Parliamentary Bicameralism (Discussion Open)

[Brandon H]

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.

[Brandon H]

Nay

[Brandon H]

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

[Brandon H]

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

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.

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.