Government Proposal Discussion: Bicameral Nonparliamentarian (Closed)

[Purple State]

This thread is for the discussion of ideas relating to the Bicameral Nonparliamentarian proposal for the new government.

Basic Characteristics
Delegates to a House determined by population of region, with a medium member limit
The second house will be a Senate, with one delegate from each region
Bills will be passed through both houses with a conference to compromise differences
Possibly no governors and any duties, if there were any, of the governor will go either to a Senator or a Representative
Includes a popularly elected President

Discussion shall last no less than 48 hours and no more than 240 hours (10 days) unless there is continued and productive discussion.

At the conclusion of debate there will be a vote in a separate thread to choose which models of government shall be pursued by the Convention. Please visit the other Government Proposal Discussion threads and comment on those as well.

[Purple State]

I just want to say I kinda like this proposal. The idea that a narrow Senate and broader House can work on basic ideas and then have a conference to compromise the two pieces of legislation sounds appealing. I think we have been overlooking a US form of government and this could be fun to play around with and develop.

This model or the Parliamentary Universalism with a more limited lower house (I would rather all elected officials of the regions with a max of 5, instead of all citizens) would be the most appealing to me.

[Purple State]

I would probably propose keeping Governors and other regional government positions, have a 5-10 member Senate elected nationally with a Lower House composed of all regional elected officials (max 5 for each region, with which officials to be determined by each regions Constitution).

Then treat it like a US style government. Nationally elected Pres. and VP, conference for legislation, etc.

[Purple State]

I don't like having a lower and upper house. I say we have 10 regions, house representatives allotted by population, 20 House Representatives, and 10 Senators. The House and the Senate are equal and function in the same style as the US.

You realise that this is a bicameral model that you're advocating - quite literally, a "two house" system? The House of Representatives is a Lower House and the Senate is an Upper House.

Correct me if I am mistaken. I thought a Lower House denoted that the house is lower in stature or rank then the upper house. If that isn't true, then I take back my statements and pose another question:
Why is it called a lower house if it is equal with the the Upper House?

For historical reasons, I suppose. Usually, the lower have more power than the upper house. Example, in Canada, the upper house cannot present fiscal laws. Only the lower house can. Also, only the lower house can dismiss the government in Canada.

It is historical. Usually upper houses were composed of nobles, while lower houses were more popularly elected. The elite nobles wanted to feel some sense of superiority I guess.

I did not mean to denote that one was more powerful than the other. I was implying a bicameral legislature with two houses, just like the US.

[Purple State]

I'm starting to prefer a universal system that uses certain aspects of this plan, such as conference. I think the House and Senate should be given relative independence from one another, but with an eventual compromise between the two. It sort of bridges the gap between the elite offices and the regular people.