Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2014, 07:22:05 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government
| | |-+  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Gustaf, MasterJedi)
| | | |-+  Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Print
Author Topic: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)  (Read 20757 times)
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6780
United States


View Profile
« on: April 02, 2009, 11:17:00 pm »
Ignore

This thread is for the development of a Parliamentary Universalism system of government. Please propose ideas for individual pieces of construction, rather than entire proposals. I would prefer no more than one Article (e.g. Executive, Judicial, etc.) per post maximum. I will include all pieces that have been approved in this first post as they are passed through votes.

As a reminder, the Rules of Order state that, "All elections and votes required by this law shall require the participation of 50% of all delegates, as determined by the sign in thread, at the start of the election or vote to be valid, unless otherwise stated [in the RoO]."

Please keep debate and discussion friendly.

The following is a brief outline of this system: All participants shall be the members of a Lower House of the Legislature, and with an elected Upper House.



The Constitution

Quote
« Last Edit: June 16, 2009, 08:10:07 pm by Senator Purple State »Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5990
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2009, 02:48:34 am »
Ignore

To get the ball rolling...

Thinking about it, while my proposal's suggestion for the election of PM is more along the lines of Westminster systems, Hashemite's suggested options are probably easier to administer - probably the STV option is what I'd prefer (I forget which number that one was). Hashemite, would you perhaps put forward your ideas on electing the PM here again.

I still am in favour of motions of no confidence first to trigger a vote for PM, and I think motions of no confidence and elections of the PM should be limited to the Lower House and that the PM should be a member of the Lower House.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21390


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2009, 06:06:42 am »
Ignore

To get the ball rolling...

Thinking about it, while my proposal's suggestion for the election of PM is more along the lines of Westminster systems, Hashemite's suggested options are probably easier to administer - probably the STV option is what I'd prefer (I forget which number that one was). Hashemite, would you perhaps put forward your ideas on electing the PM here again.

I still am in favour of motions of no confidence first to trigger a vote for PM, and I think motions of no confidence and elections of the PM should be limited to the Lower House and that the PM should be a member of the Lower House.

I agree.

The Scottish Parliament elects a First Minister. Party leaders will put their case to the parliament and decide who becomes First Minister through a vote. It has always (so far) been the leader of the largest party who has been elected First Minister often due to abstentions etc. It makes for better government for the First Minisiter to be the head of the largest party. In a universal system, that means that everyone votes for the position. So it certainly workable, both in our context and within the context of a parliamentary system.

As such, as Smid has suggested, the PM should always be a member of the lower house, as his duty as PM is to that house. I also support, as I've argued before a 'no confidence' system. We have to remember that PM's and governments in most parliamentary systems can rise and fall without elections - our game should reflect that and allow it to happen, not routinely, but if and when it is needed so that if the game is being run by people without much interest or committment to it, they can be turfed out before the full term is over (if such a move has support)

Moving on a little, a Cabinet can be drawn from both Houses. This should be larger than it is now giving people portfolios on finance, defense, welfare etc.
Logged

Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5990
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2009, 07:21:07 am »
Ignore

Afleitch, I agree with absolutely 100% everything you said in that last post.

I think we need to have no confidence motions as the trigger for an election for the PM because:

1. It means that as soon as a party lacks the support in the Lower House, the other parties will have the opportunity to topple them and form government (rather than having to wait until a particular date for an election)

2. It means that a party can't focus on just trying to prop up numbers on a particular date for an election. While there'd still obviously be some sort of GOTV campaign during a no confidence vote/election of PM, it would be less predictable than if an election is to be held, say, the first weekend of August.

If we restrict votes for PM/confidence to the Lower House, it means that parties will need to balance the need to have the numbers in the Senate to pass legislation with the need to maintain numbers in the Lower House to prevent their own government from toppling or to have the numbers to topple another party's government. This adds an extra level of strategy to the game.

I'm also keen on a legislative activity requirement to vote in confidence/no confidence motions - if we give people the right to participate, there's no reason we can't expect them to use that right and to disallow them from voting if they don't.

The Lower House will give new members the opportunity to debate Bills and get to know how Atlasia works - similar to what has been said about the Regional Systems presently.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21390


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2009, 08:54:08 am »
Ignore

Strategy is important and of course in a parliamentary system so too are the party and alliance systems put in place. I believe that if this model is adopted all current parties should be dissolved. I'll explain exactly why; It is likely that the game will take its course and a left bloc and right bloc are established (with some centrists operating) but I think that new parties should be set up that are far broader in their appeal. Part of the strategy in this system will also involve factionalism within parties. That way the 'backbenchers'; the non ministerial, non high ranking representatives have the fate of their superiors in their hands.

I am wary or setting up a system and 'dropping' exisiting parties, alliances and rivalries into it. Likewise I'd like independents to join or at least caucus with one of the parties, particularly as they will as backbenchers have power in numbers.
Logged

Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6780
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2009, 09:19:02 am »
Ignore

Most of what you two have said so far sounds good, but how can we make Cabinet member positions more meaningful than they are now? Even if we give them "portfolios" there is no incentive for them to participate meaningfully. They would have just as much power as current Cabinet members, which means they can't accomplish all that much.

Maybe we should eliminate the VP and then in tied Upper House votes the appropriate Cabinet member has jurisdiction over breaking the tie. That could make coalition governments and Cabinets more interesting. And also, later when we start deciding how to limit Lower House debate, perhaps the corresponding Cabinet member has the final post before voting begins.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2536


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2009, 01:28:47 pm »
Ignore

Wouldn't under this plan the regions be useless?
Logged

Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6780
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2009, 01:35:39 pm »
Ignore

Wouldn't under this plan the regions be useless?

Not necessarily. Regions may have different opinions than the nation at large. The regions will always have a niche if they are allowed to exist. They serve as hubs for introduction to a smaller group, allow for more local politics, etc.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15237
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2009, 01:37:07 pm »
Ignore

Regions must be abolished.
Logged

Chief Judicial Officer of the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest, registered in the State of Joy, in Atlasia
Recognized National Treasure of Atlasia
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6780
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2009, 01:37:44 pm »
Ignore

Regions must be abolished.

Regardless, let's work on proposals for the actual government this Constitution will create.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

PASOK Leader Hashemite
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31144
Pitcairn


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2009, 04:55:32 pm »
Ignore

I'll post my old stuff over here, in the hopes that there is some discussion over this.

I read over this thread and the actual codified proposal in the formal language in the other thread. I am, overall, strongly in favour of this, with a few minor quirks.

Firstly, moving away from the British Westminster proposal a bit, I don't think the Prime Minister absolutely needs to be the leader of a political party. I think any person that fits certain requirements (activity, and something else maybe) should be allowed to be Prime Minister. This would also allow Independents who are nonetheless able to build a majority coalition around them to become Prime Minister. This is pretty much the only part of this where I have a problem.

Secondly, I disagree with parts of Article 4 on Political Parties, though I agree with the gist of the article. I do not think that political parties should be considered political parties after they have five members. Since all voters are MPs anyways, I think political parties of any size should be allowed. However, I propose a system similar to the one used in the French Parliament concerning parliamentary groups. A parliamentary group should have atleast 5 (or 10, whatever) members. Large political parties should have no trouble forming a group. Smaller parties or Independents that do not pass this threshold can choose to (i) caucus (apparentée) with a larger group or (ii) to sit as non-inscrits, which is not a group per se but a grouping of minor sub-5 parties and "fully independent Indies". Parliamentary groups would each have a leader (or speaker) and a whip, like the current constitution plans for political parties, and have a quota of PMBs like Purple State proposed earlier. A group speaker's would be responsible for addressing the group's response to a NCM, confidence vote, PM vote, law or whatever. He could also delegate this power to another member of the group at any time. Small (small defined as sub-5 members) political parties that would choose to caucus with a larger group would have access to these "advantages". Non-inscrits could choose a "delegate" that has less powers than the other leaders and would not have a whip. I assume non-inscrits MPs should have the right to introduce one piece of legislation per session. This whole thing is just an idea, but I feel that it would allow smaller political parties that do not have 5 members to have a voice.

I also had this idea concerning the election of the Prime Minister while reading the Constitution of the Fourth Republic like we all do in our spare time. Two alternatives, with many sub-alternatives. Basically:

1

Senators and MPs assemble in Congress and elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). For example, Smid declares as RPP candidate, Lief declares as SDP candidate, Franzl declares as DA candidate, realistic declares as JCP candidate, and maybe some Indie. Here we have three scenarios that break off:

1. In the first and second rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win, and in the third round he needs a simple plurality of votes cast. No candidate is eliminated after each round, but one may choose to drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. No one drops out, then it remains as in round one. Candidates may now choose to drop out, and their voters vote the way they wish. If one candidate has 39 votes, he wins.

Round three. No one drops out, then it remains as in round one and two and Smid wins by plurality. If a candidate dropped out before round two or three, then whichever candidate has the most votes wins.

Pros: There is a guaranteed winner after 3 rounds, so there is no chance it goes into 13 rounds of voting.
Cons: The winner may lack a stable majority in Parliament. For this reason, I do not recommend adopting this system.

2. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. No candidate is eliminated after each round, but one may choose to drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately.

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: It could potentially take for ever for one to get a majority. In France in 1953, Coty won after 13 rounds of voting.

3. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The candidate receiving the least votes is eliminated after each round, he doesn't have to endorse another candidate immediately. In addition, a candidate may drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid. Lief is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 34
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19

Round three. Assume all Lief votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: A high number of candidates in the first round means that it could take a long time.

4. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The second round is only between the top two candidates in the first round.

Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid and all votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.

2

MPs only elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). The same scenarios (1, 2, 3, 4) from Alternative 1 apply, but only the House votes (composition RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 ). So on and so forth.

Anyways, this is all just an alternative.

Lastly, if you want more fun in this, courtesy of the Fourth Republic. The elected Prime Minister, in a speech to the House, outlines his political agenda and his government's policy. All MPs vote in a confidence vote, which requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. Voluntary and voting abstentions are therefore counted in this total. Members not voting are not counted in this total. If it passes, the Prime Minister names his cabinet and must/could (two alternatives, you see) proceed to a second confidence vote in the House with the same rules as in this first vote. A NCM can be proposed at any time, and requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. If it passes, the PM and his cabinet must resign immediately and a new vote is held. Just an idea.

As said above, the part that I really have a major issue with is Article 5, Section 1, Clause i and parts of Article 4. My other proposals are just things that I feel could add to the game and could make this more fun. I probably won't defend them to the death, though.

On a last note, I really like Article 2, Section 1, Clause i and the general idea of constituencies. Though I feel there should be boundary commission that sets the borders of these constituencies so that people don't just go around randomly creating their constituencies out of the blue, which would be a disastrous idea.

I also apologize for this very long post.     
Logged

A Message to the People of France:

A Message to Manuel Valls
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5990
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2009, 09:05:10 am »
Ignore

Hashemite,

I'd been meaning to respond to this post for quite some time and I apologise for the length of time it has taken and thanks for posting it again here. You succinctly summarise the advantages and disadvantages of each, so I won't go into them at length. Likewise, since we're building the Constitution from scratch, I won't address the concerns you had with my earlier proposal - those things will either not be incorporated as we construct our Constitution, or we can discuss them at that time.

I'm snipping your post down to the format I support:
3. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The candidate receiving the least votes is eliminated after each round, he doesn't have to endorse another candidate immediately. In addition, a candidate may drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid. Lief is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 34
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19

Round three. Assume all Lief votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: A high number of candidates in the first round means that it could take a long time.

MPs only elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). The same scenarios (1, 2, 3, 4) from Alternative 1 apply, but only the House votes (composition RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 ). So on and so forth.

Anyways, this is all just an alternative.

Lastly, if you want more fun in this, courtesy of the Fourth Republic. The elected Prime Minister, in a speech to the House, outlines his political agenda and his government's policy. All MPs vote in a confidence vote, which requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. Voluntary and voting abstentions are therefore counted in this total. Members not voting are not counted in this total. If it passes, the Prime Minister names his cabinet and must/could (two alternatives, you see) proceed to a second confidence vote in the House with the same rules as in this first vote. A NCM can be proposed at any time, and requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. If it passes, the PM and his cabinet must resign immediately and a new vote is held. Just an idea.

In terms of the votes held, I like the idea that there is a pause in voting as each candidate is eliminated (which can lead to strategic negotiations in between voting rounds) but if there are concerns about the length of time it will take to elect a PM, we could speed it up through IRV (when I said STV in my earlier post, I actually meant IRV. It's something of a nasty habit of mine to accidentally do that at times).

As I've mentioned previously, I prefer the idea that only the Lower House elects the PM, rather than a joint sitting of the Lower and Upper Houses.

I also like the idea of the elected PM having to give a speech upon their election which then becomes a Confidence Vote where everyone votes on them. Actually, I really like that idea.

Again, as I've previously indicated, I really like the idea of at any time the Parliament may choose to move a No Confidence Vote in the PM. The way you've detailed it is exactly what I think.
Logged
PASOK Leader Hashemite
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31144
Pitcairn


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2009, 12:38:50 pm »
Ignore

3. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The candidate receiving the least votes is eliminated after each round, he doesn't have to endorse another candidate immediately. In addition, a candidate may drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid. Lief is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 34
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19

Round three. Assume all Lief votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: A high number of candidates in the first round means that it could take a long time.

MPs only elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). The same scenarios (1, 2, 3, 4) from Alternative 1 apply, but only the House votes (composition RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 ). So on and so forth.

Anyways, this is all just an alternative.

Lastly, if you want more fun in this, courtesy of the Fourth Republic. The elected Prime Minister, in a speech to the House, outlines his political agenda and his government's policy. All MPs vote in a confidence vote, which requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. Voluntary and voting abstentions are therefore counted in this total. Members not voting are not counted in this total. If it passes, the Prime Minister names his cabinet and must/could (two alternatives, you see) proceed to a second confidence vote in the House with the same rules as in this first vote. A NCM can be proposed at any time, and requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. If it passes, the PM and his cabinet must resign immediately and a new vote is held. Just an idea.

In terms of the votes held, I like the idea that there is a pause in voting as each candidate is eliminated (which can lead to strategic negotiations in between voting rounds) but if there are concerns about the length of time it will take to elect a PM, we could speed it up through IRV (when I said STV in my earlier post, I actually meant IRV. It's something of a nasty habit of mine to accidentally do that at times).

As I've mentioned previously, I prefer the idea that only the Lower House elects the PM, rather than a joint sitting of the Lower and Upper Houses.

I also like the idea of the elected PM having to give a speech upon their election which then becomes a Confidence Vote where everyone votes on them. Actually, I really like that idea.

Again, as I've previously indicated, I really like the idea of at any time the Parliament may choose to move a No Confidence Vote in the PM. The way you've detailed it is exactly what I think.

The IRV you propose is a good (and interesting) idea, actually. But I also like the idea, as you said, of having a waiting period (not too long, though) between rounds of voting that allows candidates to drop out and adds some political strategy games to this.

I would have no qualms with a lower house only or joint upper-lower sitting to elect the Prime Minister. Both are perfectly fine, and maybe just lower house could actually be preferable to a joint sitting.

I also like the speech+confidence vote after the PM's election so that the Prime Minister needs to lay out his policies to prevent, in part, a do-nothing useless PM from taking office. I don't think the system of including voluntary abstentions will lead to massive instability since we don't have Communists abstaining every damn time in this game like we had in France. Comes worse, we could exclude voluntary abstentions from the final vote count on confidence votes.

