Talk Elections

This thread is for the development of a Presidential Universlaism system of government. Please propose ideas for individual pieces of construction, rather than entire proposals. I would prefer no more than one Article (e.g. Executive, Judicial, etc.) per post maximum. I will include all pieces that have been approved in this first post as they are passed through votes.

As a reminder, the Rules of Order state that, "All elections and votes required by this law shall require the participation of 50% of all delegates, as determined by the sign in thread, at the start of the election or vote to be valid, unless otherwise stated [in the RoO]."

Please keep debate and discussion friendly.

The following is a brief outline of this system: 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)

---

     Since this proposal hasn't really sparked much interest, it was suggested that I could use this chance to suggest a few changes. One thing that I'd like to propose would be a fixed federal legislature size of 15 total members: five in the upper house & ten in the lower one. Obviously this would do away with the universal part, but I have ideas for other changes if people will hear it out.

I could live with that, that are you other ideas.

     Among other things I plan to have a significant difference between the houses. As such, only upper house members could propose legislation, but a bill's fate would be decided by one of various lower house committees. This way we can have a bicameral system that is interesting but not excessively slow. There's more to the legislature than that though.

So not every member of the house would get to vote on all the propose legislation, only the house members in the committee that the propose legislation is sent to?

     Depends on the judgment of the committee. The idea is that lower house members have fewer duties & fewer powers. That way it's a good place for new members to start, but one still has motivation to try to run for the upper house at some point.

I have spoken to PiT privately and think his idea has some weight to it. If a delegate would be willing to second his changes to the outline of this proposal I will bring it to a vote, retitle this proposal whatever is agreed on, and discussion can begin on his idea.

Considering this proposal does not seem to be getting much, or any, attention, I think PiT's thoughts would present a more compelling and viable third option for the Convention to discuss.

This idea could be an acceptable compromise if others fall through, I think.

I happily second his proposal. :)

Alright, I will allow for a little bit of discussion on this. I plan to bring the motion to change the model outline tomorrow afternoon.

I oppose this proposal.

At least I waited to see the proposals before making such statements..

What PiT has proposed is the Bicameral Nonparliamentary model that was voted on earlier and failed. We can't just go radically changing the nature of the model when it was voted on earlier. It would be like me waltzing into the Presidential Parliamentarian thread and proposing a whole new Lower House to be comprised of universal membership. It's not the structure that was voted for. If people wanted a bicameral model, they would have voted for the bicameral model when they had the chance.

The Presiding Officer was given full authority to proceed with the ConCon as he saw fit and determine exact rules as he pleases. If we don't want this proposal, you can vote it down, but don't try to shut it out a compromise that threatens your proposal because you don't like it.

This proposal as it stands is practically a modified duplicate of the Parliamentary Universalist model in the first place, it's likely not going anywhere as it stands.

As it stands, Smid is correct in that delegates did not vote for the Bicameral Nonparliamentary model.

I'm not saying to shut down this proposal, before you jump on my statement aggressively like you did on Smid's.

I simply don't see the harm in the PO exercising the abilities we gave him to exercise, to amend a proposal that is basically a knockoff of a pre-existing proposal.

Since you had your say when the convention opened about the rules regarding the format and procedure, I think surely I can have my say on the same issue now? Thank you also for deciding for me what my motivation in this is for me, it's great that you know me better than I know myself.

This model is the same as the one put forward a few weeks back. There was a vote on that model. It only got two second preference votes and no first preference votes. It failed. You can't go pretending it didn't, simply because you didn't like the outcome. I mean, I don't blame you for trying - you voted for that model as your second preference and obviously you're not happy that this proposal defeated your second pick. By comparison, this proposal that you want to now change into your failed second preference was supported as it currently stands by three people as their first preference and six people as their second preference.

That said, if the delegates decide to vote in favour of substantially changing this proposal, even though it was the one supported and we're changing it to a method that was not supported, that would be the will of the convention.

The Bicameral Nonparliamentarian proposal was somewhat different from what PiT is proposing himself. It's just a coming together of some of the parameters from the Presidential Parliamentarian model, and the Parliamentary Universalism model. Retaining elections to all the seats, while having two legislative bodies. Keeping a manageable number of seats, while still retaining some Universalist originated ideas like Committees in the Lower House. (And having differences in the powers of each body, which your proposal does not really inherently have.)

And to be entirely honest with you, I only voted for the original proposal because I was bound by the rules as I understood them to choose two preferences and the rest were deplorable.

In any case, the PO still has full authority to determine the parameters of debate and the structure of proposals, if there is some support, I don't see why we should retain a redundant proposal instead, on the basis of some silly technicality.

Let me get a word in on this.

Thus far, there has been no discussion whatsoever on this Presidential Universalism proposal. I accept that it gained sufficient votes to be considered, as do I acknowledge that PiT's edits would lean this idea slightly closer to the Bicameral Nonparliamentarian form that failed earlier.

However, there are a number of reasons why I will be bringing this motion forward. First, I find it telling that the first post in this thread is a proposal to change the idea presented. There has been no serious discussion of the merits of this idea and no one seems all that ready to discuss the development of this model. Second, in order for such a motion to pass it would require 50% participation of all delegates and would have to secure a majority of votes. As of now that would mean 5 votes in favor, which is greater than the 4 votes that the proposals originally required.

For these reasons I think there needs to be some flexibility in the way we approach these things. Sure, we can stand hard and fast behind these proposal outlines. But in order for a serious and successful Convention there needs to be the ability to change, from what is not working to what has potential. You are within your right as a delegate to vote Nay when the vote comes up, but I am within my right to bring forward what I feel has the best potential for compromise and creativity on the part of the delegates. As a delegate has seconded this idea and another has voiced his semi-interest, I will be bringing this to a vote.

     I haven't really posted the full outline yet. The way I conceived of it only the upper house would be non-parliamentarian. As Marokai said, there are notable differences between this & a bicameral nonparliamentarian model.

I bring the following motion to a vote of the Convention:

The outline for the Presidential Universalism development thread shall hereby read: "A fixed federal legislature size of 15 total members: five in the upper house and ten in the lower one. Only upper house members could propose legislation, but a bill's fate would be decided by one of various lower house committees. There will be a President and VP, as well as a Speaker of the House."

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain on the motion. The vote shall last for 48 hours and a clear majority is needed for passage.

     The upper house (or the Senate) would be composed of five members. Those members would all be elected regionally. If one or more regions is/are eliminated, the remainder can be elected at-large. It would function much like the current Senate, only smaller.

     The lower house (or the Parliament) would be composed of ten members. They would be elected from ten districts, each of equal population based on the last Presidential election. Leadership would be determined by a ruling coalition, which would elect a prime minister. The prime minister would select committee appointments for all MPs, himself included. The committees would roughly break down as:

Social Concerns Committee
Economic Concerns Committee
Law & Enforcement Committee
Forum Affairs Committee
External Affairs Committee

     Only Senators can propose legislation. Once proposed, the PPT sends it to the appropriate committee. If the Senator who initially proposed it feels it was not sent to the proper committee, he can challenge the PPT's decision, in which case the Senate will vote on whether or not to overturn the PPT's decision.

     Once it reaches committee, the two MPs assigned to that committee will have 48 hours to question the Senator who proposed the bill. After that, they will vote on it. If both assent, it will immediately go to the Senate to be heard there. If both dissent, then it will die in committee (unless the proposing Senator files an injunction stating that he did not believe that the MPs understood or made an effort to understand the intent or wording of the bill; the injunction would be heard by a justice of the Supreme Court). If the MPs split, then it will go to be heard by the Parliament.

Aye, and I hope everyone else has the maturity to support debate on a proposal instead of shutting it out as well.

     That's my full original outline, so people will know what direction I'm intending here. I conceived it to retool the universalist proposal to take into account Marokai Blue's arguments against it.

     I didn't mention the executive or judicial branches directly, but I didn't expect any massive overhaul to them. I refer to a PPT & a Prime Minister while Purple State referred to a Speaker of the House, but the names are of course open to change.

     Worth noting is the existence of committees to incorporate a second house while not significantly slowing legislation that is likely to pass. I would also like you to note that the lower house is conceived as a parliamentary system. While not all bills will be voted in the lower house, this introduces a strong element of partisanship, as well as differentiates the function of the two houses.

I must say that I truly do like the difference in the two Houses in your outline, you've done a pretty good job of balancing their powers.

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.

Nope.  How on earth is this universalism?!

As opposed to a system where both houses are completely redundant and the only difference is one house being elected?

Unfortunately I don't expect this to pass, opposition to this compromise seems too great.

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.

It's not meant to be universalism, it's meant to be a compromise between Presidential Parliamentarism and Parliamentary Universalism.

Guys, we're not voting to adopt this measure here, we're just voting for further debate and brainstorming. Keep in mind that by voting against this, you're voting against the mere act of talking about it.

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

Keep in mind we aren't voting on PiT's proposal. We are voting on a change to the outline to what I stated.

If you have input to amend this that would be great. I really wanted discussion to just get started in this thread, considering there had been a total of zero posts before I had PiT stick this here. But bear in mind that this is not about PiT's proposal per se. If you can work with it within the confines of the outline I stated above then I would urge you to vote Aye.

Aye for discussion's sake, but I don't really like it.

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

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.

     The idea is to not slow down good bills too much while preventing bad bills from wasting too much of the Senate's time. The bills in between would be decided on the entire parliament.

     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 strongly agree with Afleitch's opposition, in this post and in other posts.

I don't like that this is, in effect, a slightly more democratic French Second Empire. I don't think that's what Atlasia needs.

I fail to see the point of a tiny upper house that only proposes stuff. That chamber would effectively become a sleeping chamber. Then I fail to see the point of a lower house that can't propose legislation and is reduced to a game of parliamentary committees with a effectively irrelevant Prime Minister.

I see this being advertised as a "compromise" to universalists. Apart from a much altered and much weaker model of bicameralism, I fail to see how this is a compromise to universalists.

I guess I'll vote Aye for discussions' sake, but I strongly doubt that this can be changed enough to be remotely acceptable to me.

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 :)

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.

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

     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 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.

Oh I know, you're someone I quite respect :)

I'm willing to compromise too, it's just tough, because I'm opposed to Universalism, and since Universalism is basically the entire proposal, it makes it seem like I'm a naysayer and nothing more.

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.

As I've said today, I am more than willing to compromise. But I don't feel this is a compromise. This scenario, as it stands now, has a ton of problems which have been mentioned. I cannot and will not support a powerless lower house, a upper house which will probably be a sleeping chamber and a Prime Minister that has little power. If those issues can be fixed, that requires lots of work from both sides, then this could be remotely acceptable. But you need to fix a whole lot of things, but I'm willing to continue consideration of this plan if changed to become more parliamentary, larger and better.

Here is my plan to make this more acceptable:

A bicameral system, like most European bicameral systems have.
5 or 10 member Senate. 5 could be acceptable. The Senate can propose legislation, and must approve laws passed by the lower house for them to come into effect.
15 member House. The House can propose legislation. It must approve laws introduced in the Senate. Afleitch effectively took my thoughts in his preceding post. I entirely agree with him, no questions asked.
A Prime Minister that is elected, preferably in a way which I proposed for the universal system. This elected Prime Minister should then present his governments' agenda and cabinet and the House will be able to vote confidence.
The Prime Minister names his cabinet from wherever he wants. PiT's proposed committees could become these cabinet ministries, at best. Alternatively, merge a few of them into one to have a limited number to match the limited membership of Atlasia.
I still want parliamentary responsibility. And the opportunity for any house to vote a NCM at any time, which should then be approved by the other house.

If something along the lines of my and Afleitch's proposal could be accepted by the opponents of universalism, I feel that we have at our hands the key to a perfect compromise!

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)

The Senate should be, even though it's an archaic term and applied to the Canadian Senate, a chamber of sober second thought. I fully agree with you.

I have no serious problems with those ideas, Hashemite. :)

Though I have some minor quibbles with the similarities in Houses, it seems like a decent compromise. I also don't know how the Senate could be forced to be a more deliberative body, unless there is a certain mandated debate time we could implement, while freeing up the House to pass and propose things as swiftly as they please.

I vote Nay on the current vote, but this discussion has given me an idea that I think could further activity:

(Forget solid numbers right now for the upper house / Senate.)

Each person, when registering besides the name, state, and party, would select a committee. One could only change their committee in the "lame duck session" (two weeks between the election and the start of the new session).

The lower house would still be universal, but during the election, besides having an election for speaker of the house, elections could also be held for a chairman of each committee, similar to the ones mentioned earlier. (I would also support expanding the Cabinet to have a corresponding position to each committee.) We could allow everyone to vote on each chairman, or only those registered in each committee could vote on a chairman.

We could also allow the house to create or eliminate committees as they see fit. If so, the new committee would go into effect during the next session.

Anyone could introduce a bill on any subject. It would be referred to a committee (assigned by the speaker perhaps?) and would have to pass a committee before being voted on by the full house. Once a bill passes one house, it would have to go to the other, and we could have conference to reconcile differences between two versions.

We would also have to determine the power of the speaker so they would not have too little or too much power.

Lost me there.

     I agree with this. If the Senate could be more of a stately, deliberative body while the Parliament more of a down & dirty place where people jockey for party power, I think that could be quite a positive design for Atlasia's government.

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

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

What discussion?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Nay

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.


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.

Aye

aye

Aye

Aye... I think.

Aye.

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

Nope

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

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

Nay

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

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

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.

Aye

Nay

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!

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.

Nay

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?

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.

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 :(

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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

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

()
Red: 36
Blue: 36
Green: 38

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.

So you want detail on how all that would work?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

I think that would be good. I can draw up a few maps of regions if you guys want me to.

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.

Well, I would say that that's an excellent point ;)

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.


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.

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.

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

     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.

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.

Sounds great, what is the next step?

I'm going to wait for some comment by other delegates and hopefully bring it to a vote tomorrow afternoon or night.

Sounds like a plan.

If there is no further discussion of the above text by later tonight I will be calling a vote.

I oppose it, as I've made clear earlier.

You still haven't explained how, if we allow dual office-holding, regions will serve as a drain on activity. At its lowest levels it serves simply as training grounds for new members. At its highest it can be a place of increased activity.

What's the issue? Even if they are dead it wouldn't hurt the federal level or the general game.

We're not going to allow dual office holding though. It's pretty clear that that's incredibly unpopular.

Is it? I haven't heard an uproar of dissent on it. The Amendment in the Senate didn't pass, but this is rethinking the entire system. With increased seats in the federal government dual office holding on some level will likely be necessary.

Fair enough. I bring the following motion to a vote of the Convention. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain. The vote shall be open for 48 hours, at precisely 9:15pm EST on Wednesday, April 15th. I will be away at that time for the end of Passover, but certification will not include any votes after that time.

Aye

Nope (opposition to regions, etc.  don't have a problem with dual office holding)

If you have no problem with dual office holding why are you anti-region?

Nay

nay

I have to concur, what exactly are you making opposition over? If you agree with allowing dual office holding what is the point of opposing regions, and furthermore, why would you even care about dual office holding if there are no offices to hold dually? Seems like a silly thing to make opposition over in my opinion.

We can always revise regional issues at a later date via constitutional amendments, we don't need to start by abolishing them altogether right away. Reducing the number of regions and allowing dual office holding is the last best option for giving hope to regional governance.

There was a time when I thought that reducing the number of regions was a good idea, but it has since become clear that the regional system of government is unsustainable. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the relatively marginal increase in average regional population which regional reduction will create will result in any increased activity.

All efforts at regional regeneration in recent years have seen an initial burst of procedural related activity which dissipates gradually into stagnancy. The latest example is in the Mideast. There is no doubt that the more active partipants there are keen to try and make the project work, but it is clearly becoming harder there to generate legislation and almost impossible to generate interest (as demonstrated a few times now when vacancies/elections have arisen). It is a cycle which has repeated itself again and again.

Because there's no reason for their existence, just as Jas has stated.  But, when the regions are inevitably kept, I would prefer we see dual office-holding, so that competent people aren't sucked into the void of regional government (or, more optimistically, to allow for a wider distribution of active citizens, so that things can happen within regional government).

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?

That's a fair assessment. I was unsure how people would view that, unfortunately no one posts their thoughts. They simply vote and then dissent.

We really need greater participation to get something going here.

Nay, on general principle that Regions are a bad idea

NAY for the reasons outlined by Afleitch.

Fair enough. I am going to do what I did last time, stop the current vote on the motion and allow you all to actually discuss things and work it out now.

Work on a compromise, have some substantive discussion, and actually get something done guys. It's impossible to move forward if no one contributes their thoughts until the time comes to vote.

It seems to me that all the delegate are so willing to vote out ideas, but no delegate want to put ideas out there. I mean we can't even get the delegates to participate and people are pushing for Universalism.

I'll get much more active again next week....my apologies, but I don't have all that much time until then as I'm back in the US visiting with family. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Nay ftr

Nay, for what Afleitch has said and I support keeping 5 regions.

nay

Nay

Nay FTR, for the reasons outlined by Afleitch as well. If we are to have regions, they should be free to choose their own type of government.

Nay

-no dual office holding
-stagnant regions
-no mandatory assembly

What if we change it to this?

Fixed regional boundaries.
Regions choose whatever gov't they want, Assembly or lack thereof.

I think it still encroaches too much on regional autonomy. Regions should be allowed to choose whatever type of government they please. Doing so will encourage more participation in regional government and thereby foment activity.

No it wouldn't, right now we can make our own government for the regions and all but one are dead. My Assembly idea is the best way to get people active in regional government, but people shot that down.

     Partially because regions should decide on their government. If the citizens of one region want to be run as a monarchy, they should have the ability to do so. Besides, if another, better alternative avails itself they should not be locked into having regional assemblies.

I agree...what goes on in a region is the region's business. It doesn't even necessarily need to have a government if it doesn't want to.

But the point of this is to get more people active right? Well, the best way to do that is to have something they can get active in. If we have assemblies where citizens can help form bills they will stick around and become more active. Like when I came here, if there wasn't an assembly where I could be active in, I would have left. This isn't about giving each region the right to pick their government, it is about trying to bring more active members to the board.

I agree with Dan. While I generally side with allowing regions to determine how they will govern themselves on their own, if we don't set out some sort of very basic standards towards regional governance, they'll be terribly inactive and useless to new citizens. If we set up some general guidelines towards regional government structure then at least there will be a consistent framework for people to stay active in.

But you're assuming there's some secret formula this convention can prescribe that will help regions be active. I don't think there is. Giving regions the freedom to choose their own form of government will allow them to experiment and discover the best alternatives. I think constraining them to a division of powers model is more likely to create inactivity than setting no standards.

I think there are merits to both ideas. Could we compromise on a clause that states, "Each region shall form for itself a democratic body best conducive for the service and representation of its citizens."

I would say I am willing to throw in a line stating that, "The federal government shall not encroach upon the sovereign right of regions to apportion federal funding and act independently in matters not involving the common welfare."

Of course, this is all for discussion by you guys.

I fail to see why the activity of the regions couldn't simply be channeled into an expanded federal government.

What will citizens uninvolved in the federal government directly do with their time? Regions give them a possible outlet for that. Without any possibilities of regional activity it just further removes people from the game. At least regions give the option to get involved on some level, a way to gain a reputation and experience in the game. Otherwise what is there?

1) What will people not involved in either do with their time? (proponents of regions keep making arguments for universalism! ;))  The best way to keep people from being removed from the game is ensuring that they can always play a part in it.

2) But with a significantly expanded federal government and the regional governments abolished, wouldn't the norm then to get oneself elected to a federal government slot right away if one is interested in participating?  Perhaps we could stage elections at closer time intervals or rotate through spots more frequently, to allow n00bs in more quickly.  I mean, $Dan$ is new, but he seems to have had no problem jumping right into the constitutional convention.

We don't really have enough types of players to really support a tiered activity system, and even if you think we do perhaps this could be a component of the lower/upper house division; one of the chambers could serve as the experience that is the same as your idea of what the regional experience should be, and the other could be similar to what the federal government is now. 

3) I still haven't heard a rebuttal to my point that regions don't have a purpose.  You have to make people want to get elected, and if they get elected only to have the opportunity to have a shiny title... well... that's basically what exists now.

I am not arguing against universalism here, nor do I deny it has merits. But we are working with this proposal, not a universalist one, so when you vote in this thread it should be to make this the best proposal it can be. You don't seem to understand that we are supposed to develop all the proposals well, not push one agenda while attempting to stunt the others.


Noobs would likely be confused or intimidated by the process and veteran members. Not to mention people will inevitably lose elections. What are they to do in the months before elections?


The purpose of regions is to orient new members, provide an entirely separate outlet for current members, and to simply have the grassroots element of Atlasia thrive. Even if regions aren't active at times, the fact that they are at any time is better than not even giving them the chance. I must have repeated this five times now and then you come back saying I didn't explain my point.

To make it clearer, without regions there is no mechanism to orient new members, no system to provide experience to new members, and nowhere for new members to be introduced to the members and functions of the game in a more informal setting. Sure the regions may not be so active all the time, but the chance that they may, at any point, be active and fulfill some of the roles I believe they can is worth keeping them around.

Look, I was just making a point that, in the debate on regions, there is an alternative to regions that satisfies many of the arguments you're making here.  I've been stating my support of abolitionism for months now, so you shouldn't be so paranoid about my intentions in this thread; it's been clear for a while that (barring my idea to break up the federal government) I do honestly believe it's the best policy to eliminate regions.

Besides, isn't proposing a viable alternative more constructive than simply saying "no" over and over again?


Well, people will inevitably lose elections on the regional level, too, unless you somehow make enough positions that people are guaranteed to win elections.  But that's counterproductive: what's the point of unopposed elections?

Besides, why do you assume that adding more positions on the regional level will be more conducive to this idea than adding more positions on the federal level?


$Dan$ seems to be oriented just fine.  So have all sorts of n00bs: you, Marokai, and other have all jumped into the policy-making process right away upon entering Atlasia.  If anything, n00bs are more active than we old players, because you honestly think that things can be changed for the better in the Fantasy section.  My problem isn't that you haven't stated your objectives for regions well; my problem is that you still haven't presented the regions as a particularly gripping alternative to unitary governance.  In a unitary government, there is no reason why the national government shouldn't help orient new members; there is no reason that the national government shouldn't provide experience for new players; there is no reason for the national government to not be that informal setting.

You use me, $Dan$, and Marokai as examples. Both myself and $Dan$ were first active on the regional level. My appointment to the Mideast Assembly was the only thing that kept me active and caring. $Dan$ has both an active Mideast and this Convention which is a great opportunity to start, during the actual formation of the process.

I have no problem with no regions for universalist proposals, but regions are clearly beneficial, at some level, for a game where not everyone has a say on the federal level.

But you presume that you would not have become active on the federal level right if there were no regional governments.  I don't know why that would be the case.  If there are no regional governments, it's not like people interested in being active will have no idea what to do; they'll just go right to the federal level.  Even without universalism, we could just make it easier for people to do so (like I mentioned, perhaps with more frequent elections or more positions) and there won't be any issues.

And, sorry, I forgot to explain myself better when I said that regions are pointless.  I was referring to something a bit more specific than activity and such.  IRL, national subunits exist because it is presumed that certain functions are better performed on those levels than they would be at the national level.  Municipalities, for instance, are given some control over local schools because it's thought that local control leads to better performance.  In Atlasia we don't have this problem, which is reason number one why regions are unimportant: most of the things that are ruled over by states (e.g. education) aren't issues in Atlasia because, well, we don't really have any students, or any way to simulate such a system.  Consequently, regions essentially have only the powers to regulate only those things surrendered to them by the national government, because the regions have essentially no powers that cannot be done by the national government.  All that's left for the regions are the powers to regulate, say, their state mottos, or their capitals (witness the Dirty South!), or the election regulations for the powerless positions they are allowed to create.

So maybe under this proposal we should give regional offices some check on or involvement in federal power. Of course, that can only be done once we have a provision allowing regions which is why this article was the first proposed.

I think the Upper House will be check enough; having an upper house and a lower house and regions with some veto power and and and... would just lead to stagnation.

I think it would be wise to begin working on this from the offices first, before we move on to holdovers like regions, Bill of Rights, etc.

We can always go back and amend these as things come up, but it would be best to get the real body of the proposal fleshed out. Anyone want to write up an article or two?

I can try to write something tomorrow, I'm to sleepy to write on right now.

I'll write something up if I have to. Someone has to rise up and counter (again) the recycled and dangerous universalist proposals floating towards the top yet again.

Is there any specific order?

Oh, sorry. Didn't realise we were no longer allowed to talk about ideas.

Article _: The Congress of Atlasia

Section 1: Formation of the Senate

1. Any person who is registered as a citizen of Atlasia, has more then two hundred posts and doesn't hold any other office in Atlasia shall eligible to hold a Senate Seat in Atlasia.

2. The Senate shall be made up of five members, one elected from each region. ( If we have three regions then one from each region and two at-large)

 3. The Senate shall elect a PPT who shall be responsible for chairing debate that occurs within the Senate and managing every day business.

Section 2: Formation of the House

1. Any person who is registered as a citizen of Atlasia, has more then one hundred posts and does not hold a Federal or Head of Region office shall be eligible to hold a House Seat in Atlasia.

2. The House shall be made up of fifteen members, three elected from each region. (If we have three regions then three from each region and six at-large)

3.  The House shall elect a Speaker of the House who shall be responsible for chairing debate that occurs within the House and managing every day business.
   i. The SoH must be a member of the party who has the most members in the House.

---

Some one needs to just add the powers of the Senate and House and we are on our way.

?!? You can't even run if you hold another office? Jesus Christ.


See above.


I don't see why a guy that only chairs debate and does day to day procedural stuff should be a partisan position.

I worded that wrong, I was trying to say you can't hold two office if you are a senator. But you could be a House member and hold another office as long as it isn't a senate or head of state(governor).


That can be changed, I just think it would spice things up.

I changed it from run to hold.

     I don't see any reason why the powers of Congress should be any different from what they are under the current Constitution.

I was thinking the same thing, but maybe giving the Senate more power then the House, or something like that. I'm not good at make the powers out. If anyone wants to make that out it would be great.

Article _: The Congress of Atlasia

Section 1: Formation of the Senate

1. Any person who is registered as a citizen of Atlasia, has more then two hundred posts and doesn't hold any other office in Atlasia shall be eligible to hold a Senate Seat in Atlasia.

2. The Senate shall be made up of five members, one elected from each region. ( If we have three regions then one from each region and two at-large)

 3. The Senate shall elect a PPT who shall be responsible for chairing debate that occurs within the Senate and managing every day business.

Section 2: Formation of the House

1. Any person who is registered as a citizen of Atlasia, has more then one hundred posts and does not hold a Federal or Head of Region office shall be eligible to hold a House Seat in Atlasia.

2. The House shall be made up of fifteen members, three elected from each region. (If we have three regions then three from each region and six at-large)

3.  The House shall elect a Speaker of the House who shall be responsible for chairing debate that occurs within the House and managing every day business.

Section 3 . Powers of the Congress
[insert the current Article 1, Section 5 here]

Section 4. Powers denied to the Congress
[insert the current Article 1, Section 6 here]

Section 5. Powers denied to the Regions
[insert the current Article 1, Section 7 here]
But change Section 7 number 2 of Article 1 to the following:
"No Region can issues coins/currencies or repeal coins/currencies issues by the Congree of Atlasia."

---

How is that?

Finally, someone has produced a proto-constitution that I have no objections to!!!

Thanks $Dan$!

That seems like something we can work with. Needs to be more hashed out, but a good start.

What needs to be changed? I can work with it.

In "Powers Denied to the Regions" I hope we could alter the existing article a bit to include more clarification towards regions creating their own currencies, considering the recent court battle fought over the topic.

Also, has anyone seen my brief mention of a "Department of Statistics" idea on the other board? I know it's a bit of an out-there idea, but it would be interesting to have a bit more structure towards individual fantasyland rules and could create occasional fictional issues or crises that the government would have to develop solutions for.

I added something about the currencies.

Just needs more detail. Something like this:

Article 1: The Congress of Atlasia

Section 1: Formation of the Senate
1. The Senate shall be composed of five Senators, each with a term of six months. All Senators shall be elected from the Regions. ( If we have three regions then one from each region and two at-large)
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 Vice President and who shall manage the everyday business of the Senate.
4. The Vice 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 fifteen Represtatives, each with a term of two months. All Representatives shall be elected from the Regions. (If we have three regions then three from each region and six at-large)
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 Congress
1. Elections for the Senate shall be held in the months of January and July; 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 third Friday of a given month and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later.
3. If a vacancy shall occur in the House, then the Governor of that Representative's Region shall appoint a person to fill the remainder of that term.
4. 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 Congressional elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to Congress shall be by public post.
6. 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 5: Powers of the Congress (with some small edits later)
[insert the current Article 1, Section 5 here]

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

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

That is great, but are we going to have a VP under this plan?

I imagine so. It seems weird to have a President without a VP. It also extends a sort of check by the President. We could also leave the VP-Senate relationship to the PM, but I would like someone independent of the Senate to have this power. The PM will have his own stuff.

Oh ok, I really don't know how Parliamentary work and what they have, but I guess we can make it how we want.

What would be the use of a President, a Vice President, and Prime Minister? The PM is the head of government, the President will probably end up ceremonial, but the VP? Is it really wise to have that many roles in government?

I'll oppose any plan for this setup VP. If you want a VP, vote for presidential parliamentarian.

So what is your proposal for President of the Senate? Should we use the Dean, which would be an already elected member?

Why not the President or PM?

President already has veto power and PM will have been involved in the vote. It's up to how much overlap you are all willing to tolerate.

A President of the Senate elected from the ranks of the Senate that holds that post and no other. Like the President of the French Senate.

Article 2: The Government

Section 1.
1. The head of government of the Republic of Atlasia shall be a Prime Minister.
2. The Government shall consist of the Prime Minister and Ministers.

Section 2: Election of the Prime Minister
1. The Prime Minister shall be elected by the membership of the (Lower House/Upper House/joint sitting of Congress) after every election to the legislature or after a government has fallen.
2. No Person shall be eligible to become a candidate for the office of Prime Minister who has not attained two hundred (or 150) or more posts, is not a member of Congress, and is not a registered voter in the Region that they represent.
3. In order to be a candidate, a person must be endorsed by 3 other (MPs only/Senators only/both).
4. The body electing the Prime Minister casts their votes in a public thread.
5. If a candidate has received half plus one of the votes cast, he/she is deemed elected.
6. If no candidate has received half plus one of the votes cast in the first round of voting, the lowest-placed candidate for Prime Minister is eliminated before a second round of voting is held.
7. The conditions in Clause 5 continue until a candidate has received half plus one of the votes cast, at which time he/she is deemed elected.
8. Upon the election of a Prime Minister, the Prime Minister-elect, in a speech to the (Lower House/Upper House/joint sitting of Congress) presents his government's agenda for the parliamentary term.
9. Upon conclusion of this speech, the members of the (Lower House/Upper House/joint sitting of Congress) vote in a confidence vote to the Prime Minister and his agenda, which requires half plus one of all votes cast to pass.

Section 3: The Cabinet
1. Upon a favourable response from the (Lower House/Upper House/joint sitting of Congress) in the confidence vote outlined in Section 1, Clause 8, the Prime Minister names his cabinet [opt: from the ranks of his coalition].
2. No Person shall be eligible to become a cabinet official who has not attained two hundred or more posts, and is not a registered voter in the Region that they represent.
3. A Member of Government shall hold no other paid position in a profession, business or on the executive board of a corporation.
4. The cabinet posts will be determined in an organic law following the adoption of this Constitution.
5. The Government is responsible to Congress. Any cabinet member may ask to address the legislature at any time.
6. The Prime Minister may dismiss any Minister at his discretion.
7. A Member of Government may not engage in any activity the nature whereof contradicts the performance of his office.

Section 4: Motion of No-Confidence
1. A Member of Congress may move a motion of no-confidence in the sitting government.
[optional: 2. No Motions of No-Confidence shall be moved during any Federal Election or one week before the end of the Congress' term.]
2. The Member of Congress or Caucus moving the said motion shall have the right to explain his decision before members of the (LH/UH/Both).
3. The Prime Minister or a Person delegated by the Prime Minister shall have the right to oppose the said motion in a speech before members of the (LH/UH/Both).
4. When the conditions set out in Clauses 2 and 3 have been met, the members of the (LH/UH/Both) shall vote for, against, or abstain the Motion of No-Confidence.
5. A Motion of No-Confidence requires the approval of half plus one of all attending voting members.
6. If the (LH/UH/Both) vote a Motion of No-Confidence in the Government, the Government and the Prime Minister shall resign within twenty-four hours.
7. Upon resignation of the Prime Minister, the (LH/UH/Both) shall elect a Prime Minister from the conditions set out in Article

Article 3: The President

Section 1:
1. The head of state of the Republic of Atlasia shall be a President.

Section 2: Election of the President
1. The President shall be elected by the citizens of the Republic of Atlasia in direct elections by secret ballot for a four-month term. The right to elect the President have the citizens who are eligible to vote in election to the Congress.
2. No person shall be President who has not attained 250 or more posts, and is not a registered voter.

Section 3: Powers of the President (largely stolen from the Slovak Constitution)
1. The President shall represent Atlasia in international relations, negotiate and ratify international agreements; he can delegate the power to the Government or, with the consent of the Government, to individual members of the Government to negotiate those international agreements.
2. The President shall sign and veto laws. His veto may be overturned as described in Article 1, Section 3, Clause 2.
3. The President shall appoint justices to the Supreme Court, with the approve of the (LH/UH/both).
4. The President shall award decorations and honors, unless another authority has been delegated by him to do so.
5. The President shall grant pardons and amnesty, mitigate sentences imposed by criminal courts.
6. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
7. The President shall declare a state of emergency by means of a constitutional statute;
8. The President shall announce referendums and Constitutional Conventions.

---

I don't have the sophisticated constitutional lingo, so feel free to add that in as long as you don't stray from my original intent.

The only thing I don't like is the secret ballot. I think it would take away the fun in elections.

I would like to also give the President his own legislation slot and the power to dismiss the Parliament every so often. Perhaps once per term. He also needs to be impeachable and have term limits (of course, I know many disagree with that last one).

I agree with Dan...I'm no fan of the secret ballot.

Thanks for noticing. Secret ballot was a typo, I just copied that stuff from the current constitution, and it looks like it read "secret ballot" for some reason. Sorry for the confusion, I'm no fan of secret ballot either!


I have no qualms with presidential term limits (emphasis on presidential) and impeachment. If we give the Prez dissolution powers, we need to decide if it dissolves the whole Congress or just one house. I recommend that these dissolution powers be significantly guided and scripted to occur only in special circumstances (ministerial crises).

Since this is a parliamentary regime we're proposing, slots for legislation need to be given in priority to the government parties, the opposition, and a few for PMBs. Whatever is left can be given to the Prez.

Term limits = :(

     Aye. Kids, just say no to term limits.

What about consecutive term limits?

     If someone wants to run & is otherwise eligible, to forbid them that right is undemocratic.

I believe in term limits... I call them "elections"

Revised.

Article 3: The President

Section 1:
1. The head of state of the Republic of Atlasia shall be a President.

Section 2: Election of the President
1. The President shall be elected by the citizens of the Republic of Atlasia in direct elections by public vote for a four-month term. The right to elect the President have the citizens who are eligible to vote in election to the Congress.
2. No person shall be President who has not attained 250 or more posts, and is not a registered voter.

Section 3: Powers of the President (largely stolen from the Slovak Constitution)
1. The President shall represent Atlasia in international relations, negotiate and ratify international agreements; he can delegate the power to the Government or, with the consent of the Government, to individual members of the Government to negotiate those international agreements.
2. The President shall sign and veto laws. His veto may be overturned as described in Article 1, Section 3, Clause 2.
3. The President shall appoint justices to the Supreme Court, with the approve of the (LH/UH/both).
4. The President shall award decorations and honors, unless another authority has been delegated by him to do so.
5. The President shall grant pardons and amnesty, mitigate sentences imposed by criminal courts.
6. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
7. The President shall declare a state of emergency by means of a constitutional statute;
8. The President shall announce referendums and Constitutional Conventions.

Section 4: Vacancy
1. If the Presidency shall ever fall vacant, the President of the Senate shall become President and new elections for President will be held within one month. If the Presidency of the Senate is also vacant, then the Speaker of the House shall become President and new elections for President will be held within one month.

I think stuff on impeachment are better under Article I (Legislature).

I agree in principle, but I don't see the problem with forbidding people from holding a certain number of consecutive terms. It gets more people involved in the game, if there's too many people getting elected over and over.

I'm fine either way honestly, but I can see the fairness in consecutive term limits as a tool to increase participation if necessary

Marokai is right. I think it is important that we remember this is a game, not real life, and therefore encouraging activity is sometimes more important than adhering to real-world political principles. Some sort of term-limits would get more people involved and wouldn't be too much of an encroachment on political rights.

Purple State, can we go ahead and put the first three Articles together and have a vote on them to get things moving alone.

I agree with Daniel. Why I'm strongly opposed to term limits in real life, this is a game, and they think they serve a purpose here.

Article 1: The Congress of Atlasia

Section 1: Formation of the Senate
1. The Senate shall be composed of five Senators, each with a term of six months. All Senators shall be elected from the Regions. ( If we have three regions then one from each region and two at-large)
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 fifteen Represtatives, each with a term of two months. All Representatives shall be elected from the Regions. (If we have three regions then three from each region and six at-large)
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 Congress
1. Elections for the Senate shall be held in the months of January and July; 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 third Friday of a given month and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later.
3. If a vacancy shall occur in the House, then the Governor of that Representative's Region shall appoint a person to fill the remainder of that term.
4. 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 Congressional elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to Congress shall be by public post.
6. 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 5: Powers of the Congress (with some small edits later)
[insert the current Article 1, Section 5 here]

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

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

Article 2: The Government

Section 1.
1. The head of government of the Republic of Atlasia shall be a Prime Minister.
2. The Government shall consist of the Prime Minister and Ministers.

Section 2: Election of the Prime Minister
1. The Prime Minister shall be elected by the membership of the (Lower House/Upper House/joint sitting of Congress) after every election to the legislature or after a government has fallen.
2. No Person shall be eligible to become a candidate for the office of Prime Minister who has not attained two hundred (or 150) or more posts, is not a member of Congress, and is not a registered voter in the Region that they represent.
3. In order to be a candidate, a person must be endorsed by 3 other (MPs only/Senators only/both).
4. The body electing the Prime Minister casts their votes in a public thread.
5. If a candidate has received half plus one of the votes cast, he/she is deemed elected.
6. If no candidate has received half plus one of the votes cast in the first round of voting, the lowest-placed candidate for Prime Minister is eliminated before a second round of voting is held.
7. The conditions in Clause 5 continue until a candidate has received half plus one of the votes cast, at which time he/she is deemed elected.
8. Upon the election of a Prime Minister, the Prime Minister-elect, in a speech to the (Lower House/Upper House/joint sitting of Congress) presents his government's agenda for the parliamentary term.
9. Upon conclusion of this speech, the members of the (Lower House/Upper House/joint sitting of Congress) vote in a confidence vote to the Prime Minister and his agenda, which requires half plus one of all votes cast to pass.

Section 3: The Cabinet
1. Upon a favourable response from the (Lower House/Upper House/joint sitting of Congress) in the confidence vote outlined in Section 1, Clause 8, the Prime Minister names his cabinet [opt: from the ranks of his coalition].
2. No Person shall be eligible to become a cabinet official who has not attained two hundred or more posts, and is not a registered voter in the Region that they represent.
3. A Member of Government shall hold no other paid position in a profession, business or on the executive board of a corporation.
4. The cabinet posts will be determined in an organic law following the adoption of this Constitution.
5. The Government is responsible to Congress. Any cabinet member may ask to address the legislature at any time.
6. The Prime Minister may dismiss any Minister at his discretion.
7. A Member of Government may not engage in any activity the nature whereof contradicts the performance of his office.

Section 4: Motion of No-Confidence
1. A Member of Congress may move a motion of no-confidence in the sitting government.
[optional: 2. No Motions of No-Confidence shall be moved during any Federal Election or one week before the end of the Congress' term.]
2. The Member of Congress or Caucus moving the said motion shall have the right to explain his decision before members of the (LH/UH/Both).
3. The Prime Minister or a Person delegated by the Prime Minister shall have the right to oppose the said motion in a speech before members of the (LH/UH/Both).
4. When the conditions set out in Clauses 2 and 3 have been met, the members of the (LH/UH/Both) shall vote for, against, or abstain the Motion of No-Confidence.
5. A Motion of No-Confidence requires the approval of half plus one of all attending voting members.
6. If the (LH/UH/Both) vote a Motion of No-Confidence in the Government, the Government and the Prime Minister shall resign within twenty-four hours.
7. Upon resignation of the Prime Minister, the (LH/UH/Both) shall elect a Prime Minister from the conditions set out in Article

Article 3: The President

Section 1:
1. The head of state of the Republic of Atlasia shall be a President.

Section 2: Election of the President
1. The President shall be elected by the citizens of the Republic of Atlasia in direct elections by public vote for a four-month term. The right to elect the President have the citizens who are eligible to vote in election to the Congress.
2. No person shall be President who has not attained 250 or more posts, and is not a registered voter.

Section 3: Powers of the President (largely stolen from the Slovak Constitution)
1. The President shall represent Atlasia in international relations, negotiate and ratify international agreements; he can delegate the power to the Government or, with the consent of the Government, to individual members of the Government to negotiate those international agreements.
2. The President shall sign and veto laws. His veto may be overturned as described in Article 1, Section 3, Clause 2.
3. The President shall appoint justices to the Supreme Court, with the approve of the (LH/UH/both).
4. The President shall award decorations and honors, unless another authority has been delegated by him to do so.
5. The President shall grant pardons and amnesty, mitigate sentences imposed by criminal courts.
6. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
7. The President shall declare a state of emergency by means of a constitutional statute;
8. The President shall announce referendums and Constitutional Conventions.

Section 4: Vacancy
1. If the Presidency shall ever fall vacant, the President of the Senate shall become President and new elections for President will be held within one month. If the Presidency of the Senate is also vacant, then the Speaker of the House shall become President and new elections for President will be held within one month.

That is everything we have so far.

     I could get behind a limit of two consecutive terms along with no limit on total terms.

That seems reasonable to me.

Delegates, I bring the following motion to a vote of the Convention:

Article 1: The Congress of Atlasia

Section 1: Formation of the Senate
1. The Senate shall be composed of five Senators, each with a term of six months. All Senators shall be elected from the Regions. ( If we have three regions then one from each region and two at-large)
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 fifteen Represtatives, each with a term of two months. All Representatives shall be elected from the Regions. (If we have three regions then three from each region and six at-large)
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 Congress
1. Elections for the Senate shall be held in the months of January and July; 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 third Friday of a given month and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later.
3. If a vacancy shall occur in the House, then the Governor of that Representative's Region shall appoint a person to fill the remainder of that term.
4. 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 Congressional elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to Congress shall be by public post.
6. 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 5: Powers of the Congress (with some small edits later)
[insert the current Article 1, Section 5 here]

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

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

The motion shall be open for 48 hours or until a clear majority have voted to pass or reject the motion. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

---

I want some more time to look at the other two articles and make them more concrete/better worded. I will put them up whenever the vote on this article concludes.

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.

Aye

Duly noted. This is why I wanted to look over the other two articles before bringing them to a vote.

Aye, I guess, though I really think that electing people from the regions is a bad idea. Which elections are currently more exciting and competitive, our national Senate elections or our regional Senate elections? Often we're lucky if more than one person runs for a regional seat.

Things can be edited later on. It's important that we get something no. Clearly no guarantee that regions will even exist.

Nay. Draft a version without Regions and then add them in later if the Convention supports them. Starting out with Regions in the plan biases it towards the introduction of Regions.

Wouldn't it be unbiased as it maintains the status quo? Rather than a blatant change that shows bias towards the no-region people?

Oh, come now... no matter which way you set it, you are automatically biasing it against one way or another.  We're looking for the best possible solution here.

This is just a Draft that can be changed. Our goal right now is to get a draft of all three so we can make a vote it them, I believe. Once we know which one we will use we can edit it more. It is going to be very hard to try to find three different constitutionals that everyone agree on.

Aye

No. It is always less biased to build up from minimalism than to "build down", so to speak, regardless of what the issue is under consideration.

You might say, for example, that it would be less biased towards any constitutional position to start with the current Constitution and modify from there than it is to begin with a new Constitution. But that would be false; beginning with the current Constitution as a base would bias the Convention towards a Constitution more strongly resembling the current Constitution.

Well, lets vote for this and if it passes then we can have a vote on taking the Regions out.

I suggest the regions vote go first, since the part about the regions is included in the outline you are about to vote on. However, it is a good idea to vote on the regions and the actual outline separately.

aye

There are plenty of people here who support retaining regions, in some form or another, including myself. Either way you're probably going to end up voting on the issue, since the people who oppose it will want them ripped out and the people who support them will want to retain them/put them back in.

As for the vote; Aye, but I want some discussion on the possibility of adding consecutive term limits.

     Aye

That's not my point. Inserting them in the original proposal is biased in favor of retaining them. I know we're going to vote on it at some point.


You're totally ignoring my point. It is always easier to insert a provision than to remove one. Therefore, adding extra, unnecessary provisions, like Regions, bias the proposal in favor of the introduction of Regions. It's a basic principle of drafting that you start simple. This proposal is not doing so, and I won't stand for it.

Final Tally
Aye = 9
Nay = 1

Quorum: Achieved (barely, cmon guys)
Motion PASSES

---

If someone would like to write up an impeachment section that would be great.

I would like for this to be replaced with the current Article I.

     I second that reaction. Such a move would make this neither parliamentary nor bicameral.

I think all he did was change the way elections work for the House...

     Oh. I'm slightly confused now.

Yea I just split the House into four groups, A, B, C and D.  I know some people wanted it to have no regions, so I made this one for the sole purpose of no regions.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

Well guys what do you think?

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.

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.

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.

     I pretty much agree with Hashemite.


     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.

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.

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

We would have to make sure to part the instructions part in big, bold letters. I wouldn't want butterfly ballot complaints. But that is a very interesting proposal. I could live with that. Should we draft a new version of Article I using that method and no regionally elected seats?

Lets see what everyone else says first. Also if you don't mind tomorrow I would like to write up another way we could elect them by parties. We can see which one people like better and go from there. If you don't mind of course.

I simply asked that something be written up so we could view it in writing. I have no problem with anyone presenting anything. I won't be bringing a vote until we have weighed the options. Plus, I just run the voting and direct discussion. You're a delegate so feel free to present whatever you want whenever you want to.

I truly don't like the idea of voting on the basis of just checking a box and supporting that Party. It seems to me that it would make elections very boring and would make the party system much more stale and skewed in favor of parties that can just recruit a lot of people, instead of putting forward good candidates. Let me try to explain, the way we have it now, we vote for individual candidates, and because of this there are often swing voters from certain parties shifting over into others, some candidates doing poorly because of their quality, and parties rise and fall on the basis of the candidates they have.

It seems to me that if you change the system to something that allows just checking a party box, you could bypass that altogether. Elections essentially become a race for certain parties to get out their vote, and it's not an entirely irrational thing to suggest that most people would favor their party over others, for obvious reasons. Elections could quite easily just fall down the party line each and every time. (I realize this happens often now, but people can still split there vote between individual candidates, instead of having their support stuck to undetermined candidates of a certain party.)

Just voting for a party is too vague, too. Certain parties like the DA can differ wildly from center right, to center left, and the JCP has some economic conservatives as well as strong economic leftists. If we base it off a strictly "vote for party, party picks their people to fill the positions" system, no one is going to know who the hell they're voting for.

I like our current system of voting for individual candidates, and I don't like the idea of making larger parties destroy other parties simply by a get out the vote campaign, instead of individuals campaigning on their own merits to get elected. I realize under this system there would be a lot of people to elect, but I don't like the idea of just checking a party box. If people want to vote for a party, they can do so anyway.

But if we're going to change the voting system, let's at least just pick one way of voting, and not make it even more confusing to others. There's no need for 2+ voting methods.

But nobody is forced to vote for a party under the system proposed by Smid, you still have the clear choice.

I don't think it's too much to ask of voters that they read the instructions provided to them on how to vote.

I just realized, as the current Article I stands, it really doesn't seem very parliamentary at all. I am going to, later in the day, put up two proposals to edit it: one that makes it less parliamentary (Dan's idea revised) and one to return it back to parliamentary (adding clauses about dissolution, etc.).

I will bring those up for a vote at some point today or tomorrow as a motion between the two or NOTA and see what we end up with.

I'm sorry, I'll do better next time.

Here is the proposal making Article I more parliamentarian:

Article 1: The Congress of Atlasia

Section 1: Formation of the Senate
1. The Senate shall be composed of five Senators, each with a term of six months. All Senators shall be elected by national public post.
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 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 fifteen Representatives, each with a term of two months. All Representatives shall be elected by national public post.
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.

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. A joint session of Congress shall be convened for the appointment of a Speaker of Congress at the beginning of each session of Congress, or upon the resignation or removal of the current Speaker, from among the current members of Congress. The Speaker shall be elected by a simple majority of the joint session and shall serve the dual role of President of the Senate in the absence of the President, who shall manage the everyday business of the Senate, and Speaker of the House, who shall be responsible for chairing debate that occurs within the House and for managing every day business.
4. 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 Congress
1. Each term of the Senate shall last no longer than six months from the date that members are eligible to be sworn into office; Each term of the House shall last no longer than two months from the date that members are eligible to be sworn into office.
2. Elections for each chamber shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on the second Friday following the dissolution of said chamber and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later.
3. If a vacancy shall occur in the House, the Chair of that Representative's Party shall appoint a person to fill the remainder of that term. If the Representative is registered as an independent, he shall be given the power to appoint his successor.
4. 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 Congressional elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to Congress shall be by public post.
6. 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 5: Dissolution of Congress
1. The power to dissolve Congress shall be divided as follows:
     a. The Speaker of Congress shall have the power to dissolve both chambers of Congress simultaneously by his recommendation through public post. The Speaker shall be allowed to exercise this power once every six months.
     b. The President of Atlasia shall have the power to dissolve any one chamber of Congress by his recommendation through public post. The President shall be allowed to exercise this power once every three months.
     c. The Congress of Atlasia shall have the power to dissolve both chambers of Congress by loss of a confidence motion on the Speaker. Such a motion shall automatically be brought to a vote upon recommendation, through public post, by five members of Congress. The motion shall require a vote by each chamber of Congress, respectively, to be carried or lost. In the event of a tie the motion shall be considered lost and Congress shall be dissolved. Confidence motions may be brought by the Congress once every two months.
     d. Upon the fulfillment of a chamber's respective term in office, said chamber shall be instantly considered dissolved.

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]

This is the less parliamentary version:

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 fifteen Representatives, each with a term of two months. All Representatives shall be elected by national party vote.
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 of each year.
2. Elections for each chamber shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on the third Friday of the 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 the second Friday following the vacancy 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 elections to the Senate and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to the Senate shall be by public post.
6. Those elected in ordinary elections to the Senate 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 second Friday of a given month and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later.
3. On the second Friday before elections, each party shall hold an internal, public election to determine a preferential list of members to be seated in the House based on the proportion of votes received by each party and the ordered preference of members.
4. The ballot for House elections shall consist of those parties officially recognized in Atlasia, as well as a list of independent candidates. Upon the conclusion of the election, the percentage of the vote received by each party and independent candidate shall be determined and reported by the Commissioner of Elections in public post. Seats shall be apportioned by the following formula: Total percentage of votes received divided by [100 divided by the total number of offices in the election]. Resulting numbers that are not integers shall be rounded to the nearest integer. If evenly split, the party with the greatest proportion of votes between those split shall receive the seat.
5. If a vacancy shall occur in the House, the Chair of that Representative's Party shall appoint a person to fill the remainder of that term. If the Representative is registered as an independent, he shall be given the power to appoint his successor.
6. The House shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of elections to the House and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to the House shall be by public post.
7. Those elected in ordinary elections to the House shall take office at noon Eastern Standard Time on the Friday following their election. Those appointed to vacancies in the House shall take office as soon as their appointment has been formally declared.
8. Each party shall have necessary power to determine regulations, procedure, and the form of internal elections. A party shall be considered a candidate for House elections upon fulfillment of all requirements outlined by this Constitution and the appropriate statute.

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]

I will provide one day of discussion and then I will bring these two to a vote of Option 1, Option 2, or NOTA.

I like the first one quite a bit, but I just have a one major issue as of now. I find the six months to be a bit steep for something like this, even if the Senate is supposed to be more powerful and prestigious, a half-year term just seems too long.

Otherwise this article is quite good, and I do hope we end up with three regions so we can have regional & at-large elections instead of purely regional ones.

As for the second, I'm not a fan of the voting system and the lack of any regional impact on elections whatsoever, so, opposed.

I support the parliamentary Option one, as this is Parliamentary Bicameralism.

However, I still want something about NCMs for the Prime Minister/government somewhere in the Constitution.

I simply took regions out of both (I believe I did) in order to put them both on equal footing. And the Senate can always be dissolved if it stops doing its job. I think it is important that there be a real incentive for the position.


There is a section on dissolution of the parliament and it includes a section on NCMs.

Maybe I misread, but that talks about NCMs on the Speaker, and not the Prime Minister or Government.

The Speaker is the PM (just different name) and it states that Congress must dissolve itself with the NCM, thereby removing the Speaker.

Where does that leave my proposed Article 2 on the Prime Minister, then?

I much rather like the name PM if we go parliamentary, instead of "Speaker".

Agreed, why arbitrarily change the name, anyway?

Why do we need conventional titles for it to qualify as the same idea? Looking at the recent thread by afleitch in the Government Board, people don't seem to be pushing hard for a European model. At least if that is what we are moving towards we can keep some remnants of American language. It really has no substantive effect on the Constitution whether we call the guy the Speaker or PM.

Parliamentarianism is not a "European" model ROFL.

"Prime Minister" just seems more appropriate for a parliamentary model, and people have a better understanding of what a PM is and does rather than a "Speaker." Which could mean a great deal of things. I think it makes sense and would be easier for people to "get" the system if we just called the position by the name literally anyone else would call it.

Voila.

Yes, especially because many parliaments have both a Prime Minister and a speaker, who perform very different roles.

I will clarify it when I bring it to a vote to include the powers of both in one (essentially stating he is called the PM, but may be referred to as the Speaker or PM). That way it is clear that there is no alternative Speaker, which could be a potential secondary problem.

Sounds good?

By the way, I am going to propose a fun new idea for the Judiciary when we get to that. I think this proposal gives us a nice way to change that whole system up. I will be bringing a motion to a vote in a few hours on the above proposals.

That sounds good to me. :)

Is it just me, or does it seem needlessly complicated that these proposals have two legislative bodies, with presiding officers over both, a President, and possibly regions?

They address the President peripherally, have one presiding officer over both legislative bodies, and don't mention regions at all. It may just be you...

I was talking more in terms of overall development of this proposal; the Articles given are more symptomatic of the complication than specifically problematic.

It doesn't seem any more muddled than the universalism proposal or our current system at this point. Government is complicated, but understanding it can be fun.

Option 1

Article 1: The Congress of Atlasia

Section 1: Formation of the Senate
1. The Senate shall be composed of five Senators, each with a term of six months. All Senators shall be elected by national public post.
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 President of the Republic of Atlasia shall be the President of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided. In the absence of the President, defined as 72 hours of inaction in Atlasia, the Prime Minister shall serve as interim President of the Senate until his return.

Section 2: Formation of the House
1. The House of Representatives, herein referred to as House, shall be made up of fifteen Representatives, each with a term of two months. All Representatives shall be elected by national public post.
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.

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. A joint session of Congress shall be convened for the appointment of a Prime Minister, herein referred to as the Speaker, at the beginning of each session of Congress, or upon the resignation or removal of the current Prime Minister, from among the current members of Congress. The Speaker shall be elected by a simple majority of the joint session and shall serve the role of Speaker of Congress, who shall be responsible for chairing debate that occurs within the Senate and House and for managing every day business in the two chambers.
4. 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 Prime Minister 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 Congress
1. Each term of the Senate shall last no longer than six months from the date that members are eligible to be sworn into office; Each term of the House shall last no longer than two months from the date that members are eligible to be sworn into office.
2. Elections for each chamber shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on the second Friday following the dissolution of said chamber and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later.
3. If a vacancy shall occur in the House, the Chair of that Representative's Party shall appoint a person to fill the remainder of that term. If the Representative is registered as an independent, he shall be given the power to appoint his successor.
4. 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 Congressional elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to Congress shall be by public post.
6. 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 5: Dissolution of Congress
1. The power to dissolve Congress shall be divided as follows:
     a. The Speaker shall have the power to dissolve both chambers of Congress simultaneously by his recommendation through public post. He shall be allowed to exercise this power once every six months.
     b. The President of Atlasia shall have the power to dissolve any one chamber of Congress by his recommendation through public post. The President shall be allowed to exercise this power once every three months.
     c. The Congress of Atlasia shall have the power to dissolve both chambers of Congress by loss of a confidence motion on the Speaker. Such a motion shall automatically be brought to a vote upon recommendation, through public post, by five members of Congress. The motion shall require a vote by each chamber of Congress, respectively, to be carried or lost. In the event of a tie the motion shall be considered lost and Congress shall be dissolved. Confidence motions may be brought by the Congress once every two months.
     d. Upon the fulfillment of a chamber's respective term in office, said chamber shall be instantly considered dissolved.

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]

Option 2

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 fifteen Representatives, each with a term of two months. All Representatives shall be elected by national party vote.
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 of each year.
2. Elections for each chamber shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on the third Friday of the 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 the second Friday following the vacancy 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 elections to the Senate and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to the Senate shall be by public post.
6. Those elected in ordinary elections to the Senate 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 second Friday of a given month and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later.
3. On the second Friday before elections, each party shall hold an internal, public election to determine a preferential list of members to be seated in the House based on the proportion of votes received by each party and the ordered preference of members.
4. The ballot for House elections shall consist of those parties officially recognized in Atlasia, as well as a list of independent candidates. Upon the conclusion of the election, the percentage of the vote received by each party and independent candidate shall be determined and reported by the Commissioner of Elections in public post. Seats shall be apportioned by the following formula: Total percentage of votes received divided by [100 divided by the total number of offices in the election]. Resulting numbers that are not integers shall be rounded to the nearest integer. If evenly split, the party with the greatest proportion of votes between those split shall receive the seat.
5. If a vacancy shall occur in the House, the Chair of that Representative's Party shall appoint a person to fill the remainder of that term. If the Representative is registered as an independent, he shall be given the power to appoint his successor.
6. The House shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of elections to the House and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to the House shall be by public post.
7. Those elected in ordinary elections to the House shall take office at noon Eastern Standard Time on the Friday following their election. Those appointed to vacancies in the House shall take office as soon as their appointment has been formally declared.
8. Each party shall have necessary power to determine regulations, procedure, and the form of internal elections. A party shall be considered a candidate for House elections upon fulfillment of all requirements outlined by this Constitution and the appropriate statute.

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]
[/quote]

I bring the following motion to a vote by the Convention delegates:

The current Article I shall be replaced by:

[] Option 1 (2 posts up)
[] Option 2 (1 post up)
[] NOTA (no change)

Please choose only one of the above choices. Voting shall be open for 48 hours.

~Presiding Officer Purple State

[X] Option 1
[  ] Option 2
[  ] NOTA (no change)

• Option 1 (2 posts up)

[] Option 2 (1 post up)
[] NOTA (no change)

Though I have some rather important issues with it.

[X] Option 1
[  ] Option 2
[  ] NOTA (no change)

• Option 1

[  ] Option 2
[  ] NOTA

Option 1

Option 1

Option 1

Option 1.

I really like Smid's proposals (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=94514.msg1986413#msg1986413) that he outlined in the universalism thread. I hope we could work out something similar here.

What in particular?

NOTA

Since most of you seem to be supporting Option 1, I'll point out some of my problems with it.

Five-member Senate elections every six months? Really? Twice a year?!?! No, this is an elections game and this is unacceptable. And don't think covert attempts to abolish regional Senate seats is going unnoticed.

Perhaps some will counter with the fact that we have Representative elections every two months. But 15 seats? Didn't we only have like, 6 candidates for Senate in December? Maybe 7 or so last April? What makes you people think there will actually be 15 people willing to run? What makes you think they'll be at all active? But more importantly, what makes you think a good number more than 15 will run? We would need at least say, 20 or so candidates every two months to make the elections competitive, fun, and interesting, and I'm telling you right now that I don't think that is going to happen.

Well, first off, I too think six month is a long time, but whatever. Also in April the parties were only willing to run a few members so that the vote wouldn't split each other. Also Mr. President, how about you give us some good ideas and stop putting down all the ideas. It isn't like you are that active in Atlasia anyways.

I agree with you on this, for the most part, but I believe the intent of the vote was whether we wanted a more parliamentary system or a less parliamentary system, and that we would be ironing out such differences at a later date.

First, 6 months is simply to make the Senate more appealing than the House. The houses can be dissolved plenty often so acting like 6 months is the only option is ridiculous.

Second, there is no covert attempt to abolish regions. I support regions myself. But considering when we voted on including an article on regions to this proposal you voted against it (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=94516.msg1968306#msg1968306), I would save your criticism for someone a little more sympathetic. You can't play both sides and expect to just prance along.

Third, the number of Reps is up for discussion and I wouldn't object to lowering it to 10 or so. Considering you have hardly contributed to the discussion of proposals thus far, I can't say I really get why you come in now with such fire.

Current Vote Totals
Option 1 = 9 (Marokai, Hashemite, $Dan$, PiT, Lief, ilikeverin, afleitch, Daniel Adams, Verily)
Option 2 = 0
NOTA = 1 (bgwah)

Quorum: Achieved
Time remaining: ~25 hours

Option 1

Option 1

Option 1

option 1

Option 1. Maybe a few minor changes here and there to it, but it's pretty good.

Final Vote Totals
Option 1 = 13 (Marokai, Hashemite, $Dan$, PiT, Lief, ilikeverin, afleitch, Daniel Adams, Verily, dead0man, Franzl, AndrewCT, Smid)
Option 2 = 0
NOTA = 1 (bgwah)

Quorum: Achieved
Option 1 Passes

I make a motion that we vote to reduce the regions to three and rewrite Article I for three regions, not five. We can work out the details of the regions later on.

I say we move on to the next Article and work out the regions at the end. The best idea is to get all the proposals done, vote which one we want, and then work out the miscellaneous issues that may prove contentious. No reason to go through these fights over and over for each proposal.

Ok, just trying to get this active. What is the next Article?

I would like to see someone craft an Article on the Prime Minister and on the President. Although I am somewhat questioning the need for a separate one for the PM. His powers have been outlined in Article I. What would be added by an addition article?

     The procedures of his election, though that does not need to be enumerated in the Constitution. For the PPT's election I think it is laid out in the OSPR, actually.

*yawn*

I proposed an article on the PM and President a while ago.


For the people who did care, the main issue was term limits.

Considering the time spent writing and editing half of this stuff, I don't go searching pages back to find these things. Not to mention the potential for things to change when articles are passed ahead of this one.

Here is the written version of Article II as written by Hashemite and edited by me:

Article 2: The Government

Section 1: Role of the Prime Minister
1. The Head of Government of the Republic of Atlasia shall be a Prime Minister.
2. The Government of Atlasia shall consist of the Prime Minister and his or her chosen Ministers.

Section 2: Election of the Prime Minister
1. The Prime Minister shall be elected by the joint sitting of Congress after every election involving either or both chambers, or in the event of the vacancy of the position.
2. No Person shall be eligible to become a candidate for the office of Prime Minister who has not attained two hundred or more posts, is not a member of Congress, and is not a registered voter in Atlasia.
3. In order to be a candidate, a person must announce their candidacy and receive the endorsement of three other sitting members of Congress.
4. Elections of the Prime Minister shall be through public post in a specially designated thread to be opened and certified by the President of Atlasia.
5. If a candidate has received half plus one of the votes cast, he shall be deemed elected.
6. If no candidate has received half plus one of the votes cast in the first round of voting, the lowest-placed candidate for Prime Minister is eliminated before a second round of voting is held.
7. The conditions in Clause 5 continue until a candidate has received half plus one of the votes cast, at which time he or she shall be deemed elected.
8. Upon the election of a Prime Minister, the Prime Minister-elect, in a speech to the joint sitting of Congress, shall present his government's agenda for the parliamentary term.
9. Upon conclusion of this speech, the members of the joint sitting of Congress shall vote in a confidence vote on the Prime Minister and his agenda, which shall require half plus one of all votes cast to carry. In the event that the motion is lost, the process shall be repeated until a Prime Minister has been chosen and the Congress has carried a confidence motion. Any Prime Minister removed by a loss of a confidence motion shall be ineligible to be a candidate for said position in the same Congress.

Section 3: The Cabinet
1. Upon the carrying of the confidence vote outlined in Section 1, Clause 9, the Prime Minister shall name his appointed Cabinet.
2. No Person shall be eligible to become a Cabinet official who has not attained two hundred or more posts, and is not a registered voter in Atlasia.
3. A Member of Government shall hold no other paid position in a profession, business or on the executive board of a corporation.
4. The Cabinet posts shall be determined by statute following the adoption of this Constitution, or as needed by the Prime Minister in ad-hoc appointments. All ad-hoc Cabinet members are subject to approval by the Senate.
5. The Government shall be responsible to the chambers of Congress. Any Cabinet member may ask to address the legislature at any time.
6. The Prime Minister may dismiss any Minister at his discretion.

Section 4: Confidence Motions
1. A Member of Congress may move a motion of confidence in the sitting government with the support, through public post, of four other members of Congress.
2. The Member of Congress moving said motion shall have the right to detail the reasons behind his motion before a joint sitting of Congress.
3. The Prime Minister or a Person so delegated by the Prime Minister through public post shall have the right to express opposition to said motion in a speech before the joint sitting of Congress.
4. When the conditions set out in Clauses 2 and 3 have been met, the individual chambers of Congress shall hold separate votes on the motion, in which members may only vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain, where an abstention shall be considered a vote of no confidence.
5. A confidence motion shall last exactly 72 hours and shall require a vote of half plus one of all attending voting members, totaling no less than a quorum, to carry.
6. If the confidence motion is lost in each respective chamber of Congress, the Government and Congress shall be instantly dissolved and new elections held as expressed in Article I, Section 4 of this Constitution.

Okay, seeing as this Convention looks like a ghost town, I bring Article II to a vote. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. The vote will last for 48 hours.

Aye on my article :)

Aye, but I have a question about Sec. 3 Clause 3, how would this affect people who run newspapers? I value alot of the newspapers existing in Atlasia and I wouldn't like to see them affected by that.

I agree Sec. 3 Clause 3 is problematic. I would like to see this clarified before I vote.

Are you paid for your services as an Atlasian paper? If not, no worries.

Aye

     Aye

I am willing to take out Section 3.3 if people don't like it for some reason.

I support no change, so Nay.

Aye

Newspapers are not paid in Atlasia, as far as I can tell. For game purposes, it's a cute provision without any meaning, although obviously if this were implemented in real life it would be significant.

Anyway, Aye.

I don't have a problem with that clause anymore, in the light of those comments, so I drop my objections to that little part. :)

Aye

Aye

Current Vote Tally
Aye = 8 (Hashemite, Marokai, Dan, PiT, Franzl, Verily, afleitch, Lief)
Nay = 1 (MasterJedi)
Abstain = 0

Quorum: Not yet achieved
Time Remaining: >24 hours

Nay

Aye

Aye

Satisfied with the clarification for Section 3 Clause 3, I vote Aye.

ehh....aye.

Then, um, what does Sec. 3 Part 3 do?  Nobody gets paid in Atlasia :P

Yup overall, I guess.

Aye.

