Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 30, 2014, 05:17:08 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  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 22272 times)
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6780
United States


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: April 26, 2009, 06:02:39 pm »
Ignore

Just bumping this to maybe get something going. So far universalism has been greatly outpaced by the other proposals, but there seems to be some promising ideas here. Get something ready for vote and I'll bring it right up.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15454
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: April 26, 2009, 10:40:02 pm »
Ignore

Okay, here is my equivalent of PurpleState's version:

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 two 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 not vote, except to break ties.
    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 approving the selection of a Prime Minister, whose Government shall be responsible for the governance 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 8 weeks
    iv. registered as a MP in the Lower House more than one week 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. 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.
4. 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.
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
Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2534


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #52 on: April 26, 2009, 11:29:21 pm »
Ignore

This could live with that.
Logged

Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16770
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

P

View Profile
« Reply #53 on: April 26, 2009, 11:34:12 pm »
Ignore

Formatted well and makes sense, I suppose, though I still oppose the system entirely.

I'm assuming the House can introduce bills as well, yes?
Logged

Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2534


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #54 on: April 26, 2009, 11:43:23 pm »
Ignore

Formatted well and makes sense, I suppose, though I still oppose the system entirely.

I'm assuming the House can introduce bills as well, yes?

The only reason why I don't like this system is because it would take away the elections, which in part is the best thing about Atlasia. That is why I think if we make more offices to fill and have more elections, active will go up.
Logged

Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16770
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

P

View Profile
« Reply #55 on: April 26, 2009, 11:46:19 pm »
Ignore

Formatted well and makes sense, I suppose, though I still oppose the system entirely.

I'm assuming the House can introduce bills as well, yes?

The only reason why I don't like this system is because it would take away the elections, which in part is the best thing about Atlasia. That is why I think if we make more offices to fill and have more elections, active will go up.

It does place the emphasis more on a government sim rather than an election sim, which I'm not sure is the brightest idea in light of the recent uptick in election activity. One of my bigger reasons for opposing this system is not only that, it's that the House and the Senate are virtually identical bodies that only differ in size. There's no point in having an upper house in a universal system because everyone has the same powers, so there's no incentive to run for the Senate, and if you take the Senate out, you eliminate all elections. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

If you're interested, I wrote a more detailed critique of Universalism lower on the board.
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: April 26, 2009, 11:48:56 pm »
Ignore

I would just recommend that s1(4) and (5) mention the PM as well.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15454
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: April 27, 2009, 07:14:29 am »
Ignore

Formatted well and makes sense, I suppose, though I still oppose the system entirely.

I'm assuming the House can introduce bills as well, yes?

The only reason why I don't like this system is because it would take away the elections, which in part is the best thing about Atlasia. That is why I think if we make more offices to fill and have more elections, active will go up.

It does place the emphasis more on a government sim rather than an election sim, which I'm not sure is the brightest idea in light of the recent uptick in election activity. One of my bigger reasons for opposing this system is not only that, it's that the House and the Senate are virtually identical bodies that only differ in size. There's no point in having an upper house in a universal system because everyone has the same powers, so there's no incentive to run for the Senate, and if you take the Senate out, you eliminate all elections. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I specifically stated I amended Smid's proposal to deal with this; the Senate is now the House who is able to propose Prime Ministers, not the House, making getting elected to the Senate a Good Thing (tm).  I'm open to more ideas for how to make the Houses less overlappy.
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 #58 on: April 27, 2009, 08:45:50 am »
Ignore

Formatted well and makes sense, I suppose, though I still oppose the system entirely.

I'm assuming the House can introduce bills as well, yes?

The only reason why I don't like this system is because it would take away the elections, which in part is the best thing about Atlasia. That is why I think if we make more offices to fill and have more elections, active will go up.

It does place the emphasis more on a government sim rather than an election sim, which I'm not sure is the brightest idea in light of the recent uptick in election activity. One of my bigger reasons for opposing this system is not only that, it's that the House and the Senate are virtually identical bodies that only differ in size. There's no point in having an upper house in a universal system because everyone has the same powers, so there's no incentive to run for the Senate, and if you take the Senate out, you eliminate all elections. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I specifically stated I amended Smid's proposal to deal with this; the Senate is now the House who is able to propose Prime Ministers, not the House, making getting elected to the Senate a Good Thing (tm).  I'm open to more ideas for how to make the Houses less overlappy.

Ah, so ignore my last post. I think the Senate really needs to have powers far and above the House. Perhaps only the Senate can propose legislation. Although that would simply make it our current form with referendum-like governance.

You just need to give the Senate a true purpose beyond choosing the PM.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

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


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: May 03, 2009, 04:18:55 pm »
Ignore

Bump. Any ideas left out there? Or would Smid/ilikeverin like me to just bring the above House of Commons proposal to a vote?
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15454
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: May 03, 2009, 05:19:46 pm »
Ignore

I'd be up for that, but it might be a good idea to wait for Smid... he seemed to have thought of something and forgotten about it, so perhaps we can make him remember it yet again Smiley
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: 15454
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: May 03, 2009, 05:24:03 pm »
Ignore

Ooh, I just thought of something fun about my proposal... I was thinking about what would happen if the Senate only nominated one candidate for the House of Commons to choose for Prime Minister, and considering adding in a "NOTA" option... then I realized that the House of Commons could simply do a VoNC and get rid of that Senate entirely.  That's kinda fun!
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 #62 on: May 03, 2009, 05:45:30 pm »
Ignore

Ooh, I just thought of something fun about my proposal... I was thinking about what would happen if the Senate only nominated one candidate for the House of Commons to choose for Prime Minister, and considering adding in a "NOTA" option... then I realized that the House of Commons could simply do a VoNC and get rid of that Senate entirely.  That's kinda fun!

Being as I looked at that and kinda sorta understood...put it in writing in the Article.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15454
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: May 03, 2009, 05:56:35 pm »
Ignore

Ooh, I just thought of something fun about my proposal... I was thinking about what would happen if the Senate only nominated one candidate for the House of Commons to choose for Prime Minister, and considering adding in a "NOTA" option... then I realized that the House of Commons could simply do a VoNC and get rid of that Senate entirely.  That's kinda fun!

Being as I looked at that and kinda sorta understood...put it in writing in the Article.

The Vote of No Confidence thing is already in the Article (last clause); the NOTA clause isn't really necessary, I don't think, because Commons could just use the VoNC in lieu of NOTA.
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 #64 on: May 03, 2009, 05:58:38 pm »
Ignore

Ooh, I just thought of something fun about my proposal... I was thinking about what would happen if the Senate only nominated one candidate for the House of Commons to choose for Prime Minister, and considering adding in a "NOTA" option... then I realized that the House of Commons could simply do a VoNC and get rid of that Senate entirely.  That's kinda fun!

Being as I looked at that and kinda sorta understood...put it in writing in the Article.

The Vote of No Confidence thing is already in the Article (last clause); the NOTA clause isn't really necessary, I don't think, because Commons could just use the VoNC in lieu of NOTA.

So the net of that thinking out loud shpiel was that we can keep it as is? In that case I will give Smid untill tomorrow to comment and then I will bring your formatted Article to a vote.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6025
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: May 03, 2009, 08:57:01 pm »
Ignore

Sorry I've been AWOL a bit of late. Work's been quite busy, which means that while I'll peruse the boards every now and then (I've usually got the page open at the back of my windows somewhere), and comment at times, I haven't had many chances to sit and draft anything longer than a PM or two. I've been giving thought to what I was suggesting, and even bounced an idea or two off someone who hasn't been involved in developing the universal proposal to try to get a different perspective on it.

At the forefront of my mind has been the development of the inclusion of a presidential position, the role of the office and the limitations posed upon it.

I've been thinking of moving away from fixed terms, and imposing a maximum time limit for terms instead. Additionally, for the role of the President, I'm thinking of removing the power to veto (since a Bill would need to pass with a majority in both Houses, so it would clearly be representative of the views of the majority of active Atlasians), however allowing the President to amend the Bill and refer it back to the Senate. If the Senate approves the President's amendments, the Bill becomes law. If the Senate does not approve of the President's amendments (and those amendments could quite radically change the Bill if the President wishes), the Senate may further amend the Bill and send it back to the President. The President would then have two options - they can either support the Bill as amended by the Senate, or they can call a "Double Dissolution" election, dismissing the Senate and their own position, whereupon elections will be held for all Senators and for the Presidency.

That sounds more complex than it actually would be in practice, a flow diagram would definitely help. I might see if I can do one up and edit the post later today. For a term-limited President, this would cause them a greater internal conflict - pass a Bill they don't like, or lose a term even if they win an election.

If we remove fixed terms and impose maximum term lengths, one slight twist on term limits (and this is a thought I've only just had) would be to state when a President can no longer run for election (until a certain period of time has passed) rather than how many elections they can contest. This would slightly reduce the internal conflict I mentioned in the previous paragraph and may lead to more frequent DD elections. For example, say under fixed terms, we would have presidential elections every three months. If we have a term limit of two terms, then the President may serve for a maximum of six months. Perhaps instead of doing that, we could have a maximum term length of three months between elections, but allow the President to run in as many presidential elections as he or she sees fit until six months have passed since they were first elected (and allow them to serve out their full final term, even if it extends beyond their six months). After vacating the office (if they are excluded from contesting an election due to being term-limited) they may not contest an election for four months from the end of their term (regardless of how many elections are called in that time).

I've also been thinking of limiting the powers of the Lower House, since that seems to be a sticking point for most non-universalists. Perhaps preventing the Lower House from introducing fresh Bills would create an incentive to run for the Senate, thereby making Senate elections more competitive.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 09:00:55 am by Smid »Logged
IDS Judicial Overlord PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22485
United States


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: May 03, 2009, 09:11:46 pm »
Ignore

I've also been thinking of limiting the powers of the Lower House, since that seems to be a sticking point for most non-universalists. Perhaps preventing the Lower House from introducing fresh Bills would create an incentive to run for the Senate, thereby making Senate elections more competitive.

     I definitely think limiting the lower house's powers would be a good idea. Maybe we should also implement Brandon's idea of a minimum activity level to retain it, so if it turns out that the lower house routinely gets ~5 people voting on bills we can put it out of its misery.
Logged

Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6025
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: May 03, 2009, 10:30:08 pm »
Ignore

I've also been thinking of limiting the powers of the Lower House, since that seems to be a sticking point for most non-universalists. Perhaps preventing the Lower House from introducing fresh Bills would create an incentive to run for the Senate, thereby making Senate elections more competitive.

     I definitely think limiting the lower house's powers would be a good idea. Maybe we should also implement Brandon's idea of a minimum activity level to retain it, so if it turns out that the lower house routinely gets ~5 people voting on bills we can put it out of its misery.

Perhaps the minimum activity requirement could be more along the lines of a minimum number of votes and speeches to reach "quorum" and if quorum is failed, the Bill passes regardless of the Lower House vote (since by that stage it will have been passed by the Senate). In other words, the Lower House forfeits its rights on that legislation, rather than perpetual. I mean, we still have regional governments under the current model, despite months (years?) of inactivity in the majority of them. I think the Lower House can provide the necessary experience for new members, which is currently at times the way Regional Assemblies have worked - although this would cover everyone, not just people fortunate enough to register in a region with an active Assembly.
Logged
IDS Judicial Overlord PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22485
United States


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: May 03, 2009, 10:35:04 pm »
Ignore

I've also been thinking of limiting the powers of the Lower House, since that seems to be a sticking point for most non-universalists. Perhaps preventing the Lower House from introducing fresh Bills would create an incentive to run for the Senate, thereby making Senate elections more competitive.

     I definitely think limiting the lower house's powers would be a good idea. Maybe we should also implement Brandon's idea of a minimum activity level to retain it, so if it turns out that the lower house routinely gets ~5 people voting on bills we can put it out of its misery.

Perhaps the minimum activity requirement could be more along the lines of a minimum number of votes and speeches to reach "quorum" and if quorum is failed, the Bill passes regardless of the Lower House vote (since by that stage it will have been passed by the Senate). In other words, the Lower House forfeits its rights on that legislation, rather than perpetual. I mean, we still have regional governments under the current model, despite months (years?) of inactivity in the majority of them. I think the Lower House can provide the necessary experience for new members, which is currently at times the way Regional Assemblies have worked - although this would cover everyone, not just people fortunate enough to register in a region with an active Assembly.

     If both houses vote concurrently (which seems to be what you're implying), then that would be acceptable. It just should not be the case that bills get slowed down waiting to see whether or not the lower house will manage to fulfill a quorum. Maybe the lower house should be given a deadline of 48 hours after the cessation of voting in the upper house to achieve a quorum or forfeit its right to vote on that bill.
Logged

Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6025
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: May 04, 2009, 12:28:26 am »
Ignore

     If both houses vote concurrently (which seems to be what you're implying), then that would be acceptable. It just should not be the case that bills get slowed down waiting to see whether or not the lower house will manage to fulfill a quorum. Maybe the lower house should be given a deadline of 48 hours after the cessation of voting in the upper house to achieve a quorum or forfeit its right to vote on that bill.

No, the procedure would be:

Bill is introduced in the Senate,
Bill is voted on "in principle" in the Senate,
Amendments are moved and voted on in the Senate,
Amended Bill is passed by the Senate. Progresses to the Lower House.
Amendments are moved and voted on in the Lower House,
Bill is voted on in the Lower House, including any amendments that have been moved (otherwise, it's just the Bill, as amended by the Senate).
If there are amendments moved by the Lower House, the Bill is sent back to the Upper House for the amendments to be ratified, if the Bill was not amended by the Lower House, it gets sent to the President.
If the Senate ratifies amendments made by the Lower House, the Bill is sent to the President. If the Senate does not approve the amendments made by the Lower House, the Bill fails.

I'm trying to put together a flow chart for the presidential amendments, Double Dissolution concept, but I can likewise incorporate this element to the flow diagram.
Logged
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16770
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

P

View Profile
« Reply #70 on: May 04, 2009, 12:36:50 am »
Ignore

I don't my name being mentioned as someone you've been chatting with about this proposal, Smid. It's quite alright. Smiley

In any case I do like some of the improvements here and think it makes it a far better proposal than previously (though I still favor Parliamentary Bicameralism) but I do find the term limit idea a bit confusing. I think term limits would be a bit hard to follow implemented under a system that could be dissolved fairly often, and it might be better if you ignored term limits altogether here. (Then again, you could keep the fixed term limits idea and force people out of office even if their term wasn't lived out in full, as a way to encourage them to work together to avoid dissolution in the first place.)
Logged

IDS Judicial Overlord PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22485
United States


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: May 04, 2009, 12:45:31 am »
Ignore

     If both houses vote concurrently (which seems to be what you're implying), then that would be acceptable. It just should not be the case that bills get slowed down waiting to see whether or not the lower house will manage to fulfill a quorum. Maybe the lower house should be given a deadline of 48 hours after the cessation of voting in the upper house to achieve a quorum or forfeit its right to vote on that bill.

No, the procedure would be:

Bill is introduced in the Senate,
Bill is voted on "in principle" in the Senate,
Amendments are moved and voted on in the Senate,
Amended Bill is passed by the Senate. Progresses to the Lower House.
Amendments are moved and voted on in the Lower House,
Bill is voted on in the Lower House, including any amendments that have been moved (otherwise, it's just the Bill, as amended by the Senate).
If there are amendments moved by the Lower House, the Bill is sent back to the Upper House for the amendments to be ratified, if the Bill was not amended by the Lower House, it gets sent to the President.
If the Senate ratifies amendments made by the Lower House, the Bill is sent to the President. If the Senate does not approve the amendments made by the Lower House, the Bill fails.

