Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)

[Marokai]

I mean, I guess I sort of see the reasoning to staggering the elections if you're going to do away with regions, but why not just keep regions and allow dual office holding? There's no harm in that.

That was my plan, for House members. In the Article that passed it states, "No Person shall be eligible to run for the House who has not attained one hundred or more posts. A Representative may not hold any other federal or executive office in Atlasia for the duration of their term." So any house member could hold an office that is federal or like a governor, but they could be Assembly members.

I only came up with the other plan because some wanted to take the region out of the Article that passed.

Fair enough. I wasn't really directing the comment at you, just to everyone in general. If we're going to take out regions then staggering elections makes sense to me, but I still don't see it as necessary nor do I see regions as inherently harmful.

[Purple State]

I mean, I guess I sort of see the reasoning to staggering the elections if you're going to do away with regions, but why not just keep regions and allow dual office holding? There's no harm in that.

Although I do find massive upheaval elections slightly more...exciting. Especially because we forget that this is still a parliamentary government, with dissolution of Parliament, etc. It just has a more Americanized name.

[Devilman88]

I mean, I guess I sort of see the reasoning to staggering the elections if you're going to do away with regions, but why not just keep regions and allow dual office holding? There's no harm in that.

That was my plan, for House members. In the Article that passed it states, "No Person shall be eligible to run for the House who has not attained one hundred or more posts. A Representative may not hold any other federal or executive office in Atlasia for the duration of their term." So any house member could hold an office that is federal or like a governor, but they could be Assembly members.

I only came up with the other plan because some wanted to take the region out of the Article that passed.

Fair enough. I wasn't really directing the comment at you, just to everyone in general. If we're going to take out regions then staggering elections makes sense to me, but I still don't see it as necessary nor do I see regions as inherently harmful.

I'm with you there, but I like the idea of holding the elections outside the regions, like this one has it.

[Devilman88]

I mean, I guess I sort of see the reasoning to staggering the elections if you're going to do away with regions, but why not just keep regions and allow dual office holding? There's no harm in that.

Although I do find massive upheaval elections slightly more...exciting. Especially because we forget that this is still a parliamentary government, with dissolution of Parliament, etc. It just has a more Americanized name.

Purple State, can you work your magic and make the changes I brought up sound better.

[Purple State]

I mean, I guess I sort of see the reasoning to staggering the elections if you're going to do away with regions, but why not just keep regions and allow dual office holding? There's no harm in that.

Although I do find massive upheaval elections slightly more...exciting. Especially because we forget that this is still a parliamentary government, with dissolution of Parliament, etc. It just has a more Americanized name.

Purple State, can you work your magic and make the changes I brought up sound better.

I think the problem with your idea of staggered elections is that, under this proposal, there is a parliament form of government. Essentially, a vote of no confidence or timed dissolution of the Parliament is necessary to bring elections. So they all have to be at the same time. Unless we do away with the parliamentary part of this proposal and look to turn it into a more American version of governance.

That's really up to all of you. I would be happy to remove regions, bring Dan's motion to a vote, and join that with a motion to strike the PM and other parliament references from the proposal outline.

[Devilman88]

I mean, I guess I sort of see the reasoning to staggering the elections if you're going to do away with regions, but why not just keep regions and allow dual office holding? There's no harm in that.

Although I do find massive upheaval elections slightly more...exciting. Especially because we forget that this is still a parliamentary government, with dissolution of Parliament, etc. It just has a more Americanized name.

Purple State, can you work your magic and make the changes I brought up sound better.

I think the problem with your idea of staggered elections is that, under this proposal, there is a parliament form of government. Essentially, a vote of no confidence or timed dissolution of the Parliament is necessary to bring elections. So they all have to be at the same time. Unless we do away with the parliamentary part of this proposal and look to turn it into a more American version of governance.

That's really up to all of you. I would be happy to remove regions, bring Dan's motion to a vote, and join that with a motion to strike the PM and other parliament references from the proposal outline.

I have no clue, I think in the end it would make the elections more exciting if we elected the Senators and Reps outside of the regions or at least some one them. I'm just trying to be fair to the people that said they didn't want regions.

[Purple State]

I mean, I guess I sort of see the reasoning to staggering the elections if you're going to do away with regions, but why not just keep regions and allow dual office holding? There's no harm in that.

Although I do find massive upheaval elections slightly more...exciting. Especially because we forget that this is still a parliamentary government, with dissolution of Parliament, etc. It just has a more Americanized name.

