View Topic

"Friends, Romans, countrymen lend me your ears. I'd like to propose today a restructuring of the houses Under and Over.

Under my proposal the lower regional legislature (Underhusen) will be turned into an Open Assembly accessible to all members new and old ingested in regional government.

The Upper Legislature (Overhusen) will be rehauled into a combination of the current UH/OH system featuring a number of democratically elected members as well as a number of Monarch appointed members.

New regional laws would now be introduced and voted upon in the Open Assembly before being presented to the new Upper Legislature for approval.

This legislative reform would allow access and participation from any new members without the fear or possible loss of intrest from losing an election to the established hands of the region. It would allow for the region to properly reflect the ideals of her members and not just the few elected. It would provide adequate checks and balances to prevent any hostile takeover and joke legislation because of the monarch appointees in the new Upper legislature.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

I realize this may casus hated debate let's all agree to be civil and to save the threats for another time and place we are debating law here let's be adult inn this discussion please."


I wrote this for both topics. So quoting my other post here.

I don't really see the point in this structure. A similar setup was considered during the organization of the Fundamental Laws (where-in a Unicameral Legislature would exist that would be partially appointed, and partially elected), HOWEVER the bicameral approach was selected due to some instance on Bicameralism AND because it is ultimately simpler.

Speaking purely pragmatically, I think open assemblies take away one of the main tools UCRs have to entice new players. If you're excited by the idea of getting involved in a regional government and playing at politics (which we all are to an extent, or we probably would never have ended up here) there's no sense of achievement in being gifted an office that you could have sought election for.

At the same time, I know from regions like 10KI and sometimes even this region that elections are iffy.  People who might want to or do run get disillusioned when they lose because the spots tend to go to the same people who run as opposed to giving it to new blood.  Here, we're a bit better than that because we elect new blood pretty often...but that's not always the common scenario.

So even keeping it to elections isn't ideal because seeing the same people continue to get elected makes it less likely for new people to want to run because they may feel like they have little chance of winning.

At the same time, I know from regions like 10KI and sometimes even this region that elections are iffy.  People who might want to or do run get disillusioned when they lose because the spots tend to go to the same people who run as opposed to giving it to new blood.  Here, we're a bit better than that because we elect new blood pretty often...but that's not always the common scenario.

So even keeping it to elections isn't ideal because seeing the same people continue to get elected makes it less likely for new people to want to run because they may feel like they have little chance of winning.

My point exactly. Look back at the recent election. Yes I got elected in my first try but another new member who ran received zero votes. Largely due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how regional politics worked, yes, but were that my first attempt I'd become highly disillusioned at attempting to run in the future.

We want our government to speak for all her people let's give it the chance to do such.

At the same time, I know from regions like 10KI and sometimes even this region that elections are iffy.  People who might want to or do run get disillusioned when they lose because the spots tend to go to the same people who run as opposed to giving it to new blood.  Here, we're a bit better than that because we elect new blood pretty often...but that's not always the common scenario.

So even keeping it to elections isn't ideal because seeing the same people continue to get elected makes it less likely for new people to want to run because they may feel like they have little chance of winning.

My point exactly. Look back at the recent election. Yes I got elected in my first try but another new member who ran received zero votes. Largely due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how regional politics worked, yes, but were that my first attempt I'd become highly disillusioned at attempting to run in the future.

We want our government to speak for all her people let's give it the chance to do such.

Counterpoint Ogunbuyi. He got very few votes his first time running (and several times after that), but he was eventually elected. Losing elections happens, and if you don't really understand any part of what you are running for and how it works, then losing is somewhat to be expected. An Open Assembly likely wouldn't fix this issue, as they would still have the fundamental misconceptions and have to be corrected. Sure losing an election may be perceived as 'less harsh', but I'm not entirely sure it is.

If it were an Open Assembly, then new citizens would have more exposure to the political process, so they would better understand it were they to run for elected office. Plus, they'd likely have an even better chance of getting elected if they were seen to have already gotten involved by voting on/discussing prior legislation.

At the same time, I know from regions like 10KI and sometimes even this region that elections are iffy.  People who might want to or do run get disillusioned when they lose because the spots tend to go to the same people who run as opposed to giving it to new blood.  Here, we're a bit better than that because we elect new blood pretty often...but that's not always the common scenario.

So even keeping it to elections isn't ideal because seeing the same people continue to get elected makes it less likely for new people to want to run because they may feel like they have little chance of winning.

My point exactly. Look back at the recent election. Yes I got elected in my first try but another new member who ran received zero votes. Largely due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how regional politics worked, yes, but were that my first attempt I'd become highly disillusioned at attempting to run in the future.

We want our government to speak for all her people let's give it the chance to do such.

Counterpoint Ogunbuyi. He got very few votes his first time running (and several times after that), but he was eventually elected. Losing elections happens, and if you don't really understand any part of what you are running for and how it works, then losing is somewhat to be expected. An Open Assembly likely wouldn't fix this issue, as they would still have the fundamental misconceptions and have to be corrected. Sure losing an election may be perceived as 'less harsh', but I'm not entirely sure it is.

Why would we want to introduce new members to our legislature by wishing this upon them?

This isn't the way to get active participation, it's a way to alienate new members who feel their voices aren't being heard.

Most of the campaigns for this term included a point about how many times they've been elected to office already. Sure you mix in a new face, but its the same voices saying the same things.

The Storting was designed to balance interests of the people and the interests of the Monarchy. I think this balance has served Wintreath well over the years, and I would be opposed to disrupting that balance. I understand that you’re trying to keep the best of both worlds by having an open assembly and elected positions, but I think there’s ways to do that that don’t infringe on the Overhusen, such as having elected Underhusen officer positions.

Personally, I’m ambivalent about an open assembly. As I’ve said for years, changing the system isn’t going to give the Underhusen a renewed sense of purpose, give it more things to do, or make it more active in doing the things that it could do as it is. I don’t think it’s the cure for what ails the UH, and when I realized that usually most of the UH attention and activity is in elections, I wondered if an open assembly without elections would just become utterly inactive and dead over time.

However, if there is a demand for an open assembly, you don’t have to necessarily start from scratch. It may be logical to take another look at the 2016 Storting Reformation Amendment Act. Even though it failed at ratification, it still received majority support, and a number of abstentions were due to issues people had with the Convention that produced it. It's conceivable that with the Convention years behind us, it could pass as written now (although I'm not suggesting that we should just blindly pass it, lol).

I think people are largely underestimating the intrest people might take in regional legislative action if the barrier to entry were removed. It would also help to explain the legislature its purpose and its authority to new members. In tandem these two actions would potentially lead to a more active lower legislature. If the legislature dies however maybe it never should have existed in the first place and Doc's manifesto is achieved.

If the problem we have is that most activity only happens during elections than I'd argue either reform needs to happen to give it a chance to thrive.

I think people are largely underestimating the intrest people might take in regional legislative action if the barrier to entry were removed. It would also help to explain the legislature its purpose and its authority to new members. In tandem these two actions would potentially lead to a more active lower legislature. If the legislature dies however maybe it never should have existed in the first place and Doc's manifesto is achieved.

If the problem we have is that most activity only happens during elections than I'd argue either reform needs to happen to give it a chance to thrive.

Fair enough on that point.

I'm just largely in love with the idea behind the legislature I would like to see it succeed and this is a path towards seeing if that's possible or not rather than relying on a boosted intrest once every two months that largely leads to more inactivity.

Also this is just my proposal if it'd better suit the interests of the people not to balance monarchical power with a balance of voted seats in the upper legislature that can be changed.

I also didn't provide exact numbers but I figure it could be something like 5 monarchical seats and 3 elected positions providing monarchical intrest majority even in a diluted OH

The issue for our regional legislature is and will always remain a truism - there are only things for it to do when there are things needing doing; the rest of the time, there's nothing needing doing and as a result, nothing for the legislature to decide on.

As many of you will know I am and have always been in favour of increasing political engagement, but I am leery of make-work. I don't want to find reasons for our legislature to do things because we don't have a role-play legislature, we have a real legislature. It decides on actual, (mostly) important issues that affect our members, our forums and more generally the region as a whole. It puts into place procedures that deal with likely issues outside its direct remit (like personal problems between members that require the Courts) and tries to prevent issues from arising where it can (through legislation).

An Open Assembly would enable new members to become involved in our regional political discourse without having to wait however many days/weeks/months to run in our current electoral cycle. However, the issue remains - they can only be involved when there are things to be involved in.

I have supported an Open Assembly in the past and done my utmost to gather together an assortment of ideas and synthesise them into a coherent legal document from which to base its structure. I have voted against an Open Assembly at ratification because it was obvious issues remained that needed addressing before the concerns of several of our esteemed and engaged members could be laid properly to rest. I'm fairly sure I've voted in favour of that same Open Assembly proposal in the Underhusen.

Quoted below is the document I created during the Constitutional Convention discussions:

The Lower Chamber (The Open Assembly)

• Requires 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 [CURRENT SUGGESTION: 3].
• 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 a third are elected by the OA from a list put forward by the Monarch and two thirds are appointed directly by the Monarch himself.
• 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 should be held every 4 months or every 6 months. The EH members appointed by the Monarch come up for review at the same time, meaning that if the OA finds issue with one appointed individual, that individual's seat opens up for the Monarch to appoint a new member. If no issues are found with appointed members, they continue to hold their seat until removed by the Monarch.

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.

As always, I try to find compromises between strongly-held beliefs and bring together ideas in such a way that people on both sides of a debate can hopefully find something to agree on. In the current form of discussion regarding a possible Open Assembly, there appear to be two sides - try it because it could work better, and why try it because what we have works already. In this regard, the proposal quoted above is likely not fit for purpose.

As such, perhaps rather than overhauling the entire Storting bicameral system, we should look into ways to extend the 'franchise' (as it were) to more members within the current system. This is not to say that I am suggesting having a higher number of elected members of the Underhusen - we've tried that in the past and had to reduce the number of seats because we didn't fill them all.

What we have right now is an Underhusen that creates and presents law, an Overhusen who approves or vetoes in the Monarch's interests... and a Citizen's Platform, where every citizen has the opportunity to discuss Bills on the Underhusen floor and propose Bills for consideration to be taken forward.

It is my suggestion, then, that we look at ways of codifying the role of the Citizen's Platform to allow for as much engagement as our citizenry would like. This leaves the majority of our mostly well-functioning, time-tested legislative system intact whilst adding another layer that is already a proven method of engaging a wider audience of our citizens in political discourse.

I don't even necessarily think the OH needs to be changed as it currently is. If it adds elected members, great, but my main drive is to open up the UH.

I am still surprisingly miffed about the things that happened in the 2015 fiasco, because those people who apparently had concerns just disappeared and refused to take part in any follow-up discussion that took place, so yeah.