Government Proposal Debate (Closed)

[Purple State]

This thread is open to discussion and debate of the following:

a) How will debate proceed on the proposals for government?

b) How will the development of the proposals be accomplished?

Please join the discussion to determine how this Convention will progress.

[CultureKing]

hmm... can we have a bit of time to debate?
Or is everyone ready to vote? I feel like this might be a bit of a big issue for the convention...

[Purple State]

hmm... can we have a bit of time to debate?
Or is everyone ready to vote? I feel like this might be a bit of a big issue for the convention...

Alright, I will hold off the vote for 24 hours. I was leaning towards getting first instincts, as you don't have much to work with in these broad archetypes.

Here is what I will allow. Any delegate who proposed/seconded one of the four proposals above may, if he is so inclined, write a post explaining the benefits of your proposal. When all proposals have been argued for in a post OR 24 hours has elapsed I will begin voting.

The people that can make a presentation are: Smid, Franzl, ilikeverin, CultureKing, and Lief.

Is this fair?

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I just want to say that, I oppose this.

It seems like a good idea, but you'd be eliminating the concept of getting elected to certain positions, which I don't really like considering this is Atlas Fantasy Elections. I'm not sure what incentive there would be to climb up a ladder if you're given an office the day you sign up.

Which brings me to another problem, what are we going to do about inactive people? If the Lower House which would be comprise of all the citizens, we're going to have some problems with keeping everyone active. Probably half our citizens right now don't take an interest in anything regarding Atlasia. Half of my party (the SDP) is dead/inactive. How would we hold votes? Majorities would be the most obvious rule, but what if 40% of the people aren't active in Atlasia? Left Atlasia? On vacation? You'd have problems meeting these thresholds.

The problem would only be greater if you ever had to deal with something that required a 2/3rds or 3/4ths margin for important things such as constitutional amendments or what have you. Getting two thirds of the entire game seems to be a nigh impossible feat if right now is any indication. The only solution would be to simply have votes take place within a certain amount of time, but it would seem to be to be a downright joke if only 40-60% of Atlasia turns out to vote in the legislature.

I'm not opposed to a parliamentary system with or without two houses, but the entire point of elected office is assuring that those who stand for election actually have the activity and the interest to take action in their particular offices. The Lower House, in my opinion, should be elected just as the Upper House.

I, personally, fall in line more with a Presidential Parliamentarian system, which would actually elect people who take an interest, but would just be comprised of more seats than our current Senate.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I also want to say that I don't like the very idea of having this poll.

So what if the majority of people support one system? Does that mean we shut out or marginalize proposals that revolve around other systems of government? If not, then what's the point of this poll at all? We should have proposals of all types, not decide we're only going to discuss one system and shun the others.

[MaxQue]

I also want to say that I don't like the very idea of having this poll.

So what if the majority of people support one system? Does that mean we shut out or marginalize proposals that revolve around other systems of government? If not, then what's the point of this poll at all? We should have proposals of all types, not decide we're only going to discuss one system and shun the others.

Well, it is written than we choose a system and all together we try to write something. If that fails, we try another system. That won't be full-written proposition like Smid one's.

[Marokai Backbeat]

A better system would be to open a thread (for each) based on each proposal for a new government and debate each one individually, not decide right out of the gate which one we're focusing on.

[MaxQue]

A better system would be to open a thread (for each) based on each proposal for a new government and debate each one individually, not decide right out of the gate which one we're focusing on.

Perhaps, but that multiply the work by 4 or 5.

[Marokai Backbeat]

A better system would be to open a thread (for each) based on each proposal for a new government and debate each one individually, not decide right out of the gate which one we're focusing on.

Perhaps, but that multiply the work by 4 or 5.

No one said this would be easy or quick.

[afleitch]

A better system would be to open a thread (for each) based on each proposal for a new government and debate each one individually, not decide right out of the gate which one we're focusing on.

I have to agree. While I am very keen on Smid's proposal and won't hide that. I feel we are perhaps moving a bit too fast. We can't pick a model then try and create a system of government that fits into it. It is better to work out the system before we determine the model. For me the real issue is simply - do we move towards a parliamentary model yes or no? If no what are the alternatives. If yes, that's where we go and we than build a system from there.

On the whole, there has to be further discussion of alternatives.

[Smid]

A Universal Parliamentary Model

I believe that a parliamentary model is the best for improving the game play for active members of Atlasia and people who wish to be more active in Atlasia, however do not hold an elected office.

Personally, when I first became involved in the Fantasy Elections board, I found that there weren't many opportunities to become active, other than by voting in the actual elections. I didn't hold any position, I wasn't involved with any party, I just sort of watched and voted and that was about all. I don't think I even posted anything in Atlasia until Lief appointed me CJO of the Northeast.

Unless a participant holds a position, it is very difficult to be active on this board. A parliamentary model with a universal Lower House would rectify this. If every registered participant is a member of a Lower House, then every registered participant can be involved in the day-to-day, week-to-week activities of Atlasia. They can debate Bills and they can vote on them. They can participate in Leadership ballots and move amendments to Bills. It is simply incorrect to assume that universal membership of the Lower House would stifle activity - it would actually increase the opportunity to be involved for the majority of registered participants.

Obviously, a participant will only be as active as they wish to be - a person not interested in getting involved in debates on Bills wouldn't be forced to, however the opportunity is at least present.

An elected Upper House, slightly expanded on the numbers currently in the Senate would ensure that there are elections for positions and that those positions have a degree of power. If the Upper House were expanded to 15, each Senator would still have 1/15th of a say in whether a Bill passes or fails. This is obviously greater power than a regular participant in the Lower House who does not hold an elected position - which creates an incentive to run for the Upper House.

Before Bills become law, they would need to pass through both Houses of Parliament and any amendments to them would need to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. Just because a Bill passes the Lower House, doesn't mean that it will automatically pass the Upper House, filled with elected representatives. Since the Upper House needs to also pass any Bills and since the membership of the Upper House is exclusive to elected representatives, elections will play an essential role in the game - a party that doesn't contest elections will find that it must rely on another party to support its legislative agenda, even if it has an absolute majority.

The Prime Minister would be elected from the Lower House - and while some may prefer the Senators also vote in that leadership ballot, I'd prefer just Lower House members are entitled to vote (the exact method would be determined later in the Convention). Again - an important election that would lead to the winner being able to set a legislative agenda. If a party didn't contest these elections, they would be able to introduce fewer Bills, so campaigning and winning the election for Prime Minister is an essential part of the game.

Whether you look at the Prime Ministerial elections or the Upper House elections - a Parliamentary model still revolves around elections, it is an elections sim with enhanced government sim aspects.

Presently, an unelected member of Atlasia is less able to contribute to debate or be actively involved in Atlasia generally. If we want to ponder the reason behind zombie voters, we need look no further than the inability to be involved. If we improve the ability to actively participate in Atlasia, people will be able to participate in more than just votes and therefore the number of zombie voters would be decreased. Furthermore, if it is possible to be actively involved in Atlasia, then there can more easily be a requirement of participation in determining eligibility to vote. If someone has the ability to debate Bills and doesn't, then they should probably lose their ability to vote in the elections. A model that does not guarantee universal participation to anyone who is interested in being involved cannot restrict votes to active members. The only way that can be done is by providing an opportunity to participate.

This is therefore the principal reason I support a universal Lower House - because it allows for anyone and everyone to participate in more than just voting.

Whichever model is chosen, elected positions will still be more important than unelected ones, and allowing a universal Lower House is no exception.

I believe that a Parliamentary model with a universal Lower House and an elected Upper House provides the best balance between universal participation and elections, it improves the ability of the average participant to be involved, while at the same time creating important roles for which people will need to campaign and contest elections.

My argument thus far has been in favour of a universal Lower House - to improve participation, however it could be put that we have a presidential model with this universal participation model - by simply adding a Lower House to the current game. There is, however, a reason I believe that a Parliamentary model would work best:

Therefore, as a final point - and this is the reason I support a parliamentary model over a presidential model for any system with a universal Lower House - if we are placing the power to pass Legislation in the hands of the Legislature, comprised of both Houses of Parliament, it is important that the power remains in the hands of the legislature rather than the executive. The executive should have a role in setting the legislative agenda, but a President popularly elected should not have the ability to veto legislation and should be answerable to the House. If all participants are able to vote on legislation, then for a Bill to pass the House, it must have fairly strong support (certainly a majority of people who voted - and since everyone is entitled to vote, one would assume a majority of those who care one way or the other about the legislation). It is therefore important that the President not be entitled to overturn the Bill. Instead, I believe it makes far more sense to elect a Prime Minister to the Lower House and to allow them to appoint their Ministers - and this executive branch of PM and Ministers set the legislative agenda and not be able to veto Bills.

Sorry if I'm overly verbose - I get that way when I'm tired. I'm off to bed now, so if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them in the morning.

[Purple State]

A better system would be to open a thread (for each) based on each proposal for a new government and debate each one individually, not decide right out of the gate which one we're focusing on.

Perhaps, but that multiply the work by 4 or 5.

No one said this would be easy or quick.

The problem is if we have a few people working on multiple proposals than no idea has the complete focus of all the delegates. And the only way to have a successful proposal is to have the cooperation of all the delegates and their viewpoints.

Here's what I will do. I will change this thread to a debate of the proposals and put up a separate election thread to be opened at a later time.

My worry is that by not concentrating on any one form we lose the ability to make that form the best. We will end up with people who simply plop down a whole proposal and say "discuss." That's not what we need here. We need to form the different parts slowly and meticulously as a group. If we decide that one form is not working out we will choose a separate form.

[Brandon H]

A better system would be to open a thread (for each) based on each proposal for a new government and debate each one individually, not decide right out of the gate which one we're focusing on.

Perhaps, but that multiply the work by 4 or 5.

No one said this would be easy or quick.

I agree. I'd rather put in extra work and get a better end product.

[afleitch]

A better system would be to open a thread (for each) based on each proposal for a new government and debate each one individually, not decide right out of the gate which one we're focusing on.

Perhaps, but that multiply the work by 4 or 5.

No one said this would be easy or quick.

I agree. I'd rather put in extra work and get a better end product.

Speaking of which I will post this here

I thought it would be helpful to list these here for reference. I'm having to seach back through years of posts so if you can remember any, please post them here.

True Democrat's proposal - December 2006

This contains a fully formed draft constitution

Link: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/User:True_democrat

Main Discussion/proposed amendments: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=50897.0

Harry's 'Two Nations' Idea - February 2006

Link: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36657.msg826777#msg826777

True Democrats drafted constitution is particularly worthy of attention before we embark on the same. He has a few good ideas and constitutional 'wordings' in there.

I'd ask everyone to have a read through it.

[Purple State]

Ok, sounds like everyone wants some form of multiple-fronts approach to the Convention, rather than a honed in version.

So how does the following sound:

1) I open a thread for each model and allow 48 hours of discussion and debate on them.

2) After 48 hours we hold a vote. Any model that gains 4+ votes will be developed by the delegates.

3) At any time delegates may close debate and throw out one form if it is deemed as no longer viable. Once all forms have been fully developed and/or disposed of a vote will come to determine which of the models will be instituted.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would prefer to have much more time to discuss and build ideas for alternative proposals. (I just realized my mind has already latched onto the idea that these are "alternatives"!)

Just two days for 4+ proposals doesn't seem to be an adequate amount of time. I honestly think you're trying to speed this thing along and I really don't like that. My suggestion would be to just open up debate on each proposal for the delegates to consider and brainstorm for each idea and allow miscellaneous ideas to crop up over an indefinite period of time. (At least a week.)

What *I* would do would be to, as I said, open up the threads for each one, let them go on for awhile and encourage delegates to build up a draft for each proposal, and put those proposals to two, three, or more, votes. Since we're likely going to end up with a few proposals, take the, say, four proposals and put it to a vote, eliminate the bottom one or two proposals, open more debate on the proposals that were at the top, and after another period, put the proposals to a vote again and choose what we seem to like the most.

I think this should be a competition of ideas, not deciding what idea we like the most and just working on that the entire time. We have 19-20 delegates here, the whole point is to have a battle of ideas.

[Purple State]

The only reason I am trying to go quickly through this part is because people tend to track off as things are delayed. If there is constant action then people make their voices heard. However, you can already see that only about half the delegates are actually contributing.

I also happen to have a feeling that at least 3 of the proposals will get 4+ votes, so we would end up getting much more time to discuss most of these. But the discussion should have a purpose. Putting up discussions for a week that may have no effect on the structure is a good chunk of time. I would rather have people clarify exactly what they mean by these proposals, weed out the one or two that people really have no interest in, and then go into further and deeper debate on the ones we want to develop.

Trust me, structuring the next government will take a lot of time. But this preliminary stuff doesn't need to be dragged along.

I will open threads for the 4 current proposals, as well as a thread about how we could keep the current form with some overhauls. The proposal thread will remain open in case new ideas are thought of. I will leave the discussion threads open for no less than 48 hours and no more than 240 hours (10 days), but as long as there is real and productive discussion I will refrain from unlocking the voting thread.

Sound good?

[Purple State]

Well this has been a fun bump to get past.

Everyone happy with this? Can we all hold hands again?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well this has been a fun bump to get past.

Everyone happy with this? Can we all hold hands again?

I'm fine with your compromise. Thanks.

[Brandon H]

2 days is definitely too short. But extending it as long as there is conversation is good enough.

[Purple State]

Debate seems to be slowing considerably. I will leave the discussions open until tomorrow night, but if no further insightful discussion occurs I will call the vote after that.

I have laid out the parameters for voting here so let me know what you think of them.

[Purple State]

Will we be okay with the opening of voting at 10pm EST tonight? At that time I will be closing ALL the discussion threads currently open and unlock the voting.