View Topic

Bicam, one appointed one elected.

I agree with Charax on Bicameral, and the system.

1) Bicameral legislature.

2) The Underhusen would be elected by plurality vote by the citizens of the region. The candidates must be citizens of the region.

3) The Underhusen should have either two or three month long terms, with no term limits. The Overhusen should have life terms, but are still able to be impeached.

4) Both houses should be able pass, amend, and repeal legislation. They should also be able to approve or reject treaties. The Overhusen should be the one house able to declare war. And with a supermajority vote from both houses they will be able to override the King's veto. And probably other miscellaneous powers.

5) The members of the Overhusen would be nominated for the position by the King and would be approved by the majority/supermajority vote in favor of by the elected Underhusen. The Overhusen members can be nominated for impeachment by the King, and with a majority/supermajority vote in favor by the Underhusen, the Overhusen member(s) will be removed from office. Bills will be introduced into either house and if a bill passes one house it goes to the other; both houses must approve of the bill for it to be introduced to the King for his signature or veto; if the King vetoes it, it can be overriden by a supermajority vote for it by both houses. It'll still be able to be rendered null and void if the Judicial Branch finds the law in violation of the Constitution.

6) The Overhusen members can be nominated for impeachment by the King, and with a majority vote in favor by the Underhusen, the Overhusen member(s) will be removed from office. The Overhusen members can also be impeached without the King nominating them for impeachment but would require a supermajority vote in favor of it. Underhusen members can be voted upon by the Overhusen to start a recall referendum, and if a majority/supermajority vote in favor then the referendum is started and if a majority/supermajority vote for their recall then they are removed from the office.

7) After there are sufficient members in the Overhusen, then the King will nominate someone to serve as the head of the Overhusen and the person will need to be approved by a majority/supermajority of the Overhusen members and they will be made its head; the Overhusen's head won't be able to vote unless in ties. The Underhusen will be able to choose one of its own to serve as the head and by majority vote he/she will be made its head; the Underhusen's head will be able to vote in any scenario.

8 ) There should be 3-5 for the Overhusen and 4-10 for the Underhusen. Not including the head of the Overhusen; including the head of the Underhusen.

I have more details to give, but it's too late for me to do so, and I just wanted to get this out of the way.

I had planned on moving on with this tonight, but will grant Ceardia an extension to give his details...given his experience with Constitutional affairs elsewhere.

On the other hand, there can be such a thing as waiting too long. Thus, having read all the posts and ideas, made notes, and tried to come up with a consensus position on this.

Overhusen - The Upper Branch
Chaired by the Monarch or the Monarch's Representative
Appointed, members must be in the Riksrad
3-5 members, at the discretion of the Monarch

Underhusen - The Lower Branch
Elected to 2 month terms by the Citizens
Members must be Citizens and NOT in the Riksrad
4-7 members, the previous legislature will vote on the number of seats for the next term
Chairman appointed by the Monarch out of those who win the election

The Process
All legislation would originate in the Underhusen, by being submitted by any member of the Underhusen. The Underhusen could make modifications, and vote to pass or defeat the bill. Should the bill pass, it is then sent to the Overhusen. Unlike the Underhusen, the Overhusen would not be able to modify the legislation, merely vote to pass or defeat it...essentially serving as a veto. If defeated, the Underhusen could take it back up and modify at their desecration and repeat the process anew. If passed, the bill would become law.

In the event of Constitutional Amendments, it would need to be approved by the Monarch and the people through election, but that is for another topic.

Conclusion
I attempted to create a consensus position that made sense, in a sea of different ideas. Some people had mentioned elected terms as short as two weeks and as long as six months. I thought two months was a good compromise, and allows time for people to stand for election, campaign, and vote, which in itself will probably take two weeks. If we're on time for elections for the 1st of December, this would make elections happen at the beginning of December, February, April, June, August, and October.

I also feel that it's important that the legislature have the ability to grow and shrink along with interest for seats without the need to amend the Constitution. Thus I gave both chambers the ability to choose how many seats it would have within reason...the Underhusen would vote on the number of seats (between 4 and 7) prior to the next election, and the Overhusen would have however many number of seats are appointed between 3 and 5. This is the same idea I came up with for Spiritus during its Constitutional Convention, and I think it's worked very well there.

Most difficult for me was the idea of a bicameral legislature. I like streamlined, effective institutions, and normally bicameral legislatures are...not...as some proponents of the unicameral system pointed out. I attempted to streamline the process by making it one way and by only granting the first house to look at bills the power to modify them. This way the two chambers do not need to keep track with where the other is on each bill, and I think balance of power is preserved with unique powers to both branches. The Underhusen can modify, and the Overhusen can veto.

Finally, I personally would be most comfortable with appointing the Chairs of both chambers for now. As a new nation with many players new to being a part of government, it's important that the Chairperson be able to keep track of the Constitution, procedures of the house, and where legislation stands in that. It's a position of great responsibility, but not of any greater power since this person would have to follow the procedures of the house. As we grow and people become more experience, I would be comfortable with releasing the power to appoint the Chair of the Underhusen.

So there it is...I hope this comes across as a good system, because I gave it a lot of thought, but if something seems off or bad please don't hesitate to say so. This is the people's branch, and I'm trying to simply act as a coordinator so we can arrive at a final system.

With that said, thoughts?

I like it .

Admittedly I have not been here very long, and I'm sure there are many discussions I have missed. But Winter knows his stuff and I like it so, I support it.

Wintermoot, while your idea is good, it could be a bit hard to pass something. I understand you want to streamline the process, however with streamlining, it can make is harder to pass things, and to get good resolutions. I think that there should be more back and forth between the houses, and while it makes it harder, and longer, to pass something it allows for a more thorough evaluation, and allows for better changes to be made. Also someone might have a flawed understanding of the proposal, and with the system I proposed, it might be a bit better. The system should allow for more back and forth. Also the length should be three months, due to the fact that three months extends the time, and allows for the candidates to run without being too much of a rush. Also a Bicameral system, while being a little less streamlined has it's own pros and cons, and streamlining it only diminishes that. While the process can be streamlined, sometimes it's best to leave things untouched. However again these are my opinions. While streamlined institutions do work, however I believe quality over quantity. It may take a week to get a proposal passed in a normal Bicameral legislature, HOWEVER, also keep in mind that it's quality can be increased, unlike in a Unicameral Legislature. Of course I will return and better assert my views later when I get some sleep as I assume this is rather unorganized.

Thanks for your comments, Chanku. Let me explain the thinking behind this particular system, for yourself and others to consider.

A number of people supported a unicameral legislature, and I myself am a supporter of unicameral legislatures. As Kanzler95 pointed out, bicameral systems are at risk of deadlock between the two houses. Besides that, things can quickly become confused just from having to keep track of the actions of both houses. A bill comes in, one house approves it, then the other house approves a different version of the same bill, requiring the first house to approve that version, and if they modify it...and as someone else pointed out, it can be difficult to find enough people wanting to fill both houses, especially in a new region.

For those reasons, the vast majority of NationStates regions don't bother with a bicameral legislature, because they tend to collapse in their own confusion.

However, a lot of that confusion is taken out in this system. It's a very simple process...the same bill passes through both houses or it dosen't pass at all. That doesn't mean it doesn't allow for evaluation...members of the Overhusen can comment on legislation in the Underhusen by participating in the Citizen comment area for legislation, or it can simply block the bill, at which point the Underhusen can look at it again. I don't believed a streamlined process will lead to poorer legislation, and obviously most of NS doesn't either since most legislatures are in fact unicameral. Additionally, if we have two houses with the same abilities and powers, what would be the point of having a bicameral legislature? Why not just have one larger unicameral legislature? I think it's a benefit that the two houses are different here, not a detraction.

While Bicameral legislatures can be confusing at times, and  can create deadlocks, sometimes it is better to have two bodies. However if you take a look at my system, the bodies, don't have the same power. Maybe I didn't completely explain my system, however. The lower house has similar power to you. Also while sometimes Bicameral legislature can have deadlocks, so can Unicameral Legislatures. Thanks for the explanation. Please note that since I am at school, I do not have time to respond as much as I want.

Eh. I'm still kind of on the fence about the members of the Overhusen needing to be in the Riksrad. Seems a bit unnecessary.

Eh. I'm still kind of on the fence about the members of the Overhusen needing to be in the Riksrad. Seems a bit unnecessary.

But...but...but...it was part of your initial idea.

Now that I am back from school I can coherently state my thoughts. I've been creating this all day.

   To be honest, your system and proposal has it's ups and downs. However I have several problems with your system, it is too direct. While there are challenges that come with a Bicameral Legislature, streamlining it can make it's own problems. Here the problems I see:

• The term is two months
• An Overhussen member might want to propose a bill
• There is no Override

 
   The term, in my opinion is too short, and should be three months. The reason I think the term should be three months is to allows for a candidates for the next election to be there at the end of second month, and the third month would be more of a 'Lame Duck' period, and would be used mainly to wrap things up, and to hold elections. It also helps reduce a bit of a rush for elections.

  The next problem I see is that an Overhussen member might want to propose a bill, but won't be able too, however I want to see how it is handled by Wintermoot before I post this, because of the fact that there are more ways to this to approach this.

  The final problem is that there is no override. With out an override the Overhusen could deny a bill because of the fact they don't like the person who made it, or they don't like the Underhusen(for personal and political reasons). With an override it could override the Overhusen's rule on a proposal. However the overrule should be easy to do if needed, but hard enough to not do it on every single proposal as it should be something used only when needed. While it does create a bit of back and forth between the houses, and removes some streamlining, it allows for more than one way to get a bill passed, which might be necessary.

  Also I have a few minor worries, mainly that a few people in the Overhusen could veto a bill because they don't like the person they like it for various reasons, or pass it for those reasons as well. However there could also be a need to explain the reason for voting the way that they do. However this also has a few more ways that can be done.

  While I might not be the most experienced person here, I do however want to try and work out some possible problems.

Now that I am back from school I can coherently state my thoughts. I've been creating this all day.

   To be honest, your system and proposal has it's ups and downs. However I have several problems with your system, it is too direct. While there are challenges that come with a Bicameral Legislature, streamlining it can make it's own problems. Here the problems I see:

• The term is two months
• An Overhussen member might want to propose a bill
• There is no Override

 
   The term, in my opinion is too short, and should be three months. The reason I think the term should be three months is to allows for a candidates for the next election to be there at the end of second month, and the third month would be more of a 'Lame Duck' period, and would be used mainly to wrap things up, and to hold elections. It also helps reduce a bit of a rush for elections.

  The next problem I see is that an Overhussen member might want to propose a bill, but won't be able too, however I want to see how it is handled by Wintermoot before I post this, because of the fact that there are more ways to this to approach this.

  The final problem is that there is no override. With out an override the Overhusen could deny a bill because of the fact they don't like the person who made it, or they don't like the Underhusen(for personal and political reasons). With an override it could override the Overhusen's rule on a proposal. However the overrule should be easy to do if needed, but hard enough to not do it on every single proposal as it should be something used only when needed. While it does create a bit of back and forth between the houses, and removes some streamlining, it allows for more than one way to get a bill passed, which might be necessary.

  Also I have a few minor worries, mainly that a few people in the Overhusen could veto a bill because they don't like the person they like it for various reasons, or pass it for those reasons as well. However there could also be a need to explain the reason for voting the way that they do. However this also has a few more ways that can be done.

  While I might not be the most experienced person here, I do however want to try and work out some possible problems.

1)Agreed, 3 months would be better.
2)Then we can modify the system to include people from both places be able to propose laws. And I'm assuming that citizens can propose laws under Moot's system, otherwise that'll be an issue :P.
3)Welcome to politics, people do this on a REGULAR basis. Your bill, however, should be good enough you attract people to vote Aye on your bill more then Nay. HOWEVER, there should be more then one way to pass a bill, and we can work out the kinks.

1. I understand the reasoning behind wanting longer terms however two months is longer than it seems. As someone who is in a two-term legislature I have never felt rushed or anything like that.

2. The second part of what Horse said; ideally everyone will be able to come up with ideas for, or even write, laws. It's only the members of the Underhusen who will actually be able to begin the process of turning the idea into law.

3. The Overhussen vote to veto, which means that a majority of the Overhussen must agree that the bill is bad. If they do this because they don't like a certain person, then they might have a good reason. On the other hand, an override isn't necessarily a bad thing either so I could go either way on this one.