I'm trying to put together a flow chart for the presidential amendments, Double Dissolution concept, but I can likewise incorporate this element to the flow diagram.

     I do think that certain mechanisms should be incorporated to make sure a bill doesn't languish for whatever period of time in the lower house waiting for a quorum that would not be realized. Perhaps the PM should be able to temporarily dissolve the lower house without affecting the function of the upper house if he determines that it is too inactive.
Logged

Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6025
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: May 04, 2009, 02:04:23 am »
Ignore

I don't my name being mentioned as someone you've been chatting with about this proposal, Smid. It's quite alright. Smiley

In any case I do like some of the improvements here and think it makes it a far better proposal than previously (though I still favor Parliamentary Bicameralism) but I do find the term limit idea a bit confusing. I think term limits would be a bit hard to follow implemented under a system that could be dissolved fairly often, and it might be better if you ignored term limits altogether here. (Then again, you could keep the fixed term limits idea and force people out of office even if their term wasn't lived out in full, as a way to encourage them to work together to avoid dissolution in the first place.)

Cheers. I didn't want to say anything earlier in case people interpretted "talking" to mean "we have reached an agreement" and I didn't want to make it look like I was putting words in your mouth, as it may have appeared if I'd said "I've been talking with Marokai, and here are a few suggestions on how we can make this thing better."

I do think that certain mechanisms should be incorporated to make sure a bill doesn't languish for whatever period of time in the lower house waiting for a quorum that would not be realized. Perhaps the PM should be able to temporarily dissolve the lower house without affecting the function of the upper house if he determines that it is too inactive.

Time periods are essential in a universal system, otherwise it would get bogged down for too long. If there aren't enough votes cast on a Bill within a certain length of time, then it can be assumed the Lower House has no qualms with the legislation and it's considered passed.

I have done up a flow chart and put it in the gallery because I'm heading home and will therefore be on another computer soon. I'll post it here and explain it later, though (since I don't want to miss my train). I'm not terribly adept at PowerPoint, so my flow chart is actually an organisation chart. Each junction is effectively a yes/no question, and you'll just have to follow it down. It's spread across four pages to make it less jumbled (with relevant instructions at the bottom of each), consequently, it may still look a little complex, but if you follow it down - well, Diagram 1 is really no different to the current Senate procedure (with the addition of a vote when a Bill is first introduced, which could kill the Bill right then and there... other than that, Diagram 1 is identical to the current system... but more on all that later - better yet, don't wander over, leave it until I post it here).
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6025
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: May 04, 2009, 09:40:43 am »
Ignore

Okay, I suspect this will be long and possibly complex (if I can't explain things clearly).

Firstly, assume we limit the introduction of legislation to the Senate, and allow the Lower House to vote on Bills, amend Bills, but not introduce Bills. This first Diagram displays the procedure by which a Bill would be introduced to the Senate:



Larger version: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2482_04_05_09_2_51_15.png

The Bill is introduced to the Senate, the same as it is now, however before the Bill is amended, it is debated "in principle" and then voted on. If Senators think the Bill is a good one, or that it is reasonable but could be improved with amendments, they vote in favour. If they don't think there is any way the Bill could be improved by amending it, that there is no way they could support the Bill without it being so drastically changed it would become something else entirely, they vote against the Bill. If the Bill passes this "First Reading," it proceeds to amendments. If it fails the First Reading, the Bill fails.

Amendments are moved and debated. They're voted on the same as amendments presently are. Eventually, there will be no more amendments. The Bill, as amended, is now voted on. This is the "Second Reading." If the Bill passes this Second Reading, it is then sent to the Lower House. If it fails the Second Reading, the Bill fails.

Diagram 1 is therefore not really any different to current Senate procedure, except that it basically introduces a stage at which the Bill could be tabled immediately upon introduction, and instead of being sent to the President for signature/veto, it's sent to the Lower House.



