| Discussion: Bicameral Legislature |
|
I know this was discussed at length at the last GC. However, I am one to occasionally want to beat a dead horse again.
I think we had a great idea with the Local Council and I truly believe that for the particular time that was the best we could do. I'm not sold on the belief that the Local Council has actually accomplished what we intended for them to accomplish which is why I am bringing this up. A Bicameral Legislature with one house being comprised of all citizens and residents (not sure how we would incorporate that). The other house would be comprised of select members (meeting some type of requirement; possibly WA or activity or elected). House 1 Powers: Draft/Debate/Pass/Amend General Laws Can pass Charter Amendments on to House 2 after voting (maybe have an override if House 2 does not pass amendment) Draft/Debate/Pass/Repeal resolutions recommending action from House 2 (Treaty/War etc..) House 2 Powers: Declare War Pass or Repeal Treaties Approve Cabinet Appointments Have authority to reverse citizenship denials Just a really quick posting of what a system could look like. I'll be honest and say that I am not even sure I fully support a bicameral legislature but the discussion should be interesting.
I think this would have a better chance of working now that we have regional officers. I don't have much input right now -- but I think we have more tools that could certainly make it more workable.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
No. Never. Just no. Who is to say that our enemies will manipulate the residents's vote? And elected lawmakers? Sure, it makes sense IRL, but in NS Politics it makes no sense to me. The Assembly is composed of all citizens who have a voice and a vote on our legislative procedures. The citizens' will should overcome an elected legislative chamber, not the other way around.
That is my view.
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)
The problem I have with bicameral legislature proposals is that they attempt to include everybody, and especially the last one, push things off the forums. Anything that attempts to move government off the forums will get my opposition.
If we want to include residents, I would ask to consider the security implications of that. Do we really want transient homewreckers to come in and muck up our region? Do we want The Empire to use our government as a playground, as they attempted to do before we banned them? What about bad-weather players like Todd McCloud who only seem to come out of the woodwork to stoke controversy? This would be a big security hole, for no real apparent benefit other than fulfilling an idealistic goal of having "government for everybody." In the end, we have incredibly lax citizenship laws. Basically everybody can become a citizen, and the requirements to keep it aren't that difficult (and are not, if we're being honest, harshly enforced outside election time). A second house comprised in part of non-citizens is less useful when that is considered.
The amount of enemy invaders it would take to throw a vote would have to be significant--- numbering in the hundreds.
What if we made it so that only residents who have been around for 50 days or more can discuss things in the debates, and only residents that have been around for 100 days or more can vote? It's like a voting age. The longer you are willing to wait to vote on proposals, the more trustworthy you are.
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."
Because most GPers often have puppets that they keep for years in the region, and polling mechanics don't allow you to set that only residents over 100 days in the region to vote.
Using only WA nations would get around that but still not be wholly representative.
What I will also add to this debate is that we need to figure out a better way to determine citizenship. As we have it constructed now, citizenship is only on the forums. As such, we revoked the NPO being able to be citizens, but that didn't give the delegate the power to banject them (at least according to my read). These inconsistencies really become problematic. I still think we need to be better integrate the RMB nations — especially since we are being given more tools. Again — as I've been arguing — the trajectory is clear that NS is trying to give us more usability on the site. We can't bury our heads in the sand regarding this.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I will support this only if the first house or chamber allows only WA nations. If we allow everyone a representative, that would be an open invitation to other regions, telling them, "Come invade us."
(10-19-2015, 06:13 AM)Darkstrait Wrote: The amount of enemy invaders it would take to throw a vote would have to be significant--- numbering in the hundreds. Voting isn't where the trouble is. Look at how much damage was caused by The Empire, rogue TEPers, Wolf. It was an incredibly toxic time, and it had major costs. Our IRC channel died, as members fled from the toxicity of those players. Our politics splintered. Our judiciary's legitimacy was damaged. We lost quite a few actual TSP players. And that was without any of them being granted automatic membership to our legislative branch. It was hard enough getting the Cabinet to act, even in the face of historical evidence and testimony from people who had dealt with that group before. Imagine how hard it would have been if they had legislative rights. Imagine how much more damaging it could have been if they were proposing bills meant to cause disruption. I think a lot of you guys have pretty short memories and a rosy outlook of the future. This game is filled with people who will take any given opportunity to be assholes. It isnt unthinkable that a small group of players can come into a region, manipulate it to their own ends, and force out their only opponents. It's happened time and time again in this game. We don't need to make the path any easier. @ Tsu: Yea, there's a clear trajectory. But we aren't there yet. When admins give us a forum on NS and adequate security tools, I'll be all for moving. We're not there yet and we're not gonna be there for a long time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, what if we implemented checks and balances. We already have an executive and judiciary. With the establishment of the legislative, the legislature can pass anything it wants, but it must be signed by the executive leader, then approved by the judiciary.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Quotes
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |