Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 01, 2014, 11:23:02 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  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 7 8 9 10 ... 19 Print
Author Topic: Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)  (Read 44301 times)
Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2534


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #100 on: April 07, 2009, 10:57:42 pm »
Ignore

So far, I believe this new Parliamentary Bicameralism is the best. I also think it would do some good to work on the regions now too for this plan. (I have a plan for the regions I think would be good, so let me know when you want to start talking about regions and their governments.)
« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 10:59:33 pm by $Dan$ »Logged

Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16784
United States


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: April 07, 2009, 11:04:14 pm »
Ignore

So far, I believe this new Parliamentary Bicameralism is the best. I also think it would do some good to work on the regions now too for this plan. (I have a plan for the regions I think would be good, so let me know when you want to start talking about regions and their governments.)

Any ideas are appreciated. Go ahead. Smiley
Logged

Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2534


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #102 on: April 07, 2009, 11:08:10 pm »
Ignore

My plan is this:

1. Reduce the Regions to 3 regions. Each region would have close to the same amount of members in it. Also every April and October the region's lines can be changed if needed to equal out the number of members.

2. Each region would act like a state. They will have there own constitution and their own laws, etc.

3. Each region must have a Head of Region(what they call it is up to each region), and an Assembly of three to five members(up to the region), both the HoR and the Assembly member are elected by the people of that region. (It is up to each region when and how many times a year they are elected.)

4. The Assembly will act like a mini senate, they will come up with bills, debate bills etc. The Assembly will be open to all members of that region so members can give bills and debate bills but the Assembly members are the only ones that can pass a bill. Once passed it go to the HoR and is signed or vetoed.

5. The Head of Region would be the person who is in charge of holding elections, signing/vetoing bills and keeping the Assembly member in order. Also if an Assembly member resign the HoR would take that members place until they elected another member.
Logged

Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16784
United States


View Profile
« Reply #103 on: April 07, 2009, 11:14:24 pm »
Ignore

We need to settle on how many states would be in each region/which states would be in each region.
Logged

Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2534


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #104 on: April 07, 2009, 11:27:51 pm »
Ignore

This is a map of the three region based on population:


Red: 36
Blue: 36
Green: 38
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: April 07, 2009, 11:35:13 pm »
Ignore

The best bet is to work on the style of government first I think. The questions about regions, bill of rights, etc. should be left for the wrap-up towards the end, or as they are needed.

Right now the most important aspects are the Executive and Legislative branches.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2534


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #106 on: April 07, 2009, 11:40:09 pm »
Ignore

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)"

So you want detail on how all that would work?

Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #107 on: April 07, 2009, 11:46:45 pm »
Ignore

Detail, debate, ideas for wording of the different pieces for the Constitution. Anything that relates directly to the development of the actual proposal, rather than peripheral issues.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

PASOK Leader Hashemite
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31422
South Africa



View Profile WWW
« Reply #108 on: April 08, 2009, 07:02:55 am »
Ignore

I'll post more later after I finish an History IA on Weimar. But I want a true bicameral system, with a up-down movement for legislation so that it is passed by both houses and so that both houses can vote/amend/propose stuff.

I want a PM elected by either LH or both houses, optimally in a way similar to the way I proposed in the universalist system.

I want the PM to name cabinet and agenda, then the LH votes confidence in his government and it gets down to business. I'm not sure about committees.

Not sure about the need for a President, but I wouldn't oppose it. Have him elected by the people but a ceremonial role. Similar to the President of Macedonia or Slovakia. Elected directly, but limited role. Even more limited in that he doesn't name the PM. Maybe just have him get a veto (that can be override by legislature), name military/ambassadors, and dissolve LH but not UH.
Logged

Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4418
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

View Profile WWW
« Reply #109 on: April 08, 2009, 09:42:31 am »
Ignore

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.

Can this be considered a second to create a new thread? If so, should we be voting on it?

---

This proposal was slow to get started. And Pit's (or was it someone else's ?) idea did help get things moving. Pit's idea did give me an idea to add to the original proposal, which I have yet to see discussion on. But I believe the compromise was different enough from the original to warrant its own thread.

Logged

A Republican - at least for a little while
ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15457
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: April 08, 2009, 12:06:30 pm »
Ignore

The best bet is to work on the style of government first I think. The questions about regions, bill of rights, etc. should be left for the wrap-up towards the end, or as they are needed.

Right now the most important aspects are the Executive and Legislative branches.

Actually, I think deciding the regional question pretty early is a good idea; that way there will be a better idea of how many posts will be elected.  This is operating on the assumption that non-universalists have a number of offices they consider "appropriate" to exist; if regions are scrapped, then the size of the national government (and thus the composition of the legislature) will have to expand, whereas if regions are kept (and perhaps with the modifications described here), the size of the national government should be decreased.  Perhaps if people have radically different ideas on the thought we could split them into different threads.
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 #111 on: April 08, 2009, 12:42:30 pm »
Ignore

The best bet is to work on the style of government first I think. The questions about regions, bill of rights, etc. should be left for the wrap-up towards the end, or as they are needed.

Right now the most important aspects are the Executive and Legislative branches.

Actually, I think deciding the regional question pretty early is a good idea; that way there will be a better idea of how many posts will be elected.  This is operating on the assumption that non-universalists have a number of offices they consider "appropriate" to exist; if regions are scrapped, then the size of the national government (and thus the composition of the legislature) will have to expand, whereas if regions are kept (and perhaps with the modifications described here), the size of the national government should be decreased.  Perhaps if people have radically different ideas on the thought we could split them into different threads.

I was thinking the number of regions would be based around the seats. But if you want to do the regions first, then go for it.

I would think the best idea for the regions is 3, that way you can have a Senate of 5 seats (3 regional, 2 national at-large) and 12 lower house seats (6 regional, 6 national). This works well because we can have the PM elected by a combination of both houses and it gives us an odd number of reps.

What does everyone think? Use that as a starting point to draw up some Articles and debate it.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

ℒief
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32927
Dominica


View Profile
« Reply #112 on: April 08, 2009, 12:47:34 pm »
Ignore

I think the best idea for the number of regions is 0. We can keep regions solely as electoral districts, but they shouldn't have (in-game) governments.

I also think this compromise is pretty bad (essentially being presidential parliamentarian with a bunch of stuff added on top), but apparently it's what everyone's settled on, so whatever.
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: April 08, 2009, 12:59:50 pm »
Ignore

I think the best idea for the number of regions is 0. We can keep regions solely as electoral districts, but they shouldn't have (in-game) governments.

I also think this compromise is pretty bad (essentially being presidential parliamentarian with a bunch of stuff added on top), but apparently it's what everyone's settled on, so whatever.

What does removing the regions accomplish? If you are worried about rules against dual-office holding then just don't include that kind of clause. Regional governments don't harm the game in any way and can be, although they aren't always, but can be a vital way to introduce new members. At best they serve their purpose, at worst they just exist. No harm done by keeping them.

They also make election counts easier, otherwise you are figuring out who won out of countless candidates for 12 at-large seats. It would get messy.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2534


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #114 on: April 08, 2009, 01:28:37 pm »
Ignore

The best bet is to work on the style of government first I think. The questions about regions, bill of rights, etc. should be left for the wrap-up towards the end, or as they are needed.

Right now the most important aspects are the Executive and Legislative branches.

Actually, I think deciding the regional question pretty early is a good idea; that way there will be a better idea of how many posts will be elected.  This is operating on the assumption that non-universalists have a number of offices they consider "appropriate" to exist; if regions are scrapped, then the size of the national government (and thus the composition of the legislature) will have to expand, whereas if regions are kept (and perhaps with the modifications described here), the size of the national government should be decreased.  Perhaps if people have radically different ideas on the thought we could split them into different threads.

I was thinking the number of regions would be based around the seats. But if you want to do the regions first, then go for it.

I would think the best idea for the regions is 3, that way you can have a Senate of 5 seats (3 regional, 2 national at-large) and 12 lower house seats (6 regional, 6 national). This works well because we can have the PM elected by a combination of both houses and it gives us an odd number of reps.

