New Party

[Duncan Grey]

If this is still going ahead I wouldn't mind signing up to the party. Of course I understand there might be a bit of opposition to this party but oh well

Opposition is a good thing. It will get people interested in the political side of this region more.

 

[North East Somerset]

I thought this was the Westminster Party launch thread for a minute. But no, a possible 3rd party then! I think this shows that the winds of change to drive Europeia forwards really are starting to blow quite strongly.

I think Europeia is big enough to sustain a bicameral system. I think the we are too small thing is a nonsense argument. Here we have 9 candidates largely of a very high quality standing for election already, with many more no doubt on the sidelines considering a bid. I think there is scope to have a House of Representatives and a Senate, cumulatively of around 15. And I am confident Europeia has the manpower to sustain that at the moment, and I believe by embracing the opportunity, we would be propelled to new heights.

The Senate would be able to fufill roles such as confirming the Cabinet, but would primarily be for confirming or vetoing legislation. Thats would encompass pretty much everything the Senate does currently because of the dominance of older conservative members within it. Senators can still propose legislation for the House of Represenatives, which would be the key Chamber for bringing in new legislation, debating it, and sending it on. The House of Represenatives would regain a vibrancy and ability to start new initiatives and make real progress, that the Senate has long lost. And our conservative members could still refuse legislation if it does not meet their standards or appears damaging. Both would be elected. Longer terms on the Senate is a possibility R3n mentioned.

All this whilst retaining the current direct democracy City Council feature which I think is an important selling point to some new members and it would be foolish to abolish it. All of the bodies would all play an important role in an overall system and would be able to interract to create a greater Europeia.

euro.gif

 

[Kylia Quilor]

I thought this was the Westminster Party launch thread for a minute. But no, a possible 3rd party then! I think this shows that the winds of change to drive Europeia forwards really are starting to blow quite strongly.

I think Europeia is big enough to sustain a bicameral system. I think the we are too small thing is a nonsense argument. Here we have 9 candidates largely of a very high quality standing for election already, with many more no doubt on the sidelines considering a bid. I think there is scope to have a House of Representatives and a Senate, cumulatively of around 15. And I am confident Europeia has the manpower to sustain that at the moment, and I believe by embracing the opportunity, we would be propelled to new heights.

The Senate would be able to fufill roles such as confirming the Cabinet, but would primarily be for confirming or vetoing legislation. Thats would encompass pretty much everything the Senate does currently because of the dominance of older conservative members within it. Senators can still propose legislation for the House of Represenatives, which would be the key Chamber for bringing in new legislation, debating it, and sending it on. The House of Represenatives would regain a vibrancy and ability to start new initiatives and make real progress, that the Senate has long lost. And our conservative members could still refuse legislation if it does not meet their standards or appears damaging. Both would be elected. Longer terms on the Senate is a possibility R3n mentioned.

All this whilst retaining the current direct democracy City Council feature which I think is an important selling point to some new members and it would be foolish to abolish it. All of the bodies would all play an important role in an overall system and would be able to interract to create a greater Europeia.

euro.gif

I agree completely.

While I am a Firm EEP member, and proud of it (see my sig), on this matter, if the SDP does get anywhere, I will back the SDP.

 

[Skizzy Grey]

IRL, bicameral legislatures serve as a check on legislative power. Making it harder for the Senate to get things done is exactly what Europeia doesn't need.

 

[Oliver]

IRL, bicameral legislatures serve as a check on legislative power. Making it harder for the Senate to get things done is exactly what Europeia doesn't need.

I tend to agree, and was searching for a good way to say just this.

 

[Lynneiah]

Agreed. If we have the manpower for a bicameral legislature, we also have the manpower for a larger Senate, which has a greater chance of being productive.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

IRL, bicameral legislatures serve as a check on legislative power. Making it harder for the Senate to get things done is exactly what Europeia doesn't need.

That depends on how its structured.

 

[North East Somerset]

IRL, bicameral legislatures serve as a check on legislative power. Making it harder for the Senate to get things done is exactly what Europeia doesn't need.

I tend to agree, and was searching for a good way to say just this.

Well it would be the House of Representatives that does things and the Senate that is the check. And yes, the possibility of it making things more delayed is a major disadvantage with the concept. But overall I don't think it would be any worse than the existing arrangement. Our older more experienced members would be in their own Chamber, leaving the other chamber to be creative, drafting and debating their legislation ideas without being hampered by the cynicism of older members.

 

[Oliver]

IRL, bicameral legislatures serve as a check on legislative power. Making it harder for the Senate to get things done is exactly what Europeia doesn't need.

I tend to agree, and was searching for a good way to say just this.

Well it would be the House of Representatives that does things and the Senate that is the check. And yes, the possibility of it making things more delayed is a major disadvantage with the concept. But overall I don't think it would be any worse than the existing arrangement. Our older more experienced members would be in their own Chamber, leaving the other chamber to be creative, drafting and debating their legislation ideas without being hampered by the cynicism of older members.

So wait, you think that just because they won't be in the same chamber, the lower house won't be hampered by the upper house's "cynicism"? If it's got to pass both houses, it's got pass both houses (it's got to pass both houses). Period. I'd rather have them all in the same chamber trying to work it out, instead of passing it back and forth between two different visions.

 

[Duncan Grey]

IRL, bicameral legislatures serve as a check on legislative power. Making it harder for the Senate to get things done is exactly what Europeia doesn't need.

I tend to agree, and was searching for a good way to say just this.

Well it would be the House of Representatives that does things and the Senate that is the check. And yes, the possibility of it making things more delayed is a major disadvantage with the concept. But overall I don't think it would be any worse than the existing arrangement. Our older more experienced members would be in their own Chamber, leaving the other chamber to be creative, drafting and debating their legislation ideas without being hampered by the cynicism of older members.

So wait, you think that just because they won't be in the same chamber, the lower house won't be hampered by the upper house's "cynicism"? If it's got to pass both houses, it's got pass both houses (it's got to pass both houses). Period. I'd rather have them all in the same chamber trying to work it out, instead of passing it back and forth between two different visions.

Give each house the ability to overturn the veto of the other chamber. (something like 3/4 of the vote) If they keep getting passed through both houses it might not be a good bill. Should it get a blind pass with 1 chamber?

 

[Oliver]

IRL, bicameral legislatures serve as a check on legislative power. Making it harder for the Senate to get things done is exactly what Europeia doesn't need.

I tend to agree, and was searching for a good way to say just this.

Well it would be the House of Representatives that does things and the Senate that is the check. And yes, the possibility of it making things more delayed is a major disadvantage with the concept. But overall I don't think it would be any worse than the existing arrangement. Our older more experienced members would be in their own Chamber, leaving the other chamber to be creative, drafting and debating their legislation ideas without being hampered by the cynicism of older members.

So wait, you think that just because they won't be in the same chamber, the lower house won't be hampered by the upper house's "cynicism"? If it's got to pass both houses, it's got pass both houses (it's got to pass both houses). Period. I'd rather have them all in the same chamber trying to work it out, instead of passing it back and forth between two different visions.

Give each house the ability to overturn the veto of the other chamber. (something like 3/4 of the vote) If they keep getting passed through both houses it might not be a good bill. Should it get a blind pass with 1 chamber?

If 3/4 of one house are opposed, and 5/5 of the other house in favour, that's 6/9 total, which is a two-thirds majority. Why should the second house have to pass the bill twice for something which is a two-thirds majority? Bicameralism sounds good, but in practice, it's a check on legislative power, which is something we seriously don't need. It's a solution in search of a problem.

 

[North East Somerset]

IRL, bicameral legislatures serve as a check on legislative power. Making it harder for the Senate to get things done is exactly what Europeia doesn't need.

I tend to agree, and was searching for a good way to say just this.

Well it would be the House of Representatives that does things and the Senate that is the check. And yes, the possibility of it making things more delayed is a major disadvantage with the concept. But overall I don't think it would be any worse than the existing arrangement. Our older more experienced members would be in their own Chamber, leaving the other chamber to be creative, drafting and debating their legislation ideas without being hampered by the cynicism of older members.

So wait, you think that just because they won't be in the same chamber, the lower house won't be hampered by the upper house's "cynicism"? If it's got to pass both houses, it's got pass both houses (it's got to pass both houses). Period. I'd rather have them all in the same chamber trying to work it out, instead of passing it back and forth between two different visions.

I dunno, I see pro's and con's. I couldn't make a judgement for sure either way which system would be better for encouraging new legislators. It would be a gamble which would depend on many parameters I don't have the ability to assess. But I don't think it's necessarily an idea which should be written off either. If we don't ever seek to take a risk on new methods to improve the way we work, I think that would be a shame, cause we would be spurning opportunities to be even better. In Nationstates, the 'if it ain't broke don't try and fix it' idiom doesn't apply in most situations. There's a decent chance if we approach it seriously enough and really use our collective expertise to iron out potential flaws, that it will do what it says on the tin, and ultimately, if it doesn't, then it can be changed back.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

I agree with NES. At the end of the day, Nationstates is a game. Its not as if the world will end if a lower house fails. There might be downsides, but it can also be corrected easier, and this is not RL

 

[r3naissanc3r]

So wait, you think that just because they won't be in the same chamber, the lower house won't be hampered by the upper house's "cynicism"? If it's got to pass both houses, it's got pass both houses (it's got to pass both houses). Period. I'd rather have them all in the same chamber trying to work it out, instead of passing it back and forth between two different visions.

They would still be "hampered" by the "cynicism", but given how the lower house would be far more empowered than the City Council is now, the two chambers would need to negotiate better.

No actually, remove the better. They would need to negotiate. Right now one can just ignore the other.

It will cause delays? So what? It is not like we need legislation to be passed so fast, we have managed alright with a very slow legislature for a year now.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

So wait, you think that just because they won't be in the same chamber, the lower house won't be hampered by the upper house's "cynicism"? If it's got to pass both houses, it's got pass both houses (it's got to pass both houses). Period. I'd rather have them all in the same chamber trying to work it out, instead of passing it back and forth between two different visions.

They would still be "hampered" by the "cynicism", but given how the lower house would be far more empowered than the City Council is now, the two chambers would need to negotiate better.

No actually, remove the better. They would need to negotiate. Right now one can just ignore the other.

It will cause delays? So what? It is not like we need legislation to be passed so fast, we have managed alright with a very slow legislature for a year now.

I agree.

The lack of power in the City Council makes it less appealing, because people like to be near or have power.

 

[North East Somerset]

I agree with NES. At the end of the day, Nationstates is a game. Its not as if the world will end if a lower house fails. There might be downsides, but it can also be corrected easier, and this is not RL

No excuse for negligence of course. But taking calculated risks should be encouraged.

I think I'll let R3n do the talking from now on...

 

[Kylia Quilor]

I agree with NES. At the end of the day, Nationstates is a game. Its not as if the world will end if a lower house fails. There might be downsides, but it can also be corrected easier, and this is not RL

No excuse for negligence of course. But taking calculated risks should be encouraged.

I think I'll let R3n do the talking from now on...

I'm not saying negligence, just experimentation.

 

[Lethen]

So wait, you think that just because they won't be in the same chamber, the lower house won't be hampered by the upper house's "cynicism"? If it's got to pass both houses, it's got pass both houses (it's got to pass both houses). Period. I'd rather have them all in the same chamber trying to work it out, instead of passing it back and forth between two different visions.

They would still be "hampered" by the "cynicism", but given how the lower house would be far more empowered than the City Council is now, the two chambers would need to negotiate better.

No actually, remove the better. They would need to negotiate. Right now one can just ignore the other.

It will cause delays? So what? It is not like we need legislation to be passed so fast, we have managed alright with a very slow legislature for a year now.

I agree.

The lack of power in the City Council makes it less appealing, because people like to be near or have power.

The only reason the City Council lacks power is because people have been afraid to expand its influence and try to flex it's muscles.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus Rex]

So wait, you think that just because they won't be in the same chamber, the lower house won't be hampered by the upper house's "cynicism"? If it's got to pass both houses, it's got pass both houses (it's got to pass both houses). Period. I'd rather have them all in the same chamber trying to work it out, instead of passing it back and forth between two different visions.

They would still be "hampered" by the "cynicism", but given how the lower house would be far more empowered than the City Council is now, the two chambers would need to negotiate better.

No actually, remove the better. They would need to negotiate. Right now one can just ignore the other.

It will cause delays? So what? It is not like we need legislation to be passed so fast, we have managed alright with a very slow legislature for a year now.

I agree.

The lack of power in the City Council makes it less appealing, because people like to be near or have power.

The only reason the City Council lacks power is because people have been afraid to expand its influence and try to flex it's muscles.

Oh, you mean the bones with sleeves that it has? :lol:

 

[Lethen]

The City Council doesn't have AIDS, Gus. :blink:

But its got a voice and there are ways to expand its influence; people haven't made headway, though.