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.
