Wintreath Regional Community
A Link to the Past - Archives => The Registry of Things Past - Historic Archive => Constitutional Convention on the Storting => Topic started by: Gerrick on April 19, 2016, 03:49:43 PM
-
So I know we got kind of burned out after the failure of the Open Assembly, and the Underhusen is pretty busy with the citizenship revocation deal, but I’ve been thinking about solutions to our Constitutional Convention. I’m not giving up on the Open Assembly model if that’s the way people want to go, but I figured it doesn’t hurt to give other options. Read the following in the broadest way you can, meaning everything can be tweaked to make it the way we want and that I’m just giving a very general idea of an option.
This form of government would be similar to the British Parliament. There would be two houses: the House of Lords and House of Commons (we of course could use names to better fit our theme (maybe even just OH and UH); these are just the ones the UK uses).
The upper house would consist of the nobility, aka Dukes, Counts, and Knights (referring to this http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=1223.msg14091#msg14091 (credit goes to Weissreich for bringing it up)). First of all, this would mean we would have to revamp this system, but I don’t think it would be too difficult. Wintermoot is the only one who can give out these titles, so the upper house would only consist of those he trusts and knows are experienced members. I would assume then that the current Overhusen (and probably most of the Jarls) may be knighted as they were already people previously appointed by him. The Storting could probably have the influence to recommend Wintermoot to having someone knighted to join the upper house (maybe by awarding someone a Wintreath Commendation?). To be clear, the two houses are technically equal, but the upper house is more exclusive and is put in place as a check so the experienced can block or amend the bills presented by the lower house.
The lower house would obviously consist of non-nobles. It would be something that citizens have to apply for, meaning not necessarily every non-noble citizen is in the lower house. There may be some minor requirement (like 15 posts or require 5 members to support their joining) to make it so that the lower house isn’t just everyone who isn’t a noble and to prevent inactive citizens from joining. When a member of the lower house is knighted/made a noble, they probably would then apply to join the upper house (and there could be a vote or the Speaker could just formally announce them).
Both houses would each be presided over by a Speaker and SPT/Vice/Deputy Speaker (again, the names could be changed… The two houses should probably have different speaker titles to prevent confusion). More officer positions could be created if needed – perhaps a secretary, whip, or devil’s advocate, though these could also be fulfilled by the speaker/vice. These Speakers would lead discussion, moderate threads, present the bills to the other house/Monarch, etc. They would be elected by their respective houses probably every 4 months or so. In my opinion, the elections should use ranked-choice voting, and the second most voted for candidate would have the option to accept the Vice Speaker position (if not, then the next candidate; and if not them, then one can be appointed by the Speaker).
The legislative process would be that either house can draft, debate, and vote on a bill, which (if passed) would then move to the other house for voting or debate, depending on their motion. If the second house does not pass the bill, then they may make amendments to the bill, then send it back to the first house for the same process. Once an identical form is passed by both houses, then the bill is presented to the Monarch for Royal Assent. If no agreement can be had between the two houses, then the bill fails.
Debates and voting would have specific default timeframes (with the ability to motion to extend or expedite) -- probably quite similar to the current UH procedure – to prevent drawn out discussions and make sure everyone gives input by knowing exactly when they are able to do so.
There would be two separate chambers (boards) for the houses, though a common board where members of both houses could talk about bills or whatever would also exist. This could be particularly useful in the instance where a bill needs to be negotiated. I would also assume that the speakers of both houses would interact a lot more than in the current model.
The judiciary could work by having the Monarch select a chief justice from either house of the Storting, then the speakers each select a member from their respective house to serve as associate judges (though, again, this doesn’t necessarily need to be the case). The judges would all need to be people who have no business in the case and are known to be able to act impartially.
The pros of this model:
- The point of this model is so that more people may be brought into the political process to give their own opinion (as we would see in an Open Assembly), but it separates the more experienced members from everyone else to allow them to not be drowned out in an Open Assembly.
- People would not need to worry whether their voice would be heard or have to reach out to a representative to give their idea otherwise.
- It gives people something to work towards: new citizens to get into the lower house and members of the lower house to get into the upper house (as well as reinvigorating the noble titles concept).
- The point of the two houses being equal and have to work together is to prevent the lower house from working on a bill, then the upper house just vetoing it; the upper house would make amendments then send it back until it looks acceptable by both sides.
- The elections would be less frequent and consist of fewer positions to lessen the elections for elections’ sake bit (making inactivity less of a problem), yet would also give them more meaning (and likely more turnout) as they would be more competitive and would be voted on by people who would be actively working with the elected.
- Separating the more experienced members also allows newer members to get a better chance at getting a spot since they both aren’t running for the same positions. These new members would probably have to prove themselves a little bit to get elected into the fewer positions, but they would be actively taking part in the debate and voting of bills, which would allow them to do so.
- By having two separate houses, tyranny by majority is also less likely to happen since there would be two separate majorities.
- Royal Assent would make the current Overhusen unnecessary and would allow the current OH members to take more part than serving in the interest of the Monarch as the Monarch would have that ability himself in the Royal Assent/veto.
- As most citizens would most likely be in either house of the Storting, when a ratification is put before the citizenry, we’d already have a good idea on the outcome and not be blindsided (:P I’m not jaded). The citizens who would vote on ratifications would probably be in the Storting already anyway.
- This model is ultimately supposed to be a compromise between the Open Assembly and current bicameral models, and I hope it’s seen as such.
Thank you, and let me know what you all think. :)
-
Let me start off by saying I love almost every part of this.
I have one question though: how would new citizens go about proving themselves to be inducted into the House of Commons? Could they have some sort of fast-track application process where both Houses of the Assembly ask them questions and test their activity and merit? Because that would seal the deal for me to support this completely, not just as a compromise to end the convention.
I also very much like that the upper House has to amend a bill too, not just fail it. While I understand the reasoning for having things happen that way, in recent weeks we've seen that such a system can inspire quite a bit of bad blood between the two chambers.
-
I think this may well be a viable alternative to the Open Assembly that has the core aspects I think the region was interested in moving towards whilst retaining enough of the current system and its protections to appease the OA's critics. I'd really like to get the thoughts of my fellow Skifra on this: @Pengu @HannahB @Point Breeze @North @Barnes.
If possible, we could take some of the suggestions I collated in my discussion thread and see if any of those would fit into this, for added appeasement value? :p
And of course, I am absolutely and ardently in favour of anything and everything that makes use of the House system in new and interesting ways. This would, imo, be a boon for cultural activity and involvement in the House system, giving our region yet another truly unique aspect. Bravo, Gerrick, bravo!
-
RIP my inbox. Mentions everywhere, several by @Weissreich in the past 12 hours. I feel so loved.
Anyway, I like this idea and if I imagine it in action, it seems like a very fun way for people to get involved and a way for us to RP up what is normally seen as dry and tedious work. However, I feel like the # of nobles residing in Wintreath has gone downhill lately, so I feel like we'd have to have a fairly broad ascension of several families or individuals into nobility or into titles to have a sustainable number in the upper house. Further, what if the nobles don't wish to participate in the legislature? Can they opt out, or are they duty bound to participate as a condition of accepting their title?
-
I think an opt-out clause would be a sensible inclusion, imo. Also, if I'm understanding Gerrick's suggestion rightly this would allow the elevation (and hopefully encourage the use of) Knightly positions in our regional politics and roleplays :)
All round I think this has a lot of potential. Soz PB, we just love you too much :D
-
I think that it's a wonderful idea!! Especially because I'm a pretty big Anglophile. :)
We keep the Overhusen and we make the Underhusen the lower, OA house. It also would make it easier for people interested in politics to be hooked into the region, considering that usually an election is at least a month away from when they apply for citizenship!!
-
My big question is: can people be involved in the upper-house and the legislation without being involved in the House RP? While people in the Upper House and the government can engage in the RP aspects (and I would even encourage them to :) ) I think that it should be possible for those who don't wish to participate in both at the same time to be able to.
I also don't want to see the problem the real House of Lords has were a few small families and groups dominate the entire body.
Beside that I like this idea, I like a fairly open and yet still limited lower house, which can get lots of people involved. I actually really like this proposal, a lot more than any of the other previous proposals, even my own. :))
-
The House RP is by no means required for people who're part of a House, it simply rose out of Mootle's original suggestion and the collaboration that came from it betwixt us :) It'd serve as a good way to get people interested in RP, but it doesn't force them into it.
-
I'm glad you guys like it :)) Damn, you guys respond fast, though.
I have one question though: how would new citizens go about proving themselves to be inducted into the House of Commons? Could they have some sort of fast-track application process where both Houses of the Assembly ask them questions and test their activity and merit? Because that would seal the deal for me to support this completely, not just as a compromise to end the convention.
Yeah, that absolutely could work.
If possible, we could take some of the suggestions I collated in my discussion thread and see if any of those would fit into this, for added appeasement value? :p
And of course, I am absolutely and ardently in favour of anything and everything that makes use of the House system in new and interesting ways. This would, imo, be a boon for cultural activity and involvement in the House system, giving our region yet another truly unique aspect. Bravo, Gerrick, bravo!
Definitely, we want this to work with everyone. And integrating those RP aspects was something I aimed at :)
However, I feel like the # of nobles residing in Wintreath has gone downhill lately, so I feel like we'd have to have a fairly broad ascension of several families or individuals into nobility or into titles to have a sustainable number in the upper house. Further, what if the nobles don't wish to participate in the legislature? Can they opt out, or are they duty bound to participate as a condition of accepting their title?
Yeah, as I stated, it would require Wintermoot to knight certain individuals (dukes and counts would be much more rare, I'd think), though as I understand it, knighting someone does not make their family a noble family, and everyone in a noble family is not necessarily a noble (though that could be the case if Wintermoot wanted it).
And, as Weissreich suggested, they could opt-out if they want (or just not apply to join). They couldn't be forced to vote/debate since they could just abstain anyway.
We keep the Overhusen and we make the Underhusen the lower, OA house.
I think you're off a little in the understanding. Try to read through it again :P
My big question is: can people be involved in the upper-house and the legislation without being involved in the House RP? While people in the Upper House and the government can engage in the RP aspects (and I would even encourage them to :) ) I think that it should be possible for those who don't wish to participate in both at the same time to be able to.
I also don't want to see the problem the real House of Lords has were a few small families and groups dominate the entire body.
Absolutely, only take part in what you want. And my intention was that individuals are given more power rather than families, though I'd assume family members may work together.
-
Gerrick, if this passes, I'm going to try my damndest to get you elevated to the rank of Paragon, and I won't rest until there's at least a Commendation.
-
Gerrick, if this passes, I'm going to try my damndest to get you elevated to the rank of Paragon, and I won't rest until there's at least a Commendation.
Haha, oh you. ^-^
-
This is going to require significant buy-in from the Monarch. I'm interested to hear what he'll think.
-
Let me just say as someone who wants to eventually be as involved with the regional politics as i can, I love this idea! It's great for someone like me to start small yet still be involved. I also like that from what I understand this idea can give me and people like me involved. A++
-
This is going to require significant buy-in from the Monarch. I'm interested to hear what he'll think.
That it does. :P I appreciate Gerrick's well thought-out proposal and the support that it has, but in evaluating proposals for new legislatures, I have to look at different criteria than what most of the region has to look at. I have to look at the impact that it will have on the balance of legislative power, it's potential impact on the non-political state of the region, and whether the ideas are in-line with regional principles and values.
That being said, I'm deeply uncomfortable with the idea of politicizing our regional nobility...as a non-political region, I am uncomfortable with the potential politicization of anything. However, to adopt this proposal would be to determine that one portion of the Citizenry, a portion that's arbitrarily determined, to have their own separate representation from the rest of the Citizenry. I'm concerned the idea could give rise to a Wintrean aristocracy, where people covet titles of nobility not for the recognition of merit it currently represents, but for their own political prestige in the region.
Additionally, it's not necessarily true that I would recommend everyone with a title to serve in the legislature...not that I'm talking about anyone that currently holds a title, but for example had Alterra or Denth Kasten held a title prior to the events that led to their departure, I would not have revoked it. As a merit-based recognition, they would have deserved to keep their titles in the event that they ever came back, while at the same time they obviously would not be people who would have my confidence or who I would recommend in general.
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that the Storting should pressure the Monarchy into granting more titles, or into granting titles to specific individuals, or into granting titles for political purposes or for the purposes of making a political system work. Overall, I don't believe that titles should become so...casual, not even the non-noble titles.
