HOUSE RESOLUTION: Make...Goverment more efficient Amendment (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Representative 1184AZ
House Designation: HR 1083-Make the Atlasia Federal Goverment more efficient Amendment

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to advocate for this, or I introduce it to my lawn mower

[Enduro]

HP, kill it immediately.

[Mike Thick]

There's definitely an argument for this, but I'd like to see how the current term goes before undertaking any drastic changes.

[OneJ]

There's definitely an argument for this, but I'd like to see how the current term goes before undertaking any drastic changes.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

There's definitely an argument for this, but I'd like to see how the current term goes before undertaking any drastic changes.

[Representative simossad]

There's definitely an argument for this, but I'd like to see how the current term goes before undertaking any drastic changes.

[Enduro]

I motion to table the bill

[Mike Thick]

I motion to table the bill

I second this motion.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I motion to table the bill

I second this motion.

[Enduro]

I motion to table the bill

I second this motion.

Yay!

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Can we please at least debate the merits of this proposal before shelving it. This proposal is intended as a general framework for a unicameral legislature, with the intent of massaging out the details of the proposal in this debate. Enduro can you also please state your reasons for this amendment and not just that you think it is a stupid idea.     

[Mike Thick]

Can we please at least debate the merits of this proposal before shelving it. This proposal is intended as a general framework for a unicameral legislature, with the intent of massaging out the details of the proposal in this debate. Enduro can you also please state your reasons for this amendment and not just that you think it is a stupid idea.     

I'll explain my reasoning.

Even months after Ratification, we're still kind of ironing out the kinks of this new political system, and we've seen the consequences of that in the relatively low Congressional activity. In addition, as Adam once stated (I think?) winter is the most inactive time of the year due to school, finals, and other things that occupy the teenager officeholders. I'm open to revisiting this later if this persists, but I think it would be an overreaction to make systemic changes when it isn't clear that the issue at hand is a systemic problem.

[Enduro]

Can we please at least debate the merits of this proposal before shelving it. This proposal is intended as a general framework for a unicameral legislature, with the intent of massaging out the details of the proposal in this debate. Enduro can you also please state your reasons for this amendment and not just that you think it is a stupid idea.     

Bicameralism can work, we just need leadership like Yankee. We have Yankee as leadership, it's going to start working. Also, unicamerism would be a step back in the evolution of the game. This game needs to keep trying new things, making them work, and moving to the next new thing. We can't try a new thing, and go back to the it was before because we didn't try hard enough.

One more thing, despite the bill's failure, you can still debate the idea. Start a thread in AFE.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

First off this is intended as an amendment to the constitution not just a simple house resolution. 

The intent of this amendment is to return Atlasia to a unicameral system of government from  the current bicameral system of government. As many of you know Atlasia had a single legislative body for much of its time, before having the Federal Senate replaced with a two tired system. While I respect the attempt at bicameralism; it is clear that after 9 months that the system is fundamentally flawed and needlessly complex. Currently we see the federal congress plagued with gridlock;bills sit for literally months being thrown around for moths between the two houses slowing down the whole legislative process. I also challenge the assertion that it is a lack of strong leadership that is the sole problem; we have had multiple House Speakers, Senate PPT, Senators, Reps, and the same problems keep occurring. 

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Can we please at least debate the merits of this proposal before shelving it. This proposal is intended as a general framework for a unicameral legislature, with the intent of massaging out the details of the proposal in this debate. Enduro can you also please state your reasons for this amendment and not just that you think it is a stupid idea.     

Bicameralism can work, we just need leadership like Yankee. We have Yankee as leadership, it's going to start working. Also, unicameral  would be a step back in the evolution of the game. This game needs to keep trying new things, making them work, and moving to the next new thing. We can't try a new thing, and go back to the it was before because we didn't try hard enough.

One more thing, despite the bill's failure, you can still debate the idea. Start a thread in AFE.

I don't see change as inherently good or bad, change is change, and really I see no point for change for change sake. Their were not inherent structural problems with the old system, instead all we got for a unnecessary change was a new set of problems that have crippled the game. Sometimes I think ideas are proposed that sound great in theory, like bicameralism in Atlasia but simply aren't practice for the game. I don't consider it a step back, by going back to a unicameral legislature, but instead the opportunity to improve the flow of the game.

