View Topic

So I'm going to try at this one final time...giving it some thought, perhaps the problem with the previous proposals is that they were too complex...they tried to tackle too many things at once, which gave way to hesitation on changing so much. So for now I am only focusing on the Underhusen...I will propose no changes to the Overhusen, the veto power, etc etc.

I am still open to pursuing an open assembly, if that's what people want...I'm also open to simply keeping the existing system and lengthening the terms to three months, which would at least lower the number of elections we would have to manage and keep track with.

Any thoughts from anyone still able to bare discussing this topic?

I am still of the opinion that elected positions seem to pretty much only exist for themselves, so I would prefer some kind of assembly (whether or not it is open). I am still interested in Laurentus' slowly-growing assembly model if others are up for it.

I guess right now I feel like I'd rather just either do an open assembly or keep what we have now, and then maybe go from there at some other point in the future. Those seem to be the two simplest options.

We could simplify mine quite a bit. Simply through discussion with tatte and Saph, I saw quite a lot of places where it clunked, and we established various ways in which it could ultimately be simplified. My ideas tend to be rough around the edges at first.

An excellent time for me to return from my post-ref holiday

As always, I remain in favour of an open assembly lower chamber with either an elected or partially elected upper chamber as a revisionary body. I'd like to see it have more active legislative power than the OH has currently, with the ability to return a Bill to the OA with suggestions for amendments and the like, but otherwise keeping the two chamber system we have currently with modifications seems to be the best way to go. I have a document somewhere that Hannah and I were working on, but I think it got a little bit too complicated.

My thoughts:

The Lower Chamber (The Open Assembly)

• Requires a week of membership and/or five to fifteen posts to join. If two current members sponsor an individual, or the Monarch sponsors an individual, they may be raised into the OA without meeting these requirements.
• Laws are proposed by either one member, in which case a to be determined number of sponsors (2 to 4 seems sensible given current activity) are required to move it on to debate, or by two or more members, in which case it goes to debate automatically. A bill must receive the required number of sponsors within 48 hours.
• Once a bill has moved to debate, it has a week to be discussed IN FULL before it can be moved on to the upper chamber. There should, of course, be provisions for tabling and extending debate if so required.
• Officers are elected every 3 months to preside over discussion, move proposed bills to debate and alert the upper chamber that a bill is ready to be checked over. We can decide how many of these we need or want through further discussion.
• Abstentions should be allowed in either Not Voting or No Opinion format, the former indicating a desire to abstain out of personal feelings and the latter a desire to abstain out of a lack of any strong feelings either way. I think this is how it's been set up in the UH currently.
• The Monarch would obviously retain a veto power over any legislation he thinks should be thrown out, but a 2/3rds majority can overturn this veto if so desired. He can veto at any point in the legislative process - once a bill is passed into law, he must go through the usual amendment or striking process to remove an act.
• As our member base increases, so too should the size of the OA. We could either do this by the standard "once you pass the criteria you're in" method OR use Lau's idea of holding back new members for a small period of time and inducting a group of them all at once. Sponsorship would of course circumvent this requirement. If someone doesn't want to be part of the OA, this staggered induction would give them time to make that desire known and allow them to avoid being involved in regional politics if they so wished.

The Upper Chamber (The Elected House)

• Made up of minimum 4 maximum 10 (can be revised upwards as needed by an internal motion, similar to how the OH legislates its own procedural rules and the UH legislates its seating requirements for each new term) individuals, of which either all are elected by the OA, or most are elected and some are granted a seat by the Monarch. If the latter, we could have it work something along the lines of the OA selects and votes on X number of candidates, and the Monarch puts forward a list of X number of candidates that are then voted on. He does, of course, have the right to raise one or two (up to 4 if it's 10 members) individuals without election, but this should be discussed further as I don't think it's a perfect system yet.
• The duty of this House is to double check bills and return them to the OA if any revisions need to be made WITH CLEAR REFERENCE TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. They can also, should they wish, make a petition in which a majority of EH officials can call on the OA to draft a law on a topic they think needs legislating on. This gives the EH a little more legislative power than they have currently but keeps them mostly as a revisionary body to avoid tyranny of the majority etc.
• Elections for the elected seats (if we go with a 2/3rds elected, 1/3rd elevated by Monarch system) should be held every 3 months, NOT TO COINCIDE WITH OA OFFICER ELECTONS. If we go with Mootles being able to elevate a certain number of peers, they should come up for review at the same time but it's up to Mootles if a decision to remove them goes through, at which point he selects new peers or presents a new list of peers for the OA to choose from.

Once a bill is passed into law, the Act is then considered ratified and moved to the Monarch for final approval. This is his last opportunity to veto, after which he'd have to petition for an Act to be amended or revoked through the usual petitions channels.


This is very much a draft proposal at the moment, and I've tried to include some of Laurentus's ideas where I can. However, this is my own take on the idea, so I would love to hear feedback from everyone on what you think works, what you think doesn't, and what could be improved! To be clear, numbers of members in either chamber, number of officers, time periods between elections, all the details are up for discussion and revision as you guys see fit. This is just a first draft proposal.

The Upper Chamber (The Elected House)

• Made up of minimum 4 maximum 10 (can be revised upwards as needed by an internal motion, similar to how the OH legislates its own procedural rules and the UH legislates its seating requirements for each new term) individuals, of which either all are elected by the OA, or most are elected and some are granted a seat by the Monarch. If the latter, we could have it work something along the lines of the OA selects and votes on X number of candidates, and the Monarch puts forward a list of X number of candidates that are then voted on. He does, of course, have the right to raise one or two (up to 4 if it's 10 members) individuals without election, but this should be discussed further as I don't think it's a perfect system yet.
• The duty of this House is to double check bills and return them to the OA if any revisions need to be made WITH CLEAR REFERENCE TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. They can also, should they wish, make a petition in which a majority of EH officials can call on the OA to draft a law on a topic they think needs legislating on. This gives the EH a little more legislative power than they have currently but keeps them mostly as a revisionary body to avoid tyranny of the majority etc.
• Elections for the elected seats (if we go with a 2/3rds elected, 1/3rd elevated by Monarch system) should be held every 3 months, NOT TO COINCIDE WITH OA OFFICER ELECTONS. If we go with Mootles being able to elevate a certain number of peers, they should come up for review at the same time but it's up to Mootles if a decision to remove them goes through, at which point he selects new peers or presents a new list of peers for the OA to choose from.

Once a bill is passed into law, the Act is then considered ratified and moved to the Monarch for final approval. This is his last opportunity to veto, after which he'd have to petition for an Act to be amended or revoked through the usual petitions channels.

I'm hesitant on having an elected chamber as that seems to be the problem with the current model, especially if the Assembly has elected officers as well. If the upper chamber were mostly Monarch-appointed (without elections open to any candidates), I think that'd be simpler.

The "Monarch gives a list of candidates" idea is intriguing as I think it'd give only potential Monarch-appointees as candidates, but it also gives the regular citizens a feeling like they get a bit of a say in the matter as well it puts a bit of a rotation to the upper chamber which I think would increase the chance of their giving more input on legislation as your model asks (and I agree with). This idea would of course need Wintermoot's blessing, though.

I'd think the upper house could perhaps be fewer "Monarch selected candidates that are voted in by the Assembly" and more Monarch-appointed (whether this is half vs half+1, lower fraction vs higher fraction, or a specific set number of "elected" seats vs however many appointed the Monarch wants). I'd also think that these elected members would have longer terms, maybe 4 or even 6 months, since they're obviously trusted veteran members (4 months would prevent elections at the same time as Assembly elections except for once a year, which we could make a "thing" if we wanted).

The Lower Chamber (The Open Assembly)

• Requires a week of membership and/or five to fifteen posts to join. If two current members sponsor an individual, or the Monarch sponsors an individual, they may be raised into the OA without meeting these requirements.
• Laws are proposed by either one member, in which case a to be determined number of sponsors (2 to 4 seems sensible given current activity) are required to move it on to debate, or by two or more members, in which case it goes to debate automatically. A bill must receive the required number of sponsors within 48 hours.
• Once a bill has moved to debate, it has a week to be discussed IN FULL before it can be moved on to the upper chamber. There should, of course, be provisions for tabling and extending debate if so required.
• Officers are elected every 3 months to preside over discussion, move proposed bills to debate and alert the upper chamber that a bill is ready to be checked over. We can decide how many of these we need or want through further discussion.
• Abstentions should be allowed in either Not Voting or No Opinion format, the former indicating a desire to abstain out of personal feelings and the latter a desire to abstain out of a lack of any strong feelings either way. I think this is how it's been set up in the UH currently.
• The Monarch would obviously retain a veto power over any legislation he thinks should be thrown out, but a 2/3rds majority can overturn this veto if so desired. He can veto at any point in the legislative process - once a bill is passed into law, he must go through the usual amendment or striking process to remove an act.
• As our member base increases, so too should the size of the OA. We could either do this by the standard "once you pass the criteria you're in" method OR use Lau's idea of holding back new members for a small period of time and inducting a group of them all at once. Sponsorship would of course circumvent this requirement. If someone doesn't want to be part of the OA, this staggered induction would give them time to make that desire known and allow them to avoid being involved in regional politics if they so wished.

I think your bill-sponsorship idea could work, and I think 3 officers to begin with would be good.

As for admission into the Assembly: I think that since there is already a 5 post requirement to become a citizen, there should be a higher post requirement to join the Assembly (in my opinion, at least 15), and I think sponsorship or using Laurentus' growth model could work, too.

Personally I think we should just stick with our current system, it is known to work and works well enough for our needs...

Personally I think we should just stick with our current system, it is known to work and works well enough for our needs...

Except for when it's inactive...now for instance.  The only activity this term is them discussing what they should do.

Which would still exist in an open assembly....

How so?  As opposed only 5-7 people, an open assembly is virtually everyone.  I can't see how that could become inactive, given our member count.

I'm going to avoid this topic. Dont want a repeat of last time.

Because ultimately there won't be any difference in our current system...aside from the group of people leading it and being in it.

Further when it comes to the activity, or lack thereof, the responsibility should fall onto the Skrifa not onto the system itself. If the UH does shit then it's the fault of those elected first and some of the blame could go to the electorate for failing to vote for people that would actually bring in activity under certain circumstances.

When one starts to blame everyone involved in the system for the mess created, is it therefore not reasonable to rethink as to whether the current system is flawed?

When one starts to blame everyone involved in the system for the mess created, is it therefore not reasonable to rethink as to whether the current system is flawed?

At times, however there are instances where it is not warranted. I believe this is one of those instances. When you have some members that have deliberately made it their goal to attempt to subvert the system then the blame should not fall onto the system.

Wait, who are you talking about?