On a more minor note, the original Constitutional Convention intentionally designed the current system so that legislation would not have to be reconciled between chambers...I think it the idea of reconciliation was rightly seen as a time consuming and messy process, especially on a forum. I personally think that was a good call back then, and I don't see much cause to reverse that now, to be honest.
It's never fun to be the person expressing doubt in something that seems to be universally liked, but I have concerns about one of the fundamental aspects of this proposal...hopefully at least my reasons are understandable, and this is a debate we can still have from here...
-
Well, if we take away the part about the nobility serving as the upper house, would that change your view of this?
And I'm going to have to disagree with the notion that the OH is fine as it with just passing and failing bills, instead of more directly being involved by amending it and sending it back the UH. The latter approach would make the good minds in the OH much more useful to the legislature, increasing activity in a way that requires very little effort, and increasing the harmony between the two chambers.
I also don't completely understand the criticism about politicisation. This would be no more political than our current system, or the Open Assembly we'd considered for so long.
Lastly, this system would bring some much needed fun to the legislature. :P
-
Not that I have anything against the other parts of the Act but I found the inclusion of the nobility it's biggest selling point. If we're removing that, we're basically only slightly modifying the current system by a tiny bit; I'd support it still, but with far less enthusiasm.
It'd be something entirely unique, insofar as I'm aware, and whilst it doesn't demand involvement in politics OR the House system/culture stuff, it encourages it! What's wrong with that at all?
I'd personally like it if some parts of the House system came under Storting purview (not making people nobkes but having some control over common titles and who got them). Back when Mootles and I discussed the House system I did suggest UH-granted titles, but I don't think it was implemented.
-
Without the integration of the nobility the small changes in this act are...good...but maybe not worth the entire referendum process to get this into law. Plus, the two houses of the Storting already have the Chamber Commons and the Citizens Platform to communicate together on bills. If anything, it should be on us to involve the OH in drafting earlier in the process to ensure our bills go through the first time.
-
Yeah, I think there's huge amounts of potential in including the House system, and I for one don't think any of our current citizens would as Moot feared seek title for prestige rather than gaining title on merit. If we expanded the House system, spent some time making everything watertight and gave the Storting an expanded power to grant titles beyond Knight (again, no noble titles) I think we're on to a really good thing here.
Last night, Han, PB and I were talking about the possibility of title awards for activity in the lower chamber of Commons (e.g. Knight, Legate, Councillor, Legislator, whatever, suggestions welcome) for number of laws authored, number of laws sponsored, things like that. It's not major, but it'll be an incentive for people to be involved in the effectively Open Assembly chamber, and the upper chamber would hold the more experienced, region-loyal, or otherwise trusted Monarch's appointees.
There's a lot good with the suggestion, and I don't think we should throw it aside just because of the amount of work involved in its full scope.
-
Wintermoot, I understand what you mean, and I'm glad we can have a discussion about this. I'm going to respond to all of your problems with this model, and please don't take it as me being aggressive. I'd be remiss if I didn't try to work out its problems given the several people who have said they might enjoy it. Again, if this is not the way the Storting is moving towards, I'm completely fine with that; I'm just trying to create some solutions. :)
That being said, I'm deeply uncomfortable with the idea of politicizing our regional nobility...as a non-political region, I am uncomfortable with the potential politicization of anything. However, to adopt this proposal would be to determine that one portion of the Citizenry, a portion that's arbitrarily determined, to have their own separate representation from the rest of the Citizenry. I'm concerned the idea could give rise to a Wintrean aristocracy, where people covet titles of nobility not for the recognition of merit it currently represents, but for their own political prestige in the region.
Politicization is not necessarily a bad thing. Because we are not a political region, people here are not as serious with trying to attain political prestige since there's not much you can do with it (we have a problem with trying to find things to even pass in the legislature). We currently have an Overhusen, Underhusen, and Riksrad, which are all already at least somewhat politicized, and yet we only have a problem with the elected branch. This is not necessarily because people want political prestige but because they want some kind of way to stand out or make an impact. Working towards something is always good and increases activity, even if that something is very unlikely (since only you can allow it). Besides, we'll have a lower house where people can stand out easier (and with a reduced number of officer positions to prevent the UH's problems).
Besides, giving the nobility something other than a title, which seems to only be used for RP, gives the nobility a renewed purpose and meaning. As Laurentus said, if this is your biggest problem with it, then I suppose we can remove this aspect (though some have said it's their favorite part). I was just trying to integrate and make use an existing system that didn't seem to have very much of a purpose.
These people in the upper house would not be arbitrarily determined since you would be the one determining them. You would understand what the titles mean and bring, and would award them to those you saw fit. If you would like to award someone with a title but would not like them to be in the upper house, you could give them a non-noble title.
The fact that the two houses are separate would also not allow the rise of an aristocracy since the two houses are equal. Any power the upper house may have, the lower would have as well.
Additionally, it's not necessarily true that I would recommend everyone with a title to serve in the legislature...not that I'm talking about anyone that currently holds a title, but for example had Alterra or Denth Kasten held a title prior to the events that led to their departure, I would not have revoked it. As a merit-based recognition, they would have deserved to keep their titles in the event that they ever came back, while at the same time they obviously would not be people who would have my confidence or who I would recommend in general.
Well, with this model, it could be that only people from here on out that are given nobility are people that may be accepted into the upper house (besides those formerly given nobility that you would accept into it). We currently have only 3 active members who are nobles: Weissreich who is a Duke, and Pengu and Laurentus who are Counts. All three currently serve in the Underhusen, which I understand is not the Overhusen, but you have seen their abilities in the Storting. Again, I'm not saying you must allow them to join the upper house, but personally to me it would make sense.
This new upper house will also not be the same as the current Overhusen. In my opinion, the current OH pretty much only represents the Monarch by vetoing. The ability to veto to represent the Monarch would be given straight to you, which you have said in the past is something you'd be OK with (and you could just announce beforehand if you know you wouldn't allow something to pass). The upper house would instead allow experienced members (or just those you trust) to have more input into shaping legislation while at the same time allowing others to perhaps have a better chance of shining by having their own assembly. Even if you only put the current OH members into this new house, it'd still be a start.
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that the Storting should pressure the Monarchy into granting more titles, or into granting titles to specific individuals, or into granting titles for political purposes or for the purposes of making a political system work. Overall, I don't believe that titles should become so...casual, not even the non-noble titles.
If you are referring to the part where I said the Storting can suggest someone to be moved to the upper house, that's completely understandable. It could put you in an awkward position as well as allow certain people to stack the upper house (not that I think that would do much). In that case, we can remove that bit.
Titles do not have to be made casual. As I said in a previous post, dukes and counts would be very rare (ie, as rare as they are now), and there would only be a few knights. As I had in mind when I wrote this proposal, I expected the upper house to only consist of probably 5-10 individuals at this point. That'd mean of the 60 or so active members, we'd have only a handful of nobles, the majority being knights. This could of course be much lower, especially in the beginning, or it could increase if the number of citizens also increased (as you saw fit). I doubt many new members even knew titles existed, and if they were slightly more visible, then they might be interested in it and be more likely to stick around and get involved.
On a more minor note, the original Constitutional Convention intentionally designed the current system so that legislation would not have to be reconciled between chambers...I think it the idea of reconciliation was rightly seen as a time consuming and messy process, especially on a forum. I personally think that was a good call back then, and I don't see much cause to reverse that now, to be honest.
Yes, this was be the only downside I saw when writing this proposal. The legislative process may be a little longer, but if it keeps bills from having to be completely rewritten when vetoed by the OH, then it might be easier. Again, it'd also mean the other house would have to amend it rather than just veto it, which means people work together.
If something is time-sensitive, then perhaps a bill could be presented to the entire Storting at once or just the officers or even just the Monarch?
-
If we remove the nobility part, this proposal looks pretty similar to Crushita's proposal (http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=2944.0) back in November.
-
I don't see anything about having sponsors and stuff in Crush's version.
-
If we remove the nobility part, this proposal looks pretty similar to Crushita's proposal (http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=2944.0) back in November.
That proposal ended up being so obscure and terribly written I forgot I wrote it xD
-
I don't see anything about having sponsors and stuff in Crush's version.
That's why I said "similar," not "identical."
-
With things being that broad, a convincing argument can be made for almost anything being similar. :P
-
Alright, so in an effort to avoid blindly pushing an Act that not enough people support again, I'm going to mention a shit-load of people.
I'm quite positive about this idea, but I'd like to try something here. Everyone I mention should please attempt to criticise the shit out of this idea so we can see where all the potential problems lie. That includes people, like myself, who love the idea. It goes back to my campaign about involving the citizenry and attempting to try things like the multi-coloured hats organisational approach (thanks, Business Management, not all your lessons came in one ear and out the other). And of course, because it's being organised this way, absolutely nothing should be taken personally. I will warn against any language that can be considered belittling or flaming, however.
I'd also like to hear @Wintermoot's thoughts on all the comments and suggestions since his own.
So here goes:
@Weissreich
@Pengu
@HannahB
@North
@Barnes
@Point Breeze
@Colberius X
@Wuufu
@Joshua Bluteisen
@tatte
@Emoticonius
@Chanku
@Sapphiron
@taulover
@Feast Potatoes
@VidiLune
@Aragonn
@BraveSirRobin
@xXTheHydraXx
@Hugsim
@Lumenland
@DekuNut
@Gerrick
@Commander_Zemas
@Daoine pacaiste
@Lychgate
@X Renner Dynasty X
@perutania
@Rasdanation
@Thaikrihsmae
@wirocket
@Separatists
@Aubrey
@Daylen Pheonix
So in case anyone's wondering, I mentioned everyone who voted publicly in the Ratification process of the OA bill, and added a few people who've recently become prominent.
-
Oh, and @Reux. And I spelt @Daylen Phoenix wrong.
-
In this case I have to side with Wintermoot.
-
Could you elaborate?
-
I am unsure I can really say anything other than I agree with the statements Wintermoot has made, at least without repeating Wintermoot.
-
Okay, so you fully agree with every detail of Wintermoot's statements? Understood.
-
So, at Lau's request here's a full-fledged feedback and critique of Gerrick's idea. As I've said, I think this is amongst the best of the proposals I've seen so far, especially the way it includes some of the cultural aspects of the region in the political without compromising the purposes of either.
So I know we got kind of burned out after the failure of the Open Assembly, and the Underhusen is pretty busy with the citizenship revocation deal, but I’ve been thinking about solutions to our Constitutional Convention. I’m not giving up on the Open Assembly model if that’s the way people want to go, but I figured it doesn’t hurt to give other options. Read the following in the broadest way you can, meaning everything can be tweaked to make it the way we want and that I’m just giving a very general idea of an option.
This form of government would be similar to the British Parliament. There would be two houses: the House of Lords and House of Commons (we of course could use names to better fit our theme (maybe even just OH and UH); these are just the ones the UK uses).
I like the current Scandinavian theme we have going with the legislative aspects of the region (and the region in general) so I think we should continue to use that naming convention. @HannahB suggested Oberhaus for the UH and Herrhaus for the upper chamber, which are good starting points, but I think we can do better. Keeping the same names... we could do that, but if we're making all this change why not revamp from the ground up?
The upper house would consist of the nobility, aka Dukes, Counts, and Knights (referring to this http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=1223.msg14091#msg14091 (credit goes to Weissreich for bringing it up)). First of all, this would mean we would have to revamp this system, but I don’t think it would be too difficult. Wintermoot is the only one who can give out these titles, so the upper house would only consist of those he trusts and knows are experienced members. I would assume then that the current Overhusen (and probably most of the Jarls) may be knighted as they were already people previously appointed by him. The Storting could probably have the influence to recommend Wintermoot to having someone knighted to join the upper house (maybe by awarding someone a Wintreath Commendation?). To be clear, the two houses are technically equal, but the upper house is more exclusive and is put in place as a check so the experienced can block or amend the bills presented by the lower house.
Revamping the Houses system I think would be a good thing. When we first came up with the system it was hailed by some as a very unique way of bringing people into the cultural side of the region, and by tying it in at a purely aesthetic level (I really doubt anyone here is politicised enough to abuse it) to the Upper Chamber I think we both motivate further use and activity in the Housing system and make our upper chamber something to strive for. It doesn't make it politicised, but it does make it an achievement to reach and doing so comes with a reward for the dedication and service an upper chamber member will have put into the region.
I like the idea of Dukes and Counts being part of the upper chamber, but I definitely think we need to make that an optional thing. For example, were we to use this system I personally would find myself on the 'revisionary' side of the UH/OH line rather than the legislative side, which I'd rather avoid for the immediate future.
Building on this, there was a suggestion (again, Hannah and PB discussed this with me briefly) that the lower chamber could give out Common Titles, names of which I suggested in an earlier post, to recognise people's contributions to the region's political scene without elevating them to the upper chamber (Monarch's prerogative). This would, in my opinion at least, provide an activity incentive without politicising the region overly, and if we play it right we can also use this as a way to encourage people to get involved in the RP's etc.
The lower house would obviously consist of non-nobles. It would be something that citizens have to apply for, meaning not necessarily every non-noble citizen is in the lower house. There may be some minor requirement (like 15 posts or require 5 members to support their joining) to make it so that the lower house isn’t just everyone who isn’t a noble and to prevent inactive citizens from joining. When a member of the lower house is knighted/made a noble, they probably would then apply to join the upper house (and there could be a vote or the Speaker could just formally announce them).
The Amendment Protocol Act I've proposed in the UH seeks to introduce a trial-run of the idea of sponsorship, which you suggest using (5 member support to get into the lower chamber). If that works, I really like this way of bringing new members into the chamber - it makes it voluntary, but without putting too much of a limit on hopeful applicants. I'm sure that the active lower chamber members would sponsor most into their ranks, so there's little issue of people trying and failing to get in based on sponsorship.
I like the idea of a citizen being raised from the lower chamber to the upper as recognition of hard work above and beyond the suggestion I made above about lower chamber titles, but again I think there needs to be an option for them to accept the title yet refuse the elevation.
Both houses would each be presided over by a Speaker and SPT/Vice/Deputy Speaker (again, the names could be changed… The two houses should probably have different speaker titles to prevent confusion). More officer positions could be created if needed – perhaps a secretary, whip, or devil’s advocate, though these could also be fulfilled by the speaker/vice. These Speakers would lead discussion, moderate threads, present the bills to the other house/Monarch, etc. They would be elected by their respective houses probably every 4 months or so. In my opinion, the elections should use ranked-choice voting, and the second most voted for candidate would have the option to accept the Vice Speaker position (if not, then the next candidate; and if not them, then one can be appointed by the Speaker).
Preferential Choice voting? Instant run-off? I like this suggestion, and I like the way you're angling for increased collaboration between Speakers/whatever they end up called. This would, in combination with the lower/upper chamber meeting forum, provide a great way to keep things ticking along.
The legislative process would be that either house can draft, debate, and vote on a bill, which (if passed) would then move to the other house for voting or debate, depending on their motion. If the second house does not pass the bill, then they may make amendments to the bill, then send it back to the first house for the same process. Once an identical form is passed by both houses, then the bill is presented to the Monarch for Royal Assent. If no agreement can be had between the two houses, then the bill fails.
I think others have raised concerns about an equal lower and upper chamber, but I think we can retain at least some of your suggestions here. I'd like to tie in the proposing of Bills with a sponsorship process, so that a Bill is put forward and requires support from X number of lower chamber members (and perhaps X number of upper chamber members before it can go to a vote rather than requiring legislation to proceed in parallel) before it goes to vote or discussion.
My idea in this regard was that a proposed Bill is put forward in the upper/lower combined chamber by a member of either Chamber, then requires X number of sponsors from the lower chamber to go forward to discussion. There should be no suggestions, simply a "I think this has merit with further development" post and it's then taken forward. From there, the discussion is carried out in the lower chamber, and when the act is finalised to their satisfaction the LC Speaker confers with the UC Speaker and X number of ratifiers are required from the UC before it's passed into law (once the Monarch approves it, of course).
In the last stage, it's effectively like the OH's duties now - they either ratify it or they don't, and it needs a majority of ratifiers to pass. If it fails to meet that requirement, the UC sends it back to the LC Speaker with suggestions, and it's improved and the process is repeated.
Thoughts?
Debates and voting would have specific default timeframes (with the ability to motion to extend or expedite) -- probably quite similar to the current UH procedure – to prevent drawn out discussions and make sure everyone gives input by knowing exactly when they are able to do so.
Again, I like this idea. Perhaps we could also add a means by which once a Bill reaches discussion, the proponent can set the length of discussion themselves if they think it merits a lot of consideration, or none at all? Unsure on this suggestion, but thought I'd throw it out there.
There would be two separate chambers (boards) for the houses, though a common board where members of both houses could talk about bills or whatever would also exist. This could be particularly useful in the instance where a bill needs to be negotiated. I would also assume that the speakers of both houses would interact a lot more than in the current model.
I expanded on this in my above comments, but I think with a few modifications this system would really work.
-
Okay, so you fully agree with every detail of Wintermoot's statements? Understood.
A true first in the region, for sure.
Anyways, sorry for the delay, but it's taken some time for me to reply because today is the first day I've had an extensive amount of time to go around the forums and type out well thought-out replies.
We have to remember that the reason that we are not a political reason is because throughout the last two and a half years, we have made conscious efforts to not allow it to become one. I remember one period where it seemed that every Underhusen election would bring a wave of new people who had not yet integrated into our unique culture and would advocate for things that would make us a more political region...it usually wasn't very fun to have to pop those bubbles, but that is part of my responsibility as Monarch and Founder...to be a bulwark against things contrary to our regional principles, such as politicization of our government. It's a responsibility that I take very seriously, especially having witnessed and been a victim of the politicization of a region first-hand.
I don't believe that anybody currently here would seriously try to gain political prestige because we all understand our regional culture and (hopefully) agree that not being a political region is a good thing, but that might not be the case for new Citizens who would expect politics in a region in a political simulation game...they may see this system in an entirely different way than we wanted, resulting in an inadvertent shift in our regional culture. You have to also admit that even if they're equal in standing and power, the "noble" house will be considered more prestigious by default merely because it's more exclusive, and this is by design...otherwise, nobody would care to work for gaining entry into it, would would defeat the purpose of "giving the nobility a renewed purpose". It would be easy for somebody new to the region to misunderstand the reasons that it's prestigious, and work to become a noble for all the wrong reasons.