Larger version: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2482_04_05_09_2_52_02.png

Once the Bill arrives in the Lower House, MPs now have the chance to move amendments. If no one has any amendments to move, the Bill progresses directly to a vote. If the Bill passes the vote, it is sent to the President for signature/amendments. If the Bill fails at that stage, it fails.

If amendments are moved, they are debated and voted on, exactly as per normal. If no amendments are successful, the Bill is voted on, and if it succeeds, it is sent to the President for signature/amendments. If the Bill fails, it fails. If there are amendments successfully made to the Bill, it is now different to what the Senate passed, so therefore it must be sent to the Senate for the amendments to be ratified.



Larger version: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2482_04_05_09_2_52_38.png

The Senate moves a simple Aye/Nay vote on the Bill as amended. If the Lower House amendments are approved by the Senate, the Bill is sent to the President for signature/amendment. If the amendments are not approved by the Senate, the Lower House amendments are removed from the Bill (all of them). The Senate now has the same Bill it passed earlier (the Bill as previously amended by the Senate). Senators may move further amendments (including any Lower House amendments they thought improved the Bill, since the earlier vote was on all amendments, not on individual amendments). It's also possible the Senate moves no further amendments, but it's up to the Senate to decide that.

Once the Senate has no further amendments, it votes on the Bill, and the Bill is returned to the Lower House. The Lower House can no longer amend the Bill, but simply votes Aye/Nay on it. If it votes against the Bill, the Bill fails. If it votes in favour of the Bill, it progresses to the President.



Larger version: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2482_04_05_09_2_53_46.png

Once the Bill is presented to the President, the President has two options: sign the Bill or amend the Bill (no outright veto). If they sign the Bill, it becomes law, precisely as is currently the case. If they have additional amendments, they propose the amendments (which may alter the Bill - indeed, the President may deliberately move amendments that he or she knows will be unacceptable to the Senate, in an attempt to get the Senate to kill the Bill).

The Senate then considers the President's amendments, the same way it previously considered amendments moved by the Lower House. If the Senate approves the Presidential amendments, the Bill becomes law (other option, Bill returns to President, who must now sign the Bill into law). If the Presidential amendments are not supported by the Senate, the amendments are stripped from the Bill, which is again voted on (the Senate can no longer add amendments). This gives the Senate the option of killing the Bill. If they vote up the Bill again, it is sent to the President. If the President signs the Bill into law, it becomes law. If the President refuses to sign the Bill, he calls a Double Dissolution election.

We obviously still need to work out the finer details of a DD election (probably in an Act, rather than in the Constitution), but it would probably be for the first weekend more than five days from the date on which it is called (no lengthy campaign period), and last for 72 hours, etc (whatever the normal rules for elections would be).

In a normal General Election (GE), half the Senate (let's say there are 10 Senators, a GE would elect 5 Senators) would be elected and also the President (at each GE - ie, no mid-term Senate elections, but the Senate has a longer term than the President). At a DD, the President and the WHOLE Senate is up for election. Assuming we just use STV-At Large for Senate elections, this would have the effect of doubling the number of positions to be elected, and therefore halve the quota required to be elected (changing the dynamic and improving the chances of very small minor parties and independents). Since this will affect the electability of incumbent Senators, there is a reason for them to kill the Bill in that final step if they so desire. The last five Senators elected would be the first five to be up for re-election at the next GE.

It probably looks quite time consuming, but at most of those steps, there probably won't be amendments. The process for the average Bill would probably be (passes through Diagram 1, then follow left branch of Diagrams 2 and 4):

- Introduced in the Senate
- Passes First Reading
- Amended (or not) by the Senate
- Passes Second Reading
- Passes Lower House
- President signs Bill into Law.

It's only controversial pieces of legislation that would take a more circuitous route and require greater wrangling by parties eager to push their agenda. So most Bills would be completely uncomplicated, but if a party wants to try to block a Bill, it could use the more complex elements of procedure to its advantage.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 06:46:34 pm by Smid »Logged
ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15454
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: May 04, 2009, 12:49:26 pm »
Ignore

I would prefer not to have a President; IMO, one of the strengths of the original proposal is that there isn't one.
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
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