Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)

[Smid]

I second Hashemites proposals.

As I've touched on before, we need to look at what sort of people we have in Atlasia. I think the lower house should be the arena for career politicians, party politics and promises, where in order to be re-elected the governing party has to propose legislation some good some bad. The Senate should be proposing legislation but also looking at how much it costs, whether it's constitutional what international effect it has etc and looking at lower house legislation in a similar fashion. That reflects how people are in this game - I for one would be more at home in the Senate with a calculator than in the House with pushing through legislation and making sure my party get's elected. Other posters would love that side of things however.

Not to say the Senate should be the home of the retired Goodness no, but each chamber should reflect different styles of lawmaking (and reasons for making them)

As you've stated here, in many parliamentary systems, the Senate is a House of Review.

[ilikeverin]

Wouldn't voting yes be putting a stop to the discussion of the beginning of this thread, though?

[President Marokai]

Wouldn't voting yes be putting a stop to the discussion of the beginning of this thread, though?

What discussion?

[afleitch]

I second Hashemites proposals.

As I've touched on before, we need to look at what sort of people we have in Atlasia. I think the lower house should be the arena for career politicians, party politics and promises, where in order to be re-elected the governing party has to propose legislation some good some bad. The Senate should be proposing legislation but also looking at how much it costs, whether it's constitutional what international effect it has etc and looking at lower house legislation in a similar fashion. That reflects how people are in this game - I for one would be more at home in the Senate with a calculator than in the House with pushing through legislation and making sure my party get's elected. Other posters would love that side of things however.

Not to say the Senate should be the home of the retired Goodness no, but each chamber should reflect different styles of lawmaking (and reasons for making them)

As you've stated here, in many parliamentary systems, the Senate is a House of Review.

Agreed. I think the Senate, if it is to have distinct authority, should be the only house that is able to propose amendments to the constitution for example. It could also be the only house that can authorise, through the President a declaration of war.

[Purple State]

Ok, if everyone can agree on a summation of what you're all talking about, should I remove the current motion and propose this compromise that is being discussed?

Tell me if I have it right so far:
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)

Would you all compromise with something like that? If I get some sort of consensus of agreement I will drop the current motion and get this up for a vote.

[ilikeverin]

Wouldn't voting yes be putting a stop to the discussion of the beginning of this thread, though?

What discussion?

A point well taken, but shouldn't we not preclude the option of having a presidential universalist system?

[Hashemite]

Ok, if everyone can agree on a summation of what you're all talking about, should I remove the current motion and propose this compromise that is being discussed?

Tell me if I have it right so far:
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)

Would you all compromise with something like that? If I get some sort of consensus of agreement I will drop the current motion and get this up for a vote.

I support this. Some small minute details and quibbles to fix, but I agree with the gist.

[President Marokai]

Ok, if everyone can agree on a summation of what you're all talking about, should I remove the current motion and propose this compromise that is being discussed?

Tell me if I have it right so far:
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)

Would you all compromise with something like that? If I get some sort of consensus of agreement I will drop the current motion and get this up for a vote.

I support this. Some small minute details and quibbles to fix, but I agree with the gist.

As do I.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Ok, if everyone can agree on a summation of what you're all talking about, should I remove the current motion and propose this compromise that is being discussed?

Tell me if I have it right so far:
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)

Would you all compromise with something like that? If I get some sort of consensus of agreement I will drop the current motion and get this up for a vote.

I support this. Some small minute details and quibbles to fix, but I agree with the gist.

As do I.

     Same here. This seems like it could be the foundation of a good compromise.

[Purple State]

With that kind of consent I hereby call off the current motion on the table and bring forward the following:

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)"

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain. I will leave the voting open for 48 hours. 50% of delegates will be required for the vote to considered valid. A simple majority shall be required for the motion to pass.

[Lief]

So, this is essentially the Presidential Parliamentary proposal but with an upper house?

[Brandon H]

Nay

[Purple State]

So, this is essentially the Presidential Parliamentary proposal but with an upper house?

Whatever it is it got an avid anti-universalist (Marokai) and a staunch universalist supporter (Hashemite) to agree. Whatever you want to dub it, it is what it is.

Nay

I did try to incorporate your ideas in there with the committees and all. If you're voting nay on this I hope that means you're willing to step up and develop the current outline for this proposal. Because until this discussion on changing the proposal got going, not a single post was put up to even try development of Presidential Universalism.

[President Marokai]

Aye

[CultureKing]

aye

[afleitch]

Aye

[Meeker]

Aye... I think.

[Hashemite]

Aye.

Though I'd rather get rid of the President or have him with reduced powers. Whatever. Doesn't really matter.

[ilikeverin]

Nope

[Hashemite]

Nope

Do you reject changing this into something different from the original intent or you reject outright the universalist/anti-universalist compromise?

[Lief]

So, this is essentially the Presidential Parliamentary proposal but with an upper house?

Whatever it is it got an avid anti-universalist (Marokai) and a staunch universalist supporter (Hashemite) to agree. Whatever you want to dub it, it is what it is.

That's cool, or whatever, but I'm still not really seeing the big difference.

[SPC]

Nay

[ilikeverin]

Nope

Do you reject changing this into something different from the original intent or you reject outright the universalist/anti-universalist compromise?

Both; the so-called "compromise" is ridiculous.  It's not universalist at all.

[Purple State]

Current vote tally:
Aye = 5 (Marokai, CultureKing, afleitch, Meeker, Hashemite)
Nay = 3 (BrandonH, ilikeverin, SPC)

Motion currently: Passing
Quorum: Not yet met
Approx. time remaining: 35 hours

[Hashemite]

Nope

Do you reject changing this into something different from the original intent or you reject outright the universalist/anti-universalist compromise?

Both; the so-called "compromise" is ridiculous.  It's not universalist at all.

If we include universalism in said compromise, then it's not a compromise anymore in that it will not appeal to non-universalists. We need to unite, find common ground and flesh out a compromise that both sides can accept. There's been a clear division between both sides that is very marked. With the idea of universalism losing popular support, a strong division into two sides, and the general need to get something done here, people need to be able to compromise instead of blocking everything and anything.

Universalists must make compromises, but non-universalists must also make compromises. This is just a general intent at a compromise. No details have been fleshed out. I urge you to vote Aye to not shut down all debate, even if you may not agree with the idea as it stands now.