That being said, I've given the matter a lot of thought in the last few days, and I've come to the conclusion that this doesn't mean that it can't be implemented...it just means that we have to be careful in how we implement it. I've come to realize that my real problem with this proposal is that once someone gets a title, they would be free to be part of this group of exclusive representation without being held accountable to anybody, absent a dramatic and currently unprecedented revocation of a title of nobility. We have to make it clear to everyone, including to those already in that group, that they're in it because of their continuing contributions to the region. Even if someone has done great work in the past and they're deserving of their title, they should have to continue to justify their inclusion in this chamber by continuing to do great work for the region.
To that end I propose that the Monarchy be granted authority over the requirements of remaining a part of this group after they receive their title. My idea is to decree that every season (every four months), each member would be required to submit their deeds and accomplishments in the region over the last season to the community for evaluation, at which people could comment their thoughts on whether individuals had met this high threshold, and the Monarch could revoke their membership in this group if it was felt they hadn't met the high standards. Anyone that had their membership revoked, either by this process or just because they didn't submit this or otherwise went inactive could then work on getting involved in the region again and reapply the next season, using that work as justification. This way, people aren't allowed to just sit in this exclusive group and accumulate aristocratic power...they would have to keep doing good for the region to remain a member.
Separately, I also propose that we do away with the proposed reconciliation process...I just think that the best way of avoiding the need for such a process would be for members of the two chambers to work together in drafting legislation before it's submitted at all, preferably in the Citizens Platform where Citizens can also have a say in the drafting process. Perhaps there could even be a requirement that legislation be drafted for a certain period of time in either the Citizens Platform or the private Storting area before it's introduced in a chamber. I think that would be much simpler than a potentially messy reconciliation process.
Are there any thoughts about my ideas?
-
Hmm, that sounds reasonable. I just have one question: does contributions to laws count towards that 4-month review period for those in the upper House?
On a personal note, I'll probably forget some of my deeds since I don't exactly keep track. Perhaps it would be prudent to do what tau does and set up a CV with my signature to keep track. Oh, and this is very much my problem. I'm just thinking out loud. Disregard this paragraph at your leisure.
-
I would think that contributions to laws would count, yeah. It's just as much a thing in the region as anything else.
-
I can't believe I forgot @Reon. :-[
Still friends?
-
Still friends...
Though I don't like this idea... It's basically a long tweak of what we currently have with longer discussion form, less free flow, more politicization, and weirder titles...
Not a huge fan of it...
Oh and I hate Anglo stuff, for the most part...
-
I don't believe that anybody currently here would seriously try to gain political prestige because we all understand our regional culture and (hopefully) agree that not being a political region is a good thing, but that might not be the case for new Citizens who would expect politics in a region in a political simulation game...they may see this system in an entirely different way than we wanted, resulting in an inadvertent shift in our regional culture. You have to also admit that even if they're equal in standing and power, the "noble" house will be considered more prestigious by default merely because it's more exclusive, and this is by design...otherwise, nobody would care to work for gaining entry into it, would would defeat the purpose of "giving the nobility a renewed purpose". It would be easy for somebody new to the region to misunderstand the reasons that it's prestigious, and work to become a noble for all the wrong reasons.
I didn't really think about the fact that new citizens might try to change things by not seeing it as we intend it -- good point.
To that end I propose that the Monarchy be granted authority over the requirements of remaining a part of this group after they receive their title. My idea is to decree that every season (every four months), each member would be required to submit their deeds and accomplishments in the region over the last season to the community for evaluation, at which people could comment their thoughts on whether individuals had met this high threshold, and the Monarch could revoke their membership in this group if it was felt they hadn't met the high standards. Anyone that had their membership revoked, either by this process or just because they didn't submit this or otherwise went inactive could then work on getting involved in the region again and reapply the next season, using that work as justification. This way, people aren't allowed to just sit in this exclusive group and accumulate aristocratic power...they would have to keep doing good for the region to remain a member.
Yeah, this could be a good compromise. It would be you who's the one giving noble titles and thus allowing into the upper house, so it would make sense that you could create requirements for and remove members from the upper house. It'd prevent people from stagnating after entrance as well as keep number of members of the upper house from soley increasing, so I'd accept this term.
Separately, I also propose that we do away with the proposed reconciliation process...I just think that the best way of avoiding the need for such a process would be for members of the two chambers to work together in drafting legislation before it's submitted at all, preferably in the Citizens Platform where Citizens can also have a say in the drafting process. Perhaps there could even be a requirement that legislation be drafted for a certain period of time in either the Citizens Platform or the private Storting area before it's introduced in a chamber. I think that would be much simpler than a potentially messy reconciliation process.
A few members have stated this worry, and I admit that it could be a big problem. Everyone working together on the bill right off the bat could be a good solution. Good ideas, and thanks for giving them. :)
I like the current Scandinavian theme we have going with the legislative aspects of the region (and the region in general) so I think we should continue to use that naming convention. @HannahB suggested Oberhaus for the UH and Herrhaus for the upper chamber, which are good starting points, but I think we can do better. Keeping the same names... we could do that, but if we're making all this change why not revamp from the ground up?
...
Revamping the Houses system I think would be a good thing. When we first came up with the system it was hailed by some as a very unique way of bringing people into the cultural side of the region, and by tying it in at a purely aesthetic level (I really doubt anyone here is politicised enough to abuse it) to the Upper Chamber I think we both motivate further use and activity in the Housing system and make our upper chamber something to strive for. It doesn't make it politicised, but it does make it an achievement to reach and doing so comes with a reward for the dedication and service an upper chamber member will have put into the region.
It seems we have the same thoughts on these. :)
I like the idea of Dukes and Counts being part of the upper chamber, but I definitely think we need to make that an optional thing. For example, were we to use this system I personally would find myself on the 'revisionary' side of the UH/OH line rather than the legislative side, which I'd rather avoid for the immediate future.
Building on this, there was a suggestion (again, Hannah and PB discussed this with me briefly) that the lower chamber could give out Common Titles, names of which I suggested in an earlier post, to recognise people's contributions to the region's political scene without elevating them to the upper chamber (Monarch's prerogative). This would, in my opinion at least, provide an activity incentive without politicising the region overly, and if we play it right we can also use this as a way to encourage people to get involved in the RP's etc.
Yeah, as I said before, nobles would apply to join the upper house, meaning they don't have to if they don't want to. The second part seems like a good idea to me (I think titles and recognition are good for activity), though I suspect Wintermoot would probably have to OK it first.
I think others have raised concerns about an equal lower and upper chamber, but I think we can retain at least some of your suggestions here. I'd like to tie in the proposing of Bills with a sponsorship process, so that a Bill is put forward and requires support from X number of lower chamber members (and perhaps X number of upper chamber members before it can go to a vote rather than requiring legislation to proceed in parallel) before it goes to vote or discussion.
I addressed this concern a little above in that the two houses will now probably not be equal. I think this sponsorship idea that you're trying to pass now could work well with Wintermoot's idea above.
Still friends...
Though I don't like this idea... It's basically a long tweak of what we currently have with longer discussion form, less free flow, more politicization, and weirder titles...
Not a huge fan of it...
Oh and I hate Anglo stuff, for the most part...
Fair enough :P
-
Still friends...
Though I don't like this idea... It's basically a long tweak of what we currently have with longer discussion form, less free flow, more politicization, and weirder titles...
Not a huge fan of it...
Oh and I hate Anglo stuff, for the most part...
The more I think about this plan, the more I see myself agreeing with boss man here. I'm not really seeing any difference from our current system - I'm actually struggling to find a difference between the proposed house of lords and the overhusen other than the titles; Duke and Count as opposed to Peer and Chairman. I'm also not agreeing with this fetishization over titles and nobility. The nobles I've encountered here, Pengu, Amalya, and Weiss, are literally heroes and give so much to the region. I believe conferring titles, even minor ones, diminishes the impact they've had. I'm nit saying I don't think that adding more people to the regional nobility is going to muddy the waters, I just think that being named to nobility is such a prestigious achievement that it should be handed out sparingly.
Sponsors are an interesting idea, but one of our goals was to cut down on bureaucracy, and I'm not convinced adding sponsors to things like the Citizen's Platform would do anything but overcomplicate it. Legislators should be able to know when to begin discussing an issue. If not, then they shouldn't be legislating.
I do thoroughly enjoy the House system. I think its incredibly interesting and I'd love to participate in it somehow someday. I also seriously considered embracing my authority as a Jail to name some Knights of Integration as a way to recognize sccomplishments, but again, I don't want this to become the Land of Many Titles and Styles.
-
Hmm, fair points about the upper chamber. In all my time here, the OH hasn't been the part of our legislature that's actually broken. Personally, I wish they'd involve themselves more, but that can happen through various means.
On the other hand, I think people are missing some excellent opportunities with the lower chamber here, since there wouldn't be elections, and the fact that you'd need to get in through invitation would add on well to the idea of being a meritocracy. Instead of the sponsor system, I prefer having it occur through a vote, however. In other words, you have the entire assembly view someone's application to join, and the entire assembly gets to ask him questions to see his knowledge of the laws, how quickly he learns, and how active he is during that time. Then they retire and discuss among themselves whether this person should gain entrance.
We could even avoid this becoming a popularity contest, by for instance giving the monarch's vote more weight than any other member for deciding whether said person would gain entry to the assembly.
And then we can cut out the upper assembly completely and just give the monarch the power to veto bills.
-
Hmm, fair points about the upper chamber. In all my time here, the OH hasn't been the part of our legislature that's actually broken. Personally, I wish they'd involve themselves more, but that can happen through various means.
On the other hand, I think people are missing some excellent opportunities with the lower chamber here, since there wouldn't be elections, and the fact that you'd need to get in through invitation would add on well to the idea of being a meritocracy. Instead of the sponsor system, I prefer having it occur through a vote, however. In other words, you have the entire assembly view someone's application to join, and the entire assembly gets to ask him questions to see his knowledge of the laws, how quickly he learns, and how active he is during that time. Then they retire and discuss among themselves whether this person should gain entrance.
We could even avoid this becoming a popularity contest, by for instance giving the monarch's vote more weight than any other member for deciding whether said person would gain entry to the assembly.
And then we can cut out the upper assembly completely and just give the monarch the power to veto bills.
I suppose I should clarify that I don't mind sponsorship to gain entry to the assembly. In fact, I think it makes sense in a meritocratic government to prove your worth to experienced people before you're entrusted with that sort of responsibility.
-
Ah, so were your and Reon's concerns mostly regarding the upper chamber?
-
Personally, yes. I like the House integration, but its really purely aesthetic in its current form.
-
As the week is winding down, I finally had the chance to read over this. Just as a heads up, I have zero political experience (both online and IRL).
I, for the most part, agree with Weiss's statements in his critiques.
As Point Breeze pointed out, these titles should be given out pretty sparingly for true overachievers who've given much more to this region than most. But, if the titles are given too sparingly, the upper house would barely have people to run it. Perhaps there should be another way to prove merit to get into the upper house besides just being appointed a noble, especially with their check for merit for their membership in the upper house every season anyway.
-
It's always useful to gain the opinion of those who have no experience whatsoever, since the chances are that many such people who join the region will be in the same predicament, and our system has to be simple enough for them to instantly wrap their minds around it and contribute.
-
After reading the whole thread of one sitting and for the first time as well, I'm mostly left with the feeling that Gerrick (or someone else) might need to rewrite a proposal that's in line with what Wintermoot would currently allow.
This proposal is starting to sound like having two Underhusens and replacing Overhusen with a lone Wintermoot. It started out interesting, but has too much been lost on the road?
I also don't think making the entry process an individualistic, spotlight-personal experience is a good idea. It would serve efficiently the meritocratic purity of our legislative bodies, but it'd either be repelling or cause hurt feelings. One of the perks of our frequent elections are that it's easy to run as a part of a larger group, have some exciting fun and not be butthurt when you don't get elected since you're not the only one.
Hanging on to those elections is in my mind the best way to retain most balanced appeal without compromising the fulfillment of meritocratic justice. This being said, I'd instead be looking to the purpose of the OH (since it could apparently be replaced with Wintermoot alone) and how the Citizen's Platform works. The path of nonpolitical-politics is narrow and has few carrots to spare.
Perhaps introducing a true House of Peasants would serve the purpose this proposal has left. Let's just slap an application form that makes the applicants answer some questions with practically automatic approval process. Boom, we have a controlled way to introduce people into our system, they get the kind of a goal that doesn't diminish anything else and being involved in politics is both nearly as open as it already is, but at the same time differentiating from those that aren't. :P (No, no new legislative power to the common Citizens, or Peasants as I rudely titled us.)
(Yeah, it's getting late and I have been staring at this for way too long. Hitting Post just so the time wouldn't feel so wasted.)
-
I do thoroughly enjoy the House system. I think it's incredibly interesting and I'd love to participate in it somehow someday. I also seriously considered embracing my authority as a Jarl to name some Knights of Integration as a way to recognize sccomplishments, but again, I don't want this to become the Land of Many Titles and Styles.
In which case, I nominate @Gerrick for winning so many integration contests :P
I suppose this is somewhat of an offshoot, but I didn't feel like making my own thread about the subject.
In order to encompass both the possibilities of an upper house and a lower house while also incorporating the nobility, what if we had our upper house of noble houses and a lower house of common houses? Nobility, after all, have served our region and could be considered worthy enough to influence its legislature.
All members are required to join a house. If one does not join a house, they are assumed to be a house of one.
Noble families are conferred by the Monarch, meaning anyone granted a Wintreath noble title is granted a noble house. Noble houses cannot have fewer than two members, so if a house of one is elevated to nobility, the Wintreath noble must immediately select a member to join their house. Noble families vote on accepting new members, meaning that houses of one can be dissolved and those from common houses can be promoted into noble houses if they wish.
Noble families gain one representative in the upper house automatically (elected by the members of each house); larger houses gain one member in the legislature for every four members, rounded up.
Members of common houses or lone houses can run for a number of at-large seats in the lower house every two/three months.
There are as of present four noble/royal houses: Kestar (one member), Meindhert (two active members), Penguon (four active members), and Valeria (seven active members), so four houses would be represented in the upper house like there are now. Five members, actually, if you account for the second Valeria representative.
There are quite a few other Citizens who could be represented in common houses either already existing or created under the new system.
The legislative process could either be the same or have either house eligible to introduce legislation. If either house is able to introduce legislation, the same bill (without amendments) must pass both houses as before. If amendments are allowed, the bill must go to a conference committee (like the U.S. House of Representatives).
I prefer keeping the names of the chambers the same: Underhusen and Overhusen. I also hope this proposal isn't too similar to any others that were proposed. I promise I've read all of the discussion, but that was only when it was current, and to revive this, I haven't caught back up from what I've forgotten.
-
I suppose this is somewhat of an offshoot, but I didn't feel like making my own thread about the subject.
In order to encompass both the possibilities of an upper house and a lower house while also incorporating the nobility, what if we had our upper house of noble houses and a lower house of common houses? Nobility, after all, have served our region and could be considered worthy enough to influence its legislature.
Yeah, this was the basis of the original proposal. :P
All members are required to join a house. If one does not join a house, they are assumed to be a house of one.
Noble families are conferred by the Monarch, meaning anyone granted a Wintreath noble title is granted a noble house. Noble houses cannot have fewer than two members, so if a house of one is elevated to nobility, the Wintreath noble must immediately select a member to join their house. Noble families vote on accepting new members, meaning that houses of one can be dissolved and those from common houses can be promoted into noble houses if they wish.
Noble families gain one representative in the upper house automatically (elected by the members of each house); larger houses gain one member in the legislature for every four members, rounded up.
Members of common houses or lone houses can run for a number of at-large seats in the lower house every two/three months.
This was one way I was interested in going, but then the upper house could include members that Wintermoot may not be comfortable with having in the upper house. My initial proposal had the upper house made up of noble individuals rather than noble family representatives, which would fix that problem as Wintermoot would only choose individuals he wants in the upper house, though the family idea wouldn't get to shine as much.
I remember some people saying they wanted some form of a family-based legislature to replace the UH, so you could try writing up a proposal for that if you're interested. :)
The legislative process could either be the same or have either house eligible to introduce legislation. If either house is able to introduce legislation, the same bill (without amendments) must pass both houses as before. If amendments are allowed, the bill must go to a conference committee (like the U.S. House of Representatives).
Having both houses able to introduce bills, then both pass the bill was deemed too complicated (as this was in the initial proposal). I don't think I quite understand the conference committee bit, though.
Honestly, I kind of dropped this proposal as it became so different from what I initially was wanting, though I suppose I could go through it again and try to put together all the suggestions from the thread when I have the time (aka not a day I work as I'm exhausted), so it's not all wasted.
-
The idea was that by having noble families select extra individuals for their ranks, they would vote on including only merited members who have contributed to the house/region. By having each house select only one member, it would generally be assumed that a house of two or three would choose its patriarch/noble founder. Of course, the monarch can also veto a representative if he is uncomfortable.
If you're too worn to write a proposal, I can certainly do it. I think it's a good path to go down for both the legislature, meritocracy, and RP, so I want to try to work with it.
I'm just happy that someone responded, because I was worried this would go for days without a reply :P
-
The idea was that by having noble families select extra individuals for their ranks, they would vote on including only merited members who have contributed to the house/region. By having each house select only one member, it would generally be assumed that a house of two or three would choose its patriarch/noble founder. Of course, the monarch can also veto a representative if he is uncomfortable.
If you're too worn to write a proposal, I can certainly do it. I think it's a good path to go down for both the legislature, meritocracy, and RP, so I want to try to work with it.
I'm just happy that someone responded, because I was worried this would go for days without a reply :P
Of course, you're more than welcome to write up a proposal if you'd like. We can't have too many proposals.
-
I'd be happy to draft up a bill, but my main concern is whether Royal Decrees can be amended. A majority of my proposal references Decree 004, but clauses 1 and 2 must be changed to incorporate what I am looking for. (I'm looking for @Wintermoot's approval on this one.)
Regardless, I'll post the bill proposal both in the Convention, the Citizens' Platform, and in the Underhusen; I'll amend it as necessary if it proves either unpopular or is not what the monarch will allow.
-
Royal decrees can be amended...by me. :P
-
Ah. Take the bill I am about to propose as a suggestion for Royal Decree amendments that would more easily facilitate the Storting Reform's passage, then.