What does everyone think? Use that as a starting point to draw up some Articles and debate it.

I think that would be good. I can draw up a few maps of regions if you guys want me to.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2009, 01:46:09 pm by $Dan$ »Logged

ℒief
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32927
Dominica


View Profile
« Reply #115 on: April 08, 2009, 02:03:05 pm »
Ignore

Removing regions allows us to concentrate on national governance, which is much more fun, enjoyable and active, and it includes everyone, rather than just the people who happen to be in the one or two regions that are temporarily seeing a burst of activity.

And we don't have to make 12 at large seats. We can do a proportional, party list election (something I'm very partial to), we can divide the election into half nationwide seats, half district-elected, etc. I'm not against keeping regions as territories or electoral districts, as I said; I'm merely against giving them in game governments.
Logged

Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2534


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #116 on: April 08, 2009, 02:06:59 pm »
Ignore

Removing regions allows us to concentrate on national governance, which is much more fun, enjoyable and active, and it includes everyone, rather than just the people who happen to be in the one or two regions that are temporarily seeing a burst of activity.

And we don't have to make 12 at large seats. We can do a proportional, party list election (something I'm very partial to), we can divide the election into half nationwide seats, half district-elected, etc. I'm not against keeping regions as territories or electoral districts, as I said; I'm merely against giving them in game governments.

What about the people that aren't in national government? What are they suppose to do? Sit there and watch others? If you have regions with assemblies were every citizens can join in then it will keep people active.
Logged

Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16784
United States


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: April 08, 2009, 02:17:23 pm »
Ignore

Removing regions allows us to concentrate on national governance, which is much more fun, enjoyable and active, and it includes everyone, rather than just the people who happen to be in the one or two regions that are temporarily seeing a burst of activity.

And we don't have to make 12 at large seats. We can do a proportional, party list election (something I'm very partial to), we can divide the election into half nationwide seats, half district-elected, etc. I'm not against keeping regions as territories or electoral districts, as I said; I'm merely against giving them in game governments.

What about the people that aren't in national government? What are they suppose to do? Sit there and watch others? If you have regions with assemblies were every citizens can join in then it will keep people active.

I do agree with Lief that regional governments right now are pitifully inactive and uncompetitive, but there is the possibility that by reducing the number of regions you can increase activity by virtue of having more people competing in the regions. I think reducing the number of regions should be our first option, if regional government are still inactive then perhaps we could eliminate them at a later date via amendments.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2009, 02:19:28 pm by AG Marokai Blue »Logged

ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15457
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: April 08, 2009, 02:20:28 pm »
Ignore

What about the people that aren't in national government? What are they suppose to do? Sit there and watch others?

Well, I would say that that's an excellent point Wink

Actually, what Dan is advocating seems to be something different from what anyone else seems to be proposing: a Regional-based Universalist system.  Maybe some sort of Confederation.

Removing regions allows us to concentrate on national governance, which is much more fun, enjoyable and active, and it includes everyone, rather than just the people who happen to be in the one or two regions that are temporarily seeing a burst of activity.

And we don't have to make 12 at large seats. We can do a proportional, party list election (something I'm very partial to), we can divide the election into half nationwide seats, half district-elected, etc. I'm not against keeping regions as territories or electoral districts, as I said; I'm merely against giving them in game governments.

What about the people that aren't in national government? What are they suppose to do? Sit there and watch others? If you have regions with assemblies were every citizens can join in then it will keep people active.

I do agree with Leif that regional governments right now are pitifully inactive and uncompetitive, but there is the possibility that by reducing the number of regions you can increase activity by virtue of having more people competing in the regions. I think reducing the number of regions should be our first option, if regional government are still inactive then perhaps we could eliminate them at a later date via amendments.

I don't think that would help any.  Regions aren't necessarily inactive because there's not enough people in them (witness that the Midwest has always been one of the smallest regions by population but that we used to be one of the most active); regions are inactive because people can't really do anything with them.  They don't really have a point at all; basically everything that can be done in them can also be done on the national level, and better, too.  Barring a confederation/dissolution of the national government, which would force regions to matter, I don't really think there's an alternative where we leave regions relatively untouched (or even reduced number) but they still matter.
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
ℒief
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32927
Dominica


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: April 08, 2009, 02:22:32 pm »
Ignore

A regional government has, at the very least, two office-holders, sometimes 4 or 5 (if we give each one an assembly). That's up to 15 people in participating in the "side game" and not able to participate in the "main game." This is an ambitious plan, and for it to work, we need many people to be interested and able to take seats in the lower house and the upper house. Regional governments would just be a drain on activity.
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: April 08, 2009, 04:02:20 pm »
Ignore

A regional government has, at the very least, two office-holders, sometimes 4 or 5 (if we give each one an assembly). That's up to 15 people in participating in the "side game" and not able to participate in the "main game." This is an ambitious plan, and for it to work, we need many people to be interested and able to take seats in the lower house and the upper house. Regional governments would just be a drain on activity.

Why can't those people in regional government also participate in national government? You maybe misread my previous post somewhere, but we can allow for dual office holding, especially if you would like to make regions a little less formal. I have no problem with making the regions a sort of less involved side game, but until you show me how something like this hurts the game I think you are missing a point. The regions can really be a no-lose situation, with active regions being an incredible tool and inactive regions being just as "bad" as no regions at all.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2534


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #121 on: April 09, 2009, 09:29:32 pm »
Ignore

Article _

Section 1: Regional Government
1. The Regions may elect a Head of State as chief executive officer however no Head of State member may be elected for a term of more than six months.
2. A Region must have an Assembly of at least three members.
    a. The Assembly will be the legislature of each Region.
    b. The Assembly must be open to all citizens within that Region to help in making bills and debates  etc, but the Assembly members are the only ones that can pass a bill.
3. A Region may establish a judiciary for itself; However, if they choose not to, the federal Supreme Court shall arbitrate in all election disputes, but only insofar as Regional Law may provide.
4.Regions are autonomous of the federal government and may govern themselves and their elections as they wish, except where otherwise provided for in this Constitution.

Section 2: Regional Boundaries

1. There will only be three Regions in Atlasia.
2. The Senate and Parliament will seat the boundaries of the regions every June.
3. The consent of the Senate and Parliament is required for any change in Region boundaries.
4. In the event that a new State joins the Republic of Atlasia, the Senate and Parliament may apportion this State to a Region
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 09:47:29 pm by $Dan$ »Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: April 09, 2009, 09:38:54 pm »
Ignore

     Good, though you should change "United States of America" to "Republic of Atlasia." That's more in step with what's been done historically in Atlasia.
Logged

Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2534


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #123 on: April 09, 2009, 09:46:54 pm »
Ignore

     Good, though you should change "United States of America" to "Republic of Atlasia." That's more in step with what's been done historically in Atlasia.

Wow, I can't believe I put the United States of America!!! I guess it's late.
Logged

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


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: April 11, 2009, 09:56:47 pm »
Ignore

Added my edits and rewording in there:

Article _

Section 1: Regional Boundaries

1. The Republic of Atlasia shall be made up of three Regions.
2. The Senate and Parliament will hold a joint conference each June to redraw the boundaries of the Regions.
3. After conference, both the Senate and Parliament shall hold separate votes to confirm the new boundaries. Confirmation shall require a simple majority in each house.
4. In the event that a new State joins the Republic of Atlasia, the Senate and Parliament shall hold an emergency conference for the sole purpose of deciding the placement of the new State in the Regions.

Section 2: Regional Government
1. The Regions may elect a Head of State as chief executive officer. No Head of State shall be elected for a term lasting longer than six months.
2. A Region must have an Assembly of no less than three members. The Assembly shall serve as the legislative body of each Region.
3. A Region may establish a judicial body to assist in the maintenance of law and order within its boundaries. So long as no such body has been instituted, the federal Supreme Court shall serve as the arbitrating body in all disputes that arise under regional law.
4. Regions shall stand autonomous of the federal government and may govern themselves as they so choose, except where otherwise provided for in this Constitution.
Logged

Marokai/Purple Main Campaign Thread

Thank you to all our supporters!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 19 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines