House of Representatives rules

[windjammer]

Hey guys, I have some times today. Considering I wrote some part of the current senate rules and the Mideast Assembly rules, I wrote today the House of Representatives rules as well. It is basically really similar to the Mideast Assembly rules/Senate rules, a shorter version.

 I added something specifically to the new bicameral system: the President of Congress (ie the Vice president) would be responsible of the slots reserved for the legislations that previously passed the senate. I intend to give him the same function in the senate rules (legislations that would have previously passed the house).

The biggest interest of doing that is that if the House and the Senate constantly have to constantly adopt some amendments to the version they received from the other chamber, the "presiding officer" (in that case the president of congress ie the VP) wouldn't change so it would greatly improve the coordination between the 2 chambers. And it would finally give a role for the VP.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would like to have your opinions about the current House rules I wrote. If it is positive, I will write the new senate rules as well (considering everything will be wiped out, they will have to pass something again )

Regards,
Justice Windjammer

[/]

Looks great!

[tmthforu94]

This looks great, thanks for doing it!

[NeverAgain]

This looks great, thanks for doing it!

[windjammer]

Thank you all for your kind! I just wrote the Senate rules. Basically the same rules than the House rules, I believe it is important that 2 chambers have similar rules. Some differences: the Speaker is replaced by the President pro Tempore, and the Article about impeachment is replaced by the article about confirmation hearings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your opinion is obviously welcome!

[tmthforu94]

So, tell me if I'm reading this right: in terms of legislation debate, a final vote can only be called on a contentious bill after the bill has been on the floor for 72 and has had no debate for 36 hours? In an example where there was one amendment that fixes all the issues senators have (not uncommon), you'd then have to wait for 36 hours after that amendment passed to open a final vote?

Just trying to get a firm grasp on this - it all looks great, just thinking of how a clause could be added in there to let the PPT open votes sooner.

Other than that, the only change I would want to make before this being introduced is moving all pronouns to gender-neutral.

[windjammer]

So, tell me if I'm reading this right: in terms of legislation debate, a final vote can only be called on a contentious bill after the bill has been on the floor for 72 and has had no debate for 36 hours? In an example where there was one amendment that fixes all the issues senators have (not uncommon), you'd then have to wait for 36 hours after that amendment passed to open a final vote?

Just trying to get a firm grasp on this - it all looks great, just thinking of how a clause could be added in there to let the PPT open votes sooner.

Other than that, the only change I would want to make before this being introduced is moving all pronouns to gender-neutral.

Thanks!
Regarding the 72 hours requirement, it can be called waived if senators/representatives wish to do so:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hope I have answered your question, sorry if I have failed to do so .

[tmthforu94]

Not quite: I understand it can be waived in the first 72 hours, but say after a week of debating a bill, an amendment passes that kind of wraps up discussion. Do you then have to wait to open up a final vote for 36 hours or is there a way it can be opened soon?

I may be completely off on this, I'm not 100% sure what the procedure was before, but I'd think the PPT should be able to open a final vote pretty quickly in those types of situations.

[windjammer]

Not quite: I understand it can be waived in the first 72 hours, but say after a week of debating a bill, an amendment passes that kind of wraps up discussion. Do you then have to wait to open up a final vote for 36 hours or is there a way it can be opened soon?

I may be completely off on this, I'm not 100% sure what the procedure was before, but I'd think the PPT should be able to open a final vote pretty quickly in those types of situations.

Ooooooh I think this time I will be able to answer you properly .

Yes I understand your point, I was confronted to this problem when I was senate speaker.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The term debate is relatively vague I guess. If no one objects to this amendment, when I was senate speaker, I didn't consider this time as "debated".

For example, let's imagine, you're a senator and me the PPT , you want to introduce an amendment an then quickly call for a final vote.
You introduce your amendment, I let 36 hours for objections, no one objected.
And then,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering no one objected during this period, I consider that there was no debate. So you can directly motion for a final vote, and if no objection, 24 hours after the adoption of your amendment I could open a final vote.

Does that make sense?

[tmthforu94]

It does, thanks. Looks good!

[windjammer]

It does, thanks. Looks good!

Thank you! Oh and by the way, if you really want to act quickly and that the 36 hours have not elapsed, you can motion for ending the debates. I think I'm the last speaker who has used this procedure, but by experience, the 2/3 majority (most of the times) in order to end the debates is quickly reached!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This looks excellent, Windjammer, thank-you!

[Leinad]

Great job with this, Windjammer!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It does, thanks. Looks good!

Thank you! Oh and by the way, if you really want to act quickly and that the 36 hours have not elapsed, you can motion for ending the debates. I think I'm the last speaker who has used this procedure, but by experience, the 2/3 majority (most of the times) in order to end the debates is quickly reached!

Under the old rules, I could open a vote at any point after 24 hours of silence in the thread with the motion of a Senator. We rarely ever had cloture votes in my time as PPT (a really long fing time), I think twice it occured.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As much as I like your rules, and I do don't get me wrong. I would prefer some innovations and I would prefer some differentiation in style between the house and Senate. Adam made an issue of their size as a matter of "differentiation" and I think this goes along with that necessity.


People have long discussed possibly having Majority Leaders, conferences and the like. I think now would be a good time to start something like that or to at least give it a shot. This is a time for bold moves. The success of the reforms will not be made by passivity and simplicity, but by daring and energy!

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't understand the need of having complete different rules between the House and the Senate. If I recall correctly, you are a partisan of the VP having some legislative duties. Now the VP serves in 2 chambers. It is really going to complicate his job if he has totally different rules in the 2 chambers.

Rules must be clear, understandable and shorter as possible

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not against Majority leaders etc don't get me wrong. But, giving which duties in the senate rules? The only one that I could see is which bills should be debated on the floor. I would clearly oppose this rule. The administration of the House/Senate should be non partisan, everyone should have a chance to have his bills debated for example.
But again, I'm not against any symbolic title or whatever, but I really believe that the role of majority/minority leader should be dealt internally, ie the parties choosing their leader by their own, not the senate/house rules having to deal with it .

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't understand the need of having complete different rules between the House and the Senate. If I recall correctly, you are a partisan of the VP having some legislative duties. Now the VP serves in 2 chambers. It is really going to complicate his job if he has totally different rules in the 2 chambers.

Rules must be clear, understandable and shorter as possible

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not against Majority leaders etc don't get me wrong. But, giving which duties in the senate rules? The only one that I could see is which bills should be debated on the floor. I would clearly oppose this rule. The administration of the House/Senate should be non partisan, everyone should have a chance to have his bills debated for example.
But again, I'm not against any symbolic title or whatever, but I really believe that the role of majority/minority leader should be dealt internally, ie the parties choosing their leader by their own, not the senate/house rules having to deal with it .

In the original Duke Plan, the Senate would be non-partisan. The House would be partisan though.

The Senate is too small for such to work and would function best as you describe. The House though is different. It has both the size and the novelty factor to make it work.

The differences don't have to be 100%. The VP's job is to coordinate and I am all for that, and again that was also part of the original Duke plan in Ocotber 2013. Of course at the time the VP had responsibilities so that was more of strengthening an existing situation than introducing a new thing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I must say that fact that one of Labor's leading figures is more Conservative than me on legislative rules, is touching beyond belief in its sheer irony considering back in the day everyone from TNF to Talleyrand to Nix were in the tank for a partisan Senate.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't understand the need of having complete different rules between the House and the Senate. If I recall correctly, you are a partisan of the VP having some legislative duties. Now the VP serves in 2 chambers. It is really going to complicate his job if he has totally different rules in the 2 chambers.

Rules must be clear, understandable and shorter as possible

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not against Majority leaders etc don't get me wrong. But, giving which duties in the senate rules? The only one that I could see is which bills should be debated on the floor. I would clearly oppose this rule. The administration of the House/Senate should be non partisan, everyone should have a chance to have his bills debated for example.
But again, I'm not against any symbolic title or whatever, but I really believe that the role of majority/minority leader should be dealt internally, ie the parties choosing their leader by their own, not the senate/house rules having to deal with it .

In the original Duke Plan, the Senate would be non-partisan. The House would be partisan though.

The Senate is too small for such to work and would function best as you describe. The House though is different. It has both the size and the novelty factor to make it work.

The differences don't have to be 100%. The VP's job is to coordinate and I am all for that, and again that was also part of the original Duke plan in Ocotber 2013. Of course at the time the VP had responsibilities so that was more of strengthening an existing situation than introducing a new thing.

Well, so a chamber that is non partisan and the other that is partisan? That makes even less sense. Partisanship and not letting people introduce their bill will piss off a lot of people

I must say that fact that one of Labor's leading figures is more Conservative than me on legislative rules, is touching beyond belief in its sheer irony considering back in the day everyone from TNF to Talleyrand to Nix were in the tank for a partisan Senate.

Oh don't get me wrong, I have always believed that the administration of the senate/house should be non partisan. I opposed TNF's plan to create a Majority leader for example. I have always opposed the IRC faction regarding their proposals on rules to be honest: against the elimination of the GM etc etc

[Blair]

From a personal standpoint I'd be in favour of a partisan house (even though it's against Labor's interests atm) It would certainly make the House more entertaining, and make the elections more worthwhile 

[windjammer]

From a personal standpoint I'd be in favour of a partisan house (even though it's against Labor's interests atm) It would certainly make the House more entertaining, and make the elections more worthwhile 

It will encourage inactivity. Legislators aren't going to write a legislation if the legislation in question isn't going to be debated.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From a personal standpoint I'd be in favour of a partisan house (even though it's against Labor's interests atm) It would certainly make the House more entertaining, and make the elections more worthwhile 

It will encourage inactivity. Legislators aren't going to write a legislation if the legislation in question isn't going to be debated.

There are ways to do it, that gives a certain percentage of slots to the minority's legislation.

Also, doesn't the same apply as it is on the basis of whether or not something will pass. Plus Parties will weed out inactivity since a majority either way will likely be 1 seat, and thus an inactive member will devastate the majority's agenda.

[windjammer]

From a personal standpoint I'd be in favour of a partisan house (even though it's against Labor's interests atm) It would certainly make the House more entertaining, and make the elections more worthwhile 

It will encourage inactivity. Legislators aren't going to write a legislation if the legislation in question isn't going to be debated.

There are ways to do it, that gives a certain percentage of slots to the minority's legislation.

Also, doesn't the same apply as it is on the basis of whether or not something will pass. Plus Parties will weed out inactivity since a majority either way will likely be 1 seat, and thus an inactive member will devastate the majority's agenda.

I'm appalled by the fact that a partisan House could get any traction. If a representative is going to matter less by an another, he's going to be more inactive. Simple.

I have seen many bad ideas in my atlasian lifes to be enacted, like the elimination of every duty of the VP, the elimination of the GM, the "recall" amendment, so hopefully I won't see an anoter bad idea be enacted. But in case people wish to do that, please people who are reading this thread, I will be on the right side of history.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From a personal standpoint I'd be in favour of a partisan house (even though it's against Labor's interests atm) It would certainly make the House more entertaining, and make the elections more worthwhile  

It will encourage inactivity. Legislators aren't going to write a legislation if the legislation in question isn't going to be debated.

There are ways to do it, that gives a certain percentage of slots to the minority's legislation.

Also, doesn't the same apply as it is on the basis of whether or not something will pass. Plus Parties will weed out inactivity since a majority either way will likely be 1 seat, and thus an inactive member will devastate the majority's agenda.

I'm appalled by the fact that a partisan House could get any traction. If a representative is going to matter less by an another, he's going to be more inactive. Simple.

I have seen many bad ideas in my atlasian lifes to be enacted, like the elimination of every duty of the VP, the elimination of the GM, the "recall" amendment, so hopefully I won't see an anoter bad idea be enacted. But in case people wish to do that, please people who are reading this thread, I will be on the right side of history.

Elections are too frequent and so there is always the chance of flipping the House. There are no districts and no gerrymandering, so the voters have complete, uninterrupted say hence why Duke rightfull called it, "The People's House".

Windjammer, I have been fighting this fight for a long time as well and most of the time on the same side of those very issues. Right now though, the success or failure of the reforms and the game are on the line and I think we should at least try a novel approach with the House. If it fails, I will be the first to call for its repeal. I wanted a largely conservative structure, and I got it, but on this I am willing to compromise if it will draw interest and make elections matter more. That is why I am bringing this up as an option, one that was present in the original Duke plan, who was at the time and is once again an independent. I trust he based it on what would most likely generate interest and strengthen both Houses in such fashion. Both House and Senate elections become proportionally more important. The Senate to reign in the House, The House to try and flipd the incumbent majority.

[windjammer]

From a personal standpoint I'd be in favour of a partisan house (even though it's against Labor's interests atm) It would certainly make the House more entertaining, and make the elections more worthwhile 

It will encourage inactivity. Legislators aren't going to write a legislation if the legislation in question isn't going to be debated.

There are ways to do it, that gives a certain percentage of slots to the minority's legislation.

Also, doesn't the same apply as it is on the basis of whether or not something will pass. Plus Parties will weed out inactivity since a majority either way will likely be 1 seat, and thus an inactive member will devastate the majority's agenda.

I'm appalled by the fact that a partisan House could get any traction. If a representative is going to matter less by an another, he's going to be more inactive. Simple.

I have seen many bad ideas in my atlasian lifes to be enacted, like the elimination of every duty of the VP, the elimination of the GM, the "recall" amendment, so hopefully I won't see an anoter bad idea be enacted. But in case people wish to do that, please people who are reading this thread, I will be on the right side of history.

Elections are too frequent and so there is always the chance of flipping the House. There are no districts and no gerrymandering, so the voters have complete, uninterrupted say hence why Duke rightfull called it, "The People's House".

Oh come on, you really believe that the random zombie voter will care about "muh some majority leader has been mean and has killed every legislation of the other side "
And my point still stands. You will have constantly 4 representatives who will have their voice mattering much less than the 5 others----> inactivity