[Mike Thick]

I don't think we can responsibly say that this is a systemic issue. We bounced straight from a period when we were figuring out how the system worked to a period where nobody had time to work, and I don't think we're fully out of either.

Again, I'm not saying this is something we shouldn't consider -- I'm just saying we should wait a bit longer before making such a big decision. Perhaps in the interim we can amend the Constitution to limit how many times a bill can bounce between the Houses.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First off this is intended as an amendment to the constitution not just a simple house resolution.  

All constitutional amendments, are resolutions of the House/Senate. When passed by both chambers, it becomes a joint resolution, sent to the regions for ratification.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reason for this is because the President plays no role in the passage/ratification of amendments. So it is not a "bill", which becomes an "act" of the house/senate to be signed into "law".

The word amendment is still in the official title and I added a mission statement in italics providing clarity that it is an amendment to the constitution.


Here is what I am talking about in action:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=258660.msg5556146#msg5556146

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Can we please at least debate the merits of this proposal before shelving it. This proposal is intended as a general framework for a unicameral legislature, with the intent of massaging out the details of the proposal in this debate. Enduro can you also please state your reasons for this amendment and not just that you think it is a stupid idea.    

Bicameralism can work, we just need leadership like Yankee. We have Yankee as leadership, it's going to start working. Also, unicameral  would be a step back in the evolution of the game. This game needs to keep trying new things, making them work, and moving to the next new thing. We can't try a new thing, and go back to the it was before because we didn't try hard enough.

One more thing, despite the bill's failure, you can still debate the idea. Start a thread in AFE.

I don't see change as inherently good or bad, change is change, and really I see no point for change for change sake. Their were not inherent structural problems with the old system, instead all we got for a unnecessary change was a new set of problems that have crippled the game. Sometimes I think ideas are proposed that sound great in theory, like bicameralism in Atlasia but simply aren't practice for the game. I don't consider it a step back, by going back to a unicameral legislature, but instead the opportunity to improve the flow of the game.

One thing I would note, is that any setup that creates an imbalance numerically between the classes of representatives (People and Regions) would be opposed by me. The unicameral Senate had 5 each. We have 3 regions now with 2 Senators each. That means the at-large reps have to be 6 as well. Creating 7 At-Large Reps would reduce the voting power of the regions to minority status within the legislature.

One appealing aspect of bicameralism is that is doesn't matter what the numbers of each are, because both houses are needed for passage. So 6 and 9 work without disfavoring one or the other, and that is why it was selected from October 2013 on, as the preferred gov't arrangement for the regional consolidation effort since there was a strong desire for have a larger number of at-large representatives from Adam and others (Adam wanted 11 actually and was pissed when it was made 9). Duke was smart enough to realize that he couldn't succeed without appealing to regionalists, and so bicameralism allowed Duke to satisfy the demands of the anti-regionalists/centralists and Adam, while also not leaving the entire Atlasian Right high and dry on their seminal unifying issue (regional rights).

The game has not been crippled. One thing that has come of this is that less action federally means that the regions have some room to flex their wings more and that is a good thing considering the state of affairs pre-consolidation/reset.

What has been crippled is bicamerialism itself, because the House and Senate were crippled from the get go because the wrong mindset was used by some rather good people in forming the rules for both chambers.

The House has fixed its rules problem. Now the Senate has to do likewise. One major change was the addition of more slots to the House and the Senate should do likewise. This will reduce the delay between things being considered in each chamber.

Also the VP now administers bills on the return trip, ensuring his involvement on an on-going basis and preserving the integrity of the system as a unit.

One thing I would also like to see is some of the new slots converted into administration agenda slots and given to the VP for the purposes of bring the President's agenda up before the chambers quicker.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Representative 1184AZ
House Designation: HR 1083-Make the Atlasia Federal Goverment more efficient Amendment

I offer the following ammendment to balance the classes

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When the underlying text uses strike through and bold to amend existing law/Constitution, I would recommend using some other means to signify amendments to that underlying text. Otherwise they will be lost in the weeds.


You can color a strike then use colored bold to replace it.

Just hit the quote button to see the coding for these.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Representatives have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has been adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So final vote?

[Representative simossad]

I motion for a final vote.