New Party

Lethen said:
New Kyrkberg said:
r3naissanc3r said:
Oliver Dion-Grey said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I agree.

The lack of power in the City Council makes it less appealing, because people like to be near or have power.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
See the utter failure of the CCIA
 
That was one way of exploring the ways to expand our influence. So what if it was a half-baked idea?
 
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if members on one or both sides tried to push for members to vote a certain way. The CCIA failed with only 7 out of 25+ members of the City Council voting. It could have easily passed.
 
I'm not afraid of expanding it's influence, I just don't think that's the way the City Council should go.
 
Lethen said:
That was one way of exploring the ways to expand our influence. So what if it was a half-baked idea?
Click to expand...
I don't know if it is a half-baked idea or not, but it is a half-measure.

Oliver, I do not see anyone else proposing another way though. Also, the only two meaningful arguments I've heard against converting to a truly bicameral legislature are that it will make passing legislation slow; and that it would remove the "training grounds" for new members.

Regarding the first, even if it does it is not an issue. Also, what about the current delay in legislation originating from the City Council (which as of late is where most legislation comes from). A proper bi-cameral legislature is not going to be a lot slower than that. In fact, with a bi-cameral system, legislation originating in the lower chamber would probably be processed much faster than it does now, because more people would take it seriously.

Regarding the second, what prevents us from having something like the JTC, only for training in drafting? The JTC has been much more successful in training new members than the City Council, and this is because the JTC was created with the dedicated purpose of doing so. Instead, the City Council is supposed to be both that and a legislative body, and it is failing in both of these aspects.

Also, I want to point out something else. When I first decided to become involved in the region, HEM suggested that I join the City Council. My response was that it was the aspect of Europeian life I found the most unattractive. I believe many new members realize that as well. This is, I believe, the reason why so few new members rise to success through work in the City Council, and why the vast majority of those who join it do nothing but disappear and hinder its operation.
 
r3naissanc3r said:
Lethen said:
That was one way of exploring the ways to expand our influence. So what if it was a half-baked idea?
Click to expand...
I don't know if it is a half-baked idea or not, but it is a half-measure.

Oliver, I do not see anyone else proposing another way though. Also, the only two meaningful arguments I've heard against converting to a truly bicameral legislature are that it will make passing legislation slow; and that it would remove the "training grounds" for new members.

Regarding the first, even if it does it is not an issue. Also, what about the current delay in legislation originating from the City Council (which as of late is where most legislation comes from). A proper bi-cameral legislature is not going to be a lot slower than that. In fact, with a bi-cameral system, legislation originating in the lower chamber would probably be processed much faster than it does now, because more people would take it seriously.

Regarding the second, what prevents us from having something like the JTC, only for training in drafting? The JTC has been much more successful in training new members than the City Council, and this is because the JTC was created with the dedicated purpose of doing so. Instead, the City Council is supposed to be both that and a legislative body, and it is failing in both of these aspects.

Also, I want to point out something else. When I first decided to become involved in the region, HEM suggested that I join the City Council. My response was that it was the aspect of Europeian life I found the most unattractive. I believe many new members realize that as well. This is, I believe, the reason why so few new members rise to success through work in the City Council, and why the vast majority of those who join it do nothing but disappear and hinder its operation.
Click to expand...
r3n has swung me; I agree with this. :p

I've been asked to join the City Council by a few people, but like r3n, it's one of the aspects of Europeia that I'm least interested in; I think that if it were part of a proper bicameral system, it would operate a lot better, and I for one would be a lot more eager to take part.
 
The thing about adding a second house is that we now have 12 people running for Senate. That's 12 people interested in legislating. 12 is a good number for a single house, but a second one would have to draw from this pool, and 12 isn't enough, in my opinion, to support both and have both be meaningful.
 
Tyranna Lucina said:
The thing about adding a second house is that we now have 12 people running for Senate. That's 12 people interested in legislating. 12 is a good number for a single house, but a second one would have to draw from this pool, and 12 isn't enough, in my opinion, to support both and have both be meaningful.
Click to expand...
Yet a lower house might not have need of such elite legislators with such time on their hands; especially if the lower house had a place in Government, too.
 
Swakistek said:
Tyranna Lucina said:
The thing about adding a second house is that we now have 12 people running for Senate. That's 12 people interested in legislating. 12 is a good number for a single house, but a second one would have to draw from this pool, and 12 isn't enough, in my opinion, to support both and have both be meaningful.
Click to expand...
Yet a lower house might not have need of such elite legislators with such time on their hands; especially if the lower house had a place in Government, too.
Click to expand...
I agree
 
Tyranna Lucina said:
The thing about adding a second house is that we now have 12 people running for Senate. That's 12 people interested in legislating. 12 is a good number for a single house, but a second one would have to draw from this pool, and 12 isn't enough, in my opinion, to support both and have both be meaningful.
Click to expand...
People could though, be interested right now, but feel they aren't ready/other reasons don't want to be apart of the "Senate" which has become much much more of a..."lofty" house over the last year.
 
HEM said:
Tyranna Lucina said:
The thing about adding a second house is that we now have 12 people running for Senate. That's 12 people interested in legislating. 12 is a good number for a single house, but a second one would have to draw from this pool, and 12 isn't enough, in my opinion, to support both and have both be meaningful.
Click to expand...
People could though, be interested right now, but feel they aren't ready/other reasons don't want to be apart of the "Senate" which has become much much more of a..."lofty" house over the last year.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think there is a decent chance we would obtain at least 9 candidates for 6 positions in the Senate, and 10 candidates for 7 positions in the House of Representatives. It would make the Senate both more attractive to the older 'lofty' conservative members, and the House of Representatives more attractive to newer reformers. I believe we have the numbers of people willing to be involved, but they just stand back at the moment because they don't see either of the options they are given as particularly attractive. I speak from my own perspective on that issue, at the very least. I am sure there are others.
 
Alright, you keep saying the second elected house would not be such a "lofty" house. Where exactly do you have evidence to support that? If it's elected, I have a feeling it'll end up having exactly the same level of scrutiny as the Senate, which is lots from people like me, and less from people think there should be less scrutiny of the candidates. I don't think I have any reason to believe that the pools of candidates will be actually different.
 
They'd be newer people who don't think they can make a run for the Senate, but are willing to try for the lower house.
 
If we had a lower house, I would want it to be elected via PR
 
HEM said:
If we had a lower house, I would want it to be elected via PR
Click to expand...
Interesting, but PR is pretty dependent on parties. We have two right now, but the majority of citizens are still independents, I think.

They'd be newer people who don't think they can make a run for the Senate, but are willing to try for the lower house.
Click to expand...

I don't know that that's true. I think that unless there's some sort of evidence that the lower house will actually be held to a lower standard (which, with elections, I consider unlikely), people will still not be interested in running. With an election, any election, there's a degree of responsibility conferred on the candidates which goes beyond the responsibility conferred to them in the City Council. What about people who feel they're unable to meet the responsibility of being elected to the Senate? Why should they feel that they're up to meeting the responsibility of being elected to the lower house?

I think the onus is on you, who are in favour of the change, to show why this is going to work differently, and I just haven't seen it.
 
Running for the Senate would be those people with the personal gravitas and authority of being here for some time, because the upper house is naturally going to attract those sorts of people.

As it stands, everyone who wants a hand in law making has to go for the Senate, and while I am running, I don't exactly have any gravitas to run on.
 
New Kyrkberg said:
Running for the Senate would be those people with the personal gravitas and authority of being here for some time, because the upper house is naturally going to attract those sorts of people.
Click to expand...
Explain to me why it's naturally going to attract those with gravitas? In RL bicameral system, it's often the lower house which wields the power. The US Senate being the more powerful body with the "gravitas" is kind of an aberration, actually.

I don't think you can just declare one house to be for older members with experience, and one house to be for younger members with less experience, without putting down some sort of real restrictions to encourage it. I would then argue that the division is unfair. How will you differ the powers and responsibilities of the houses to create this so-called natural division?

What if my gravitas and I want to be part of the lower body, by choice, instead of part of the upper body? Right now you're just telling me how it's going to be without showing how it's going to be made that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top