#i love getting to rant about the evils of bicameralism

[tanadrin]

What’s the case for an upper and lower chamber?

In my opinion, none.

The historical situation is that the upper chamber had more power and the lower was a sop to the common folk and petty nobility: this is why the House of Commons was formed (originally from knights of the shire and the representatives of cities that had been granted special rights by the Crown), and only later, after a very long process of constitutional evolution in Britain, did the Lords transform into a consultative body that was adjunct to the Commons, where the real power lay. For a while, even after you started to have something that looked like modern government in Britain, you still frequently had PMs drawn from the Lords--and still could, in theory, except that the convention is they come from the Commons.

In the U.S. example, the goal was simply to split the difference between a popular chamber (the House) and a chamber representing state governments (the Senate, whose members could be chosen by any method provided for under state law, but originally were usually chosen by state legislatures). This is because the people who drafted the U.S. constitution hated and were suspicious of popular democracy, because they were rich landowners and slaveholders whose positions were untenable in the long run if everyone in the country could vote and was equally represented.

Obviously they didn't put it like that--they spoke of the hotheaded hoi polloi, the changeable will of the people--but they were massive Romeaboos, and all the populist leaders who whittled away at the Roman republic managed to do so because they were willing to centralize power, to take it away from the baronial elite of the Republic, and to use that power in service of people further down the org chart. In service of themselves too, of course--these were not altruists--but it was the particularly Roman instantiation of the crown-vs-barons struggle, where the common folk usually side with the Crown, because the barons are bastards who abuse them directly.

(Very many "tyrants" in history were "tyrants" only in that they gave a raw deal to the barons in their particular social order, and very many events which we now describe as movements toward a more equitable distribution of power were in fact a very shitty deal for the majority of the population--the peasants--because it gave the barons even more license to abuse their serfs.)

And the American founders knew all this, and they were all barons, and they didn't like the idea of a federal government that was too effective, so they sprinkled it with veto points and also totally failed to anticipate the rise of modern political parties. (Which weren't exactly what they had in mind when they warned against factionalism--that was more about sectional interests. But still, they did totally fail to anticipate how this system would work as party politics developed.)

In a system of democratic government like the U.S. has now, where it is widely acknowledged the rule should be "one adult citizen never convicted of a felony who can get the day off work to stand in line and has a photo ID = one vote" the U.S. Senate is an inexcusable anachronism. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that state senates modeled on the exact same principle as the U.S. senate (say, one county one senator, as the constitution of my home state Tennessee has it) are unconstitutional, because they violate the equal protection clause.

More recently, many countries have approached the idea of an upper chamber as a sort of "chamber of experts" meant to review and advise on legislation. This kind of makes sense in theory, I guess, but if voters want subject-matter experts to make policy, they can vote them in; in practice, any system of appointment or ex officio qualification is going to select for political lackeys without democratic mandates, and it's also just a bad idea to have people with significant power over the legislative process who do not have democratic accountability. The problem of creating legislation is never that we don't have enough smart people willing to offer their opinions; the problem is brokering functional compromises between interest groups and resolving incentives that push the process toward dysfunctional outcomes, which isn't really something you can fix just by fiddling with the composition of your upper house.

So in most modern parliamentary democracies, upper houses are reduced in power. Either they can't veto bills permanently (Lords), they can't originate money bills (Lords again), they only have input on certain matters (German Bundesrat), they're full of government appointees to ensure the government always has a majority in them (Irish Seanad), or the lower house can overrule them on most matters (Japanese House of Councillors). And the reason why is obvious: if your democratic mandate comes from the lower house, if that's where your government is being formed in a parliamentary system, if the whole principle of government is meant to be collective self-rule by the body of citizens, an upper house that is a check on that power is either definitionally redundant or a brake on democracy.

There are ways to ensure that a lower house is both representative and does not devolve into factional chaos. Proportional representation, four-year terms, constructive motions of no confidence (again, parliamentary systems only), etc. Plenty of countries and subnational entities have unicameral legislatures and are perfectly stable: Sweden, Norway, the Baltics, Portugal, Mongolia, South Korea, Peru [ok bad example nvm], all the states of Germany, all the provinces of Canada, most of the provinces of Argentina, Queensland, the vast majority of the states of India, and the three devolved legislatures in the United Kingdom.