I'm happy you like my proposal.
Logged

A Message to the People of France:

A Message to Manuel Valls
Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2536


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2009, 01:17:13 pm »
Ignore

I don't think we have the active members to run a Universalism style of government. But know matter what I know I will be very active.
Logged

ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15237
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2009, 11:21:25 pm »
Ignore

Some thoughts upon actually reading the Smid proposal:

Chapter 2

Why should members need a constituency name?  And why the difficulty in changing states?

Here's an odd idea: make the PM be elected by the Senate, subject to approval by the Lower House.  But the Lower House can also kick the PM out of office.  Would give people more of an incentive to get elected to the Senate.

Might want to specify posted 15 posts on the entirety of the Atlas Forum.

Chapter 3

To mollify the people whining about elections, do what I did in the Midwest: hold elections every two months.  And lower the number of Senators down to 10, so it doesn't get too crazy.  Both more and more competitive elections are necessary.

I'd support STV.

Chapter 4

The initial provisions seem somewhat self-defeating; how could anyone create a party with more than five people without somehow magically teleporting to that number first?

Make it three people, I'd say.  If they're active enough to make by-laws and elect people, why not recognize them?

I do like the strong party system, though.

Chapter 5

Obviously my Upper-House-election idea would kind of invalidate parts of this... and I think restricting the PMship to a party leader is kind of annoying, even though I understand it would encourage coalition-building.

Jee, what's up with the time period for people to oppose a PM candidate's nomination?  So many time restrictions!

Chapter 6

Good, I think; will support the party system.  Perhaps let the number of laws able to be proposed by the opposition be set in the House Standing Orders, so as to have recriminations and nasty, bitter arguments about them.

It also is unclear to me what the regulations are for the Senate.

Chapter 7

Obviously I support the abolition of regions.  You also misspelled every Midwestern state.

Chapter 8

Justices should be elected by the Senate every twelve months.  I think five is a bit too many considering the workload and that they'd have to resign their seat.
Logged

Chief Judicial Officer of the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest, registered in the State of Joy, in Atlasia
Recognized National Treasure of Atlasia
ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15237
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2009, 12:01:08 pm »
Ignore

Where did Smid go?

And where is anyone else?

Should I just have a discussion with myself?
Logged

Chief Judicial Officer of the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest, registered in the State of Joy, in Atlasia
Recognized National Treasure of Atlasia
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6780
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2009, 12:44:23 pm »
Ignore

Where did Smid go?

And where is anyone else?

Should I just have a discussion with myself?

I hope that all the delegates will contribute if there is discussion. Just because someone may slightly favor universalism or non-universalism, we can all try to make the proposals as good as possible.

Perhaps discussion on the relationship between the upper and lower house would be appropriate? Or how the PM election would go? Or what to do with the regions?
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

PASOK Leader Hashemite
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31144
Pitcairn


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2009, 06:07:18 pm »
Ignore

Or how the PM election would go?

I already posted 4-5 different proposals to that regard.
Logged

A Message to the People of France:

A Message to Manuel Valls
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6780
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2009, 02:05:43 pm »
Ignore

If there is no additional substantive discussion on this proposal by Friday at midnight EST I will call for a vote to end discussion and scrap this proposal.

The lack of participation and activity here is unacceptable.

~Presiding Officer Purple State
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15237
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2009, 08:43:36 pm »
Ignore

For reference, Hashemite's large post:

I read over this thread and the actual codified proposal in the formal language in the other thread. I am, overall, strongly in favour of this, with a few minor quirks.

Firstly, moving away from the British Westminster proposal a bit, I don't think the Prime Minister absolutely needs to be the leader of a political party. I think any person that fits certain requirements (activity, and something else maybe) should be allowed to be Prime Minister. This would also allow Independents who are nonetheless able to build a majority coalition around them to become Prime Minister. This is pretty much the only part of this where I have a problem.

Secondly, I disagree with parts of Article 4 on Political Parties, though I agree with the gist of the article. I do not think that political parties should be considered political parties after they have five members. Since all voters are MPs anyways, I think political parties of any size should be allowed. However, I propose a system similar to the one used in the French Parliament concerning parliamentary groups. A parliamentary group should have atleast 5 (or 10, whatever) members. Large political parties should have no trouble forming a group. Smaller parties or Independents that do not pass this threshold can choose to (i) caucus (apparentée) with a larger group or (ii) to sit as non-inscrits, which is not a group per se but a grouping of minor sub-5 parties and "fully independent Indies". Parliamentary groups would each have a leader (or speaker) and a whip, like the current constitution plans for political parties, and have a quota of PMBs like Purple State proposed earlier. A group speaker's would be responsible for addressing the group's response to a NCM, confidence vote, PM vote, law or whatever. He could also delegate this power to another member of the group at any time. Small (small defined as sub-5 members) political parties that would choose to caucus with a larger group would have access to these "advantages". Non-inscrits could choose a "delegate" that has less powers than the other leaders and would not have a whip. I assume non-inscrits MPs should have the right to introduce one piece of legislation per session. This whole thing is just an idea, but I feel that it would allow smaller political parties that do not have 5 members to have a voice.

I also had this idea concerning the election of the Prime Minister while reading the Constitution of the Fourth Republic like we all do in our spare time. Two alternatives, with many sub-alternatives. Basically:

1

Senators and MPs assemble in Congress and elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). For example, Smid declares as RPP candidate, Lief declares as SDP candidate, Franzl declares as DA candidate, realistic declares as JCP candidate, and maybe some Indie. Here we have three scenarios that break off:

1. In the first and second rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win, and in the third round he needs a simple plurality of votes cast. No candidate is eliminated after each round, but one may choose to drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. No one drops out, then it remains as in round one. Candidates may now choose to drop out, and their voters vote the way they wish. If one candidate has 39 votes, he wins.

Round three. No one drops out, then it remains as in round one and two and Smid wins by plurality. If a candidate dropped out before round two or three, then whichever candidate has the most votes wins.

Pros: There is a guaranteed winner after 3 rounds, so there is no chance it goes into 13 rounds of voting.
Cons: The winner may lack a stable majority in Parliament. For this reason, I do not recommend adopting this system.

2. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. No candidate is eliminated after each round, but one may choose to drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately.

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: It could potentially take for ever for one to get a majority. In France in 1953, Coty won after 13 rounds of voting.

3. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The candidate receiving the least votes is eliminated after each round, he doesn't have to endorse another candidate immediately. In addition, a candidate may drop out at any time without having to endorse another candidate immediately. Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid. Lief is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 34
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19

Round three. Assume all Lief votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.
Cons: A high number of candidates in the first round means that it could take a long time.

4. In all rounds of voting, a candidate needs 50%+1 of all votes cast to win. The second round is only between the top two candidates in the first round.

Ex, using Smid's scenario of a RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 House and let's say as RPP 5, DA 5, SDP 4, JCP 1 Senate. Assuming no party rebels or absences for simplicity's sake.

Round one. 76 votes cast, 39 for majority. Realistic is eliminated.
Smid (RPP) 25
Franzl (DA) 23
Lief (SDP) 19
Realistic (JCP) 9

Round two. Assume all realistic votes flow to Smid and all votes flow to Franzl, who is elected 42-34.
Franzl (DA) 42
Smid (RPP) 34

Pros: The winner will always have the support of a majority in Parliament.

2

MPs only elect the Prime Minister from declared Prime Ministerial candidates (no write-ins or NOTA). The same scenarios (1, 2, 3, 4) from Alternative 1 apply, but only the House votes (composition RPP 20, DA 18, SDP 15, JCP 8 ). So on and so forth.

Anyways, this is all just an alternative.

Lastly, if you want more fun in this, courtesy of the Fourth Republic. The elected Prime Minister, in a speech to the House, outlines his political agenda and his government's policy. All MPs vote in a confidence vote, which requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. Voluntary and voting abstentions are therefore counted in this total. Members not voting are not counted in this total. If it passes, the Prime Minister names his cabinet and must/could (two alternatives, you see) proceed to a second confidence vote in the House with the same rules as in this first vote. A NCM can be proposed at any time, and requires 50%+1 of all votes cast to pass. If it passes, the PM and his cabinet must resign immediately and a new vote is held. Just an idea.

As said above, the part that I really have a major issue with is Article 5, Section 1, Clause i and parts of Article 4. My other proposals are just things that I feel could add to the game and could make this more fun. I probably won't defend them to the death, though.

On a last note, I really like Article 2, Section 1, Clause i and the general idea of constituencies. Though I feel there should be boundary commission that sets the borders of these constituencies so that people don't just go around randomly creating their constituencies out of the blue, which would be a disastrous idea.

I also apologize for this very long post.     



And of course my proposed revisions are to Smid's proposal.
Logged

Chief Judicial Officer of the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest, registered in the State of Joy, in Atlasia
Recognized National Treasure of Atlasia
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6780
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2009, 12:17:26 pm »
Ignore

Seriously, no one is willing to draft an article or something? Instead of repeating those ideas over and over put them into some sort of written article for people to critique and then vote on.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15237
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2009, 12:33:24 pm »
Ignore

And of course my proposed revisions are to Smid's proposal.

That seems like the most comprehensive proposal yet enumerated to me...
Logged

Chief Judicial Officer of the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest, registered in the State of Joy, in Atlasia
Recognized National Treasure of Atlasia
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6780
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2009, 01:39:54 pm »
Ignore

And of course my proposed revisions are to Smid's proposal.

That seems like the most comprehensive proposal yet enumerated to me...

I can't bring anything to a vote until you present an article. Write up (or take from that link) one article and stick it up here to get debate going.

EDIT: I will try to write something up quickly so we can get something going. Expect it in the next 20 minutes or so.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 01:42:42 pm by Mideast Assembly Speaker Purple State »Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6780
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2009, 02:12:56 pm »
Ignore

Article _: The House of Commons

Section 1: Formation
1. Any person who registered as a citizen of Atlasia shall serve as a Member of Parliament, herein MP, in the House of Commons, herein Lower House.
    i. Upon registering to Atlasia, they must provide:
       a. name,
       b. state of residency, and
       c. political party to which they belong, or as independent.
    ii. Any MP may change their state of residency no more frequently than once every six months.
2. The Lower House shall be presided over by the Commons Speaker, elected by the MP's, who shall be responsible for chairing debate that occurs within the Lower House and who shall have the power to break ties in the Lower House.
    i. All debate and votes shall be initiated by the Speaker. No debate shall occur without the presence of a Speaker.
    ii. The Speaker shall be required to maintain a weekly-updated public list of current members of the House who are qualified under Section 2, Clause 4.

Section 2: Powers
1. MP's shall have the power to debate and vote on Bills and Motions that come before the Lower House.
2. The Lower House shall be responsible for electing Senators to the Upper House.
3. MP's shall be responsible for electing a President, who shall be serve as the Head of State of Atlasia.
4. The qualifications to vote in the election of a Senator or the President include:
    i. a minimum total post count on the forum of 25
    ii. 15 posts in the previous 8 weeks
    iii. participation in parliamentary debate on at least two Bills in the previous 60 days
    iv. registered as a MP in the Lower House more than 10 days prior to the election.
5. Section 2, Clause 4 iii - iv. shall only be enacted after the first election of Senators and President under this Constitution. Following said election, this clause shall cease to operate.

Section 3: Confidence Votes
1. The Lower House may not conduct debate on any Bills or Motions, except for a confidence motion, without the presence a Prime Minister.
2. If a confidence motion is moved, the Lower House must cease to debate all other Bills and Motions until the motion is resolved. The motion shall last for 72 hours.
3. Confidence motions shall not be moved more often than once a month by the Lower House.
4. A confidence motion shall be deemed as carried with a vote of confidence or lost with a vote of no confidence by a majority of all MP's.
5. Immediately upon the passage of a vote of no confidence against the Government, the Senate and Prime Minister shall become vacant and new elections shall be held.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 02:42:51 pm by Mideast Assembly Speaker Purple State »Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2536


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2009, 02:17:36 pm »
Ignore

It sounds like what we have now but with citizens in a lower house.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines