What's the matter with Fremont?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

While parliament is seemingly productive if one measures by the quantity of legislation passing through the Commons each week, debate appears to have fallen off a cliff since the last general election. Most MPs aren't even going through the motions: bills pass with little or no debate, with the majority of posts in each thread being procedural notices from the speaker, and in most cases the sponsor has not bothered to offer any justification for their proposals at all—meaning the people of Fremont are given no explanation for why their representatives have voted for these measures. Then, just today, this happened:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This bill—which if you read it carefully, purports to regulate official procedures of the federal Congress, presumably because of a proofreading error—is currently passing parliament 3-0, without a word of debate from anyone. I'm not singling out the speaker for criticism here, because we can all make mistakes and this would not be the first time a typo made it into the final version of a bill; but clearly there is a much larger problem afoot regarding the activity of our elected parliament.

I took the liberty of reviewing the threads for each piece of legislation considered by parliament in the current session:

Bill	Words of Debate*	Result
FT 5-18	498	Passed 3-0
FT 6-CA1	605	Tabled
FT 6-1	332	Passed 3-0
FT 6-2	247	Passed 5-0
FT 6-3	127	Passed 5-0
FT 6-4	227	Passed 2-0
FT 6-5	0	Passed 4-0
FT 6-6	78	Passed 3-0
FT 6-7	0	Passed 3-0
FT 6-8	163	Passed 4-1
FT 6-9	41	Passed 1-0
FT 6-10	63	Passed 3-0
FT 6-11	28	Passed 5-0
FT 6-12	4	Passed 4-1
FT 6-13	0	Passed 2-0
FT 6-14	0	Passing 2-0
FT 6-15	0	Passing 3-0
FT 6-16	0	Passing 2-0

*By MPs, excluding procedural announcements by the Speaker

Basically, since the first minister began his extended leave of absence from the forum, no-one has said much of anything in parliament. Again, this isn't the fault of any one person, but something needs to change, else we find ourselves in the same position we were in fourteen months ago when the First Constitution collapsed.

[YE]

Uhhh were should I begin...

First off, Fremont is quite left-wing, as many here know, so as a result, there is little disagreement on most issues. Hell, I might be the most rightward socially of all 5 MP's. For proof, look no further than a resolution to support a free college bill in the Senate got a net 4 lines of debate, and was passed on a party line vote. The only thing since really I've been here that has really being well two things actually that has been subject to much debate was the drinking age of 19 bill along with gun control bill, which faced (rightfully) significant outside opposition, and even that was passed on a 4-1 vote and most of the amendments were just procedural moving on my part.

As for the gun control bill, that's weirdly when DFL's activity went off, of which I hope it wasn't my fault. Since I did not agree with the bill (and to be fair almost everyone agreed that went too far), I offered my amendments, and since most of components of the original bill were removed, I kinda feel bad for hhijacking a bill, and given that he was the only one voted against the final version (although he went inactive and did not veto it which would have put it on the ballot), I think it's fair to say there's some ideological divide there. Also worth noting, DFL basically provided all of the bills being passed when he was active, with some help from myself at a lesser level. Outside of myself and DFL, I only recall 1 bill written in my 2 months here by any of the other MP's and that was tabled like really quick.

As for errors like the ones Truman mentioned earlier, I'm immune to those kinds of mistakes to say the least. I just ask that if something slips by, it gets pointed out, which of course people had a week to do so, and I think I bumped the thread like 3 times, and still zip. I do, however, think it's a stretch to say the government is collapsing. We're going at 3 bills a week and we only had 3 the first several weeks the previous session, and going further back, sessions 1-4 weren't really much more productive.

I've been tempted to go through the procedure to get a snap election going for a while though in part due to DFL's inactivity I don't really want to disrupt the balance of the current electoral calendar.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would recommend considering what I was doing in the house (and frankly need to get back to), and that is to require sponsors to speak on bills in the first 24 hours.

It is difficult to enforce though.

[YE]

I would recommend considering what I was doing in the house (and frankly need to get back to), and that is to require sponsors to speak on bills in the first 24 hours.

It is difficult to enforce though.

Given that everything proposed has been written by myself since DFL went MIA, so having me rehash why we need bill X or Y really wouldn't solve much of anything I don't think.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Ideological monotony is a problem, though there is definitely a significant degree of disagreement within the region and even within parliament. The difficulty is that the game thrives on debate, but elections reward candidates who are uncontroversial, which can disincentivise MPs from tackling difficult issues—as can the unfriendly attitude some bring to such debates. I also agree with Yankee that input from the sponsor can help kickstart debate (though of course one person cannot conjure activity on their own).

As for errors like the ones Truman mentioned earlier, I'm immune to those kinds of mistakes to say the least. I just ask that if something slips by, it gets pointed out, which of course people had a week to do so, and I think I bumped the thread like 3 times, and still zip.

Yeah, typos happen—again, I don't blame you for that (goodness knows I've made my fair share of drafting errors in the last three years ), though I agree it is disheartening that the rest of parliament had a week to review the bill in question and nobody brought it up.

I do, however, think it's a stretch to say the government is collapsing. We're going at 3 bills a week and we only had 3 the first several weeks the previous session, and going further back, sessions 1-4 weren't really much more productive.

I agree—which is why I posted this now, when the problems are real but reversible, instead of waiting until we find ourselves in a genuine crisis.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would recommend considering what I was doing in the house (and frankly need to get back to), and that is to require sponsors to speak on bills in the first 24 hours.

It is difficult to enforce though.

Given that everything proposed has been written by myself since DFL went MIA, so having me rehash why we need bill X or Y really wouldn't solve much of anything I don't think.

Don't the voters deserve an explanation at least from the sponsor as to why a given bill is necessary?

[YE]

I would recommend considering what I was doing in the house (and frankly need to get back to), and that is to require sponsors to speak on bills in the first 24 hours.

It is difficult to enforce though.

Given that everything proposed has been written by myself since DFL went MIA, so having me rehash why we need bill X or Y really wouldn't solve much of anything I don't think.

Don't the voters deserve an explanation at least from the sponsor as to why a given bill is necessary?

Sure but that's generally been covered in the bill itself ever since DFL became FM.

[Wisconsin+17]

What *isn't* the problem with Fremont?

[Wells]

How do you have only 4 words of debate (on F12)? 0 is bad of course, but 4 is weird.

Upon looking it up, after Truman tried to prompt debate, we had an "I support this resolution." Which is my least favorite way of debating. The goal of debate is to convince people to like the bill while also leaving it open for further discussion, and that doesn't do it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How do you have only 4 words of debate (on F12)? 0 is bad of course, but 4 is weird.

Upon looking it up, after Truman tried to prompt debate, we had an "I support this resolution." Which is my least favorite way of debating. The goal of debate is to convince people to like the bill while also leaving it open for further discussion, and that doesn't do it.

This is what sparked my frustration levels to reach another level the past few days, or at least one of the most annoying things anyway.

For instance I used to push for all members to respond within the first 48 hours and that is mostly what Representatives would give.  

That is what I referred to as "take two sentences and call me when its time to vote" the other night.

[Sestak]

Part of this is my bad; I've been rather busy these past few weeks and haven't really been able to do much. I still have several education bills planned and hopefully my schedule should open up soon so I'll be able to write them up.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would recommend considering what I was doing in the house (and frankly need to get back to), and that is to require sponsors to speak on bills in the first 24 hours.

It is difficult to enforce though.

Given that everything proposed has been written by myself since DFL went MIA, so having me rehash why we need bill X or Y really wouldn't solve much of anything I don't think.

Don't the voters deserve an explanation at least from the sponsor as to why a given bill is necessary?

Sure but that's generally been covered in the bill itself ever since DFL became FM.

I see, what you guys did. You guys basically copied what Scott and myself were forcing on the Congress last Spring and summer.

But I would point out, when it came to sponsor advocacy and my requirement that sponsor's post in the first 24 hours, such was not considered a substitute.

You see this is what frustrates me too. We ( and I say we because there were a lot of people who helped implement these changes in format and procedure in Nyman), pushed these to improve the process, expand transparency and encourage activity (since people would know what the hell is going on), but what's happening is I feel like we are finding excuses or perhaps I should say latching onto things with a real other purpose and instead using it as a substitute for something it was not suppose to substitute for.

Debate is debate. Including a mission/objective statement is good in that it helps people after the fact understand its purpose, but that is not debate and it doesn't substitute for a sponsor's advocacy for one simple reason.

A sponsor advocacy should be longer than the one or two sentences you find in a bill's mission statement. Debate should be in the form of paragraphs, going over details, answering questions and concerns etc, not two or three sentences, much less four words.

Now, I know what is going to happen here too, Someone is going to strawman/mock this post on Discord, exaggerate what I am saying, and we end up with same low expectations being institutionalized.

But I will be completely straightforward here, regardless of what system or structure or parliament we have (and I said this right after the reset, ask Truman he had it in his signature for a while), unless we have a policy debate with some level of depth and some greater level of engagement, this game is dead and any all reforms be it PArliament or what have you is going to fail.

Fremont is a parliament after all, hasn't rendered it immune from the typical problems facing Atlasia overall, has it? In fact, it seems it is the most severe in Fremont. The gov't structure doesn't matter that much in terms of activity, it is its own separate problem.

[YE]

I would recommend considering what I was doing in the house (and frankly need to get back to), and that is to require sponsors to speak on bills in the first 24 hours.

It is difficult to enforce though.

Given that everything proposed has been written by myself since DFL went MIA, so having me rehash why we need bill X or Y really wouldn't solve much of anything I don't think.

Don't the voters deserve an explanation at least from the sponsor as to why a given bill is necessary?

Sure but that's generally been covered in the bill itself ever since DFL became FM.

I see, what you guys did. You guys basically copied what Scott and myself were forcing on the Congress last Spring and summer.

But I would point out, when it came to sponsor advocacy and my requirement that sponsor's post in the first 24 hours, such was not considered a substitute.

You see this is what frustrates me too. We ( and I say we because there were a lot of people who helped implement these changes in format and procedure in Nyman), pushed these to improve the process, expand transparency and encourage activity (since people would know what the hell is going on), but what's happening is I feel like we are finding excuses or perhaps I should say latching onto things with a real other purpose and instead using it as a substitute for something it was not suppose to substitute for.

Debate is debate. Including a mission/objective statement is good in that it helps people after the fact understand its purpose, but that is not debate and it doesn't substitute for a sponsor's advocacy for one simple reason.

A sponsor advocacy should be longer than the one or two sentences you find in a bill's mission statement. Debate should be in the form of paragraphs, going over details, answering questions and concerns etc, not two or three sentences, much less four words.

Now, I know what is going to happen here too, Someone is going to strawman/mock this post on Discord, exaggerate what I am saying, and we end up with same low expectations being institutionalized.

But I will be completely straightforward here, regardless of what system or structure or parliament we have (and I said this right after the reset, ask Truman he had it in his signature for a while), unless we have a policy debate with some level of depth and some greater level of engagement, this game is dead and any all reforms be it PArliament or what have you is going to fail.

Fremont is a parliament after all, hasn't rendered it immune from the typical problems facing Atlasia overall, has it? In fact, it seems it is the most severe in Fremont. The gov't structure doesn't matter that much in terms of activity, it is its own separate problem.

I wasn't aware that you and Scott forced Congress to put subtitles for reasons for the bill; I just started using the format that DFL used when I first got elected after the fallout from Kamala's departure. You've obviously been playing this game for a decade now so I trust and appreciate your insight. I'm not going to mock you in public or private, and given you're the speaker of the Atlasia House and thus basically going out of your way to help the game, I'd be annoyed if one of my collages did. But anyway, assuming there's at least somewhat of direct correlation between debate and interest in the game - which you've talked me into (although I'm admittedly a bit more elastic towards the game reform aspects of the game being semi-new to the game still), I'd be inclined to change the standing orders to require X amount of text from the sponsor or have the speaker/FM have the right to take bill be taken off the floor, but I don't see anything that suggests I have the authority to as a speaker, as the only (inactive) FM can do such. One other problem I think we have is we don't have enough MP's that actually write bills, but it's possible changing the standing orders to get more debate will help reduce that.

[YE]

Part of this is my bad; I've been rather busy these past few weeks and haven't really been able to do much. I still have several education bills planned and hopefully my schedule should open up soon so I'll be able to write them up.

Dude you're not even an MP so you're not really responsible for this for the sake of creating a more interesting phrase.... an antisocial slump.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Fremont is a parliament after all, hasn't rendered it immune from the typical problems facing Atlasia overall, has it? In fact, it seems it is the most severe in Fremont. The gov't structure doesn't matter that much in terms of activity, it is its own separate problem.

This is why I pushed the idea of our constitutional documents as "a framework, and not a blueprint" at the ConCon in 2015. You cannot generate activity with a constitutional amendment. In the short run, the novelty of a new system may draw people to the game (this was part of the theory behind the Second Fremontian Constitution), but in the long run titles and protocol don't make the game: interactions over policy and elections do.

The question is whether our constitutional system facilitates or impedes these interactions by making it either easier or harder for the game to adapt to changing circumstances. This is why I am generally suspicious of plans to 'fix Atlasia' by introducing a flood of legislation to alter the constitution, either directly (by constitutional amendment) or practically (by laws restricting the power of the presidency or the Congress to act in certain ways). The Fremontian parliament was deliberately created so that the disappearance of one officer would not sink the entire region. Eighteen months ago, DFL's quasi-retirement would have manacled the government for the remainder of his term; as it is, the parliamentary system has allowed the speaker to assume most of his responsibilities—and while the situation is far from strong, as per the OP, things are still far better than they were fifteen months ago. The same provision allowed parliament to continue legislating during long absences of the speaker during my tenure as prime minister, by allowing the PM to take up the day-to-day work of administering parliament. In short, constitutional flexibility has allowed the government to remain functional even when activity is on a low ebb.

Too often, we fall into a habit of legislating on constitutional questions as if everything will always go according to plan. Congress and the regions are particularly prone to this when activity is at a high point: I'm reminded of last spring, when the South decided it was a good idea to expand their legislature to seven seats in response to rising activity—only to be left with an overlarge chamber later on. Most recently, we've seen Congress consider 'reform' legislation mandating all votes and motions occur on the forum, seemingly without many considering when it might be necessary to make an exception to that rule or whether it is even constitutional in the first place.

So I suppose I'd agree conditionally: constitutions can't create activity, but they can make it easier or more difficult for the government to do its job when the going gets tough.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

What's the matter with Fremont? (Part 2)