Bicameral-ness take 2 |
Since the other thread is going around and around regarding "security issues" and no one likes the previous solutions ... here's a different attempt.
Since we have an "executive branch," I think we can use it as a way to better secure everything. Change to the Charter: Quote:Article 3: Legislature Change to the Charter: Quote:Article 6: Executive Change to the COL: Quote:Article 1: Elections All legislation will have to go through an elected Cabinet, but also has the possibility of being overrode. That way we have no issues about "security" since the Cabinet can easily veto something questionable and the RMB nations have both a say and a representative through the legislative chair. Any better?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
No, it's not really better. Unibot told me about this idea, and it doesn't address what I've been talking about. You're still relying on back-stops to prevent a catastrophe inherent in the very core of the idea.
Switching veto power from the Assembly to the Cabinet isn't a "solution." The same problems persist. All you've really done here is you've placed more power and more importance in the lower house by allowing it to override the Assembly AND the Cabinet. Simultaneously, the Cabinet is granted even more power, which doesn't help with the accusations that it's an oligarchy, and works against the rhetorical basis for this reform. The issues I've brought up are with the idea of including the RMB in the legislative process in a binding way. It's not in the details of how it's organized.
As you are looking at other solutions, what are the general thoughts on having it so the region still gets a say through polls, but these votes having a lower weighting (20% of the total for example).
This was suggested on the RMB and seemed to have a bit of support.
(01-14-2015, 07:17 PM)Aramanchovia Wrote: As you are looking at other solutions, what are the general thoughts on having it so the region still gets a say through polls, but these votes having a lower weighting (20% of the total for example). Well, it's not ideal, but it's a start. And it may be the only thing that we can actually compromise on.
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year."
As far as I'm concerned this is even worse, in that in seriously empowers the executive at the expense of the Assembly.
To be frank, I'm not going to support anything that removes the supremacy of the Assembly with our region's citizens as the final arbiter. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
I could support this revised proposal as a compromise between the previous 2 positions even though it does give more power to the Executive in a couple of areas than I'd ideally prefer (I was happy with the upper chamber as the veto wielding body not the executive). However, if that is the price of a compromise - and I think it's right the delegate try to explore a compromise position before we bring this issue to the vote - then I'd willingly support it.
If I were to suggest one change, it would to Article 3, Section 2, paragraph 3. The original proposal stated "3. The Legislature may amend the Charter with a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor, in both houses." while the new proposal is for "3. The Legislature may amend the Charter with a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor, in either house and approval from the Cabinet." If we're going to amend the Charter, I personally feel it should be through the agreement of both houses. Would there be any support for a combination of both to read: "3. The Legislature may amend the Charter with a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor, in both houses and approval from the Cabinet." Aramanchovia raises the issue of weighting the chambers. My initial thoughts would be that this might be overly complex but I'd be interested is seeing how this would work in practice if someone has a proposal.
(01-14-2015, 07:38 PM)Hopolis Wrote: Aramanchovia raises the issue of weighting the chambers. My initial thoughts would be that this might be overly complex but I'd be interested is seeing how this would work in practice if someone has a proposal. Well, it's not that hard to calculate the math for it. I'd be willing to run that if this passes and no one else wants to.
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year."
I didn't mention it earlier, but I'm not a fan of this new proposal at all, I don't like the cabinet having veto power over the decisions made by the rest of the region. Gives them too much power, and changes how the government works completely, may as well just skip the voting part if we go for this option and let cabinet decide on all legislation.
(01-14-2015, 08:17 PM)Aramanchovia Wrote: I didn't mention it earlier, but I'm not a fan of this new proposal at all, I don't like the cabinet having veto power over the decisions made by the rest of the region. Gives them too much power, and changes how the government works completely, may as well just skip the voting part if we go for this option and let cabinet decide on all legislation. Hmmm... I see your point. Especially since it seems that a lot of members of Cabinet are against this proposal...
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year."
(01-14-2015, 08:18 PM)Darkstrait Wrote: Especially since it seems that a lot of members of Cabinet are against this proposal... What? Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |