Provisional Parliament: Voting on Amendment

[Talleyrand]

AYE

[Türkisblau]

Aye

[SWE]

Aye

[Oakvale]

Aye.

[Potus]

Aye

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye

[PJ]

Aye.

[rpryor03]

Aye

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Abstain.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

aye

[Ban my account ffs!]

Aye...

But this should not be construed to mean I want to emulate anything remotely IRL about south american politics...or Hash and the South Americans will just take iver the game.

[Green Line]

Aye.

But I know nothing about South American politics

[Simfan34]

Nay

[Leinad]

Nay.

Don't get me wrong: I like the South America idea, but we haven't even looked at any other proposals. We should depart from Aye/Nay votes and do an IRV vote on what we like the best, after full debate on the pros and cons of every proposal.

However, it must be noted that the ayes already have it, so we might as well get on with it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NAY

[Donerail]

Aye

[TNF]

The aforementioned bill has been adopted.

We will now begin debate on the following bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

I personally think we should avoid constituencies this go around. As Talleyrand noted in the other thread, with the population of the game as is, we don't have the numbers to sustain a 20 member constituency game, nor would one ultimately be desirable, in my mind. After we have a bit of debate on this, I would like to propose an amendment striking all but Section 4 of this bill, which would be the regular way of electing the Parliament at all times.

[Murica!]

I agree that we don't have enough members for constituencies and support only adopting section 4.

[Donerail]

Since there seems to be a pretty broad consensus developing in the other thread, motion to amend by striking the text and inserting the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[PJ]

We do not have enough active members to sustain active constituency votes. Additionally, I'm afraid that the use of constituencies elected by FPTP would eliminate the influence of all but the two largest parties. I favor using closed-list proportional representation.

I would also like to consider expanding the size of parliament to 25 seats. Including this provisional parliament, sign-ups in the New Mock Parliament thread, and sign-ups in the individual party threads, we currently have 45 members. We have a sizeable amount of members willing to participate that have little to do if they cannot be elected to parliament. While we definitely need to make sure that this does not turn into 'US General Discussion with a map,' as stated earlier, being elected to parliament should be so difficult that it discourages new members from joining. A small increase to MPs would solve for this and would also solve the issue of having an even number of MPs.

[TNF]

If none are opposed to the amendment in question, I motion that debate continue without pause, with the previous amendment serving as the text of the bill.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I support the eventual implementation of constituencies, though for the time being we ought to use a PR system.

[Хahar 🤔]

Constituencies are a terrible idea and I will always oppose their introduction. Straight party-list PR, please.

[Leinad]

I concur with both sentiments; while I'd like to see constituencies added at some point (but never straight FPTP, I loathe that system) it would be silly if we only have about 4 voters for each one. I also second the motion for 25 members. In fact...

...I motion to amend the bill (assuming SJoyce's amendment is official) to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.