Purple State, can you work your magic and make the changes I brought up sound better.

I think the problem with your idea of staggered elections is that, under this proposal, there is a parliament form of government. Essentially, a vote of no confidence or timed dissolution of the Parliament is necessary to bring elections. So they all have to be at the same time. Unless we do away with the parliamentary part of this proposal and look to turn it into a more American version of governance.

That's really up to all of you. I would be happy to remove regions, bring Dan's motion to a vote, and join that with a motion to strike the PM and other parliament references from the proposal outline.

I have no clue, I think in the end it would make the elections more exciting if we elected the Senators and Reps outside of the regions or at least some one them. I'm just trying to be fair to the people that said they didn't want regions.

Understood, and I have no direct problem with this. But it goes against the proposal outline in the first post of this page. We can either alter the proposal and pass your motion or we can let it be and, if we abolish the regions, simply make the seats popularly elected.

[Devilman88]

I mean, I guess I sort of see the reasoning to staggering the elections if you're going to do away with regions, but why not just keep regions and allow dual office holding? There's no harm in that.

Although I do find massive upheaval elections slightly more...exciting. Especially because we forget that this is still a parliamentary government, with dissolution of Parliament, etc. It just has a more Americanized name.

Purple State, can you work your magic and make the changes I brought up sound better.

I think the problem with your idea of staggered elections is that, under this proposal, there is a parliament form of government. Essentially, a vote of no confidence or timed dissolution of the Parliament is necessary to bring elections. So they all have to be at the same time. Unless we do away with the parliamentary part of this proposal and look to turn it into a more American version of governance.

That's really up to all of you. I would be happy to remove regions, bring Dan's motion to a vote, and join that with a motion to strike the PM and other parliament references from the proposal outline.

I have no clue, I think in the end it would make the elections more exciting if we elected the Senators and Reps outside of the regions or at least some one them. I'm just trying to be fair to the people that said they didn't want regions.

Understood, and I have no direct problem with this. But it goes against the proposal outline in the first post of this page. We can either alter the proposal and pass your motion or we can let it be and, if we abolish the regions, simply make the seats popularly elected.

If we do abolish the regions or change it to elect them outside the regions would need to come up with a way 15 House members are elected in one election cycle.  We could have a system where people vote for party they want to have in the House and then each party sends members to the house by the percentage that got in the election.  For example:

Party A: 40% ----> Would send 6 members to house
Party B: 35% ----> Would send 5 members to house
Party C: 20% ----> Would send 3 members to house
Party D: 5% ------> Would send 1 member to house

Then each party can hold an election on which member(s) they want to send to the House.

[Hashemite]

I will resist any attempts to turn this into a non-parliamentary system.

[afleitch]

I will resist any attempts to turn this into a non-parliamentary system.

I have to concur with this and take it a step further.

Any system we impliment should be related to or based on a system of government that exists. Atlasia as it is now is broadly based on a simplified US system. I understand the need to be imaginative, but we shouldn't re-invent the wheel or create something that no one else has. If we are to have a parliamentary system, base it around a model that exists that we can therefore work on. Likewise with the voting system.

[Purple State]

I will resist any attempts to turn this into a non-parliamentary system.

I have to concur with this and take it a step further.

Any system we impliment should be related to or based on a system of government that exists. Atlasia as it is now is broadly based on a simplified US system. I understand the need to be imaginative, but we shouldn't re-invent the wheel or create something that no one else has. If we are to have a parliamentary system, base it around a model that exists that we can therefore work on. Likewise with the voting system.

First, I am not proposing we remove the parliamentary aspect, although I have no problem with doing so. I was simply providing the reason why Dan's idea is currently not viable.

Second, removing the parliamentary part of this plan would simply turn it into a less simplified version of US governance. It would not be "reinventing the wheel," but rather would be expanding our current form of government into a less elite one.

[Devilman88]

I'm sorry if I am being a pain, but I am trying to make this better. I really don't like the way the Senators and House members are elected.
please read over this new Article 1 and tell me what you think:

Article 1: The Congress of Atlasia

Section 1: Formation of the Senate
1. 1. The Senate shall be composed of five Senators, each with a term of six months. All Senators shall be elected national by popular vote.
2. No Person shall be eligible to run for Senate who has not attained two hundred or more posts, and is not a registered voter in the Region that they represent. A Senator may not hold any other public office in Atlasia for the duration of their term.
3. The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, who shall act as President of the Senate in the absence of the President and who shall manage the everyday business of the Senate.
4. The President of the Republic of Atlasia shall be the President of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided.

Section 2: Formation of the House
1. The House of Representatives, herein referred to as House, shall be made up of sixteen Representatives, each with a term of two months. All Representatives shall be elected national via party vote.(See Sec 5 for details)
2. No Person shall be eligible to run for the House who has not attained one hundred or more posts, and is not a registered voter in the Region that they represent. A Representative may not hold any other federal or executive office in Atlasia for the duration of their term.
3. The House shall elect a Speaker of the House who shall be responsible for chairing debate that occurs within the House and for managing every day business.

Section 3: Congressional Rules and Legislation
1. The separate chambers of Congress may establish their own rules of procedure, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of its number, respectively, may expel a member of the same chamber.
2. Each chamber shall have fulfilled a quorum if a majority of its members are capable of discharging their offices and sworn into office. A quorum in each chamber shall have voted on any Resolution, Bill, Impeachment or Constitutional Amendment for it to be considered valid.
3. For any Bill or Resolution to pass the Congress, it shall have gained a majority in a valid vote in each respective chamber. Before the Bill or Resolution becomes Law, it shall be presented to the PPT, Speaker, and sponsors of the Bill or Resolution from each chamber for conference, unless it be concerning the rules for the proceedings of a chamber. Upon resolution of any differences between the separate versions of legislation, the Bill or Resolution shall be returned to both chambers for approval. If passed by both chambers separately, the revised Bill or Resolution shall then be presented to the President of the Republic of Atlasia. If the President approves, he shall sign it, and it shall become Law. If the President does not approve, he shall return the Bill with his objections to the Congress, and it shall not become Law. Upon reconsidering the Bill, if each chamber shall approve the legislation by two-thirds of its number, it shall become Law. If a Bill is not returned to the Congress by the President within seven days after it shall have been presented to him, it shall become Law regardless.

Section 4: Elections to the Senate
1. Elections for the Senate shall be held in the months of January and July;
2. Elections shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on the third Friday of a given month and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later.
3. If a vacancy shall occur in the Senate, then a special election shall be called to fill the remainder of the vacated term within one week of the vacancy occurring; Such special election shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on a Friday and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later. However, if a vacancy shall occur when there is a person due to assume that office within two weeks, then no special election shall be necessary.
5. The Senate shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Senate elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to Senate shall be by public post.
6. Senators elected in ordinary elections to Congress shall take office at noon Eastern Standard Time on the Friday following their election. Those elected in special elections to the Senate shall take office as soon as the result of their election or appointment has been formally declared.

Section 5: Elections to the House of Representatives
1. Elections for the House shall be held on every odd numbered month of the year.
2. Elections shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on the 2nd Thursday of a given month and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later.
3. On the 2nd Thursday each party shall hold an election for the party to vote on what member(s) of their party they want to send to the House.
3. The election held on the 3rd Thursday shall be of which party you want to be in the House. Once the election has conclude the percentage of vote a party has reviced is the percentage of the house that party controlls.(For example if Party A reviced 50% of the vote then they would send 8 members to the House)
5.. If a vacancy shall occur in the House, then the party that controlled that seat shall hold a special election to fill the remainder of the vacated term within one week of the vacancy occurring; Such special election shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on a Friday and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later. However, if a vacancy shall occur when there is a person due to assume that office within two weeks, then no special election shall be necessary.
6. The House shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of elections over the election on the 2nd Thursday of each odd month. All elections shall be by public post
7. Each party shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of  elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections over the election on the 3rd Thursday of each odd month. All elections to Congress shall be by public post.
8. Those elected in ordinary elections to Congress shall take office at noon Eastern Standard Time on the Friday following their election. Those elected in special elections to the Senate or appointed to the House shall take office as soon as the result of their election or appointment has been formally declared.




Section 6: Powers of the Congress (with some small edits later)
[insert the current Article 1, Section 5 here]

Section 7: Powers denied to the Congress (with some small edits later)
[insert the current Article 1, Section 6 here]

Section 8: Powers denied to the Regions (with some small edits later)
[insert the current Article 1, Section 7 here]

[Purple State]

I don't have a problem with turning it into party lists. However, I would have the parties construct their lists prior to the election, not afterward.

[Devilman88]

I don't have a problem with turning it into party lists. However, I would have the parties construct their lists prior to the election, not afterward.

We can change that, just switch the dates of the elections. If you would like to re-word it better then go ahead.

[Purple State]

I don't have a problem with turning it into party lists. However, I would have the parties construct their lists prior to the election, not afterward.

We can change that, just switch the dates of the elections. If you would like to re-word it better then go ahead.

I will if I hear general support. I'll let some others share their thoughts though.

[Devilman88]

Well guys what do you think?

[Hashemite]

It obviously needs cleaning up, but I like the general idea of PR party-list. However, parties need to construct their lists before hand, or else I'll recommend voting against this.

[Marokai]

I would rather have elections just be about the individual candidates, I don't see any reason to change that.

[Devilman88]

I would rather have elections just be about the individual candidates, I don't see any reason to change that.

The thing is, how would you election 15 or 16 people on one night?

Edit: I chanced it to make the party elections to go first.

[Lief]

While I was originally an advocate of party lists, thinking about it now, I feel like that would make elections pretty boring. The fact is, Atlasia has very few swing voters, and especially in a proportional system, I fear that every election would end up with each party party getting roughly the same number of votes. Maybe I'm wrong though.

In any case, the type of proportional elections and the rules of seat division should not be spelled out explicitly in the constitution, but instead defined in statute.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     I pretty much agree with Hashemite.

While I was originally an advocate of party lists, thinking about it now, I feel like that would make elections pretty boring. The fact is, Atlasia has very few swing voters, and especially in a proportional system, I fear that every election would end up with each party party getting roughly the same number of votes. Maybe I'm wrong though.

     Two months or however long we make it is a long time in Atlasia. People come & go, & while drastic shifts are unlikely, the results of the elections would likely ebb & flow with the strength of the parties as well as marginal changes in turnout from election to election.

[Purple State]

     I pretty much agree with Hashemite.

While I was originally an advocate of party lists, thinking about it now, I feel like that would make elections pretty boring. The fact is, Atlasia has very few swing voters, and especially in a proportional system, I fear that every election would end up with each party party getting roughly the same number of votes. Maybe I'm wrong though.

     Two months or however long we make it is a long time in Atlasia. People come & go, & while drastic shifts are unlikely, the results of the elections would likely ebb & flow with the strength of the parties as well as marginal changes in turnout from election to election.

But you do reduce the excitement around these elections. Granted Senate elections could be extremely good, House elections would be pretty bland I would think.

Although the construction of party lists would be a lot of fun (they would have to be done publicly) and we would have to make a provision to include independents. Any ideas regarding independents? Do they need to win 1/16 of the vote to get the seat or something?

[Devilman88]

     I pretty much agree with Hashemite.

While I was originally an advocate of party lists, thinking about it now, I feel like that would make elections pretty boring. The fact is, Atlasia has very few swing voters, and especially in a proportional system, I fear that every election would end up with each party party getting roughly the same number of votes. Maybe I'm wrong though.

     Two months or however long we make it is a long time in Atlasia. People come & go, & while drastic shifts are unlikely, the results of the elections would likely ebb & flow with the strength of the parties as well as marginal changes in turnout from election to election.

But you do reduce the excitement around these elections. Granted Senate elections could be extremely good, House elections would be pretty bland I would think.

Although the construction of party lists would be a lot of fun (they would have to be done publicly) and we would have to make a provision to include independents. Any ideas regarding independents? Do they need to win 1/16 of the vote to get the seat or something?

I have already come up with a system for 2nd election(one to how many seats a party gets).  I don't know how independents would play in. I guess they would have to try to work with other parties. Or make a party or something like that. But we can work on that if this passes.

[Smid]

     I pretty much agree with Hashemite.

While I was originally an advocate of party lists, thinking about it now, I feel like that would make elections pretty boring. The fact is, Atlasia has very few swing voters, and especially in a proportional system, I fear that every election would end up with each party party getting roughly the same number of votes. Maybe I'm wrong though.

     Two months or however long we make it is a long time in Atlasia. People come & go, & while drastic shifts are unlikely, the results of the elections would likely ebb & flow with the strength of the parties as well as marginal changes in turnout from election to election.

But you do reduce the excitement around these elections. Granted Senate elections could be extremely good, House elections would be pretty bland I would think.

Although the construction of party lists would be a lot of fun (they would have to be done publicly) and we would have to make a provision to include independents. Any ideas regarding independents? Do they need to win 1/16 of the vote to get the seat or something?

In Australia we have a defacto party list style STV election for the Senate. The ballot paper has two separate sections - "above-the-line" and "below-the-line." All the candidates are listed the same way we presently do it here, in the below-the-line section, grouped by party (and directly below where the party is listed in the above-the-line section). Above-the-line, only parties are listed.

Voters than have a choice - they can vote either above-the-line or they can vote below-the-line (but not both). If they vote above-the-line, they place a "1" in the box of the party they wish to support. This vote then follows that party's how-to-vote preference order, which has been lodged prior to that date by the party with the electoral commission (preferences flow through other parties, not just their own list, they may also submit more than one preference order, in which case votes are split equally between the different orders - for example, if the DA wanted to emphasise their centrism/ability to work with both sides, they may lodge one card that preferences the JCP and another that preferences the RPP and their votes would split equally between the two once all the DA candidates were either elected or excluded from the count).

Voters voting below-the-line allocate preferences for all candidates and apart from compulsory preferential and no write-ins, it's identical to how we presently do things. I'll mock-up a ballot with the candidates from the last election for you to take a look at and post it on here. If I'm not too busy, I might even allocate some of the votes in the last election to above-the-line and show you how that might work out given the numbers at the last election.

[Smid]

It's probably a bit difficult trying to keep candidate names aligned under their parties, but a ballot would probably look something like:

This election is held in accordance with Article V of the Constitution, the Proportional Representation Act, and the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (as amended).  The  voting booth opensat 1:12am April 17, 2009 and closes at 1:12am April 20, 2009.
 
DO NOT EDIT OR DELETE THE POST CONTAINING YOUR BALLOT IN ANY WAY AFTER 20 MINUTES OF ITS BEING POSTED OR YOUR VOTE WILL BE INVALIDATED.


The act of campaigning within the election booth is strictly forbidden and will render void any votes made by those who campaign.  The act of campaigning is considered to include, but is not limited to, strong attempts to compel others either to vote or not to vote for one or multiple candidates, or other related activities that could reasonably be construed as a direct attempt to influence how future voters cast their ballots.

However, the Department of Forum Affairs will make every effort to be fair in consideration of the above matter and will give voters the benefit of the doubt.  Explanations of one's vote or simple expressions of approval for a candidate will not be construed as acts of campaigning, unless they obviously violate the above criteria.

Place the numbers 1, 2, etc. in the space provided beside the candidates who you wish to vote for to designate your order of preference for these candidates or place the number 1 in the space provided beside the party for which you wish to vote.  Numbering beside both a party and a candidate shall render your vote informal. 

If any other mark or attempt to order the candidates is made, the Department of Forum Affairs will make every effort to deduce voter intent from the content of the ballot, but the warning must be issued that failure to follow the above instructions may result in the invalidation of your ballot in the event of an inability to discern voter intent.  You are an eligible voter in general if you were registered to vote on or before April 6th 2009, and if you made 15 posts in any location within the Atlas Forum in the 8 weeks prior to the commencement of the regular election.

In the event that you do not support any listed candidate or that you support one or many candidates that are not listed in addition to those that are, you may write in other candidates and include them in your list of preferences.  Space is provided for one such write-in, but as many can be listed as you wish.  In the event that you do not support any listed candidate, and do not wish to write in any candidate, you may place an X or a 1 beside "None of the above", and only beside "None of the above".  In the event that an X or a 1 appears beside "None of the above" on a ballot, all other marks or numbers will be ignored.  It is not permissible under current election law to vote for both "None of the above" and other candidates.

Because of the nature of PR-STV voting, voters are STRONGLY ENCOURAGED to rank choices by number and only by number. Bullet voting for multiple candidates may result in the disqualification of your ballot if voter intent cannot be reasonably determined.


Official ballot

[  ] RPP            [  ] DA            [  ] SDP            [  ] JCP

Either place a 1 in one of these boxes ^
or place a 1, 2, etc in these boxes v

[  ] Senator SPC [Chuck Hagel 08]
^{Regional Protection Party}

[  ] afleitch
^{Democratic Alliance}

[  ] Sen. DownWithTheLeft [downwithdaleft]
^{Regional Protection Party}

[  ] Mideast Assembly Speaker Purple State [Purple State]
^{Democratic Alliance}

[  ] Senator Franzl [Franzl]
^{Democratic Alliance}

[  ] Senator Lief [Lief]
^{Social Democratic Party}

[  ] Bacon King
^{Jesus Christ Party}

[  ] Write-in:______________________________

[  ] None of the above