Suggestions for Government Types (Closed)

[Purple State]

This thread is for proposals of different forms of governing. In order for your proposal to appear in the vote later on (Step 2 in the procedure outlined in the Questions/Suggestions thread) you must provide 3 things:

1) A name

2) A short blurb explaining what it is

3) Must be seconded by another delegate

Non-delegates may propose their ideas, but it must be sponsored by a delegate and seconded by another delegate.


Current ideas proposed: (* indicates has been seconded)

• Parliamentary Universalism* = all participants shall be the members of a Lower House of the Legislature, and with an elected Upper House.
• Presidential Parliamentarian* = an unicameral legislature, like the one we have currently, expanded slightly, that elects a Prime Minister (Head of Government) who selects his cabinet. This could also include a President (Head of State) that is elected through a nationwide popular vote
• Presidential Universalism* = a system, similar to our current system of a President & Vice President, and Senate (at least partially elected by the regions), but everyone else would then be part of the lower house. Governors would be members of the lower house but ineligible for the upper house. Cabinet members would come from the lower house. An election for Speaker of the House would be held at the same time as the other federal elections
• Unitarian Empire* = a greatly centralized national government, headed by an infrequently elected (once yearly?) emperor, with greater involvement in regional affairs. Basic regional structures (governors, legislatures, etc.) would remain, but a strong figurehead would lead most aspects of the federal level. Possible involvement of regions in federal decisions, such as regional votes on Emperor's agenda, requiring general consensus by a majority of regions
• Bicameral Nonparliamentarian = a multi region system, with delegates to a House determined by population of region, with a medium member limit. The second house will be a Senate, with one delegate from each region. Bills will be passed through both houses with a conference to compromise differences. Possibly no governors and any duties, if there were any, of the governor will go either to a Senator or a Representative. Includes a popularly elected President

Even if you see yours here, feel free to offer a slight variation on the blurb, etc. if you feel it fundamentally changes the proposal. Otherwise, debate will be better left to forming the new government later on.

[Smid]

I sponsor a parliamentary model by which all participants shall be the members of a Lower House of the Legislature, and with an elected Upper House.

[I left.]

I sponsor a parliamentary model by which all participants shall be the members of a Lower House of the Legislature, and with an elected Upper House.

I second this.

[Smid]

I sponsor a parliamentary model by which all participants shall be the members of a Lower House of the Legislature, and with an elected Upper House.

I second this.

Thank you, sir. We work well together.

[ilikeverin]

Abolition: the abolition of the national government in favor of the creation of multiple nations.

Unitarianism: the abolition of the regional governments, with all powers thereof shifted to the national government.

I'd also propose breaking up Smid's proposal into:

Universalism: the creation of a bicameral system in which all participants are a member of the lower house and the upper house is elected.

Parliamentarianism: a parliamentary-style system of governance.

Some people may wish to be universalists and not parliamentarians, whereas others may feel the opposite way.

[afleitch]

I sponsor a parliamentary model by which all participants shall be the members of a Lower House of the Legislature, and with an elected Upper House.

I second this.

Thank you, sir. We work well together.

Thirded. Maximum participation, a good grounding and use of all talents

[Purple State]

Abolition: the abolition of the national government in favor of the creation of multiple nations.

Unitarianism: the abolition of the regional governments, with all powers thereof shifted to the national government.

I'd also propose breaking up Smid's proposal into:

Universalism: the creation of a bicameral system in which all participants are a member of the lower house and the upper house is elected.

Parliamentarianism: a parliamentary-style system of governance.

Some people may wish to be universalists and not parliamentarians, whereas others may feel the opposite way.

Could you expand on how delineating the two differently would change the underlying meaning? Or could the broader term come to include either/or during later discussion?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Federal:
Parlimentary with 10 member Upper House
  -3 at-large in February and August
  -3 regional seats in April and October
  -4 at-large seats in June and Decemeber

Parliment elects PM with simple majority vote

Regional:
3 regions run similary to how regions are now

[afleitch]

Federal:
Parlimentary with 10 member Upper House
  -3 at-large in February and August
  -3 regional seats in April and October
  -4 at-large seats in June and Decemeber

Parliment elects PM with simple majority vote

Regional:
3 regions run similary to how regions are now

What would compose the lower house in plan 1 out of interest? Something similar to Smid's suggestion?

[Lіef]

I like the idea of parliamentarianism, but I'm not really sold on the idea of universalism. In a system where everyone was in the lower house, what would the point of an upper house be? We'd also be radically shifting the the game from an election sim to a government sim.

[Purple State]

So write up a small blurb for a parliamentarian, non-universalism government and I will stick it up there.

Also a note for everyone: Try to stay away from specifics (like how many seats, etc.). Just focus on the basic idea of the government, word it like my blurbs for the ones already submitted. If I accidentally mischaracterized your proposal please correct me. I'm trying to word them as close as I can to what it appears you mean. The nitty-gritty will be resolved in Convention debate.

And don't forget to second the motions you like!

[Lіef]

A unicameral legislature, like the one we have currently, perhaps expanded slightly to 15 or 20 seats, that elects a Prime Minister (Head of Government) who selects his cabinet. This could also include a President (Head of State) that is elected through a nationwide popular vote.

