Election Coverage

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I call for all those involved in election administration to immediately resign from their posts. This has been a shambles and a disgrace to our new nation.

[Talleyrand]

I call for all those involved in election administration to immediately resign from their posts. This has been a shambles and a disgrace to our new nation.

Yes, there are a LOT of things which clearly could have been handled better, although it seems like there are multiple people and forces responsible for this. I hope that we can pass a clearer electoral law with cross-party support as one of the first orders of the new parliament.

[afleitch]

It is not even clear what authority parliament had to call and administer these elections.

[afleitch]

Has it been determined if my vote stands btw?

[Türkisblau]

I call for all those involved in election administration to immediately resign from their posts. This has been a shambles and a disgrace to our new nation.

The directionless election "act" certainly didn't help. If you want my head then I'd be happy to oblige

(The change in rules after endless PMs benefited the socialists so I certainly don't think you should be complaining.)

[TNF]

It is not even clear what authority parliament had to call and administer these elections.

Forgive us for not wanting to turn this game into the gigantic, legalistic clusterf!ck that is Atlasia the minute we started this game.

[afleitch]

It is not even clear what authority parliament had to call and administer these elections.

Forgive us for not wanting to turn this game into the gigantic, legalistic clusterf!ck that is Atlasia the minute we started this game.

But you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You have to have some legal framework for what you're doing as I've tried to demonstrate. No one is asking for a tome, just a simple constitution that confirms the power of parliament.

[Хahar 🤔]

The current projections. CON: 8, SOL: 5, SOC: 5, WOR: 2, PIO: 1

Surely the Conservatives should not be seated on the left?

[Simfan34]

It is not even clear what authority parliament had to call and administer these elections.

Forgive us for not wanting to turn this game into the gigantic, legalistic clusterf!ck that is Atlasia the minute we started this game.

But you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You have to have some legal framework for what you're doing as I've tried to demonstrate. No one is asking for a tome, just a simple constitution that confirms the power of parliament.

You are the one calling for the constitution, and trying to squirrel in all sorts of "rights" in the hope no one is looking, to boot, all while undermining the fundamental doctrine of parliamentary supremacy!

[afleitch]

It is not even clear what authority parliament had to call and administer these elections.

Forgive us for not wanting to turn this game into the gigantic, legalistic clusterf!ck that is Atlasia the minute we started this game.

But you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You have to have some legal framework for what you're doing as I've tried to demonstrate. No one is asking for a tome, just a simple constitution that confirms the power of parliament.

You are the one calling for the constitution, and trying to squirrel in all sorts of "rights" in the hope no one is looking, to boot, all while undermining the fundamental doctrine of parliamentary supremacy!

Parliamentary supremacy without law, without human rights and without an independent judiciary is a dictatorship.

[Simfan34]

You live in a dictatorship? In Britain, all of those things stem from Acts of Parliament.

[afleitch]

You live in a dictatorship? In Britain, all of those things stem from Acts of Parliament.

The justice system does not stem from 'acts of parliament'; it is modified by it and feeds into it. Parliament didn't come before justice and law did!

This isn't a UK sim; it's about establishing a parliamentary system. If you wish to do that in 2015, you have to have a bare bones constitution defining roles. This game has nothing in it but a parliament. I'm arguing very strongly that we set up a constitution and that the constitution comes from the people.

[Simfan34]

You live in a dictatorship? In Britain, all of those things stem from Acts of Parliament.

The justice system does not stem from 'acts of parliament'; it is modified by it and feeds into it. Parliament didn't come before justice and law did!

This isn't a UK sim; it's about establishing a parliamentary system. If you wish to do that in 2015, you have to have a bare bones constitution defining roles. This game has nothing in it but a parliament. I'm arguing very strongly that we set up a constitution and that the constitution comes from the people.

Such a "bare bones constitution" should merely sanction the principle of parliamentary supremacy. Separate acts could then sanction the courts, procedures, rights, and so forth as needed and prudent.

[afleitch]

You live in a dictatorship? In Britain, all of those things stem from Acts of Parliament.

The justice system does not stem from 'acts of parliament'; it is modified by it and feeds into it. Parliament didn't come before justice and law did!

This isn't a UK sim; it's about establishing a parliamentary system. If you wish to do that in 2015, you have to have a bare bones constitution defining roles. This game has nothing in it but a parliament. I'm arguing very strongly that we set up a constitution and that the constitution comes from the people.

Such a "bare bones constitution" should merely sanction the principle of parliamentary supremacy. Separate acts could then sanction the courts, procedures, rights, and so forth as needed and prudent.

Exactly as I've just drafted.

[Simfan34]

Your draft, I believed, placed them all on the same level and placed certain powers behind the remit of Parliament, thus requiring judicial review and a constitutional court of some sort. I am opposed to that.

