So, at Lau's request here's a full-fledged feedback and critique of Gerrick's idea. As I've said, I think this is amongst the best of the proposals I've seen so far, especially the way it includes some of the cultural aspects of the region in the political without compromising the purposes of either.
So I know we got kind of burned out after the failure of the Open Assembly, and the Underhusen is pretty busy with the citizenship revocation deal, but I’ve been thinking about solutions to our Constitutional Convention. I’m not giving up on the Open Assembly model if that’s the way people want to go, but I figured it doesn’t hurt to give other options. Read the following in the broadest way you can, meaning everything can be tweaked to make it the way we want and that I’m just giving a very general idea of an option.
This form of government would be similar to the British Parliament. There would be two houses: the House of Lords and House of Commons (we of course could use names to better fit our theme (maybe even just OH and UH); these are just the ones the UK uses).
I like the current Scandinavian theme we have going with the legislative aspects of the region (and the region in general) so I think we should continue to use that naming convention.
@HannahB suggested Oberhaus for the UH and Herrhaus for the upper chamber, which are good starting points, but I think we can do better. Keeping the same names... we could do that, but if we're making all this change why not revamp from the ground up?
The upper house would consist of the nobility, aka Dukes, Counts, and Knights (referring to this http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=1223.msg14091#msg14091 (credit goes to Weissreich for bringing it up)). First of all, this would mean we would have to revamp this system, but I don’t think it would be too difficult. Wintermoot is the only one who can give out these titles, so the upper house would only consist of those he trusts and knows are experienced members. I would assume then that the current Overhusen (and probably most of the Jarls) may be knighted as they were already people previously appointed by him. The Storting could probably have the influence to recommend Wintermoot to having someone knighted to join the upper house (maybe by awarding someone a Wintreath Commendation?). To be clear, the two houses are technically equal, but the upper house is more exclusive and is put in place as a check so the experienced can block or amend the bills presented by the lower house.
Revamping the Houses system I think would be a good thing. When we first came up with the system it was hailed by some as a very unique way of bringing people into the cultural side of the region, and by tying it in at a purely aesthetic level (I
really doubt anyone here is politicised enough to abuse it) to the Upper Chamber I think we both motivate further use and activity in the Housing system and make our upper chamber something to strive for. It doesn't make it politicised, but it does make it an achievement to reach and doing so comes with a reward for the dedication and service an upper chamber member will have put into the region.
I like the idea of Dukes and Counts being part of the upper chamber, but I definitely think we need to make that an optional thing. For example, were we to use this system I personally would find myself on the 'revisionary' side of the UH/OH line rather than the legislative side, which I'd rather avoid for the immediate future.
Building on this, there was a suggestion (again, Hannah and PB discussed this with me briefly) that the
lower chamber could give out Common Titles, names of which I suggested in an earlier post, to recognise people's contributions to the region's political scene without elevating them to the upper chamber (Monarch's prerogative). This would, in my opinion at least, provide an activity incentive without politicising the region overly, and if we play it right we can also use this as a way to encourage people to get involved in the RP's etc.
The lower house would obviously consist of non-nobles. It would be something that citizens have to apply for, meaning not necessarily every non-noble citizen is in the lower house. There may be some minor requirement (like 15 posts or require 5 members to support their joining) to make it so that the lower house isn’t just everyone who isn’t a noble and to prevent inactive citizens from joining. When a member of the lower house is knighted/made a noble, they probably would then apply to join the upper house (and there could be a vote or the Speaker could just formally announce them).
The Amendment Protocol Act I've proposed in the UH seeks to introduce a trial-run of the idea of sponsorship, which you suggest using (5 member support to get into the lower chamber). If that works, I really like this way of bringing new members into the chamber - it makes it voluntary, but without putting too much of a limit on hopeful applicants. I'm sure that the active lower chamber members would sponsor most into their ranks, so there's little issue of people trying and failing to get in based on sponsorship.
I like the idea of a citizen being raised from the lower chamber to the upper as recognition of hard work above and beyond the suggestion I made above about lower chamber titles, but again I think there needs to be an option for them to accept the title yet refuse the elevation.
Both houses would each be presided over by a Speaker and SPT/Vice/Deputy Speaker (again, the names could be changed… The two houses should probably have different speaker titles to prevent confusion). More officer positions could be created if needed – perhaps a secretary, whip, or devil’s advocate, though these could also be fulfilled by the speaker/vice. These Speakers would lead discussion, moderate threads, present the bills to the other house/Monarch, etc. They would be elected by their respective houses probably every 4 months or so. In my opinion, the elections should use ranked-choice voting, and the second most voted for candidate would have the option to accept the Vice Speaker position (if not, then the next candidate; and if not them, then one can be appointed by the Speaker).
Preferential Choice voting? Instant run-off? I like this suggestion, and I like the way you're angling for increased collaboration between Speakers/whatever they end up called. This would, in combination with the lower/upper chamber meeting forum, provide a great way to keep things ticking along.
The legislative process would be that either house can draft, debate, and vote on a bill, which (if passed) would then move to the other house for voting or debate, depending on their motion. If the second house does not pass the bill, then they may make amendments to the bill, then send it back to the first house for the same process. Once an identical form is passed by both houses, then the bill is presented to the Monarch for Royal Assent. If no agreement can be had between the two houses, then the bill fails.
I think others have raised concerns about an equal lower and upper chamber, but I think we can retain at least some of your suggestions here. I'd like to tie in the proposing of Bills with a sponsorship process, so that a Bill is put forward and requires support from X number of lower chamber members (and perhaps X number of upper chamber members before it can go to a vote rather than requiring legislation to proceed in parallel) before it goes to vote or discussion.
My idea in this regard was that a proposed Bill is put forward in the upper/lower combined chamber by a member of either Chamber, then requires X number of sponsors from the lower chamber to go forward to discussion. There should be no suggestions, simply a "I think this has merit with further development" post and it's then taken forward. From there, the discussion is carried out in the lower chamber, and when the act is finalised to their satisfaction the LC Speaker confers with the UC Speaker and X number of ratifiers are required from the UC before it's passed into law (once the Monarch approves it, of course).
In the last stage, it's effectively like the OH's duties now - they either ratify it or they don't, and it needs a majority of ratifiers to pass. If it fails to meet that requirement, the UC sends it back to the LC Speaker with suggestions, and it's improved and the process is repeated.
Thoughts?
Debates and voting would have specific default timeframes (with the ability to motion to extend or expedite) -- probably quite similar to the current UH procedure – to prevent drawn out discussions and make sure everyone gives input by knowing exactly when they are able to do so.
Again, I like this idea. Perhaps we could also add a means by which once a Bill reaches discussion, the proponent can set the length of discussion themselves if they think it merits a lot of consideration, or none at all? Unsure on this suggestion, but thought I'd throw it out there.
There would be two separate chambers (boards) for the houses, though a common board where members of both houses could talk about bills or whatever would also exist. This could be particularly useful in the instance where a bill needs to be negotiated. I would also assume that the speakers of both houses would interact a lot more than in the current model.
I expanded on this in my above comments, but I think with a few modifications this system would really work.
