The PCNation

[gimmepie]

An upper house made of unelected advisors might be a good idea if the scope of their power is contained. For example, they are only allowed to suggest non-binding amendments to legislation. This satisfies two needs: 1) their suggestions are non-binding so we don't have a unelected body that can make binding decisions, which also leads to less of an incentive to ply the upper house with partisan members and 2) it would still be effective because if the lower house ignores expert advice it makes them look overly political and self-interested.

The way a bill becomes law might look like this given the above example:

Bill gets introduced in lower house. It gets debated. It comes under a vote. If it passes, the bill gets to the upper house. It gets debated. The upper house decides on amendments to the bill. It gets back to the lower house. It gets debated again, this time with consideration of the amendments suggested by the upper house. The lower house debates the virtues of the amendments, votes on which amendments to apply, and then the bill is finalized. It comes under a final vote. If it passes, it becomes law.

That sounds doable if we really want an unelected upper house. But if they aren't elected, how exactly are the upper house advisors determined?

 

[Kanzler]

Appointed. The upper house is meant to be the place of "sober second thought" free from the whims of the mob.

 

[gimmepie]

Appointed. The upper house is meant to be the place of "sober second thought" free from the whims of the mob.

But appointed by whom?

 

[Kanzler]

The Senate in Canada is appointed by the ruling party. You guys do it like the Americans.

You know what? I'm pretty open on the issue of selecting the membership of the upper house (if we have one). They could be appointed, they could be elected, or they could be delegated by the provinces.

I think we first need to decide whether we want an upper house to fulfil a specific role: do we want it primarily to represent the provinces to implement federalism, or do we want it primarily as a place that scrutinizes legislation passed by the lower house?

 

[gimmepie]

The Senate in Canada is appointed by the ruling party. You guys do it like the Americans.

You know what? I'm pretty open on the issue of selecting the membership of the upper house (if we have one). They could be appointed, they could be elected, or they could be delegated by the provinces.

I think we first need to decide whether we want an upper house to fulfil a specific role: do we want it primarily to represent the provinces to implement federalism, or do we want it primarily as a place that scrutinizes legislation passed by the lower house?

I prefer the latter.

 

[Sword Master]

I think the ruling party and the 2nd biggest party can decide the upper house (with the ruling party deciding the majority). That's is it how I think it should work.
Also, gimmiepie can you check all the voters IP addresses in the poll, I want to be sure there is no cheating, and only people who posted in this thread can vote right?

 

[Somewhere_]

I think the ruling party and the 2nd biggest party can decide the upper house (with the ruling party deciding the majority). That's is it how I think it should work.
Also, gimmiepie can you check all the voters IP addresses in the poll, I want to be sure there is no cheating, and only people who posted in this thread can vote right?

I do not think that was a rule (although I think it should have been). I think what is more important is when GimmiePie is going to close the poll.

Isn't that giving a lot of power to the biggest parties? I mean, it sounds like a decent idea because it would increase efficiency, but i think that individual house members should be elected rather than parties being elected.

 

[gimmepie]

I don't think that the members of the upperhouse should be under the control of the majority party and their opposition. That's not a good way to get a fair, unbiased and efficient upper house and really just defeats the purpose of their being one.

Either we need to elect the upper house, or we need to have some sort of outside representation hand pick them evenly from the biggest parties or from each state.

 

[Sword Master]

Either we need to elect the upper house, or we need to have some sort of outside representation hand pick them evenly from the biggest parties or from each state.

Yes, we can include a independent body to pick the upper house.

 

[Kanzler]

Yes, we can include a independent body to pick the upper house.

Who picks the independent party?

 

[gimmepie]

Just so well all know, that pole should be down shortly. It appears that we will in fact be having to have a right to bear arms in our constitution. Let's not revert conversation back to that though.

I'm honestly not sure what to do about this upper house myself.

 

[Kanzler]

If we're having that right constitutionally protected, then it should at the very least be written clearly that the government retains the privilege of regulating that right. None of that ambiguous "shall not be infringed" crap.

 

[Sword Master]

Who picks the independent party?

*sighs* Wow!

 

[gimmepie]

If we're having that right constitutionally protected, then it should at the very least be written clearly that the government retains the privilege of regulating that right. None of that ambiguous "shall not be infringed" crap.

Way ahead of you with my draft there xD

Anyway, at this point I'm thinking that perhaps we should have the upper house be comprised of elected representatives who are put forward for election by their own party.

 

[Somewhere_]

Way ahead of you with my draft there xD

Anyway, at this point I'm thinking that perhaps we should have the upper house be comprised of elected representatives who are put forward for election by their own party.

So it looks like we all pretty much agree on the upper and lower houses, but how long should terms be? I do not think they should be too long or too short. If its too long, the individual holds too much power and no one else has a chance, but if its too short, that person has little experience.

 

[gimmepie]

So it looks like we all pretty much agree on the upper and lower houses, but how long should terms be? I do not think they should be too long or too short. If its too long, the individual holds too much power and no one else has a chance, but if its too short, that person has little experience.

I don't see why a leader should have set terms in office. If the people want that leader to remain in charge for twenty years they should have the right to vote for that outcome.

 

[Somewhere_]

I don't see why a leader should have set terms in office. If the people want that leader to remain in charge for twenty years they should have the right to vote for that outcome.

I said length of terms. Not number of terms. People should be able to revote a person in, but not too many times.

 

[Kanzler]

Do legislatures need term limits though? I can imagine that would be more necessary for high office.

 

[Somewhere_]

Do legislatures need term limits though? I can imagine that would be more necessary for high office.

I think yes, but I think it can be balanced with long terms for experience.

 

[Sir Codin]

If we're having that right constitutionally protected, then it should at the very least be written clearly that the government retains the privilege of regulating that right. None of that ambiguous "shall not be infringed" crap.

Personally, I consider the "well-regulated militia" part is what makes the second part of that amendment so ambiguous. But that's just me. I don't mean to start another gun right debate. I don't want that. You don't want that. No one here wants that; we've had enough of it in this thread. That's just my two cents.