Final Vote Tally
Aye = 14 (Hashemite, Marokai, Dan, PiT, Franzl, Verily, afleitch, Lief, dead0, Smid, ilikeverin, AndrewCT, Daniel Adams, bullmoose88)
Nay = 2 (MasterJedi, bgwah)
Abstain = 0

Quorum: Achieved
Motion PASSES

FTR: NAY

Any proposals for the Judiciary? I believe our current form is pretty good, but does anyone have other thoughts?

FTR: Yes

The actual system is good.

The only thing who should be discussed is who nominate judges?

And their confirmation. Perhaps another way we can add prestige to the Senate.

That is a great idea, giving that power to the senate but not the house makes the Senate more powerful then the House.

For review and discussion:

Article III: The President of Atlasia
Section 1: The Presidency
1. The President of the Republic of Atlasia shall serve as the Head of State of Atlaisa and be elected for a term of approximately four months.
2. No person shall be President who has not attained 250 or more posts, and is not a registered voter.
3. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Atlasia.
4. When vacancies shall occur on the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a replacement with the advice and consent of the Senate.
5. The President shall nominate a neutral and active Game Moderator for the creation of world simulations in Atlasia. The GM shall be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President or the Senate shall have the ability to dismiss the GM for reasons of inactivity or gross partiality.
6. The President shall serve as the chair of any joint session of Congress, either formally distinguished in this Constitution or otherwise.

Section 2: Election to the Presidency
1. Presidential elections shall be held in the months of February, June and October. Elections shall be held from midnight Eastern Standard Time on the second to last Friday of a given month and shall conclude exactly 72 hours later.
2. The Senate shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Presidential elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to the Presidency shall be by public post.
3. The President shall take office at noon Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday in the month after their election.

Section 3: Vacancy and Incapacity of the Presidency
1. If the Presidency shall ever fall vacant or temporarily incapacitated, the President shall have the option to recommend a successor for himself, by public post. If the Senate shall concur, by two-thirds vote, with the decision of the President, the successor shall serve the remainder of the President's term.
2. If the Senate does not concur, emergency elections shall be held on the second Friday following the vacancy of the office. The shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Presidential elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections.


Article IV: The Supreme Court of Atlasia

Section 1: The Supreme Court
1. The judicial power of the Republic of Atlasia shall be vested in one Supreme Court.
2. The Supreme Court shall consist of three Justices who shall all be registered voters, one of whom shall be the Chief Justice. Justices shall hold their office during good behavior.
3. The Supreme Court shall be the sole body in the Forum with the authority to nullify or void federal laws. The Supreme Court shall only be able to nullify or void a federal law in the event that the federal law explicitly contradicts this Constitution.
4. The Supreme Court shall have authority to nullify or void regional laws. The Supreme Court shall only be able to nullify or void a regional law in the event that the regional law explicitly contradicts this Constitution.
5. The Supreme Court shall arbitrate in all disputes concerning federal elections.

Section 2: Trials
1. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the region wherein the crime shall have been committed, which region shall have been previously ascertained by law.
2. If a trial does not occur within one month of the accusation for any reason, no trial shall be held and the accused will be declared innocent of the crime.
3. No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.
4. No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
5. The accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
6. All trials shall be presided over by a Supreme Court Justice, who shall be selected by the Supreme Court itself.
7. A jury shall be selected according to the laws of the Region in which the crime was committed and each juror shall post their verdict publicly.

Looks very good to me.

What would happen if a regional law breaks a federal law?

No VP? What would happen if a vote is tied?

      I echo this concern. Aside from that problem, it's pretty good though.

Why not just give the President the tie breaking power? I see no reason to waste a position on a Vice President.

Also, I don't like the section about the Game Moderator, I think if it's a Presidential appointment then it should remain a Presidential responsibility to remove the GM from office.

I agree with this.

I agree that the President should have tie-breaking powers.

Regarding the GM, I think it's appropriate for the Senate to have the power to remove him. The GM has an extreme important role in keeping the game active and GMs that are clearly not willing or able to put in the time necessary for this need to be dealt with apace. The situation with Ebowed has shown that the President of Atlasia cannot always be trusted to do so.

It is not the President of the Senate who is written, but the President or the Senate.

What's the point of having a President if all his decisions can be overruled by the legislature? You may as well just make the Prime Minister head of the armed forces and abolish the Presidency altogether.

Sorry about that typo. Got distracted.

We're only talking about the GM here, not "all his decisions". Let's not create a straw men. Atlasia's activity is an issue of paramount importance and if we are to have a GM we need to ensure that he is doing his job properly. I don't see the GM as a part of the Executive Branch, so there is no reason his permanence on the job should be exclusively up to the President. If the Senate believes the GM has become inactive, it must have the power to act. Are you satisfied with Ebowed's performance as GM?

No, I'm not, but I also think we should abolish the position of game moderator and make a similar office that is an elected position.

But I still think if the President makes the appointment, he should end up being the one to determine whether or not he stays or goes. Since we're basically makes the rules here for a new system, if you're going to include provisions for removal of the GM, appointed by the President, for whatever reason the Senate determines, then we might as well include provisions for Senate removal of any other appointed official.

The President doesn't really have a great deal of power in these models anyway, so if we're going to be able to run over some of his decisions through legislative action, why have one?

The President has enough power. He makes appointments and can dissolve a branch of parliament. The point is that the GM is a position that should not be left to the decision of one man. The office is subject to abuse and inactivity that requires some method to undo.

Elections would typically be the method, I would imagine. Especially since they're likely to happen more often under a parliamentary model.

Just a question. Did you remove my section of Article III dealing with Presidential powers?

I removed the Cabinet (as it is now the PMs), the State of the Forum address (that has never been practiced in my experience), and all references to the VP.

I was referring to the Section 3 of my proposed article on the President which is now on the floor.

I hadn't referred to it, but I can throw it in. Some of it seems extraneous to Atlasia.

What does everyone think of Hashemite's list of presidential powers?

For references:

The list is good. The only problem is ''largely stolen from the Slovak Constitution''. We should remove it in the final version.

Obviously.

I bring the following article on the presidency to the floor for a vote. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. This shall last for 48 hours.

---

---

I bring the following article on the judiciary to the floor for a vote. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. This shall last for 48 hours.

AYE on both

Aye to both

Aye to both on reflection.

Presidency: Nay
Supreme Court: Aye

Article III: Aye
Article IV: Aye

Aye on both

     Aye on both.

Sure on both

III: Nay
IV: Aye

III: Abstain
IV: Aye

Aye. Aye.

Nay
Aye

Aye on the Supreme Court.

Could people explain why they're voting nay on the President section?

President Current Vote Tally
Aye = 8
Nay = 3
Abstain = 1

Court Current Vote Tally
Aye = 13
Nay = 0

Quorum: Achieved
Time Remaining: ~15 hours

President Final Vote Tally
Aye = 8
Nay = 3
Abstain = 1

Court Final Vote Tally
Aye = 13
Nay = 0

Thank you to all those who voted, although I am disappointed by the growing number of delegates that seem to be drifting away from the Convention.

That is because this whole Convention is taking way to long.

It should not be a walk in the park. The ease with which a delegate can shape the new Constitution should be enough to garner at least more than 13 votes. Regardless, we will trudge on.

We are up to the easier parts now for this proposal. Less authentic crafting, but stickier topics.

This is a Convention to draft a Constitution. In case you didn't know, that's a major task and it's not an easy thing to do.

I understand that, I should have said picking one of the three types of Goverments are taking a long time.

Because it makes the Presidency an almost useless position in a parliamentary system if they have no unique-stand-alone powers that can't be overridden by parliament.

The President can dissolve either branch without losing his office. That is plenty of power I think.

What is next?

Bill of rights, Constitutional amendments, Regions, Candidacy and office holding rules and Continuity of government.

The nuts and bolts.

Do you want them in that order?

Article V: Bill of Rights
Same as Article VI (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_VI_of_the_Second_Constitution)

---

Article VI: (Don't know what to name it)

Section 1: Amendment Procedure
The Congress(Senate and House), whenever two-thirds of its number shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by a two-thirds of the People voting in public polls in two-thirds of the Regions. Such votes shall last for exactly one week and shall be administered by the Head of the Region or other officer as the Law of the Region may provide. Citizens will cast their vote by public post.

 Section 2: New Convention
Upon application of the citizens of a majority of the Regions, the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall call a Constitutional Convention to amend or replace this Constitution. The Convention shall be constituted under regulations determined by the Senate. Such amendments or the replacement proposed by the Convention shall become operative when ratified by two-thirds of the Convention and the citizens of two-thrids of the Regions, in a public poll administered by the Head of the Region or other officer as Regional Law may provide. All public polls mandated under this section shall be via public post and shall last for exactly one week.

---

Article VII: Regions

Section 1: Regional Government
1. The Regions may elect a Governor as chief executive officer, and may establish other executive posts as they wish, however no executive member may be elected for a term of more than six months.
2. A Region may establish a legislature for itself to make proper laws and electoral procedures.
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. The Regions shall be draw up by the Senate of Atlasia and approved by the House of Atlasia.
2. The Senate may redraw the Regional Boundaries in the months of January and July without consent of the Regions, any other time consent is required by the region(s) being changed.
3. In the event that a new State joins the Republic of Atlasia, the Senate may apportion this State to a Region via proper legislation, however, the State shall still be liable to all the provisions of this Article.
 

Section 3: Supremacy Clause and Restriction on Federal Government
This Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Atlasia which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every Region shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any Region to the contrary notwithstanding.
The powers not delegated to the Republic of Atlasia by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Regions, are reserved to the Regions respectively, or to the people.

It is me or the Clause 14 of the Bill of Rights give the right to vote to children?

Yes, because alot of the people are under the age of 18. Duh :D

I assume than we play characters who are over 18.

Most forum based government sims don't have age limits, because it really don't matter.

I bring the three following articles to a vote. Please vote on each motion individually. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

---

---