Provisional Parliament: Voting on Amendment

[Хahar 🤔]

25 members is too much. The point isn't to give everyone a seat. I have thoughts on a future upper house of 12 members once the requisite population exists, and I can share if people are interested.

Assuming everyone is agreed on SJoyce's proposal, I have further thoughts on an electoral law. Obviously there should be no such thing as party registration, since that is an Americanism. There will be no state supervision of parties at all, but the Registrar General will grant official recognition to certain political parties provided that they meet a certain threshold of members. Parties are in charge of setting their own membership criteria.

Only officially recognized political parties will be able to nominate lists for elections. This does not mean that independents cannot be elected, since parties can place any registered voter they want on their list, and in any case MPs can once elected opt not to take any whip. The purpose of limiting the ability to nominate candidates to officially recognized parties is to encourage cohesive political parties (which makes the game more fun) and to prevent the ballot from being cluttered without jeopardizing the multi-party system that is developing.

I hope people find this all agreeable.

[Blair]

I'd support a PR list system, just because constituencies are much easier to cheat in a certain sense, and would be hard to support overall. Agree with Xahar below, the UK Parliament is strange in that it has about 3-4 independents out of about 650 MPs. We really need to make parties the backbone of this 

[PJ]

25 members is too much. The point isn't to give everyone a seat. I have thoughts on a future upper house of 12 members once the requisite population exists, and I can share if people are interested.

Assuming everyone is agreed on SJoyce's proposal, I have further thoughts on an electoral law. Obviously there should be no such thing as party registration, since that is an Americanism. There will be no state supervision of parties at all, but the Registrar General will grant official recognition to certain political parties provided that they meet a certain threshold of members. Parties are in charge of setting their own membership criteria.

Only officially recognized political parties will be able to nominate lists for elections. This does not mean that independents cannot be elected, since parties can place any registered voter they want on their list, and in any case MPs can once elected opt not to take any whip. The purpose of limiting the ability to nominate candidates to officially recognized parties is to encourage cohesive political parties (which makes the game more fun) and to prevent the ballot from being cluttered without jeopardizing the multi-party system that is developing.

I hope people find this all agreeable.

I think it's important that we don't have an even number of MPs. A party or a coalition with 10 seats would be disastrous in terms of gridlock. I'm not suggesting that everyone should have a seat. 25 out of 45 citizens (a number which is likely to increase) still leaves a large portion of the citizenry outside of parliament. If the 25-seat amendment is unpopular, that's fine, but the issue of an even number of MPs needs to be addressed, perhaps with an overhang seat.

I'm curious about your thoughts on an upper house, although I tend to oppose the concept of upper houses in general. And I'm in agreement with the rest of your post.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

There could be some sort of formula for number of MPs based on population size. Or if not a formula, then an openness the increase the size of parliament as the country grows. The Canadian House of Commons adds risings fairly frequently, for example. Just something to think about it we do eventually find ourselves with a population of 150+.

[Talleyrand]

I've already pointed out an even parliament can be dealt with as long as the Speaker is elected from the parliament and denied a deliberative vote, so in effect you'd have an odd number of MPs. That said, if people are insistent on having an odd number of MPs, we could easily go to 21 members.

Also, do we have a procedure to fill vacancies? Would they just go to the first unelected position on the vacating member's list?

[TNF]

I object to PJ's amendment.

A vote is now open on the following amendment, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Voting will continue until a majority is reached in favor or opposed, or until the allotted debate time expires.

[TNF]

Nay

25 is too much.

[Murica!]

Nay
We don't have enough members for 25 yet.

[Talleyrand]

Nay

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

nay

[Oakvale]

NAY.

21 is ideal.

[Hash]

Nay. 21 would be best.

[Хahar 🤔]

I hardly think an odd number is necessary. Plenty of legislatures have an even number of seats all around the world. The rule is that a majority is necessary, and obviously 10 is not a majority, so 11 is needed. It would only be a problem if the legislature were divided into intractable opposing blocs of 10, which would run counter to the purpose of the game given the expressed interest of everyone in a multi-party system.

[Oakvale]

I hardly think an odd number is necessary. Plenty of legislatures have an even number of seats all around the world. The rule is that a majority is necessary, and obviously 10 is not a majority, so 11 is needed. It would only be a problem if the legislature were divided into intractable opposing blocs of 10, which would run counter to the purpose of the game given the expressed interest of everyone in a multi-party system.

It would be entertaining to have a majority hinge upon a single seat in an 11-10 split rather than a 11-9 though.

[PJ]

Aye.

[TNF]

Once we get done voting on this amendment, I'm going to propose an amendment that sets 21 as the number of seats for Parliament.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Non

---

The traditional thing to do with even numbers is to give the chairman a weighted vote in the event of a tie, fwiw.

[Simfan34]

Nay, I like 21.

[Donerail]

Nay. I support 21.

[Potus]

Nay.

[TNF]

The amendment fails.

Offering the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I figured we needed a name, and Foucaulf suggested Patagonia in #mockparliment last night, and I think it's fitting. 

[Hash]

The name Patagonia only refers to a small part of the South American continent, so I don't think it's appropriate.

[TNF]

The name Patagonia only refers to a small part of the South American continent, so I don't think it's appropriate.

What would you suggest? I'm willing to modify the amendment, of course.

[Oakvale]

It's boring but I'm fine with just "South America" tbh since I think since Atlasia's taken any other name will be some cringe thing

[Murica!]

How about "The Federation of South America"?