[Хahar 🤔]

Members of the First Parliament

CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Potus2036
Simfan34
Oakvale
Rpryor03
Dereich
Cassius
Goldwater
Spamage

SOCIALIST PARTY
Crabcake
Al Widdershins
Politics Junkie
Xahar
Murica

SOCIAL LIBERALS
Talleyrand
SJoyce
Barnes
Blair
Vega

WORKERS PARTY
Türkisblau
TNF

PIONEERS
ChairmanSanchez

[Leinad]

Regarding the Constitution talk, I think it's clear we need to define set rules. The assertion that not defining set rules is good but defining set rules would create a "clusterf!ck" is absurd--it's the opposite. Not making a constitution because Atlasia did it is silly (rooted in the anti-Atlasia sentiment which is oh so rife here), so is rejecting the idea because one draft is inadequate (I mean, you could make a better draft...).

When you create a new republic, you need to outline rules. Britain was never a new republic, it gradually turned into it's current state from an absolute, feudal monarchy. Using Britain as a model sometimes works, but sometimes it doesn't, because our histories are completely different.

If you want to make this the Republic of Calvinball, that's okay. Just so you know that's what you're doing: creating a nation where we'll need to make up rules as we go along. I'd rather we made a constitution, even a simple one, but if the consensus is that it's not a good idea, then I guess I have little ability to force the creation of one.

[Blair]

Regarding the Constitution talk, I think it's clear we need to define set rules. The assertion that not defining set rules is good but defining set rules would create a "clusterf!ck" is absurd--it's the opposite. Not making a constitution because Atlasia did it is silly (rooted in the anti-Atlasia sentiment which is oh so rife here), so is rejecting the idea because one draft is inadequate (I mean, you could make a better draft...).

When you create a new republic, you need to outline rules. Britain was never a new republic, it gradually turned into it's current state from an absolute, feudal monarchy. Using Britain as a model sometimes works, but sometimes it doesn't, because our histories are completely different.

If you want to make this the Republic of Calvinball, that's okay. Just so you know that's what you're doing: creating a nation where we'll need to make up rules as we go along. I'd rather we made a constitution, even a simple one, but if the consensus is that it's not a good idea, then I guess I have little ability to force the creation of one.

This game is largely born out of people like me who were sick of Atlasia's cumbersome institutions and overly legal presence where the senate spend weeks pouring over a single word to find out whether something was legal. Atlasia shows why a game of that size doesn't work because eventually it all collapsed.

We're not making a constitution because not all parliaments have constitutions, . To be completely nit picky Britain was a new republic in the 1650's under Cromwell but regardless we don't need a Constitution that expands the state and gives out offices that don't do anything. What's going to happen if we get a Constitution is that we'll spend all our time trying to change the constitution-Atlasia has spend the last 3 months trying to get everyone to sign a petition just to talk about changing it when no-body knows what they want to change it to.

If we want a sense of history we're the equivalent of the founding fathers, and arguing for a Constitution is like arguing for a Georgian King

[Leinad]

I mean, I get your point, but I think it's a bit reactionary.

To be completely nit picky Britain was a new republic in the 1650's under Cromwell

True, but it was already an existing nation of sorts. This is completely from scratch--no precedent and very little defined rules on what the heck we're doing. We're just making it up as we go along. You're right in that it's more similar to America's founding. And what did they do? The made a constitution to set rules on what the government can and can't do, and how they will do it.

we don't need a Constitution that expands the state and gives out offices that don't do anything.

Right. But we should have a Constitution that sets clear rules on how we should operate, and what the government isn't allowed to do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're basically saying that you don't like Atlasia's constitution, therefore you don't like any constitutions. This is further evidence that anti-Atlasian reactionism is rampant here, and I think it hurts us. Yes, we don't want to make the same mistakes that the consensus feels Atlasia has made, but going out of our way to make it less-Atlasian is silly. Look at Atlas After Dark: it's less strict than this Atlas, and many would argue the quality is better, but they don't look at what Old Atlas does and try to share as little in common as possible with them--they look at what Old Atlas does wrong and try to avoid that.

EDIT: Proofreading. Pass it on. A message from the foundation for better internet posting.

[Blair]

I mean, I get your point, but I think it's a bit reactionary--as in,

To be completely nit picky Britain was a new republic in the 1650's under Cromwell

True, but it was already an existing nation of sorts. This is completely from scratch--no precedent and very little defined rules on what the heck we're doing. We're just making it up as we go along. You're right in that it's more similar to America's founding. And what did they do? The made a constitution to set rules on what the government can and can't do, and how they will do it.

we don't need a Constitution that expands the state and gives out offices that don't do anything.

Right. But we should have a Constitution that sets clear rules on how we should operate, and what the government isn't allowed to do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're basically saying that you don't like Atlasia's constitution, therefore you don't like any constitutions. This is further evidence that anti-Atlasian reactionism is rampant here, and I think it hurts us. Yes, we don't want to make the same mistakes that the consensus feels Atlasia has made, but going out of our way to make it less-Atlasian is silly. Look at Atlas After Dark: it's less strict than this Atlas, and many would argue the quality is better, but they don't look at what Old Atlas does and try to share as little in common as possible with them--they look at what Old Atlas does wrong and try to avoid that.

