Government Proposal Discussion: Bicameral Nonparliamentarian (Closed)

[Purple State]

This thread is for the discussion of ideas relating to the Bicameral Nonparliamentarian proposal for the new government.

Basic Characteristics
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

Discussion shall last no less than 48 hours and no more than 240 hours (10 days) unless there is continued and productive discussion.

At the conclusion of debate there will be a vote in a separate thread to choose which models of government shall be pursued by the Convention. Please visit the other Government Proposal Discussion threads and comment on those as well.

[Purple State]

I just want to say I kinda like this proposal. The idea that a narrow Senate and broader House can work on basic ideas and then have a conference to compromise the two pieces of legislation sounds appealing. I think we have been overlooking a US form of government and this could be fun to play around with and develop.

This model or the Parliamentary Universalism with a more limited lower house (I would rather all elected officials of the regions with a max of 5, instead of all citizens) would be the most appealing to me.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

I am glad that this proposal has an inkling of support from someone other than me. Of course, like all the other proposals, this system can certainly be tweaked to meet the needs of Atlasia. I, for one, like it, but I don't know if this is the right type of plan for the people here, considering I am relatively new.

[Hashemite]

What would this plan entail for regional governments?

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

What would this plan entail for regional governments?

Regionally, I suggested there would be no Governors. I say this because I think the people could be more self governing at the regional level. This might seem hypocritical to my position that everyone should not be a part of the federal government, but it is not. The federal and state governments are separate entities, and I feel that people should have more power in the state government thant the national government. If we had more people in this simulation, then regional governments would make more sense, but as of now, I like the idea of a self-governing region.

Also, and duties normally fulfilled by the governor will be taken by one of the elected delegates of the region. My proposal also calls for cutting each region in half, leaving us with 10 regions. This way, we can have a House of 20, a Senate of 10, and a President and VP.

[Purple State]

I would probably propose keeping Governors and other regional government positions, have a 5-10 member Senate elected nationally with a Lower House composed of all regional elected officials (max 5 for each region, with which officials to be determined by each regions Constitution).

Then treat it like a US style government. Nationally elected Pres. and VP, conference for legislation, etc.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

I would probably propose keeping Governors and other regional government positions, have a 5-10 member Senate elected nationally with a Lower House composed of all regional elected officials (max 5 for each region, with which officials to be determined by each regions Constitution).

Then treat it like a US style government. Nationally elected Pres. and VP, conference for legislation, etc.

I don't like having a lower and upper house. I say we have 10 regions, house representatives allotted by population, 20 House Representatives, and 10 Senators. The House and the Senate are equal and function in the same style as the US.

[Hashemite]

What would this plan entail for regional governments?

Regionally, I suggested there would be no Governors. I say this because I think the people could be more self governing at the regional level. This might seem hypocritical to my position that everyone should not be a part of the federal government, but it is not. The federal and state governments are separate entities, and I feel that people should have more power in the state government thant the national government. If we had more people in this simulation, then regional governments would make more sense, but as of now, I like the idea of a self-governing region.

Also, and duties normally fulfilled by the governor will be taken by one of the elected delegates of the region. My proposal also calls for cutting each region in half, leaving us with 10 regions. This way, we can have a House of 20, a Senate of 10, and a President and VP.

Your plan would make regions entirely useless, and this is sweetly ironic since you otherwise seem committed to keeping regions viable.

[Smid]

I don't like having a lower and upper house. I say we have 10 regions, house representatives allotted by population, 20 House Representatives, and 10 Senators. The House and the Senate are equal and function in the same style as the US.

You realise that this is a bicameral model that you're advocating - quite literally, a "two house" system? The House of Representatives is a Lower House and the Senate is an Upper House.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

I don't like having a lower and upper house. I say we have 10 regions, house representatives allotted by population, 20 House Representatives, and 10 Senators. The House and the Senate are equal and function in the same style as the US.

You realise that this is a bicameral model that you're advocating - quite literally, a "two house" system? The House of Representatives is a Lower House and the Senate is an Upper House.

Correct me if I am mistaken. I thought a Lower House denoted that the house is lower in stature or rank then the upper house. If that isn't true, then I take back my statements and pose another question:
Why is it called a lower house if it is equal with the the Upper House?

[Senator MaxQue]

I don't like having a lower and upper house. I say we have 10 regions, house representatives allotted by population, 20 House Representatives, and 10 Senators. The House and the Senate are equal and function in the same style as the US.

You realise that this is a bicameral model that you're advocating - quite literally, a "two house" system? The House of Representatives is a Lower House and the Senate is an Upper House.

Correct me if I am mistaken. I thought a Lower House denoted that the house is lower in stature or rank then the upper house. If that isn't true, then I take back my statements and pose another question:
Why is it called a lower house if it is equal with the the Upper House?

For historical reasons, I suppose. Usually, the lower have more power than the upper house. Example, in Canada, the upper house cannot present fiscal laws. Only the lower house can. Also, only the lower house can dismiss the government in Canada.

[Purple State]

I don't like having a lower and upper house. I say we have 10 regions, house representatives allotted by population, 20 House Representatives, and 10 Senators. The House and the Senate are equal and function in the same style as the US.

You realise that this is a bicameral model that you're advocating - quite literally, a "two house" system? The House of Representatives is a Lower House and the Senate is an Upper House.

Correct me if I am mistaken. I thought a Lower House denoted that the house is lower in stature or rank then the upper house. If that isn't true, then I take back my statements and pose another question:
Why is it called a lower house if it is equal with the the Upper House?

For historical reasons, I suppose. Usually, the lower have more power than the upper house. Example, in Canada, the upper house cannot present fiscal laws. Only the lower house can. Also, only the lower house can dismiss the government in Canada.

It is historical. Usually upper houses were composed of nobles, while lower houses were more popularly elected. The elite nobles wanted to feel some sense of superiority I guess.

I did not mean to denote that one was more powerful than the other. I was implying a bicameral legislature with two houses, just like the US.

[Smid]

I don't like having a lower and upper house. I say we have 10 regions, house representatives allotted by population, 20 House Representatives, and 10 Senators. The House and the Senate are equal and function in the same style as the US.

You realise that this is a bicameral model that you're advocating - quite literally, a "two house" system? The House of Representatives is a Lower House and the Senate is an Upper House.

Correct me if I am mistaken. I thought a Lower House denoted that the house is lower in stature or rank then the upper house. If that isn't true, then I take back my statements and pose another question:
Why is it called a lower house if it is equal with the the Upper House?

As MaxQue said, it's historic - in Britain it's the House of Commons and the House of Lords and stems from these back in the previous centuries. The Commons being elected by the people - literally the "Commoners" and the House of Lords comprising of people of a particular "Upper" status in society. At least, I'm pretty sure that's how the terms "upper" and "lower" came about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_house
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_house

Similarly to MaxQue's comments about Money Bills in the Canadian Senate, the Australian Senate has a similar restriction placed upon it.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

OK, then. Apparently my bashing of the upper and lower house may have been unfounded, and I apologise for that.
However, I still think that it would be better for the game to have a two house system in which there is a little bit of competition for spots in both houses.

[Brandon H]

As I mentioned in one of the other proposals, I don't think we have the number of people to make two elected houses of government. I'm sure we can be flexible, but with 10 and 20 member houses, that is 30 elected persons, plus the Pres and Vice Pres. That would probably result in the election of more than half of the citizens.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

As I mentioned in one of the other proposals, I don't think we have the number of people to make two elected houses of government. I'm sure we can be flexible, but with 10 and 20 member houses, that is 30 elected persons, plus the Pres and Vice Pres. That would probably result in the election of more than half of the citizens.

That would mean the election of the 32 most active citizens, as opposed to the handing of power to ever active citizen in the simulation.

[ilikeverin]

If, say, 2/3 of people are elected officials, what's the point of the other players?  What are they going to do with themselves?

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

If, say, 2/3 of people are elected officials, what's the point of the other players?  What are they going to do with themselves?

Whatever people have been doing when they weren't part of the government.

[ilikeverin]

If, say, 2/3 of people are elected officials, what's the point of the other players?  What are they going to do with themselves?

Whatever people have been doing when they weren't part of the government.

So, nothing, in other words.  Unless you're Jas and are awesome

[Purple State]

I'm starting to prefer a universal system that uses certain aspects of this plan, such as conference. I think the House and Senate should be given relative independence from one another, but with an eventual compromise between the two. It sort of bridges the gap between the elite offices and the regular people.