Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Tricameralism

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 3:44:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've been researching some stuff on Tricameralism and I think it's pretty interesting. I have always debated which was betetr, bicameralism or unicameralism, but adding the third dimension blew my mind away.

Although I initially wondered what the third chamber could be used for, the French system seemed pretty smart:

- The Sénat conservateur, the highest chamber, whose duty was to guard the constitution.

- The Corps législatif, which was to vote on laws without discussing them.

- The Tribunat, which was to discuss laws and only vote on whether to "recommend" them for the Corps législatif.

Although many would say this adds unnecessary bureaucracy, I quite like it. The system could go as follows:

1. A Bill is proposed in the First Chamber (Tribunat)
2. The Bill is discussed and any necessary changes are made.
3. The Bills is debated then voted on in the 1st Chamber.
4. The Bill is then put to vote in the 2nd chamber (Corps législatif) without debate.
5. The Bill is then discussed and put to vote in the 3rd chamber (Sénat conservateur)

The purpose of the 2nd chamber is to get an objective vote on the bill, and I'm presuming a snap one given the ability to allow for rapid communication, and the 3rd to protect the Constitution. Although it means a slower process of voting on bills, it's likely to iron out any flaws.

Thoughts?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 3:52:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 3:44:37 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
The purpose of the 2nd chamber is to get an objective vote on the bill, and I'm presuming a snap one given the ability to allow for rapid communication, and the 3rd to protect the Constitution. Although it means a slower process of voting on bills, it's likely to iron out any flaws.

Thoughts?

How exactly is the vote of the 2nd chamber objective?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 3:53:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 3:52:45 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/18/2010 3:44:37 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
The purpose of the 2nd chamber is to get an objective vote on the bill, and I'm presuming a snap one given the ability to allow for rapid communication, and the 3rd to protect the Constitution. Although it means a slower process of voting on bills, it's likely to iron out any flaws.

Thoughts?

How exactly is the vote of the 2nd chamber objective?

Because it's a snap decision, given the bill will be dished up immediately, with no real external influences. Not exactly objective, I agree, bad wording, but it is more objective.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 3:55:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If the only purpose of the second chamber is to vote on the bill without debate then it seems like it could pretty easily be absorbed into the third tier. I think I see what you're saying though. It provides a more defined structure to the entire legislative system.

But what happens if the third chamber rejects the bill in its present form on constitutional grounds? Does it go back to the first chamber again or do they make the changes themselves and then send it back only to the second chamber?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 4:00:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 3:55:11 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
If the only purpose of the second chamber is to vote on the bill without debate then it seems like it could pretty easily be absorbed into the third tier. I think I see what you're saying though. It provides a more defined structure to the entire legislative system.

But what happens if the third chamber rejects the bill in its present form on constitutional grounds? Does it go back to the first chamber again or do they make the changes themselves and then send it back only to the second chamber?

It goes back to the first chamber to be amended and debated again.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 6:26:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What juvanya said. It's not around because it is very redundant; the "Tribunat" is essentially an executive branch or parliamentary committee with a fancier name.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 6:29:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Have one chamber that exists solely to annull bills. Unicameral power on that.

Have 9001 chambers that exist to pass new laws. The consent of all of them is required.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 6:45:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 6:29:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Have one chamber that exists solely to annull bills. Unicameral power on that.

Have 9001 chambers that exist to pass new laws. The consent of all of them is required.

Eh, I'd say skip that and make it so no laws can be passed without the consent of every citizen.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2010 9:00:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think the second level can be eliminated, unless it's inclusion is based on a different system than the first. For example, the second level may be a popular vote or a stock operation.

I'd suggest the following:
Tier 1: Popular Representatives: One per million people: Propose new laws (Requires 55%)
Tier 2: Popular Representatives: One per five million people: Determine constitutionality (Requires 90%)
Tier 3: Popular Vote: Everyone: Approves law (Requires 40%)

Annulment only requires a 40% vote by the first or second tier.

The constitution would be an expanded definition of libertarian creeds of self-governorship.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 6:53:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
First house: Elected by the majority
Second house: Elected by the majority
Third house: Elected by the majority

So many checks and balances!!
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2010 11:00:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 9:00:03 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Annulment only requires a 40% vote by the first or second tier.

Um, why not 45%, at the very least? If only 40% can paralyze government, yet it takes 55% to make it work, you don't think that presents a very f*cked up system? More so than it is now in the US, where the vast minority can totally paralyze a government's agenda, not bother to work for compromises and solutions, and claim they're protecting the country?
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 1:05:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 6:45:02 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/18/2010 6:29:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Have one chamber that exists solely to annull bills. Unicameral power on that.

Have 9001 chambers that exist to pass new laws. The consent of all of them is required.

Eh, I'd say skip that and make it so no laws can be passed without the consent of every citizen.
You've got to be kidding right?
Y'know, that is why people vote against something just for the sake of voting.
I know that I'd be sorely tempted to vote against a bill everyone else has agreed on just to cause some trouble.
I miss the old members.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 1:11:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 5:39:11 AM, minervx wrote:
The constitution written by the founding fathers is fundamentally fine and does not need any drastic changes.

I disagree. We need a clear and impossible to misinterpret list of individual rights. The original Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) had almost no protection of individual rights.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 1:19:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/20/2010 1:11:42 PM, Sam_Lowry wrote:

I disagree. We need a clear and impossible to misinterpret list of individual rights.

You would think "congress shall make no law" would be pretty clear.

But this whole living constitution theory is just a flimsy cover for the fact that there is no rule of law. http://faculty.msb.edu...

"Consider, for example, people's beliefs about the legal system. They are obviously aware that the law is inherently political. The common complaint that members of Congress are corrupt, or are legislating for their own political benefit or for that of special interest groups demonstrates that citizens understand that the laws under which they live are a product of political forces rather than the embodiment of the ideal of justice. Further, as evidenced by the political battles fought over the recent nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, the public obviously believes that the ideology of the people who serve as judges influences the way the law is interpreted. "
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 1:22:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 11:00:59 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/18/2010 9:00:03 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Annulment only requires a 40% vote by the first or second tier.

Um, why not 45%, at the very least? If only 40% can paralyze government, yet it takes 55% to make it work, you don't think that presents a very f*cked up system? More so than it is now in the US, where the vast minority can totally paralyze a government's agenda, not bother to work for compromises and solutions, and claim they're protecting the country?

Eh, a paralyzed government does less harm. I'm liking WJM's idea.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 2:57:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 11:00:59 AM, Volkov wrote:
More so than it is now in the US, where the vast minority can totally paralyze a government's agenda, not bother to work for compromises and solutions, and claim they're protecting the country?

There is absolutely nothing to stop the Democrats from growing a spine and changing the rules.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 3:10:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
They could easily launch an anti-federal reserve campaign. Though their masters wouldn't like that

"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it." -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States" — Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)

"While boasting of our noble deeds were careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery. — Horace Greeley

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 5:11:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/18/2010 3:44:37 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
- The Sénat conservateur, the highest chamber, whose duty was to guard the constitution.

This is essentially the role of the judicial branch in the U.S.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2010 6:13:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/19/2010 11:00:59 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/18/2010 9:00:03 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Annulment only requires a 40% vote by the first or second tier.
Um, why not 45%, at the very least? If only 40% can paralyze government, yet it takes 55% to make it work, you don't think that presents a very f*cked up system? More so than it is now in the US, where the vast minority can totally paralyze a government's agenda, not bother to work for compromises and solutions, and claim they're protecting the country?

Big deal. I was thinking of making it lower. The idea is that there is a large consent requirement. The government's agenda and compromises only work to promote your ideology in the long run. A system that is more likely to fix a problem by repealing legislation than by adding legislation is less likely to become a huge inefficient bureaucratic overlap.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light