View Topic

In response to the discussion on vastly altering or removing the legislature, which has gained the support of the majority of Underhusen members, I am calling this Constitutional Convention to further discuss the issue. The purpose of the Convention will be to determine if changes are needed to the legislature, collect ideas and proposals to that effect, and draft Amendments to the Fundamental Laws.

Let me stress that this Convention does not necessarily mean that many or even any changes will be made. Assuming that it's even decided that changes are needed, any amendments drafted will need to follow the usual process of ratification, a process that could fail. This is merely a venue to discuss options, voice opinions, and consider proposals in an organized fashion.

The Underhusen has been on a downward spiral ever since the end of the April-May session, which included myself, Point Breeze, Pengu, Sapphiron and Reon. That session was pretty successful, despite a few mishaps, but the ones since have either been very inactive, or the atmosphere has been hostile and far more political than it has any right to be in a non-political region such as this one, where the idea is to create an environment where people can have fun and engage in civil, peaceful discussion on a wide range of topics.

All the laws that are necessary for our basic functions have been put into place. While they still require clean-up, I think it's safe to say that the Underhusen doesn't really have a purpose anymore.

The efforts of the great people who participated in the UH can be more productively (and far more pleasantly) spent elsewhere, where they can contribute to the region in a far more enjoyable and useful manner.

As such, I propose that the Underhusen be disbanded, for a bill of rights to be set up and subjected to direct democracy, and that all other legal functions be taken up by the monarchy, as advised by the Riksråd and Overhusen.

Ample time exists to change the way in which the judiciary would function, as well as all other areas that currently require the Storting as it exists today.

I think the problem is that our session got many of the biggest problems at least onto the field to be taken care of, and it was really just a matter of agreeing to a solution for those problems, which we addressed in our next session together.  Now the UH really has absolutely no major problems to contend with except its own inactivity once more.

At least, that's what I want to say.  The problem is that there are absolutely more issues to be tackled and there always will be.  We were just lucky enough to pinpoint some of them and get them fixed.  I'm sure if the UH really tried looking hard enough, they could find more issues that needed fixing.  But the challenge is that many of those issues aren't just going to show themselves that easily.

However, I agree that disbanding might just be the best way to go.  As it stands right now, the UH serves no purpose except just to be there.  You know there's a problem when one of the most active topics this session is asking what they should do next..

If they can't even figure out what it is they even want to discuss, then it's probably time to dissolve the UH.  However, that then creates new problems.

I'll also argue even against our own sessions.  The only reasons that our sessions could even be considered successful is because we were literally doing trial-by-error things.  In the first session it was Govindia's revocation, which in turn inspired talks about the system and thus pushed to fix those issues.

In our other session, it was the whole trial between myself and Chanku.  That inspired more talks about our judicial system, and inspired bills and proposals geared towards it.

No matter how much you want to look at it, that is the key difference between our sessions and the more inactive ones.  Other sessions had people scrambling on even figuring out what to do.  Our sessions had us actually field testing and making the appropriate fixes that way.

The issue with this is that those were the two big things that could even be experimented with and fixed.  And with those two out of the way, there really is nothing left that can be done on a trial basis and improved upon.

It's also interesting that just about every session has tried to fix the judiciary, and finally we were only able to agree on a system that gave the Monarch more freedom in that department, and that system was proposed by the monarch...

Granted, a few of us have been pushing for the monarch to take a more central role in the the judiciary for awhile now, but it is troubling to think that the people elected by the people ended up running to the monarch to fix our mess anyway. That really makes you question the point of an elected body when it comes to laws...

I think that I would be more nervous about disbanding the UH if we didn't have Wintermoot as the monarch. While I have made it plain that I don't always agree with him, he is generally benevolent and a lot of thought goes into his reasoning. He is also willing to hear out just about any idea, and test it to see if it works.

All that being said, what do you propose as the alternative, Pengu? I was surprised that you agreed that disbanding was best.

Why not simply redefine The Underhusen? Make it open to all citizens (via an application process or possibly as an option on the citizen application) where each person applying to be part of The Underhusen must undergo whatever security checks are performed on each person that applies for citizenship. The Overhusen can remain as is, as a sort of checks and balances.

We would maintain our unique bicameral legislature (albeit vastly expanded) and The Overhusen can continue to make sure only laws that are in the best interest of the region pass, so subversive groups can't use our own legislature against us.

Why not simply redefine The Underhusen? Make it open to all citizens (via an application process or possibly as an option on the citizen application) where each person applying to be part of The Underhusen must undergo whatever security checks are performed on each person that applies for citizenship. The Overhusen can remain as is, as a sort of checks and balances.

We would maintain our unique bicameral legislature (albeit vastly expanded) and The Overhusen can continue to make sure only laws that are in the best interest of the region pass, so subversive groups can't use our own legislature against us.

Emoticonius' idea is intriguing.  I think that I like it. 

Why not simply redefine The Underhusen? Make it open to all citizens (via an application process or possibly as an option on the citizen application) where each person applying to be part of The Underhusen must undergo whatever security checks are performed on each person that applies for citizenship. The Overhusen can remain as is, as a sort of checks and balances.

We would maintain our unique bicameral legislature (albeit vastly expanded) and The Overhusen can continue to make sure only laws that are in the best interest of the region pass, so subversive groups can't use our own legislature against us.

I'm not sure I understand. Please elaborate.

If I'm reading this correctly, it means that any citizen who wants to join the Underhusen can, provided they pass a background check, of course. The Overhusen would keep the Underhusen in check. Frankly, I'm open to the idea. I think it would promote more community involvement if citizens feel that they can have more say in the region. Not that I have any say in it, seeing as how I haven't been active in the region until now.

Why keep the underhusen? You can go the route of any citizen is allowed to propose, you need this many signatures to bring it to vote, and you need this many votes to have it pass, with the overhusen still existing to shoot it down if necessary....

Question: Are people perhaps uncomfortable with the idea because they feel it removes an avenue for them to advance within the region?

Uncomfortable with which idea: removing the Underhusen completely, allowing as many citizens as wanted to be a part of it, or keeping it? I suppose in the case of the former that people can advance simply by notoriety in terms of making successful proposals, but I don't know if people pay attention enough to give name recognition.

Chanku got name recognition through pushing proposals and law... It's not unheard of...

All that being said, what do you propose as the alternative, Pengu? I was surprised that you agreed that disbanding was best.

Well as much as I'm definitely all for having the UH since I like the idea of a constitutional Monarchy, I also know when something is becoming useless beyond existing.  Which the UH has been stagnating for quite some time with some occasional hiccups of activity/productivity.  That being the case, it either needs to be shaken up completely or cut away so we can put our heads together for something more effective.

An open assembly would be even more productive than the UH has been.

Question: Are people perhaps uncomfortable with the idea because they feel it removes an avenue for them to advance within the region?

I think this may be right. The Underhusen is the most obvious way to advance in this region (it's not like we have anything else that pops up regularly or anything; after all, the Civil Service is quite inactive). I worry that if we transition to a direct democracy, then nobody will have the initiative to advance. (Of course, I'm a terrible example of this, but these are just my thoughts.)