View Topic

It has become clear that holding elections every two months for the Uderhusen is severely flawed in many ways.

I'm wondering what the possibility is of changing the election process, without losing the democracy, to be more efficient. What are your thoughts?

I'm honestly at a loss, all I know is we won't survive another few terms like this one.

I think we're heading in the right direction, slowly.

The problem is when we take too much time on bills when we shouldn't be.  Some will require the attention, but others we should be getting out of the way in a matter of a couple of days at most.  UH members should be decisive: If a bill needs discussion, then discussion should happen.  If they're all unsure, then table it since if you're not even sure what you should do, then it clearly needs much more discussion outside of the UH to get the public's input.  And likewise, if you're absolutely sure and possibly in complete agreement, it should be expedited and taken to a vote.

I think having rules that force the UH to be a bit less lazy and a bit more efficient is going to be the way to go.  Two months is actually a lot longer than it sounds, even if some days it may go by fast.  It's just that sometimes it seems like we sit and do nothing, so those days go by even faster.

I believe that is a somewhat pessimistic outlook Laurentus, although I can see how you came to that conclusion, but I also think it may be somewhat undue...

However, it is my opinion that we can modify the current rules in order to encourage more activity, without a total reform, although it may still be prudent to keep in the back of the mind, if all attempts to encourage the UH fail, then we could look into changing the election structure and process, but to me it seems that we should try small changes first, and if they fail then move to larger more far reaching movements.

There could be other actions we could take, while still remaining within the current laws as well, perhaps a bigger UH, or electing a more involved one? I think we are still a little way off a total reform... though as I say, future Skrifa should still keep the possibility in mind, for later terms.

I consider it to actually be very valuable input.  It shows how these flaws affect both the citizens as well as our own Skrifa, and it shows why we need to do something to fix those flaws.  Let me put it this way: Laurentus has always been very level headed and very understanding even if he has a disagreement on an opinion.  For him to talk about reforming the UH not shortly, but entirely, tells me that there are glaring problems that are starting to show themselves in the light.

Like I told you on iRC, I'm actually very grateful for this term because, while it may not have been our absolute best like I consider my first term being, it exposed some very important flaws to be fixed up.  One which is currently under discussion, and more which I or someone else in the UH will bring up either before the end of the term, or sometime in the next term either as a Skrifa or Citizen.

Again, I think we're stepping in the right direction.  If we just keep doing what we are and finding those glaring flaws so that we can fix them, the Underhusen has a lot of potential to be a powerhouse branch of Government regardless if it's a two-month cycle or not.

I actually agree with Laurentus, though I have hated our government for a long time... Listen, if we push it through in two months it almost has terrible, completely destroying problems... If we discuss it we run out of time and it doesn't get done... 2 months just isn't enough to actually do things!

I may open up a poll giving a few choices for the duration of our terms.

My worry with making it longer is that we are not actively discussing things the way we should be, so I'm not certain we want to encourage that further by extending our terms by a few months.

I also honestly still think that we need new faces in the UH, and I think a good way to make that happen is to limit how many people from the Riksråd may gain seats, because we of the Riksråd inevitably know a lot about the law in Wintreath, but we're not expanding the circle of people who could prove valuable in the UH by maintaining a vise-grip hold on it. I value every member of the current session, even if I end up disagreeing with people often, as is the case with Chanku, because it gives us a wide perspective of things. I just think we could use fresh perspectives in the future.

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that serving on the UH for more than two terms straight has really drained me. I just can't resist running every time.

EDIT 2: I also think that the current session should completely comb over the existing laws, and fix them, before creating new ones. It is tedious work, but it's going to have to happen at some point. Future sessions will thank us.

Out of curiosity, what specifically is wrong with the UH? I joined up just before an election and I saw nothing really wrong with the process.

We're not productive, and we've not gone a long way to reaching our goals of fixing all existing laws.

Compare these last two sessions with the one from April, and the difference is clear.

Maybe term limits would help? Not exclusive term limits, like the US president, which bars you from seeking the same office later, but one which prevents you from running, say, consecutively or more the 2 times in a row. Just my two cents.

I also honestly still think that we need new faces in the UH, and I think a good way to make that happen is to limit how many people from the Riksråd may gain seats, because we of the Riksråd inevitably know a lot about the law in Wintreath, but we're not expanding the circle of people who could prove valuable in the UH by maintaining a vise-grip hold on it.

I'm curious as to how you propose to limit members of the Riksråd from gaining seats.  I can think of several possibilities, but I'm not particularly a fan of any of them.

Say that only 2 members of the Riksråd may gain seats, so in an election for five seats where 5 members of the Riksåd ran and ended up winning seats, only the two with the most votes would get in, while the people who ended up at 6th, 7th and 8th place would take the seats of those members of the Riksråd who ended at 3rd, 4th and 5th place. In the event of ties, normal tie breakers would be held.

Reon added something to this idea in private discussion on the matter within the halls of the Riksråd.

Is it fair? Probably not, but it does lay a foundation for more people to get involved. Is it reasonable? I believe it is.

I think it would be worthwhile to see what effect Pengu's procedural rules proposal has on the issue before considering changing core aspects of the political system. If nothing else, it's easier to change the procedural rules than the Fundamental Laws.

I personally think it may be as simple as the Underhusen needing to be more decisive. I've noticed that proposals tend to lag when there isn't a consensus or when the person behind them gets busy and isn't there to push it. It's good to try to reach consensus...it's part of our regional culture to do so...but there are times when it's not going to happen and there needs to be a vote to see where the cards lay. The worst that happens is that the vote fails and the person behind the proposal needs to consider why that was.

I personally think two months is a decent amount of time for a dedicated Underhusen to get things done. I served in Spiritus' Regional Assembly, including a term as Speaker Pro Tempore, and we managed to get a lot done in two-month terms. I don't see why we can't here as well...I would actually be afraid that changing the terms without resolving the underlying issues would result in longer periods of much the same.

It may also be an issue of the electorate holding Underhusen members more accountable when they're up for re-election. The Underhusen is the one area of government that is elected, and it is up to the Citizens to ensure the people they're elected are doing the job that they want. Which points to another issue...lack of Citizen involvement in the legislature...just look here. Other than North everyone that's replied is a member of the Storting...

In that case, I agree partially that what needs to happen is more citizen participation. For that to happen, however, people need to be more interested and for that to happen people have to be a part of the process. I think that term limits would help, along with Laurentus's (seriously, how do I say that? Lauretuses? Laurentus?) suggestion of a limit on the number of Riksråd being allowed seats.

Also, how does the UH determine the number of seats? Maybe adding one or two more seats would help?

Anyway, just my thoughts on this matter.

@Laurentus, I have several concerns about instituting the restrictions you're proposing. As you're probably aware, I have never been a proponent for unchecked democracy, but this would go too far in my opinion.

If the citizenry of Wintreath want members of the Riksråd to be Skrifa, they should be able to elect members of the Riksråd to be Skrifa. Also, any legislation that sought to impose these restrictions would have to clarify procedure for numerous instances, including:

• What if there aren't enough non-Riksråd candidates for Skrifa to fill the Underhusen?
• May a serving Skrifa be appointed to the Riksråd during his or her term while remaining in the Underhusen?
• Would Jarls and Thanes be under equivalent restrictions?
• What about Acting Jarls and Thanes?

The members of the Riksråd have proven themselves to be capable of handling the affairs of Wintreath.  If sessions full of Riksråd members are unproductive, how can we think that untested people would do any better?  If new people want a chance, they can serve by helping with recruitment, media, cultural events, foreign relations, etc.  The Riksråd is not the only way for citizens to show what they are capable of.  And campaigning is another element that cannot be overlooked.  Locking dedicated members of the community out of the legislature is not the way to address the issue at hand.
Regarding what @Wintermoot said about proposals stalling when their main backers get busy:
Don't introduce legislation to the floor without bringing at least one other Skrifa on board who will push for it as much as you.  Otherwise, your hard work will mean nothing anyway when you have to take a week off from NationStates and your proposal just stagnates in the Underhusen.
@North, the Underhusen determines how many seats the successive session will have based on discussion and evidence from past sessions. 

And I do believe that limits on consecutive terms are certainly more viable and likely to be more effective than preventing Riksråd members from being elected in the first place.
Food for Thought: Before we prohibit members of the Riksråd from serving in the Underhusen, wouldn't it make more sense to prohibit members of the royal family from doing so?  It is the Overhusen that represents the monarchy, after all.

By the way, in the cabinet discussion, I recommended that the restrictions on Riksrad members only be applied if there was more than a certain amount of people running and such...