Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)

[dead0man]

Aye

[bgwah]

Nay

[Purple State]

There also happens to already be a Universalism proposal, so that can be developed at the same time as this compromise. But universalism and absolute non-universalism shouldn't be the only options on the table. Can't hurt to have a compromise going as well.

[Hashemite]

There also happens to already be a Universalism proposal, so that can be developed at the same time as this compromise. But universalism and absolute non-universalism shouldn't be the only options on the table. Can't hurt to have a compromise going as well.

Exactly!

[ilikeverin]

I don't see how there can exist a category that's "kind of universalist".

[Purple State]

I don't see how there can exist a category that's "kind of universalist".

It's more universal than the other non-universalism.

You can have a universalism proposal, but no reason to block a compromise proposal from being discussed as well.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Nay

[ilikeverin]

I don't see how there can exist a category that's "kind of universalist".

It's more universal than the other non-universalism.

You can have a universalism proposal, but no reason to block a compromise proposal from being discussed as well.

That attitude is precisely why I'm voting no; as the proposal is one of "wishy-washy moderatism", it will naturally be selected in the end, no matter the other proposals.  I'm not saying it isn't necessarily meritorious... but the thought that it would pass based simply on its merits rather than its "compromise" status is laughable.

[Purple State]

I don't see how there can exist a category that's "kind of universalist".

It's more universal than the other non-universalism.

You can have a universalism proposal, but no reason to block a compromise proposal from being discussed as well.

That attitude is precisely why I'm voting no; as the proposal is one of "wishy-washy moderatism", it will naturally be selected in the end, no matter the other proposals.  I'm not saying it isn't necessarily meritorious... but the thought that it would pass based simply on its merits rather than its "compromise" status is laughable.

Compromises now don't mean that other systems won't end up looking better in the end, when all the Constitutions are built.

I would just like to note that conversation on other proposals has basically stopped in recent days. If you are so concerned about losing universalism, why not go try working on it and getting things moving?

[Marokai]

I find it very disappointing that delegates are trying to kill this proposal in it's crib. It's not even officially been considered yet. Goodness sakes.

[Devilman88]

I find it very disappointing that delegates are trying to kill this proposal in it's crib. It's not even officially been considered yet. Goodness sakes.

It seems to me alot of delegates want it there way or the highway.

[Hashemite]

The attitude of many delegates and the ConCon in general towards this proposal (which isn't even final yet, for the love of God) is extremely disappointing.

[afleitch]

The attitude of many delegates and the ConCon in general towards this proposal (which isn't even final yet, for the love of God) is extremely disappointing.

Seconded

[Hashemite]

I don't see how there can exist a category that's "kind of universalist".

It's more universal than the other non-universalism.

You can have a universalism proposal, but no reason to block a compromise proposal from being discussed as well.

That attitude is precisely why I'm voting no; as the proposal is one of "wishy-washy moderatism", it will naturally be selected in the end, no matter the other proposals.  I'm not saying it isn't necessarily meritorious... but the thought that it would pass based simply on its merits rather than its "compromise" status is laughable.

Nobody is preventing discussion of pure universalism and unicameral non-universalism from continuing, quite the contrary. I'm just attempting to open a sort of idea to work out a deal between the two factions which are very, very divided in support of either one or the other. This is a vote to continue debate on the compromise model, not a final vote! It seems as if some people simply can't understand that.

I don't like the attitude of inevitability as an excuse either. Because that simply isn't true.

[afleitch]

If a compromise model is simply voted down without further discussion, I don't know whether I'll have the faith in us reaching a compromise or agreement on any system in this convention.

As Hshemite says - this is a vote to continue discussion - nothing more.

[Brandon H]

Here's a suggestion: make a new thread for discussion of the compromise proposal.

[Purple State]

Current vote tally:
Aye = 6 (Marokai, CultureKing, afleitch, Meeker, Hashemite, dead0man)
Nay = 5 (BrandonH, ilikeverin, SPC, bgwah, DWTL)

Motion currently: Passing
Quorum: Achieved
Approx. time remaining: 12 hours

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

If a compromise model is simply voted down without further discussion, I don't know whether I'll have the faith in us reaching a compromise or agreement on any system in this convention.

As Hshemite says - this is a vote to continue discussion - nothing more.

     Same here. If this voted down before getting anywhere, then the hopes for any really substantial compromise get gutted.

[ilikeverin]

Here's a suggestion: make a new thread for discussion of the compromise proposal.

I agree.  I don't have a problem with wheeling-and-dealing; I have a problem with completely terminating any discussion of the first proposal in this thread.  I also have a problem with that this "compromise" also changes the fundamental balance of proposals discussed at the convention from 2 universalist-1 non-universalist to 1 universalist-2 non-universalist, but even besides that it seems like what's being proposed is substantially different enough to merit its own thread.

[Purple State]

Here's a suggestion: make a new thread for discussion of the compromise proposal.

I agree.  I don't have a problem with wheeling-and-dealing; I have a problem with completely terminating any discussion of the first proposal in this thread.  I also have a problem with that this "compromise" also changes the fundamental balance of proposals discussed at the convention from 2 universalist-1 non-universalist to 1 universalist-2 non-universalist, but even besides that it seems like what's being proposed is substantially different enough to merit its own thread.

What discussion of the first proposal? I specifically moved PiT's original attempt at this from a different proposal to here because no one really cared to discuss this one. And the balance of proposals is inconsequential. The final proposals will each be voted on based on their individual merits. We aren't combining votes for universalism against non-universalism. Your job is to make the proposals better, rather than stymie better discussion. I would recommend that, rather than work to block this change, you put this same effort into developing the universalism constitution.

[Purple State]

Final vote tally:
Aye = 6 (Marokai, CultureKing, afleitch, Meeker, Hashemite, dead0man)
Nay = 5 (BrandonH, ilikeverin, SPC, bgwah, DWTL)

The motion passes by a vote of six in favor, five opposed. The appropriate edits have been made to the initial outline. Please begin discussion on the development.

~Presiding Officer Purple State

[Marokai]

The outline for Presidential Universalism shall hereby be renamed Parliamentary Bicameralism and read,

"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)"

Just to bring this back to the forefront, since it's been a few pages since the details of the thread were posted and we can bring this back on track after the successful vote. Thank you to all of the delegates that voted in favor.

[Devilman88]

What do you want to come out of the discussion? Shouldn't you go ahead and pick one of the three that is out and then work on making more details for that one. It is going to be very hard for you to get people to go in to details on all three.

Just trying to get things moving. Sorry if I am over stepping...

[Purple State]

What do you want to come out of the discussion? Shouldn't you go ahead and pick one of the three that is out and then work on making more details for that one. It is going to be very hard for you to get people to go in to details on all three.

Just trying to get things moving. Sorry if I am over stepping...

That was my initial intent, but I was overruled by a large number of delegates who insisted we choose a bunch of proposals and work on all of them. At this point we have three proposals. If, at any point, the delegates choose to pass a motion to close one or two, I am here to simply move debate along. And tip my hand where it's appropriate.

I would, however, recommend that the delegates get moving on actually proposing stuff. So far the only way things have gotten moving is I tip the scales, people mobilize and something gets done. I really prefer not to press buttons to get things moving, but I will if I have to.

[Marokai]

I'm sure I and some others could write something a little more formal looking and fluffed up shortly. I'm just happy we got this through and avoided proposal crib-death.