Government Proposal Discussion: Parliamentary Universalism (Closed)

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

I believe that having such a large lower house would be at the detriment of Atlasia. I say we keep a bicameral system, with elected officials in two houses, instead of every person being in the lower house. My bicameral system has already been proposed and you may want to take a look at it if you believe that we should not all be in the lower house.

Also, having everyone in the lower house would completely undermine the regions. Basically, we would be wiping out the regions and providing a completely federal government. I would much rather keep the regions and provide a smaller lower house, if we do come to a Parliamentary system. Otherwise, I would prefer a bicameral system.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

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.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Eh, I'm still not sold on the idea of changing the game from an election sim to a government sim. And I think that we'd end up scaring off more people who don't want to be active in legislative matters.

I echo these concerns. I made some points in another thread about the struggle we could have keeping people active in the legislature and meeting majority vote thresholds as well. Imagine if everyone was part of a lower House now, half of the population doesn't take an interest in Atlasia.

They take enough of an interest to register. I think you mistake taking an interest with a capacity to participate. Before I had a position, I never posted on here. I generally didn't even check the board unless there was an election. People don't have an opportunity to participate if they don't hold an elected office. They can't debate Bills, they can't vote on Bills, they can talk about elected representatives in the media threads and they can vote in elections and that's about the extend of it.

My whole argument this whole time is that a universal model gives people the opportunity to participate. Simply stating that people aren't involved so therefore shouldn't be given the opportunity to be involved is not a conclusion that I reach. If our principal trouble is that people are not active, the solution is not restricting the number of people able to participate and be active, which can only reduce activity levels - it's about making more people able to take part. If more people are able to participate then more people will be active.

My main bone to pick with this plan is that this totally demolishes the regions. We need to preserve some sort or regional government or regional representation.