Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)

[afleitch]

So in effect the lower house is a series of committees with no power and most of the time only two of them will get to have any say on a bill. It would only meet, in full if two committee members split. We would be halfing the number of Senate members and abolishing regional government for a committee?

I cannot see, with the greatest of respect why I would wish to replace the current system with this one. Why should a lower house 'wait' for legislation? Both upper and lower houses should be able to propose legislation.

On that note,

Nay.

[afleitch]

I am more than happy to help amend this proposal, but at present I can't support it as it stands. It is not reflective of any current system of government internationally and there is a huge democratic deficit due to the lower houses limited powers.

[afleitch]

We would be halfing the number of Senate members and abolishing regional government for a committee?

     Just curious, but when did I say we were abolishing regional government?

Okay, hands up I jumped the gun on that one. But you are still halfing the Senate and if that Senate is any good it's legislation will be watertight so when it reaches the lower house it gets rubber stamped and goes back to the Senate. I cannot support a lower house that has no power to legislate. It goes against not my hopes for this game, but also with regards to an international context.

I'll change my vote to Aye to discuss it, but I can't support it as it stands

[afleitch]

To be more constructive...

Legislation that goes down to the lower house, in any form, should be voted on by that house before it goes back to the Senate. The lower house should also be able to propose legislation that it votes on and can pass to the Senate for approval/vote. Up and down and up and down. It keeps both houses busy.

[afleitch]

     Thing is that I made the lower house weak so that MPs would want to become Senators at some point, while MP would be a fine office for someone just starting out in Atlasia & looking to get his feet wet.

     The thing that I fear about existing universalist proposals is that the upper house is at best indistinguishable from the lower house, & at worst comparatively unappealing. People should genuinely want to move up in the political world.

I quite agree. But I don't think it should be done by weakening the lower house. I know it is not your intent, but weakening or handicapping one or other houses is not the hallmark of a democracy. A universalist system may be too large and unwieldy I will accept that, but a system where only 5 members of the federal government get to propose legislation is too narrow. I would fully support a 5/15 split - but the 15 should have the authority to propose legislation and for the government and PM to have a legislative agenda. I believe the powerhouse should be the lower house; with new members and exciting ideas. The Senate should be for those who prefer taking the time to dissect legislation. The Senate should have old duffers like me in it calculating how much things cost outside of the machinations of politics in the house below if you catch my drift

[afleitch]

I'm drifting more and more to the idea that a 'compromise' is impossible. Most Universalists will not compromise to a system with Universalism, and many of the rest of us won't compromise to a system that has Universalism.

I am strongly in favour of compromise and I've been involved in constitutional compromises on here for years. I just can't compromise in favour of this proposal as it stands because it is too exclusive and draws unfavourable comparisons with historical governence. I think it can be made better, so I won't and can't dismiss it. A two house solution with a 5/15 split is fine - but I cannot support a powerless lower house whether it has 15 or 50 members.

[afleitch]

     So kind of like the House of Lords (but not as powerless)?

     I gave some thought to your alternate idea, & I think there is probably sufficient motivation to move up to the upper house due to being one of five rather than one of ten. Then again, I would prefer it if there were some other benefit to it as well. Maybe it should be easier to override a veto on a bill proposed by a Senator than on one proposed by an MP.

I was thinking along the line of other European bicameral chambers. I don't happen to believe that the Senate should be the pinnacle of your career. Some people may like remaining in the lower house. Ultimately the Senate will have power because any legislation proposed in the lower house would have to be voted on by the Senate - the Senate can still vote it down, or vote it down with amendments (which is where the old duffers with their calculators come in!) and fire it back down. It would, as I proposed a week or so ago, be able to trigger a no confidence vote in the lower house government. The PM is the party person, the elected President is the people person. The Senate should be the protectors of the constitution and of good governance.

[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)

[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.

[afleitch]

Aye

[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

[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.

[afleitch]

Nay.

What is on the table is too specific a proposal. It's not bad and has it's merits, but I can't support it. Regions 'must have an Assembly'..must they? Surely if they are retained, whether as playable entities or not it is up for regional constitutions to determine how they are to be governed?

[afleitch]

Aye, but an article for impeachment of the President needs to be put in either Article 1 or 3.

Aye with the above mentiond condition.

[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.

[afleitch]

Option 1

[afleitch]

Aye

[afleitch]

Aye to both on reflection.

[afleitch]

Aye on all 3