Government Proposal Discussion: Parliamentary Universalism (Closed) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2024, 08:36:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Government Proposal Discussion: Parliamentary Universalism (Closed) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Government Proposal Discussion: Parliamentary Universalism (Closed)  (Read 6024 times)
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,408
Colombia


WWW
« on: March 26, 2009, 07:11:18 AM »

By far my preferred system, though there are a few things I outlined in Smid's thread that I would like to see in here. Though nobody answered those anyways...
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,408
Colombia


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2009, 06:55:54 PM »

I would rather have a more limited lower house. Maybe all elected officials from the regions (and limit it to 5 max so that no region gains an advantage). That way those positions are worth more, will be more competitive, but you do have a pretty large lower house.

Elected officials, federal and regional? Or just regional?

I feel that cabinet members should be either in the Senate or Lower House and they should be responsible to both chambers.
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,408
Colombia


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2009, 08:02:07 PM »

I would rather have a more limited lower house. Maybe all elected officials from the regions (and limit it to 5 max so that no region gains an advantage). That way those positions are worth more, will be more competitive, but you do have a pretty large lower house.

Elected officials, federal and regional? Or just regional?

I feel that cabinet members should be either in the Senate or Lower House and they should be responsible to both chambers.

I disagree. I believe Cabinet members should only have their one duty to the Cabinet. I think that we should expand the positions of the Cabinet to make them more uselful in this simulation.

This is a parliamentary system being proposed. Not a presidential system.

I would rather have a more limited lower house. Maybe all elected officials from the regions (and limit it to 5 max so that no region gains an advantage). That way those positions are worth more, will be more competitive, but you do have a pretty large lower house.

Elected officials, federal and regional? Or just regional?

I feel that cabinet members should be either in the Senate or Lower House and they should be responsible to both chambers.

Regional only. Otherwise federal officials get two votes. And I don't think the President should have the ability to appoint people to vote his way. Undermining the system.

I disagree. If you insist on a limited lower house, I believe its members should be elected by STV in each region or constituency. But I remain opposed to a limited lower house, for Smid's regions.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 14 queries.