Atlasians United for a Parliamentary System

[Colin]

No monarchy although we could just have the current GM at that time be the "Governor-General" or something like that or we can always get Queen Elizabeth on the horn and tell her that we need a Governor-General.

But probably the HoS/HoG devide would be the best possible situation and would also emulate the current systems of government in non-monarchy parliamentary governments.

What would the powers of the HoG be in comparison to the HoS? HoS would be foreign affairs and veto while the HoG would be internal affairs and leader of the Senate?

[Jake]

To summarize the proposals, because I few of y'all are missing key points:

1. Introduce a Prime Minister, elected by the Senate and a member of the Senate, who has the powers of the current President, minus veto power.

2. Remove all of the current President's powers except his veto powers, and also add the ability for him to order a national referendum on a Senate bill.

3. Combine State and Defense, and Justice and Treasury as two briefs can be handled.

4. Increase Senators to twelve because of the elimination of the VP and two cabinet members.

5. Possibly remove Regional representation, or have an unequal number of districts and regions. I could go for either.

Comments?

[MasterJedi]

Keep regional representation.

Maybe if there is an elected President he could do the job of State so we can get rid of one position without combining Peace with War.

[WMS]

To summarize the proposals, because I few of y'all are missing key points:

1. Introduce a Prime Minister, elected by the Senate and a member of the Senate, who has the powers of the current President, minus veto power.

Seems reasonable.

2. Remove all of the current President's powers except his veto powers, and also add the ability for him to order a national referendum on a Senate bill.

Also seems reasonable.

3. Combine State and Defense, and Justice and Treasury as two briefs can be handled.

In real life no, in Atlasian life yes.

4. Increase Senators to twelve because of the elimination of the VP and two cabinet members.

No problem here, but do we have enough people to run for that many spots?

5. Possibly remove Regional representation, or have an unequal number of districts and regions. I could go for either.

Comments?

I'm undecided on this one. I'll await some arguments from both sides, and 'just because we've always done it' isn't a good argument IMHO.

[afleitch]

I'm happy with Jake's proposals as it retains the presidency but also streamlines government. As for regional senators I'm undecided and can see arguments both ways. If these proposals are implemented, I hope there will be fresh elections.

[Ebowed]

2. Remove all of the current President's powers except his veto powers, and also add the ability for him to order a national referendum on a Senate bill.

National referendums on every piece of controversial legislation that makes its way through the Senate, eh?  Great idea, let's make the Senate powerless.

3. Combine State and Defense

You should be shot for even thinking about doing that.

[A18]

National referendum for any Senate bill the president approves of? That's going to really dilute the importance of the Senate.

[afleitch]

2. Remove all of the current President's powers except his veto powers, and also add the ability for him to order a national referendum on a Senate bill.

Such an ability would only be used sparingly. If you read from the start for this topic you can see how and why the proposals took shape.

[A18]

How do we know it would only be used sparingly? Is there some limit on it?

[afleitch]

How do we know it would only be used sparingly? Is there some limit on it?

Not in the proposed legislation, and on reflection perhaps their should if it is of concern. However I don't think we should loose sight of the bigger picture here and that is that the President will remain a counterbalance to ther PM and Senate.

[Jake]

National referendum for any Senate bill the president approves of? That's going to really dilute the importance of the Senate.

No, a national referendum on any bill the President wishes the people to decide on as well. Only dickheads would send every bill passed to a referendum.

[True Democrat]

I'm considering supporting this organization, though I'm not sure yet.  I was thinking a program like this though:

Twelve Senators, who pick the Prime Minister

The Prime minister can be anyone.  Once the Prime Minister is chosen, they basically become a Senator.  If the Prime Minister is already a Senator, a new one is either appointed or elected from that region or district.  In essence, the Prime Minister would be the "Nationwide Senator".  The Prime Minister then appoints the President, who is approved by the President.  I think the President should still have the responsibility of appointing Supreme Court judges though, as the Prime Minister will be voting for confirmation.  This leaves only the Cabinet.  Usually in a parliamentary system, the Cabinet is made up of members of the Parliament, but since the Senate will be too small to do that, who will appoint the Cabinet, the President or Prime Minister?

[DanielX]

Senators should probably be done on a representational basis - ie one or more from each region based on population. Eliminates the looonnnggg redistricting cycles that occasionally happen (reducing it instead to the SoFA or someone saying 'Yo, this region needs another senator, this region needs no new senators, and this region should lose a senator'). Also, this keeps a certain percentage of Atlasians in government, and no more then that. 

[True Democrat]

As for terms, how about something like this:

Elections can be held at anytime, but at last once every four months.  The Prime Minister is elected for however long Senate lasts for.  Also, it is the President's duty to call for elections.

[MasterJedi]

As for terms, how about something like this:

Elections can be held at anytime, but at last once every four months.  The Prime Minister is elected for however long Senate lasts for.  Also, it is the President's duty to call for elections.

Terms can stay the same as they are now though maybe the PM would be elected every Senate session (so every 2 months).

[True Democrat]

As for terms, how about something like this:

Elections can be held at anytime, but at last once every four months.  The Prime Minister is elected for however long Senate lasts for.  Also, it is the President's duty to call for elections.

Terms can stay the same as they are now though maybe the PM would be elected every Senate session (so every 2 months).

I think that's too short.  How about Senate sessions are three months long.  Also, I don't think the Prime Minister should necessarily serve as PPT also.

[afleitch]

There would be no need for a PPT with a PM. However I would suggest another Senator is nominated as a Speaker to mediate, basically undertaking the old PPT role.

[Yates]

There would be no need for a PPT with a PM. However I would suggest another Senator is nominated as a Speaker to mediate, basically undertaking the old PPT role.

A fine idea.

[Jake]

There would be no need for a PPT with a PM. However I would suggest another Senator is nominated as a Speaker to mediate, basically undertaking the old PPT role.

Yep, that's provided for as well.

I would also strongly disagree with having varying Senate terms, or having terms last longer or shorter than already.

[True Democrat]

There would be no need for a PPT with a PM. However I would suggest another Senator is nominated as a Speaker to mediate, basically undertaking the old PPT role.

Yep, that's provided for as well.

I would also strongly disagree with having varying Senate terms, or having terms last longer or shorter than already.

I'll agree to four month terms, but if this were really a parliamentary system, shouldn't the head of government (President in this case), be able to call for elections any time he wants.

[Colin]

There would be no need for a PPT with a PM. However I would suggest another Senator is nominated as a Speaker to mediate, basically undertaking the old PPT role.

Yep, that's provided for as well.

I would also strongly disagree with having varying Senate terms, or having terms last longer or shorter than already.

I'll agree to four month terms, but if this were really a parliamentary system, shouldn't the head of government (President in this case), be able to call for elections any time he wants.

Actually the Head of Government would be the Prime Minister, or whatever we call him, not the President who would be Head of State and yes he should have to ability to call a snap election if he cannot constitute a parliamentary majority or his coalition falls apart. Such a snap election should also be called by a no-confidence vote as well.

[Jake]

I'll agree to four month terms, but if this were really a parliamentary system, shouldn't the head of government (President in this case), be able to call for elections any time he wants.

No. Simply put, that would be exceedingly complicated. We're not trying to duplicate a Westminster System here, just some parts and apply them here to solve problems. Having elections at random will create more problems and solve none.

[True Democrat]

I'll agree to four month terms, but if this were really a parliamentary system, shouldn't the head of government (President in this case), be able to call for elections any time he wants.

No. Simply put, that would be exceedingly complicated. We're not trying to duplicate a Westminster System here, just some parts and apply them here to solve problems. Having elections at random will create more problems and solve none.

I think we have basically the same views.  Would you like to talk more about this on AIM?