View Topic

Welcome to the campaign! Sorry to barge in on you without any direct questions for you, but I saw something that made me wonder...

If it's an obligation for the Citizens to directly vote in laws, would it not be best to eliminate elections and make the Underhusen an open assembly?

If I may be the one to answer this...

I think the goal is to give the citizens more say, and I think that's what Sapphiron is trying to get at with the idea of a referendum.  The Underhusen is about the people, and giving them more say in the laws rather than just being stuck proposing new ones is a way to show that.

At the moment, that's all I've seen in the Platform, is proposal for new laws...no discussions or ideas on how they feel about ones being talked about/voted on in the UH, and really no say in whether or not they themselves agree with those laws.

So I think the idea is really giving the Citizens' Platform a more well rounded reason for it being called a Platform - for citizens to lend their voice to what they think about the things being done around Wintreath at a political level, and for the UH to really just start listening and making more decisions based on what the citizens are saying.

It's not necessarily saying have all of the citizens vote on everything and directly vote on laws.  It's like what was said earlier: polling and getting a citizen consensus on whether they think it's a good idea or not, and using that to help with future decisions.

Ah, understood.

Welcome to the campaign! Sorry to barge in on you without any direct questions for you, but I saw something that made me wonder...

If it's an obligation for the Citizens to directly vote in laws, would it not be best to eliminate elections and make the Underhusen an open assembly?

I don't recall using the word "vote," nor do I recall saying citizens have an obligation to vote on laws.

To try and clarify my quote:

Also, while the citizens voting on every single law before it can get passed would be highly impractical, I do believe we have an obligation to put every law before the citizens directly and ask: "are you okay with this?"

Specifically, once a law has been passed, hold a poll and ask that question. Otherwise the sample of data is not truly representative.

1) The "we" I refer to means "we as the underhusen."

2) I was referring to a poll that we would put up to gauge the general feeling of the citizens AFTER passing a law, the reason being that while it would be impractical for citizens to vote on every law before it gets passed, it is never a bad thing to receive criticisms and suggestions from everyone once the laws have been passed, then we can decide whether certain parts should perhaps be amended or removed.

But I see that an argument can be made, asking why the underhusen would even need power if such a thing were to happen. Why indeed. I didn't think of that. Thank you. The short answer is that perhaps the underhusen wouldn't need power. Would it be so terrible if we only write, interpret and organise laws?

Welcome to the campaign! Sorry to barge in on you without any direct questions for you, but I saw something that made me wonder...

If it's an obligation for the Citizens to directly vote in laws, would it not be best to eliminate elections and make the Underhusen an open assembly?

I don't recall using the word "vote," nor do I recall saying citizens have an obligation to vote on laws.

To try and clarify my quote:

Also, while the citizens voting on every single law before it can get passed would be highly impractical, I do believe we have an obligation to put every law before the citizens directly and ask: "are you okay with this?"

Specifically, once a law has been passed, hold a poll and ask that question. Otherwise the sample of data is not truly representative.

1) The "we" I refer to means "we as the underhusen."

2) I was referring to a poll that we would put up to gauge the general feeling of the citizens AFTER passing a law, the reason being that while it would be impractical for citizens to vote on every law before it gets passed, it is never a bad thing to receive criticisms and suggestions from everyone once the laws have been passed, then we can decide whether certain parts should perhaps be amended or removed.

But I see that an argument can be made, asking why the underhusen would even need power if such a thing were to happen. Why indeed. I didn't think of that. Thank you. The short answer is that perhaps the underhusen wouldn't need power. Would it be so terrible if we only write, interpret and organise laws?

And to answer this, I think any idea of disbanding the Underhusen in any shape or form or lessening the power they DO have is a bad idea.

Right now we have a perfect balance of power: We have the Monarch who acts like the president but has the authority to really do whatever he wants if he so chooses (and thankfully he remains fair and just), the Overhusen that acts a bit like the Senate, with the Monarch being part of it, and the Underhusen that acts like the House.

If we disbanded the Underhusen in any form or made them a lesser form than they are now, then not only would we be giving more power to the Overhusen (which was made to serve the best interests of the Monarch), but we'd be taking away the main assembly of the people and turning into something simple of "writing, interpreting, and organizing laws."

Welcome to the campaign! Sorry to barge in on you without any direct questions for you, but I saw something that made me wonder...

If it's an obligation for the Citizens to directly vote in laws, would it not be best to eliminate elections and make the Underhusen an open assembly?

I don't recall using the word "vote," nor do I recall saying citizens have an obligation to vote on laws.

To try and clarify my quote:

Also, while the citizens voting on every single law before it can get passed would be highly impractical, I do believe we have an obligation to put every law before the citizens directly and ask: "are you okay with this?"

Specifically, once a law has been passed, hold a poll and ask that question. Otherwise the sample of data is not truly representative.

1) The "we" I refer to means "we as the underhusen."

2) I was referring to a poll that we would put up to gauge the general feeling of the citizens AFTER passing a law, the reason being that while it would be impractical for citizens to vote on every law before it gets passed, it is never a bad thing to receive criticisms and suggestions from everyone once the laws have been passed, then we can decide whether certain parts should perhaps be amended or removed.

But I see that an argument can be made, asking why the underhusen would even need power if such a thing were to happen. Why indeed. I didn't think of that. Thank you. The short answer is that perhaps the underhusen wouldn't need power. Would it be so terrible if we only write, interpret and organise laws?

And to answer this, I think any idea of disbanding the Underhusen in any shape or form or lessening the power they DO have is a bad idea.

Right now we have a perfect balance of power: We have the Monarch who acts like the president but has the authority to really do whatever he wants if he so chooses (and thankfully he remains fair and just), the Overhusen that acts a bit like the Senate, with the Monarch being part of it, and the Underhusen that acts like the House.

If we disbanded the Underhusen in any form or made them a lesser form than they are now, then not only would we be giving more power to the Overhusen (which was made to serve the best interests of the Monarch), but we'd be taking away the main assembly of the people and turning into something simple of "writing, interpreting, and organizing laws."

Not to my understanding, since the underhusen would be involved with direct democracy with the citizenry. If votes by the citizenry are required to pass every law, then how is that feeding the overhusen with power?

And to answer another question that I predict would come up: nothing would prevent the underhusen from writing, amending and proposing other laws while one is at vote, so it wouldn't even truly be more inefficient than polling.

Ahem might I also add that anyone can talk about laws in the Citizen's Platform, if you want to start a discussion about a law then DO IT don't wait for someone else too.

Welcome to the campaign! Sorry to barge in on you without any direct questions for you, but I saw something that made me wonder...

If it's an obligation for the Citizens to directly vote in laws, would it not be best to eliminate elections and make the Underhusen an open assembly?

I don't recall using the word "vote," nor do I recall saying citizens have an obligation to vote on laws.

To try and clarify my quote:

Also, while the citizens voting on every single law before it can get passed would be highly impractical, I do believe we have an obligation to put every law before the citizens directly and ask: "are you okay with this?"

Specifically, once a law has been passed, hold a poll and ask that question. Otherwise the sample of data is not truly representative.

1) The "we" I refer to means "we as the underhusen."

2) I was referring to a poll that we would put up to gauge the general feeling of the citizens AFTER passing a law, the reason being that while it would be impractical for citizens to vote on every law before it gets passed, it is never a bad thing to receive criticisms and suggestions from everyone once the laws have been passed, then we can decide whether certain parts should perhaps be amended or removed.

But I see that an argument can be made, asking why the underhusen would even need power if such a thing were to happen. Why indeed. I didn't think of that. Thank you. The short answer is that perhaps the underhusen wouldn't need power. Would it be so terrible if we only write, interpret and organise laws?

And to answer this, I think any idea of disbanding the Underhusen in any shape or form or lessening the power they DO have is a bad idea.

Right now we have a perfect balance of power: We have the Monarch who acts like the president but has the authority to really do whatever he wants if he so chooses (and thankfully he remains fair and just), the Overhusen that acts a bit like the Senate, with the Monarch being part of it, and the Underhusen that acts like the House.

If we disbanded the Underhusen in any form or made them a lesser form than they are now, then not only would we be giving more power to the Overhusen (which was made to serve the best interests of the Monarch), but we'd be taking away the main assembly of the people and turning into something simple of "writing, interpreting, and organizing laws."

Not to my understanding, since the underhusen would be involved with direct democracy with the citizenry. If votes by the citizenry are required to pass every law, then how is that feeding the overhusen with power?

And to answer another question that I predict would come up: nothing would prevent the underhusen from writing, amending and proposing other laws while one is at vote, so it wouldn't even truly be more inefficient than polling.

Because of this:

The Underhusen has the right to push laws to a vote and pass them, but all laws that aren't UH-specific go straight to the Overhusen for another vote before they're actually enacted.

Basically what you just said is that they'd be stripped completely except to writing and interpreting the laws.  What about about their power to VETO?  What about other powers that the UH has that would be lost?  If they lost their power to VETO the Overhusen's decision and bring it to another vote, for example, it could lead to having an exceptionally corrupt Overhusen.

And going back to what Mooty said, if you're going to strip their purpose down to almost minimal...why not at that point open it up to all of Wintreath at that point?  Why even bother having a political system of representatives at that point if all they're doing is just writing and organizing laws and nothing else? 

Ahem might I also add that anyone can talk about laws in the Citizen's Platform, if you want to start a discussion about a law then DO IT don't wait for someone else too.

This might come out a bit rudely despite it not meaning to be so, but what citizen in their right mind is going to be like "Hey, let's talk about this law that's being brought to a vote right now!" ?

Citizens aren't going to take an interest unless we take an interest in their opinions.  You're saying don't wait for someone else to start a discussion, but that goes both ways. Why do we have to wait for them to take the initiative when it's really not that difficult to just ask them?

We're supposed to be valuing what they say, and the best way to show that is to be like "Hey, so what do you guys think about this?"  Rather than waiting for them to voice it.

Ahem might I also add that anyone can talk about laws in the Citizen's Platform, if you want to start a discussion about a law then DO IT don't wait for someone else too.

This might come out a bit rudely despite it not meaning to be so, but what citizen in their right mind is going to be like "Hey, let's talk about this law that's being brought to a vote right now!" ?

Citizens aren't going to take an interest unless we take an interest in their opinions.  You're saying don't wait for someone else to start a discussion, but why do we have to wait for them to take the initiative when it's really not that difficult to just ask them?

We're supposed to be valuing what they say, and the best way to show that is to be like "Hey, so what do you guys think about this?"  Rather than waiting for them to voice it.

While that was a bit aggressive, it just annoys me when people are acting like something that they want to do in a certain section can't be done, or should be, when the entire purpose of that section was for that usage in the first place.

Furthermore I'd rather the citizens take it upon themselves, mainly because I don't feel it is the job of the Storting to educate the citizens on what is in the Chambers, but it is the duties of the citizens to do so. Although the main issue I have with having each, and every, thing pass by the citizenry is that it can be tedious and tbh if I had to do it, I probably wouldn't in introduce legislation mainly because I introduce a lot of it (Especially when compared to other members, both past and present.). The other issue is that it causes politics to become the forefront of the region itself, which it isn't supposed to be.

Ahem might I also add that anyone can talk about laws in the Citizen's Platform, if you want to start a discussion about a law then DO IT don't wait for someone else too.

This might come out a bit rudely despite it not meaning to be so, but what citizen in their right mind is going to be like "Hey, let's talk about this law that's being brought to a vote right now!" ?

Citizens aren't going to take an interest unless we take an interest in their opinions.  You're saying don't wait for someone else to start a discussion, but why do we have to wait for them to take the initiative when it's really not that difficult to just ask them?

We're supposed to be valuing what they say, and the best way to show that is to be like "Hey, so what do you guys think about this?"  Rather than waiting for them to voice it.

While that was a bit aggressive, it just annoys me when people are acting like something that they want to do in a certain section can't be done, or should be, when the entire purpose of that section was for that usage in the first place.

Furthermore I'd rather the citizens take it upon themselves, mainly because I don't feel it is the job of the Storting to educate the citizens on what is in the Chambers, but it is the duties of the citizens to do so. Although the main issue I have with having each, and every, thing pass by the citizenry is that it can be tedious and tbh if I had to do it, I probably wouldn't in introduce legislation mainly because I introduce a lot of it (Especially when compared to other members, both past and present.). The other issue is that it causes politics to become the forefront of the region itself, which it isn't supposed to be.

People are going to treat a forum and talk in it depending on what they see.  If they see simply people proposing new laws, then that's all it's going to get used for.  You can't expect a citizen to make a topic discussing the current laws or upcoming ones if all they're seeing is "Proposal for "such and such" act" and topics like that.  If there were topics like "Discuss your thoughts on the "such and such" act" then that would be a different story, but as it stands, there's not.

And the only ones that really do know the Platform's true purpose at this point either don't care enough to add for it, or as you said, are waiting for others to put the topics up before they say anything.

So I'm saying why do we have to be at this stalemate of two sides waiting for the other to respond?  Sure, you want to hear what your citizens have to say...but YOU'RE their representitive.  YOU'RE the person that was elected to take their concerns and help shape them into something better.  You're in a position of power, and thus you're the role model.  So be a role model and TAKE INITIATIVE instead of waiting for someone to post a topic and be like "Hey, so what do you think about this?"

Heck, Sapphiron just did it right now, and he's not even part of the Underhusen, but a candidate.

Welcome to the campaign! Sorry to barge in on you without any direct questions for you, but I saw something that made me wonder...

If it's an obligation for the Citizens to directly vote in laws, would it not be best to eliminate elections and make the Underhusen an open assembly?

I don't recall using the word "vote," nor do I recall saying citizens have an obligation to vote on laws.

To try and clarify my quote:

Also, while the citizens voting on every single law before it can get passed would be highly impractical, I do believe we have an obligation to put every law before the citizens directly and ask: "are you okay with this?"

Specifically, once a law has been passed, hold a poll and ask that question. Otherwise the sample of data is not truly representative.

1) The "we" I refer to means "we as the underhusen."

2) I was referring to a poll that we would put up to gauge the general feeling of the citizens AFTER passing a law, the reason being that while it would be impractical for citizens to vote on every law before it gets passed, it is never a bad thing to receive criticisms and suggestions from everyone once the laws have been passed, then we can decide whether certain parts should perhaps be amended or removed.

But I see that an argument can be made, asking why the underhusen would even need power if such a thing were to happen. Why indeed. I didn't think of that. Thank you. The short answer is that perhaps the underhusen wouldn't need power. Would it be so terrible if we only write, interpret and organise laws?

And to answer this, I think any idea of disbanding the Underhusen in any shape or form or lessening the power they DO have is a bad idea.

Right now we have a perfect balance of power: We have the Monarch who acts like the president but has the authority to really do whatever he wants if he so chooses (and thankfully he remains fair and just), the Overhusen that acts a bit like the Senate, with the Monarch being part of it, and the Underhusen that acts like the House.

If we disbanded the Underhusen in any form or made them a lesser form than they are now, then not only would we be giving more power to the Overhusen (which was made to serve the best interests of the Monarch), but we'd be taking away the main assembly of the people and turning into something simple of "writing, interpreting, and organizing laws."

Not to my understanding, since the underhusen would be involved with direct democracy with the citizenry. If votes by the citizenry are required to pass every law, then how is that feeding the overhusen with power?

And to answer another question that I predict would come up: nothing would prevent the underhusen from writing, amending and proposing other laws while one is at vote, so it wouldn't even truly be more inefficient than polling.

Because of this:

The Underhusen has the right to push laws to a vote and pass them, but all laws that aren't UH-specific go straight to the Overhusen for another vote before they're actually enacted.

Basically what you just said is that they'd be stripped completely except to writing and interpreting the laws.  What about about their power to VETO?  What about other powers that the UH has that would be lost?  If they lost their power to VETO the Overhusen's decision and bring it to another vote, for example, it could lead to having an exceptionally corrupt Overhusen.

And going back to what Mooty said, if you're going to strip their purpose down to almost minimal...why not at that point open it up to all of Wintreath at that point?  Why even bother having a political system of representatives at that point if all they're doing is just writing and organizing laws and nothing else?

1) Obviously those laws would have to be changed to reflect the interests of the citizenry, and the right to VETO would remain if the citizenry wants it.

2)That's exactly what I'm saying. There is no reason at that point. And then I asked why that would be so terrible. I mean, you agreed that polls would be useful to gauge the feeling of the citizens, but then failed to specify how often these polls would be held. And if the general feeling then turned out to be against the established law, and that leads to an amendment, why not cut out an unnecessary step and let the people vote directly? It would be no more inefficient.

It's quite a large departure from the way things are, so I understand why this is garnering the response that it's getting, but it is indeed something we'd need to clarify.

What I'm essentially saying is this. If you allow ANY sort of truly direct and representative democracy, such as polling, why not allow COMPLETE direct democracy at that point?

Would a fail-safe system then be put into place to prevent democracy from becoming a mob? If so, what would these measures be?

I don't know the answers to these questions myself. That's why it needs to be discussed. In a way, we're working as an underhusen already by contemplating this.

2)That's exactly what I'm saying. There is no reason at that point. And then I asked why that would be so terrible. I mean, you agreed that polls would be useful to gauge the feeling of the citizens, but then failed to specify how often these polls would be held. And if the general feeling then turned out to be against the established law, and that leads to an amendment, why not cut out an unnecessary step and let the people vote directly? It would be no more inefficient.

I assumed that was obvious when I said they'd be held when the UH had a discussion on a new act, and that way it'd give us a better idea when voting time came. 

And to answer your question: Because we're a monarchy, not a democracy.  We have the UH to balance things out a bit, but we're never going to be a complete democracy, and quite honestly I'm content with how the system is right now.  I'm just saying since we have a benevolent Monarch that is allowing this system to work and is open to all of these types of changes...we just need to alter it slightly to give the people more of a voice.

We don't need to completely dissolve the UH and open it up completely, nor do we need to shut the citizens out and give them the illusion of having a voice when they don't.  The proposals being made are in the middle to where the UH is still going to be the decision makers, but that we're going to start listening to the citizens and getting their concensus on the decisions being made.  In other words, instead of serving "their best interest," we'd actually in reality be serving their best interest, because we'd be taking the time to LEARN what that would be.

I now understand. Thank you. See, this is what elections should look like. Constant back-and-forth between the candidates and members of the general citizenry as well, which keeps things fresh and interesting, but also focused and enlightening. Thank you, everyone, for contributing thus far.

And to give my own thoughts, I do believe there should always be a middle ground, to avoid the two extremes of too much democracy and too much dictatorship. This is indeed the way to maintain that balance.

>.> Seems like a discussion had taken place while I was sleeping