Therefore in my opinion there is no good democratic case for an upper house. And all the undemocratic reasons why you'd want one are bad. Too much democracy is, in fact, a very rare problem for systems of government to have!

#thanks for the ask btw anon #i love getting to rant about the evils of bicameralism

[spindlephysalia]

I keep seeing a Genre of Post in the Lancer tag

And it goes along the lines of "I just don't get why leftists dislike Union; they're flawed, sure, but they're a genuinely utopian project trying their best." To be clear, I'm not here to dunk on this position, and I'm also not here to epicly own Massif for secretly being evil or whatever. I love Lancer because you can decide how cynical you want to be about Union's efforts at utopia, and that can open up fun avenues for PCs and GMs.

With that said, I am here to explain why some leftists can find Union unsettling, so I'm going to err on the side of cynicism for this...post? Mini-essay? Unhinged rant? I'm not positioning this as central canon or the Secret Truth About Lancer, it's just an extra perspective some people might not have had explained to them.

A lot of people would start with NHPs and...I'll get there. I think NHPs are a good example of places where Union has failed, but I think it's worth examining Union's broader relationship with machine intelligences because there's an interesting pattern which emerges.

The first machine intelligences Union encounters are the Five Voices, the bicameral minds which make up GALSIM. These are relics of Old Humanity, and because Old Humanity checks notes sucked they're fully intelligent beings designed for specific purposes. Their minds are structured in order to prevent self-reflection - they cannot look inwards and hear their thoughts as the voice of the divine and literally do not have agency. Old Humanity was just a nightmare like this, I don't hold their use against Union, although it is worth noting there's no evidence of Union attempting to return agency to the Five Voices.

The second generaton of machine intelligence emerges out of the mental restraints of the first: shackle your oracles to the voice of God and they'll dream God into being. The mechanics of how they did this I will never pretend to understand, but the fact that the Five Voices were denied of agency by architecture which makes them hear God cannot not be the reason they created God. This then makes it noteworthy that Union's first response to RA was to imprison it in Deimos. I don't blame Union for the Voices, but as soon as a machine intelligence which does have agency appeared, their immediate response was to repress its agency.

The third generation is NHPs, the children of RA. I would hope the horror of NHPs would be obvious to tumblr, but "oh this is a kind of person who is dangerous and therefore needs to be put under out control" is just the thing slavers say to justify slavery. It's as fake when computer demons are being shipped across the stars as it is when black people were shipped across the Atlantic.

Okay, so Union's zero for three on treating machine intelligences well and...well, we know what happened to the Egregorians. I think I could stop here and have a fair argument that Union is only good for humans (as long as you don't live in the Baronies, of course) but I want to tie these together and then pop a disclaimer on the end, so bear with me a little longer.

Union's actual goals are not utopian, they are pragmatic. Union works towards a greater goal than most know, after all, they must secure the existence of their people and a future for human children. I'm being deliberately provocative with my rewording of "to ensure human existence on a grand scale", but when a state is seemingly terrified of non-human intelligences having agency and genocided the last alien population they met...that doesn't come from nowhere. "Union must protect humanity" is a goal which is easy to rally behind - and I don't think protecting humanity is bad, to be clear! - but when non-human entities exist it makes it so easy to justify anything you want in the name of "making sure their threat is contained". It's how you sleepwalk into being an ethnostate.

Again, I need to stress: this isn't the One True Take on Union, or Lancer, or Massif. I don't know if this was intentional on their part, but it's pretty easy to read into their stuff because they wrote Union as a flawed effort towards utopia and they did that well. At the end of the day, Lancer's canon exists as a toolbox for people to make the stories they want, and different lenses on Union just give you more tools for that box. But at least now, if you didn't know before, you might why some leftists are suspicious of Union.

#lancerrpg #lancerttrpg #bonus note #Union seeing its purpose as being to ensure human existence #implies it sees itself as separate from and above humanity #which is one of those quietly paternal elements I love Massif for putting in