Bicameral Legislature Bill

bootsie

bootsie

Minister of Culture
-
Pronouns
They/Them
TNP Nation
Guslantis
Discord
bootsie
Romanoffia has given the idea of a bicameral legislature within The North Pacific, and I thought I'd see what I could come up with. The proposed Regional Assembly would have a Senate and a House of Representatives. Each would function as different legislatures, but serve the Regional Assembly.

The following sections should be appended to the Regional Assembly Rules
Section 4: The House of Representatives:
1. The House consists of every applicable person that is not in the Senate.
2. The House may pass laws according to the majority set by the Constitution.
3. The House will be governed by a Deputy Speaker, who will assume the title of Speaker of the House by the virtue of holding the office. Where a Deputy Speaker is not available, the Speaker will served as the governor of the body.
4. The House will pass bills that must be passed by the Senate in order to become a law.
Click to expand...

Section 5: The Senate:
1. The Senate consists of those who pass the citizenship requirements and apply to become a senator.
2. The Senate must pass a law by the same majority that it was passed in the House to become a law.
3. The Senate must approve the appointment of the cabinet.
4. The Senate will be governed by a Deputy Speaker, who will assume the title of Speaker of the Senate by the virtue of holding the office. Where a Deputy Speaker is not available, the Speaker will served as the governor of the body.
Click to expand...

I know that this is a rough start but, I know that some of TNP's best will have much to input regarding this.
 
While I am American, and America is a country with a bicameral legislature, I don't think I'll support this. Our current legislation is simple and effective and a change like this could practically destroy the RA in complications.

However, from a legislature writer's perspective, this is very nice.
 
How are you distinguishing the House from the Senate in terms of members? Seems as though anyone who is eligible to be in the RA would essentially be the Senate. Who would be the House, and why would they be there instead of the Senate?
 
Bootsie, I really think that this is a well planned and thorough bill, good job.
However, I do hope you won't mind me dropping a tip or two here.
Like other commentators stated, I believe it would be hard for this bill to gain support if it went to vote. A few things to point out are: 1.) The two houses are not balanced in terms of powers. Eventually you'll have everyone end up in the Senate. 2.) If you are planning to give the senate more privileges, then you should most likely set standards to join it. Simply being a citizen is not enough, because it is a very common standard. 3.) If I were you, Bootsie, I would go ahead and post how this is beneficial to the RA. How will it make the RA less complicated? There are many right now who don't approve of the RA altogether, so how is this bringing positive change to these members, or just the RA in general?

Like I said, I do acknowledge the great job you have done on this, and these are just some points to consider.

~ Tomb
 
Section 5.3 of this Bill is a violation of the Constitution which dictates the Delegate will have free will over the appointment of executive officers.

I also concur with what Tomb has said. I also have a question, should both houses agree on their own versions of a certain bill, what would happen then? And it also says the majority achieved in the House is the majority required for the bill to pass in the Senate, but what if the bill originated in the Senate or must bill first originate in the House not the Senate?
 
This will create more problems than it would solve.

Roman has made his proposals for a decade now, and no one has bitten, until now. It just isn't practical in TNP. There were reasons for the RL US to adopt two houe of Congress, such reasons don't exist in TNP, and a House of Lords as in the RL British system, would not make any sense in TNP either as we don't have peerages or royalty.
 
Agreed, Grosse (And Lord Nwahs) though again I will say from just the perspective of a legislature writer, this is very nice. Keep it up, just try and think a bit about what you're writing so I don't have to say "From the perspective of a legislature writer" three trillion times. The best legislature writers combine skilled writing with an effective legislation to present.
 
TNP Constitution:
2. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.
Click to expand...
This bill violates the above clause of the constitution because it could prevent legislation from being passed after a majority of the RA has voted for it.

Suppose that there were 40 members of one house and 20 members of the other. A bill passes the first house with 25 Ayes and 15 Nays, and then fails in the other with only 8 Ayes and 12 Nays. The bill received a total of 33 votes, which is a majority of the total 60 voters, but did not pass because it failed the second house. Indeed, this is the only possible way that this proposal could affect the outcome of a bill: to prevent it passing even after receiving a majority vote.

So far, the benefits of this proposal escape me.
 
The idea of a bicameral legislature can make sense when one wants to limit the legislative power. In the case of a federal system like the United States', it also was intended to require decisions to obtain two very different consensuses: of the people and of the member States.

In the North Pacific, we individually are member states of The North Pacific Region.

One could make a case for balancing the interests of the different spheres of community we might have (Roleplayers, Military-focused folks, WA resolution writers, RA legislators, et cetera), but I don't think that case would be a very solid one.

The approach to drafting taken is a good one, but I the subject matter is not. (Unlike the case with some of our other recent bills, where the subject matter was good, but the approach to drafting atrocious... :P )
 
Nah. Poo idea. It is impossible to have 'murican legislative system without 'murican spelling to go with it.

It is like having big macs without coronary heart disease.
 
I think there's a potential issue with the text as written where it looks to me like a bill must pass the senate with exactly the same majority as it got in the house - so if one gets 55% and one gets 65%, it fails. A better wording would be to specify that bills must receive the same minimum percentage of the vote in both houses in order to pass, or something like that.
 
Simpler is, generally, better in NS.

over the years I have seen dozens of regions which set up, get about ten members then invent an incredibly complex governmental system which they are unable to implement. these are the regions that send you recruitment TGs with "Minister for culture: <vacant>, Minister for recruitment: <vacant>" right through them.

TNP is one of the most active regions in the game, but even for us I would say that simpler is better. I would rather have a simple system with competition for places than a complex one where we struggled to fill positions and those in office struggled to find things to do.
 
flemingovia:
Simpler is, generally, better in NS.

over the years I have seen dozens of regions which set up, get about ten members then invent an incredibly complex governmental system which they are unable to implement. these are the regions that send you recruitment TGs with "Minister for culture: <vacant>, Minister for recruitment: <vacant>" right through them.

TNP is one of the most active regions in the game, but even for us I would say that simpler is better. I would rather have a simple system with competition for places than a complex one where we struggled to fill positions and those in office struggled to find things to do.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
I really like the idea in RL. However, if we decide to do this, I think the requirements for becoming a Senator should be stricter.
 
It appears that this system would require all bills to start in the House and then be approved by the Senate. The Senate also affirms Cabinet appointments.

It would seem to me that one item would help keep people from rushing to the Senate and that would be that the House would vote and approve all Legal Code changes and the Senate would initiate and approve all Constitutional changes. That would give each body a raison d'etre that is distinct from the other. It would also require citizens to make a choice as to which body they would like to involve themselves in.

What has been submitted seems workable to me, but I think you want to draw the lines of demarcation even more.
 
But, may I ask, why is this even necessary in the first place? What benefit would it bring over the current unicameral legislative system we currently have?
 
Constitution:
2. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.
Click to expand...
COE:
This bill violates the above clause of the constitution because it could prevent legislation from being passed after a majority of the RA has voted for it.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but the language of the proposal only references the passage of Laws. No mention of amending or repealing:

OP:
Section 4: The House of Representatives

2. The House may pass laws according to the majority set by the Constitution.

Section 5: The Senate

2. The Senate must pass a law by the same majority that it was passed in the House to become a law.
Click to expand...
Granted, this is a rough draft, but the language needs to be revised/polished considerably.

Silly String:
I think there's a potential issue with the text as written where it looks to me like a bill must pass the senate with exactly the same majority as it got in the house - so if one gets 55% and one gets 65%, it fails. A better wording would be to specify that bills must receive the same minimum percentage of the vote in both houses in order to pass, or something like that.
Click to expand...
I don't see the point of having 2 votes within the same legislative body in the first place.

Both proposed legislatures call for a Deputy Speaker to be elevated to Speaker status (and theoretically receive the rights and responsibilities associated with that) in their respective areas. Deputies are appointed. Under this proposal, would that necessitate electing Deputy Speakers?

It's a challenge for the RA to retain members as it is now. The passage of the Voting Rights Act, could very well see a further dwindling of RA numbers. I don't think dividing the RA into 2 Houses is necessary.
 
Oh, I agree with you about necessity - I don't think there's a compelling argument for such a change. My comment was specifically on the proposed implementation, which - even if a bicameral legislature were accepted as a good idea - is problematic.
 
I am going to attempt to answer all questions given to me. Yes, I do realise that the Senate approving the cabinet is a violation, but also a protection. It limits delegate power, and would give more power to the limited legislature. The two houses would have to pass by the same minimum percentage or majority. So, if it requires two-thirds, they must both pass with two-thirds. I like Punk D's idea about the Legal Code and Constituition. The Senate may start bills on the Constitution, the House must start bills on Legal Code, all others may be started in either house. Ones that are amending both may be brought before the one determined by the user that brought the amendment to vote. The Deputy Speakers will be elected, and serve as the Speaker of their own house. The term Speaker, will then refer to the one maintaining the entrance into the RA and citizenship.
 
Bootsie:
I am going to attempt to answer all questions given to me. Yes, I do realise that the Senate approving the cabinet is a violation, but also a protection. It limits delegate power, and would give more power to the limited legislature. The two houses would have to pass by the same minimum percentage or majority. So, if it requires two-thirds, they must both pass with two-thirds. I like Punk D's idea about the Legal Code and Constituition. The Senate may start bills on the Constitution, the House must start bills on Legal Code, all others may be started in either house. Ones that are amending both may be brought before the one determined by the user that brought the amendment to vote. The Deputy Speakers will be elected, and serve as the Speaker of their own house. The term Speaker, will then refer to the one maintaining the entrance into the RA and citizenship.
Click to expand...
If your still content on this, then you have to change this bill to cover more than just RA rules but amending the Constiution.
 
In order to get more folks on board with this, this should solve a problem or create a value that doesn’t exist today.

For me, I need no convincing because the value I see is playing a game with two legislative bodies and curiosity around what will happen in such a scenario. That’s my value. But, I doubt this is the case for most who will be looking for you to describe a current problem that this solves. I don’t think you will be able to do that because this process doesn’t.

Instead, I think you should try to make an argument around how this will be a benefit to TNP above and beyond the system we have today. That’s a more difficult thing to do, but I think short of that the bill will not win mass appeal.
 
I... no, I'm sorry. Just no. TNP has a valuable legislative system, I enjoy the ease of use, the accessibility and the straight-forward approach to legislation that we currently have. I cannot support adding another tier and potentially unbalancing one of the oldest democratic regions in NationStates.
 
I thought about the bicameral model for a while, in either the US or UK model and discovered a problem involving 'advise and consent' functions of a second house in terms of applying it to TNP.

The first problem is that it would probably require a higher number of participants than can be mustered unless the "Senate" was limited to a very small number of people.

The second problem is how do you handle the legislative process when a second house is involved? Would the introduction certain types of bills be restricted and divided between the two houses and would there be any logic to doing so?

The third problem is that it would at best be a duplication of services/functions at best. It would be more logical for the Delegate to have a Privy Council for advisement purposes, but that would probably duplicate the non-specific functions of the cabinet. And, after all, I'm sure a Delegate already gets more advise, solicited or otherwise, than a Delegate can nominally handle.

The fourth problem is that a second house would essentially be the same as having a House of Lords and tantamount to creating titles of nobility (something that generally, I suspect, would not go over well in TNP).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top