What?

[Türkisblau]

This isn't supposed to be Atlasia 2.0. The whole point of making this game a parliament is so we wouldn't have to deal with all this BS.

Besides, I really don't think an Internet constitution would add any special legitimacy to our internet parliament.

[Leinad]

I mean, I get your point, but I think it's a bit reactionary--as in,

To be completely nit picky Britain was a new republic in the 1650's under Cromwell

True, but it was already an existing nation of sorts. This is completely from scratch--no precedent and very little defined rules on what the heck we're doing. We're just making it up as we go along. You're right in that it's more similar to America's founding. And what did they do? The made a constitution to set rules on what the government can and can't do, and how they will do it.

we don't need a Constitution that expands the state and gives out offices that don't do anything.

Right. But we should have a Constitution that sets clear rules on how we should operate, and what the government isn't allowed to do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're basically saying that you don't like Atlasia's constitution, therefore you don't like any constitutions. This is further evidence that anti-Atlasian reactionism is rampant here, and I think it hurts us. Yes, we don't want to make the same mistakes that the consensus feels Atlasia has made, but going out of our way to make it less-Atlasian is silly. Look at Atlas After Dark: it's less strict than this Atlas, and many would argue the quality is better, but they don't look at what Old Atlas does and try to share as little in common as possible with them--they look at what Old Atlas does wrong and try to avoid that.

What?

(I'll explain, but before that I'd like to address that my first sentence was a mistake--I corrected it.)

Here's a TL;DR: you're assertion that "we don't need a Constitution that expands the state and gives out offices that don't do anything" is correct, but why would our constitution have to do that? It should be simply to provide a basic set of rules.

Anything else in specific that I left unclear? "What?" is rather vague, I'm not exactly sure what you're struggling with. I suppose I did ramble a tad, but I was trying to give a full picture. Disregard everything except the second-to-last paragraph and the first sentence of the last paragraph--that's the gist of it.

This isn't supposed to be Atlasia 2.0. The whole point of making this game a parliament is so we wouldn't have to deal with all this BS.

Besides, I really don't think an Internet constitution would add any special legitimacy to our internet parliament.

Who said anything about adding special legitimacy? I'm talking about knowing what the heck we're doing.

Let me look at why, in the words of people against this constitution, Atlasia is terrible:

Forgive us for not wanting to turn this game into the gigantic, legalistic clusterf!ck that is Atlasia the minute we started this game.

Hmmm...does anyone say what exactly that means--"gigantic, legalistic clusterf!ck?" Well, what do you know, Blair does:

Atlasia's cumbersome institutions and overly legal presence where the senate spend weeks pouring over a single word to find out whether something was legal.

Alright, so, what do we get if we don't make a constitution? Some combination of tyranny (as in, anything the government says goes), chaos (people making up rules as they go along--see: who's vote counts/doesn't count), and/or a case where we all go searching through "precedent" to determine whether something's legal--exactly the same thing TNF and Blair bemoaned about Atlasia: a clusterf!ck.

[afleitch]

I have to agree that there’s quite a significant undercurrent of ‘constitution bad’ because of Atlasia.

You're also going to find a lot of passion from people who signed up to play a parliamentary sim and have been left with nothing to do Just saying.

A constitution; who has what powers is basically the rules of play. That’s it. It’s not complicated. This game has no rules, which I know you all think is spiffy until such times as it causes a problem. No one is proposing a convoluted, legal structure; just something very basic and very simple that all players can refer to.

For all those crying ‘Britain’ (yet for some reason, still inexplicable, we are playing as a united South America), this game isn’t Britain. It can’t be like Britain because Britain’s unwritten constitutional law is not ours. If you wanted to play as Britain, we could have played as Britain.

Instead we’re playing as South America, with the original intent that we inherited previously existing laws, even though the states don’t exist and it’s not federal. So that was thrown out. We have a party system that’s not reflective of any tradition. The first few sign ups determined that the game would be restricted to 21 players, who do what they want to do in parliament because ‘it’s like Britain’, with everyone else tasked with doing other things, though those aren’t defined.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Perhaps I'll get tomatoes thrown at me for saying this..... but I don't know how this is going to work....with only 21 players- how will you get others to vote in elections?? Have you considered attempting to reform Atlasia instead? I am pushing for a constitutional convention over there and a reset...... that could make it less cumbersome

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The simplest solution (and would that would even improve gameplay) would be for the first proper parliament (i.e. the one that just got elected) to pass a very simple constitution that would do little more than explain who does what and how. A constitution is just a set of rules; it does not have to be A Constitution, if you follow me.