as it first looks.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Blair, Cinyc, and Evergreen are absolutely correct on this - there is no way that the North or the game at large can support an eight member legislature. The whole point of consolidation was to eliminate as many Regional offices as possible - these proposals completely defeat the purpose of having a Northern Constitution.

The most I am willing to entertain is a five-seat Assembly such as that of the current Northeast, and even then I believe it should be indexed to activity (by way of adjusting the number of seats according to the number of candidates). A bicameral legislature / a seven to eight member unicameral Assembly would be disastrous for the Region and the game at large.


Anyhow, seeing as nobody objected to the proposed Rules of Order, I hereby declare them to have been ADOPTED.

[SEN]   Per to Article X and the Rules of Order, we will now proceed to organize the election of our two Regional Senators. Cinyc and Evergreen were working on an elections bill earlier - if anyone has any thoughts to air on the subject, now is the time to say so.

[cinyc]

Since nobody has proposed a formal bill since the rules were adopted, let me propose one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/]

I would recommend two separate IRV elections to determine our Senators, much like the other regions are doing.

[Kingpoleon]

Personally, I think three districts Representatives and two at-large Senators would make he most sense if my bicameralism idea is too large. Remember, we have five people currently in the Northeast Assembly and seven people here. I think we can safely supply a legislature of eight, but if we go with three districts and two at-large, I think we can combine them into one Assembly with different names for them.

[/]

^Right now, we're talking about elections for federal Senators, not regional ones.

But regardless, I think it's pretty much agreed at this point that unicameralism is probably the only way to go. I reiterate my idea of one legislature with three regional and four at-large representatives or four regional and three at-large representatives.

[cinyc]

I would recommend two separate IRV elections to determine our Senators, much like the other regions are doing.

Why are they doing that?  It's easier to administer one election than two.  We also have to get around the problem of no one declaring for the shorter-term seat because the term is so short.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

Personally, I think three districts Representatives and two at-large Senators would make he most sense if my bicameralism idea is too large. Remember, we have five people currently in the Northeast Assembly and seven people here. I think we can safely supply a legislature of eight, but if we go with three districts and two at-large, I think we can combine them into one Assembly with different names for them.

I think that's acceptable for me.

[Kingpoleon]

My sincere apologies. I was continuing previous discussion.

As soon as a proper bill is made regarding Senate elections, I would agree to an immediate vote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

My sincere apologies. I was continuing previous discussion.

As soon as a proper bill is made regarding Senate elections, I would agree to an immediate vote.

Any objections to cinyc's proposal?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

i doubt this scenario will actually happen, but it's always good to cover all your bases

Since nobody has proposed a formal bill since the rules were adopted, let me propose one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[cinyc]

I consider evergreen's amendment friendly.

[Blair]

So to clarify what class of senators are we electing?