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

I only like Smid's idea out of all those.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Federal:
Parlimentary with 10 member Upper House
  -3 at-large in February and August
  -3 regional seats in April and October
  -4 at-large seats in June and Decemeber

Parliment elects PM with simple majority vote

Regional:
3 regions run similary to how regions are now

What would compose the lower house in plan 1 out of interest? Something similar to Smid's suggestion?

Similar to Smid but I want a set rule on what qualifies someone for lower house.  I think voting in the last election might be a good one, and at least 2 posts in the lower house since the last election.

[Purple State]

Federal:
Parlimentary with 10 member Upper House
  -3 at-large in February and August
  -3 regional seats in April and October
  -4 at-large seats in June and Decemeber

Parliment elects PM with simple majority vote

Regional:
3 regions run similary to how regions are now

What would compose the lower house in plan 1 out of interest? Something similar to Smid's suggestion?

Similar to Smid but I want a set rule on what qualifies someone for lower house.  I think voting in the last election might be a good one, and at least 2 posts in the lower house since the last election.

That will be something to work out once we have a form to work with. It would fall under Smid's current proposal for this thread.

I will keep this open for another day probably. Anyone have something that hasn't been thought of yet? Electoral authoritarian regime?

[ilikeverin]

Abolition: the abolition of the national government in favor of the creation of multiple nations.

Unitarianism: the abolition of the regional governments, with all powers thereof shifted to the national government.

I'd also propose breaking up Smid's proposal into:

Universalism: the creation of a bicameral system in which all participants are a member of the lower house and the upper house is elected.

Parliamentarianism: a parliamentary-style system of governance.

Some people may wish to be universalists and not parliamentarians, whereas others may feel the opposite way.

Could you expand on how delineating the two differently would change the underlying meaning? Or could the broader term come to include either/or during later discussion?

The individual components wouldn't be any different, essentially, but it's breaking it apart that's the important part.  IMO, having a parliamentary system and having a universal system aren't at all mutually implicational; one could easily come up with a universalist system that's basically like what currently exists with everyone else serving in the lower house and a parliamentary system that's unicameral with elected members but no universalism.

[Purple State]

Abolition: the abolition of the national government in favor of the creation of multiple nations.

Unitarianism: the abolition of the regional governments, with all powers thereof shifted to the national government.

I'd also propose breaking up Smid's proposal into:

Universalism: the creation of a bicameral system in which all participants are a member of the lower house and the upper house is elected.

Parliamentarianism: a parliamentary-style system of governance.

Some people may wish to be universalists and not parliamentarians, whereas others may feel the opposite way.

Could you expand on how delineating the two differently would change the underlying meaning? Or could the broader term come to include either/or during later discussion?

The individual components wouldn't be any different, essentially, but it's breaking it apart that's the important part.  IMO, having a parliamentary system and having a universal system aren't at all mutually implicational; one could easily come up with a universalist system that's basically like what currently exists with everyone else serving in the lower house and a parliamentary system that's unicameral with elected members but no universalism.

So would both proposals that I have listed properly characterize what you mean here? If so then I believe we have a second for your proposal in Lief's proposal and I can place an asterisk next to it.

[Senator Ben]

Federal:

-Parliamentary System with a 6 member Upper House, comprised of the Governor of each of the three regions, and one other member per-region.
-The Lower House would comprise all other members of Atlasia not serving in the Upper House, who have voted in the previous election.  A member can be expelled for inactivity (i.e. only voting and nothing else) by a 3/5 majority of the Lower House.
-The Lower House will elect a Prime Minister from either its ranks or the ranks of the Upper House.  The nominee must then receive a majority vote of all Atlasian citizens.

Regional:

-3 Regional Governments, each with their own Constitution, and their own functions.
-Each Region will elect two members of the Upper House: their Governor, and one other person.  These elections (for Governor and At-Large Member) will be held in January, May, and September.
-The Region can recall either their Governor or At-Large Member by a 3/5 vote in the Region.

[Brandon H]

I haven't seen this proposed yet.

A system, similar to our current system of a President & Vice President, and Senate (at least partially elected by the regions), but everyone else would then be part of the lower house. Governors would be members of the lower house but ineligible for the upper house. Cabinet members would come from the lower house. An election for Speaker of the House would be held at the same time as the other federal elections. I would also consider having regional Senator elections administered by the regions.

Might be a little too American based for some of you though.

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

Federal:

-Parliamentary System with a 6 member Upper House, comprised of the Governor of each of the three regions, and one other member per-region.
-The Lower House would comprise all other members of Atlasia not serving in the Upper House, who have voted in the previous election.  A member can be expelled for inactivity (i.e. only voting and nothing else) by a 3/5 majority of the Lower House.
-The Lower House will elect a Prime Minister from either its ranks or the ranks of the Upper House.  The nominee must then receive a majority vote of all Atlasian citizens.

Regional:

-3 Regional Governments, each with their own Constitution, and their own functions.
-Each Region will elect two members of the Upper House: their Governor, and one other person.  These elections (for Governor and At-Large Member) will be held in January, May, and September.
-The Region can recall either their Governor or At-Large Member by a 3/5 vote in the Region.

Stop thinking you're a delegate. Since you're not.

[Purple State]

Federal:

-Parliamentary System with a 6 member Upper House, comprised of the Governor of each of the three regions, and one other member per-region.
-The Lower House would comprise all other members of Atlasia not serving in the Upper House, who have voted in the previous election.  A member can be expelled for inactivity (i.e. only voting and nothing else) by a 3/5 majority of the Lower House.
-The Lower House will elect a Prime Minister from either its ranks or the ranks of the Upper House.  The nominee must then receive a majority vote of all Atlasian citizens.

Regional:

-3 Regional Governments, each with their own Constitution, and their own functions.
-Each Region will elect two members of the Upper House: their Governor, and one other person.  These elections (for Governor and At-Large Member) will be held in January, May, and September.
-The Region can recall either their Governor or At-Large Member by a 3/5 vote in the Region.

Stop thinking you're a delegate. Since you're not.

Nor is that any different than previous proposals.

I don't need specifics. Give me general ideas like the blurbs I've already posted. Does anyone feel like seconding other proposals? Or are everything but parliamentarian universalism only supported by one person.

[ilikeverin]

Abolition: the abolition of the national government in favor of the creation of multiple nations.

Unitarianism: the abolition of the regional governments, with all powers thereof shifted to the national government.

I'd also propose breaking up Smid's proposal into:

Universalism: the creation of a bicameral system in which all participants are a member of the lower house and the upper house is elected.

Parliamentarianism: a parliamentary-style system of governance.

Some people may wish to be universalists and not parliamentarians, whereas others may feel the opposite way.

Could you expand on how delineating the two differently would change the underlying meaning? Or could the broader term come to include either/or during later discussion?

The individual components wouldn't be any different, essentially, but it's breaking it apart that's the important part.  IMO, having a parliamentary system and having a universal system aren't at all mutually implicational; one could easily come up with a universalist system that's basically like what currently exists with everyone else serving in the lower house and a parliamentary system that's unicameral with elected members but no universalism.

So would both proposals that I have listed properly characterize what you mean here? If so then I believe we have a second for your proposal in Lief's proposal and I can place an asterisk next to it.

Looks about right.  I don't particularly support the Presidential Universalism idea, but I figured it should be offered up just in case anyone thinks that parliamentarianism is scary or something

[Senator Ben]

Federal:

-Parliamentary System with a 6 member Upper House, comprised of the Governor of each of the three regions, and one other member per-region.
-The Lower House would comprise all other members of Atlasia not serving in the Upper House, who have voted in the previous election.  A member can be expelled for inactivity (i.e. only voting and nothing else) by a 3/5 majority of the Lower House.
-The Lower House will elect a Prime Minister from either its ranks or the ranks of the Upper House.  The nominee must then receive a majority vote of all Atlasian citizens.

Regional:

-3 Regional Governments, each with their own Constitution, and their own functions.
-Each Region will elect two members of the Upper House: their Governor, and one other person.  These elections (for Governor and At-Large Member) will be held in January, May, and September.
-The Region can recall either their Governor or At-Large Member by a 3/5 vote in the Region.

Stop thinking you're a delegate. Since you're not.

I am entitled to participate in the Convention, whether I'm a delegate or not.  I make no claims to be a delegate, or to have voting rights, or anything of the sort.  I'm giving my views on the Convention, which I am allowed to do.

[Purple State]

Abolition: the abolition of the national government in favor of the creation of multiple nations.

Unitarianism: the abolition of the regional governments, with all powers thereof shifted to the national government.

I'd also propose breaking up Smid's proposal into:

Universalism: the creation of a bicameral system in which all participants are a member of the lower house and the upper house is elected.

Parliamentarianism: a parliamentary-style system of governance.

Some people may wish to be universalists and not parliamentarians, whereas others may feel the opposite way.

Could you expand on how delineating the two differently would change the underlying meaning? Or could the broader term come to include either/or during later discussion?

The individual components wouldn't be any different, essentially, but it's breaking it apart that's the important part.  IMO, having a parliamentary system and having a universal system aren't at all mutually implicational; one could easily come up with a universalist system that's basically like what currently exists with everyone else serving in the lower house and a parliamentary system that's unicameral with elected members but no universalism.

So would both proposals that I have listed properly characterize what you mean here? If so then I believe we have a second for your proposal in Lief's proposal and I can place an asterisk next to it.

Looks about right.  I don't particularly support the Presidential Universalism idea, but I figured it should be offered up just in case anyone thinks that parliamentarianism is scary or something

Okay, that kinda looks like a double seconding of both Presidential Universalism and Presidential Parliamentarian. Any objection to me starring both of them?

If not, I think we have enough viable options to begin debate followed by a vote on which to pursue. If there are no objections by tonight around 10pm EST I will start a new thread for that.

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

I was thinking about this in History class while trying not to fall asleep. I have a few issues with the Smid proposal (which I outlined in that respective thread, but nobody answered), though I agree with the general idea. Should I propose my preferred personal version or should I not since those issues could be fixed later?