View Topic

What I said on Laurentus' topic:

Okay here is my new new idea, basically exactly the same as Laurentus' except instead of removing the UH and giving all its tasks to the OH, you go the other way around. Dismantle the OH and leave the UH, Wintermoot would have the Personal veto power the OH currently has, and we would still have an elected legislature... Also any of the plans Laurentus has for the Overhusen just apply to this UH body instead.

Also doubling the term time to 4 months, to reduce the amount of elections, and lowering the min and Max Skrifa to 3 and 5 respectively...

Basically instead of completly destroying the Legislative branch, massively downsizing it...

If it would be preferred, one of the members of this branch could also be selected by Wintermoot...

While it won't necessarily solve the activity issues, I think it would mitiage its effects.

This just occurred to me reading through here, but I think it provides the best of both worlds here... I mean if you think the UH has been inactive the OH has been way more as it relies on the other, and it satisfies me because we would still have both a legislative and elected group in the government...

[...]

Edit: Hell if necessary the Cabinet could take over most of the function of the OH fairly easily...

Also this acts as a nice stepping stone if you do want to fully destroy all of the legislature...

To sum up and reiterate:

• Removal of the Overhusen
• Doubled Underhusen term times (from 2 months to 4)
• Reduced UH size
• OH powers passed to cabinet or soley the Monarch
  
• Potential for a member of the new UH to be selected by the Monarch

So, what do people think?

My problems with this are the following:

Having an elected body whose only purpose is to pass laws, and then doesn't do so often, is meaningless and shouldn't exist.

Changing it to be have more of a say in things besides legislature goes against the ministries, and would cause conflict.

EDIT: Not to mention that the name Underhusen then becomes completely meaningless.

My problems with this are the following:

Having an elected body whose only purpose is to pass laws, and then doesn't do so often, is meaningless and shouldn't exist.

Changing it to be have more of a say in things besides legislature goes against the ministries, and would cause conflict.

EDIT: Not to mention that the name Underhusen then becomes completely meaningless.

Someone needs to pass laws, whether it be an appointed body (Overhusen), elected body (Underhusen), or an open assembly. This proposal doesn't seem worse, and may be better, than shifting duties to the Overhusen, which seems to also be seriously considered.

I agree with your second point.

That third point is just ridiculous. It's implied that the Underhusen would be renamed to the Storting, just like if you got rid of the Underhusen, you would rename the Overhusen the Storting.

I certainly don't think the OH should pass laws, for the record.

And my comment about the name has more to do with my second point.

I'm just going to go ahead and quietly drop my proposal for shifting duties to the Overhusen; I don't feel particularly strongly that they should, and in any case, the odds of a majority of the UH supporting it are slim-to-none. 

I think if we went for the mixed appointment-election option, we could set the number of appointed members at 40% or 50%, rounded down. Both percentages would give 1 appointed rep at 3 Skrifa and 2 appointed reps at 5, but the percentage would determine whether 1 or 2 are appointed if there are 4 total Skrifa.

My problems with this are the following:

Having an elected body whose only purpose is to pass laws, and then doesn't do so often, is meaningless and shouldn't exist.

Changing it to be have more of a say in things besides legislature goes against the ministries, and would cause conflict.

EDIT: Not to mention that the name Underhusen then becomes completely meaningless.

I think that's why the terms are extended and the number of members is reduced, to more accurately reflect the activity in the body.

I feel like I just skipped over something when reading, but where does it say that? I'll probably end up agreeing with you on that second point, I just don't see where it was proposed the UH would take on other duties.

I was referring to a previous proposal by Hannah in her campaign.

Once again, I will ask the same question I raised in Laurentus's thread.

If the Overhusen's veto power is passed on to the Monarch, what would happen if a citizenship revocation passes through the Underhusen? The Declaration of Rights allow Wintreans whose citizenship are revoked to appeal that decision, so if the Monarch agreed to the revocation, does that not make the appeal afterwards pointless?

With all due respect, any change we make is going to have a number of ramifications on the current law that will need review by the Storting. Let's pick the system that we think is best for the region and then deal with the question of updating the current law to reflect the changes we want to make. We don't know what system will ultimately be decided on, so there's no point in putting the cart before the horse.

That being said, from what I've seen I think the emerging concensus is that there should be a unicameral legislature...the question is should it be appointed, elected, or open assembly?

I have to second taulover's point that someone has to pass laws and add that someone will always have to be there to do so because we can't foresee every event for which we need to pass laws; something new and relevant will always come up, and laws need to passed to address them.

However, due to the recent and potential future inactivity I don't see a problem with reducing the number of elections and elected seats because there's no point in having elections for seats that won't get things done as often as activity decreases.

To partially alleviate this and add efficency I support a unicameral legislature as well. This also avoids the worry of a law having to pass the Underhusen and then the Overhusen where it can be vetoed. Because the Overhusen's purpose is to represent the Monarchy, we could preserve its interests and potential veto power by adding appointed members to the unicameral Storting, essentially combining the Overhusen and Underhusen. This can be done with either an equal number of seats from each branch and giving the deciding vote to Wintermoot or by making half-plus-one of the seats appointed, thereby giving either direct or indirect tiebreak to the Monarchy.

In my opinion, either the legislature has to be involved in the Ministries/Guilds or the Ministries and Guilds have to be involved in the legislature, but not both. I'd prefer the former, but either is acceptable.

I can post this in another thread to avoid hijacking.

I shall continue to oppose any suggestion where the Storting gets more involved with the ministries.

I'll propose a number of new ideas later.

This proposal doesn't deal with anything related to expanding the Stortings mandate or influence outside of law, it only deals with restructuring the Storting into one body that is mostly elected (partially selected) and half (or less) the size of the current Legislature, and with less elections, the numbers I gave in the OP aren't static and could easily be changed, to make them even smaller and the terms longer.

The way I see it, we don't loose anything keeping a legislature around, it doesn't cost the region anything, and we gain the security of its structure. To make an analogy you don't get rid of the fire service if there haven't been any big fires in a while.

True, but there aren't elections for firemen, and there are always fires.

Just for the record, I don't think anyone has ever suggested that we shouldn't have a legislature.

True, but there aren't elections for firemen, and there are always fires.

Just for the record, I don't think anyone has ever suggested that we shouldn't have a legislature.

Okay, I'll give you that, I should have said Storting in that last paragraph instead of Legislature.

However I am not far off, quoting from your proposal

I would also like to keep the Overhusen, but I'm not sure how to do that, as I'm essentially saying we don't need to do a lot of new things with legislation, so this won't help activity in the legislature, it would just make the legislature a thing of the past... mostly.

So yes, while it is not "no" legislature, it is a greatly reduced one, the proposal here is also a reduced legislature (although in a different sense).

The way I see it, downsizing what we already have, is far easier and more effective than tearing the whole system down and building a new one, I don't think it's necessary.

So I am going to ask, (maybe I should have asked on the other proposal thread, but it's relevant here as well and I am in the moment) what is so wrong with the Storting that mandates its complete destruction? What about the direct democracy of an open assembly makes it so much better and worth all the additional work that will have to be put in?

Also on a more personal note: what makes you so sure that there won't be a need for legislation in the future? The broken legal system was only fixed 2 terms ago, before that it was basically unusable.

Edit: damn I can't see new posts in other topics until I stop typing >.> son of a gun.

Leaving this for posterity, feel free to ignore.

1. You know you're quoting me out of context. I specifically said that the Monarchy/Riksråd/OH would inherit all the duties that the UH once had.

2. I also went to great pains to point out that the OH's future in that wouldn't be guaranteed.

3. My problem with people who have absolute legislative power who get elected is that they sit and twiddle their thumbs if there are no laws to be passed. There is no point in giving an elected legislature that much power if they never use it.

4. An open assembly, at least the one I've just proposed, would require very little change to our existing laws (again, speaking under correction, as I could well be wrong and would appreciate people pointing out problems with my second proposal).

5. Show me where I've said we don't need a legislature. Please.

1. You know you're quoting me out of context. I specifically said that the Monarchy/Riksråd/OH would inherit all the duties that the UH once had.

2. I also went to great pains to point out that the OH's future in that wouldn't be guaranteed.

3. My problem with people who have absolute legislative power who get elected is that they sit and twiddle their thumbs if there are no laws to be passed. There is no point in giving an elected legislature that much power if they never use it.

4. An open assembly, at least the one I've just proposed, would require very little change to our existing laws (again, speaking under correction, as I could well be wrong and would appreciate people pointing out problems with my second proposal).

5. Show me where I've said we don't need a legislature. Please.

Wow, man, calm down.

I wrote that before your new post, and I even admitted you said that there still should have been a legislature.

Edit: I have a response to this, but I am going to wait a couple of hours, this is way too charged.