Very interesting thoughts. I think that these types of tricky, existential conversations are ones we need to have to figure out exactly what we want to be.
The problem I have is that it was decided what the game would be, based on a provisional parliament made up of x number of players based solely on the order in which they joined. So they essentially got to decide what the game was going to be. It’s not surprising that an exclusive group ended up designing an exclusive parliament! I don’t mean you’ve done a ‘bad job’, quite the contrary but you can see why it might raise a few eyebrows.
Well, how else do we decide basic things like where the game is, and how we hold the first election? I think it could've been done better (i.e. actually look at other ideas instead of taking South America as the first interesting one and dismissing all others as a waste of time to talk about), but overall I think it was the best format to start us off.
I'm not sure why you connect a limited parliament choosing to have a limited parliament replace it--both of those decisions make sense on their own.
You said that the ‘parliament should be a cluster of active schemers.’ I don’t disagree, but what makes you think those that have signed on here aren’t active schemers? Why else would they have signed up?
Counter-point: Atlasia has, what, over 100 people signed up, but not even half of them are active. Now, you could say that has to do with structural errors regarding Atlasia--and maybe that's partially true, maybe a higher percentage will be active in
Sudamerica South America, but some of them will most likely be quite inactive.
Another counter point: stability. There's something to be said for having control over the exact number of MPs, although I will concede that my first counter-point is better.
I think you already have all your parliamentarians already. Parliaments are supposed to have lazy bastards as well as active schemers. It makes sense at least to start out, in having a universal parliament. Then you can cut it back if it grows too large and once everyone gets used to it.
Likewise, wouldn't it make sense to start out with a limited parliament, and then change things up if necessary?
Besides, I'm sorry to say that you're a little late with these suggestions. For better or worse, the Provisional Parliament has been entrusted with the mandate of a loose informal consensus, and they've made their decisions. Now, I'm not happy with all of the decisions, but outside of the location "vote" I think we've had fair, legitimate, democratic votes--even if some MPPs were resistant towards taking them.
We can change stuff later, but for now I think it's time to see how the current format serves us.
