View Topic

[If the Storting was combined into one body should there be:]

If the Storting was combined into one body should there be:

More Elected Representatives than those Selected by the Monarchy

More Selected Representatives than those whom are Elected.

A 50/50 split of both Elected and Selected Representatives.

No Elected Representatives

No Representatives Selected by the Monarchy

So yeah, I have made my modification of Laurentus' proposal a poll, because I really want to find out which of the options above is more popular.

basically it's the same as "Laurentus' Convention Proposal 2.0" quoted here for reference

Quote

The way I see it, if we're not going to be passing laws often, there's no reason those duties can't be taken up by the Riksråd, or a completely open assembly.

So that's what my second proposal is: an open assembly. But with a twist.

You see, our current judiciary relies on having two Skrifa and one Peer in it, so obviously it would be a hassle to try and change the judiciary so fundamentally, especially as we've almost never been able to agree on anything to do with the judiciary. It would therefore be problematic to get rid of the UH and OH entirely.

So my proposal is this, and credit goes to @Chanku and @Bodobol for giving me two elements of this idea to work with:

Instead of holding elections every two or four months, we have an UH with 6 month terms, and at any time during that term, any Skrifa may get recalled by the citizenry and replaced by another. The UH stands for re-election at the conclusion of that six month term.

But here's the kicker: the UH would serve mostly as an organisational and advisory body to the citizenry, and one of the reasons for keeping them alive would be for the judiciary. The OH would become a source to test the constitutionality of laws that the citizenry in the open assembly put forward, much like the constitutional court in South Africa, while still having veto power to stop awful laws from passing, and represent the monarchy in the process. They would also stay preserved for the judiciary.

So to summarise:

1. The UH lives on (I haven't decided on a potential size for it yet), but as an advisory body, and they only get a complete election every six months. At any time, the citizenry, who become involved with our open assembly, may recall individual Skrifa, and vote on someone to replace any Skrifa who gets recalled or who resigns.

2. The OH simultaneously represent the monarchy and serve as a constitutional court to test the legality of the laws that the citizenry vote on. This duty cannot be given to the Riksråd, because our laws require the existence of the UH and OH for the judiciary when it has to get assembled.

3. We cover the bases of existing laws such as those that cover the judiciary (and citizenship revocations), while having a nice new open assembly for laws to get passed through in the future, as well as neat little safeguards being put in place to make sure terrible laws don't get through, and we can finally move forward.

Discuss/criticise/verbally abuse away.

Except my modification has the Storting, that's the Underhusen and Overhusen, combined into one body, with representatives whom are both elected and selected by the monarchy. They preform both the functions for the groups that Laurentus mentions, acting as one combined body to veto laws passed by the open assembly while also being the pool for judges and acting as support for the open assembly.

The term time here would presumably be 6 months, and I am currently working under the basis of 2 to 6 seats on the new Storting body. Though these numbers are preliminary and are easily subject to change.

What do you all think?

Also it is of important note, that me posting this doesn't void my other ongoing proposal, I am running both at the same time trying to find the best and most agreeable choice.

Personally, my opinion would be to dismantle the OH, give Wintermoot veto powers and adopt an open assembly, but keep the UH, change the name and use them to vote and debate on proposals by the open assembly

Hmm, I'll add none and none as options, anyone can change their votes by the way just in case.

@Sapphiron pointed out a problem with giving Wintermoot veto power.

Wintermoot did point out that my focus on potential issues before even deciding on a new system for the legislature is flawed, which I do agree, but I would be more convinced to support proposals on passing on the veto power to the Monarch if the issue regarding the appeal system is resolved, which I have no idea at the moment.

That sounds like it could piss a lot of people off, because we've never been able to agree on something to do with the judiciary, and I have a feeling that revocations might be no different.

Just for the record of course, my personal preference would be giving Wintermoot veto power, but having a board of representatives to the monarch make some people more comfortable.

The problem I see with having more selected representatives or having no elected representatives is...really, at that point if we're deciding that we want more or all of Mooty's selected people representing than elected officials, then why even have an open assembly at that point?  Why not just have it be a Council type of thing to where the Overhusen would have all the power?

But then you'd have certain people that would complain that the OH shouldn't have all that power, and that there should be open elections again, and we'd probably be right back to square one.