Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 30, 2014, 02:04:17 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 Bicameralism (Discussion Open)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 19 Print
Author Topic: Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)  (Read 43558 times)
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6780
United States


View Profile
« on: April 02, 2009, 11:19:03 pm »
Ignore

This thread is for the development of a Presidential Universlaism 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: Small Senate (5ish) with power to originate amend legislation. Relatively large Parliament (15ish) with power to originate legislation. PM elected by both houses, presents agenda, followed by NC vote. PM appoints Cabinet members (either office holders or not). Possible committees in the Parliament, with chairmen and some form of markup?
President with power to dissolve Parliament, but not Senate (I threw this in. It sorta gives the Senate that more regal feel as well)



The Constitution

Quote
« Last Edit: June 24, 2009, 09:27:14 pm by Senator Purple State »Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

IDS Attorney General PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22420
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2009, 09:59:39 pm »
Ignore

     Since this proposal hasn't really sparked much interest, it was suggested that I could use this chance to suggest a few changes. One thing that I'd like to propose would be a fixed federal legislature size of 15 total members: five in the upper house & ten in the lower one. Obviously this would do away with the universal part, but I have ideas for other changes if people will hear it out.
Logged

Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2534


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2009, 10:07:04 pm »
Ignore

     Since this proposal hasn't really sparked much interest, it was suggested that I could use this chance to suggest a few changes. One thing that I'd like to propose would be a fixed federal legislature size of 15 total members: five in the upper house & ten in the lower one. Obviously this would do away with the universal part, but I have ideas for other changes if people will hear it out.

I could live with that, that are you other ideas.
Logged

IDS Attorney General PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22420
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2009, 10:14:23 pm »
Ignore

     Since this proposal hasn't really sparked much interest, it was suggested that I could use this chance to suggest a few changes. One thing that I'd like to propose would be a fixed federal legislature size of 15 total members: five in the upper house & ten in the lower one. Obviously this would do away with the universal part, but I have ideas for other changes if people will hear it out.

I could live with that, that are you other ideas.

     Among other things I plan to have a significant difference between the houses. As such, only upper house members could propose legislation, but a bill's fate would be decided by one of various lower house committees. This way we can have a bicameral system that is interesting but not excessively slow. There's more to the legislature than that though.
Logged

Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2534


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2009, 10:28:02 pm »
Ignore

     Since this proposal hasn't really sparked much interest, it was suggested that I could use this chance to suggest a few changes. One thing that I'd like to propose would be a fixed federal legislature size of 15 total members: five in the upper house & ten in the lower one. Obviously this would do away with the universal part, but I have ideas for other changes if people will hear it out.

I could live with that, that are you other ideas.

     Among other things I plan to have a significant difference between the houses. As such, only upper house members could propose legislation, but a bill's fate would be decided by one of various lower house committees. This way we can have a bicameral system that is interesting but not excessively slow. There's more to the legislature than that though.

So not every member of the house would get to vote on all the propose legislation, only the house members in the committee that the propose legislation is sent to?
Logged

IDS Attorney General PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22420
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2009, 10:35:19 pm »
Ignore

     Since this proposal hasn't really sparked much interest, it was suggested that I could use this chance to suggest a few changes. One thing that I'd like to propose would be a fixed federal legislature size of 15 total members: five in the upper house & ten in the lower one. Obviously this would do away with the universal part, but I have ideas for other changes if people will hear it out.

I could live with that, that are you other ideas.

     Among other things I plan to have a significant difference between the houses. As such, only upper house members could propose legislation, but a bill's fate would be decided by one of various lower house committees. This way we can have a bicameral system that is interesting but not excessively slow. There's more to the legislature than that though.

So not every member of the house would get to vote on all the propose legislation, only the house members in the committee that the propose legislation is sent to?

     Depends on the judgment of the committee. The idea is that lower house members have fewer duties & fewer powers. That way it's a good place for new members to start, but one still has motivation to try to run for the upper house at some point.
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2009, 10:48:22 pm »
Ignore

I have spoken to PiT privately and think his idea has some weight to it. If a delegate would be willing to second his changes to the outline of this proposal I will bring it to a vote, retitle this proposal whatever is agreed on, and discussion can begin on his idea.

Considering this proposal does not seem to be getting much, or any, attention, I think PiT's thoughts would present a more compelling and viable third option for the Convention to discuss.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

bgwah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13710
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2009, 10:58:18 pm »
Ignore

This idea could be an acceptable compromise if others fall through, I think.
Logged

Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16698
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2009, 12:48:02 am »
Ignore

I happily second his proposal. Smiley
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2009, 01:24:55 am »
Ignore

Alright, I will allow for a little bit of discussion on this. I plan to bring the motion to change the model outline tomorrow afternoon.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

PASOK Leader Hashemite
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31335
South Africa



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2009, 06:43:42 am »
Ignore

I oppose this proposal.
Logged

Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16698
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2009, 07:16:11 am »
Ignore

I oppose this proposal.

At least I waited to see the proposals before making such statements..
Logged

Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6019
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2009, 07:32:36 am »
Ignore

What PiT has proposed is the Bicameral Nonparliamentary model that was voted on earlier and failed. We can't just go radically changing the nature of the model when it was voted on earlier. It would be like me waltzing into the Presidential Parliamentarian thread and proposing a whole new Lower House to be comprised of universal membership. It's not the structure that was voted for. If people wanted a bicameral model, they would have voted for the bicameral model when they had the chance.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2009, 07:35:27 am by Smid »Logged
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16698
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2009, 08:06:21 am »
Ignore

What PiT has proposed is the Bicameral Nonparliamentary model that was voted on earlier and failed. We can't just go radically changing the nature of the model when it was voted on earlier. It would be like me waltzing into the Presidential Parliamentarian thread and proposing a whole new Lower House to be comprised of universal membership. It's not the structure that was voted for. If people wanted a bicameral model, they would have voted for the bicameral model when they had the chance.

The Presiding Officer was given full authority to proceed with the ConCon as he saw fit and determine exact rules as he pleases. If we don't want this proposal, you can vote it down, but don't try to shut it out a compromise that threatens your proposal because you don't like it.

This proposal as it stands is practically a modified duplicate of the Parliamentary Universalist model in the first place, it's likely not going anywhere as it stands.
Logged

PASOK Leader Hashemite
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31335
South Africa



View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2009, 08:13:53 am »
Ignore

As it stands, Smid is correct in that delegates did not vote for the Bicameral Nonparliamentary model.

I'm not saying to shut down this proposal, before you jump on my statement aggressively like you did on Smid's.
Logged

Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16698
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2009, 08:17:39 am »
Ignore

As it stands, Smid is correct in that delegates did not vote for the Bicameral Nonparliamentary model.

I'm not saying to shut down this proposal, before you jump on my statement aggressively like you did on Smid's.

I simply don't see the harm in the PO exercising the abilities we gave him to exercise, to amend a proposal that is basically a knockoff of a pre-existing proposal.
Logged

Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6019
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2009, 08:35:33 am »
Ignore



What PiT has proposed is the Bicameral Nonparliamentary model that was voted on earlier and failed. We can't just go radically changing the nature of the model when it was voted on earlier. It would be like me waltzing into the Presidential Parliamentarian thread and proposing a whole new Lower House to be comprised of universal membership. It's not the structure that was voted for. If people wanted a bicameral model, they would have voted for the bicameral model when they had the chance.

The Presiding Officer was given full authority to proceed with the ConCon as he saw fit and determine exact rules as he pleases. If we don't want this proposal, you can vote it down, but don't try to shut it out a compromise that threatens your proposal because you don't like it.

This proposal as it stands is practically a modified duplicate of the Parliamentary Universalist model in the first place, it's likely not going anywhere as it stands.

Since you had your say when the convention opened about the rules regarding the format and procedure, I think surely I can have my say on the same issue now? Thank you also for deciding for me what my motivation in this is for me, it's great that you know me better than I know myself.

This model is the same as the one put forward a few weeks back. There was a vote on that model. It only got two second preference votes and no first preference votes. It failed. You can't go pretending it didn't, simply because you didn't like the outcome. I mean, I don't blame you for trying - you voted for that model as your second preference and obviously you're not happy that this proposal defeated your second pick. By comparison, this proposal that you want to now change into your failed second preference was supported as it currently stands by three people as their first preference and six people as their second preference.

That said, if the delegates decide to vote in favour of substantially changing this proposal, even though it was the one supported and we're changing it to a method that was not supported, that would be the will of the convention.
Logged
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16698
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2009, 08:41:12 am »
Ignore

The Bicameral Nonparliamentarian proposal was somewhat different from what PiT is proposing himself. It's just a coming together of some of the parameters from the Presidential Parliamentarian model, and the Parliamentary Universalism model. Retaining elections to all the seats, while having two legislative bodies. Keeping a manageable number of seats, while still retaining some Universalist originated ideas like Committees in the Lower House. (And having differences in the powers of each body, which your proposal does not really inherently have.)

And to be entirely honest with you, I only voted for the original proposal because I was bound by the rules as I understood them to choose two preferences and the rest were deplorable.

In any case, the PO still has full authority to determine the parameters of debate and the structure of proposals, if there is some support, I don't see why we should retain a redundant proposal instead, on the basis of some silly technicality.
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2009, 09:04:25 am »
Ignore

Let me get a word in on this.

Thus far, there has been no discussion whatsoever on this Presidential Universalism proposal. I accept that it gained sufficient votes to be considered, as do I acknowledge that PiT's edits would lean this idea slightly closer to the Bicameral Nonparliamentarian form that failed earlier.

However, there are a number of reasons why I will be bringing this motion forward. First, I find it telling that the first post in this thread is a proposal to change the idea presented. There has been no serious discussion of the merits of this idea and no one seems all that ready to discuss the development of this model. Second, in order for such a motion to pass it would require 50% participation of all delegates and would have to secure a majority of votes. As of now that would mean 5 votes in favor, which is greater than the 4 votes that the proposals originally required.

For these reasons I think there needs to be some flexibility in the way we approach these things. Sure, we can stand hard and fast behind these proposal outlines. But in order for a serious and successful Convention there needs to be the ability to change, from what is not working to what has potential. You are within your right as a delegate to vote Nay when the vote comes up, but I am within my right to bring forward what I feel has the best potential for compromise and creativity on the part of the delegates. As a delegate has seconded this idea and another has voiced his semi-interest, I will be bringing this to a vote.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

IDS Attorney General PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22420
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 05, 2009, 03:03:01 pm »
Ignore

What PiT has proposed is the Bicameral Nonparliamentary model that was voted on earlier and failed. We can't just go radically changing the nature of the model when it was voted on earlier. It would be like me waltzing into the Presidential Parliamentarian thread and proposing a whole new Lower House to be comprised of universal membership. It's not the structure that was voted for. If people wanted a bicameral model, they would have voted for the bicameral model when they had the chance.

     I haven't really posted the full outline yet. The way I conceived of it only the upper house would be non-parliamentarian. As Marokai said, there are notable differences between this & a bicameral nonparliamentarian model.
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2009, 05:50:12 pm »
Ignore

I bring the following motion to a vote of the Convention:

The outline for the Presidential Universalism development thread shall hereby read: "A fixed federal legislature size of 15 total members: five in the upper house and ten in the lower one. Only upper house members could propose legislation, but a bill's fate would be decided by one of various lower house committees. There will be a President and VP, as well as a Speaker of the House."

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain on the motion. The vote shall last for 48 hours and a clear majority is needed for passage.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

IDS Attorney General PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22420
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2009, 05:59:50 pm »
Ignore

     The upper house (or the Senate) would be composed of five members. Those members would all be elected regionally. If one or more regions is/are eliminated, the remainder can be elected at-large. It would function much like the current Senate, only smaller.

     The lower house (or the Parliament) would be composed of ten members. They would be elected from ten districts, each of equal population based on the last Presidential election. Leadership would be determined by a ruling coalition, which would elect a prime minister. The prime minister would select committee appointments for all MPs, himself included. The committees would roughly break down as:

Social Concerns Committee
Economic Concerns Committee
Law & Enforcement Committee
Forum Affairs Committee
External Affairs Committee

     Only Senators can propose legislation. Once proposed, the PPT sends it to the appropriate committee. If the Senator who initially proposed it feels it was not sent to the proper committee, he can challenge the PPT's decision, in which case the Senate will vote on whether or not to overturn the PPT's decision.

     Once it reaches committee, the two MPs assigned to that committee will have 48 hours to question the Senator who proposed the bill. After that, they will vote on it. If both assent, it will immediately go to the Senate to be heard there. If both dissent, then it will die in committee (unless the proposing Senator files an injunction stating that he did not believe that the MPs understood or made an effort to understand the intent or wording of the bill; the injunction would be heard by a justice of the Supreme Court). If the MPs split, then it will go to be heard by the Parliament.
Logged

Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16698
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2009, 06:02:29 pm »
Ignore

Aye, and I hope everyone else has the maturity to support debate on a proposal instead of shutting it out as well.
Logged

IDS Attorney General PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22420
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2009, 06:07:29 pm »
Ignore

     That's my full original outline, so people will know what direction I'm intending here. I conceived it to retool the universalist proposal to take into account Marokai Blue's arguments against it.

     I didn't mention the executive or judicial branches directly, but I didn't expect any massive overhaul to them. I refer to a PPT & a Prime Minister while Purple State referred to a Speaker of the House, but the names are of course open to change.

     Worth noting is the existence of committees to incorporate a second house while not significantly slowing legislation that is likely to pass. I would also like you to note that the lower house is conceived as a parliamentary system. While not all bills will be voted in the lower house, this introduces a strong element of partisanship, as well as differentiates the function of the two houses.
Logged

Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16698
United States


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2009, 06:09:04 pm »
Ignore

I must say that I truly do like the difference in the two Houses in your outline, you've done a pretty good job of balancing their powers.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 19 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines