FT 12.25 – Apportionment Sanity Amendment (Awaiting referendum)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AN AMENDMENT
to restore sanity to parliamentary apportionment

Section 1 (Title)
The title of this Amendment shall be, the "Apportionment Sanity Amendment."  It may be alternatively cited by its ordinal number in order of ratification.

Section 2 (Amendment)
i. Article V§3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Frémont is amended to read as follows:

Every Parliament shall continue for three months from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the First Minister, pursuant to certain provisions as established in this Constitution. The number of members to be chosen shall be no fewer than four, not counting the First Minister. If seven or eight candidates declare, five will be elected. If nine or more candidates declare, six shall be elected. If, however, fewer than four candidates declare for House of Commons before a snap or general election, the election shall be postponed until at least four candidates have declared.

Sponsor: Harry S Truman, Speaker

The member from North Dakota has the floor.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Right —so when we passed the Second Parliamentary Enumeration Amendment earlier this session, it included language specifying that if fewer than four candidates declare for a general election, we just won't have an election—period. This Amendment would strike that provision while retaining current rules for determining the number of seats in parliament.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Right —so when we passed the Second Parliamentary Enumeration Amendment earlier this session, it included language specifying that if fewer than four candidates declare for a general election, we just won't have an election—period. This Amendment would strike that provision while retaining current rules for determining the number of seats in parliament.

Why is the "not counting the first Minister" thing being stricken if the goal is to maintain the status quo? Striking that would actually change the status quo on lowest seats from 4+FM to 3+FM, as the FM is a sitting member of Parliament.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Right —so when we passed the Second Parliamentary Enumeration Amendment earlier this session, it included language specifying that if fewer than four candidates declare for a general election, we just won't have an election—period. This Amendment would strike that provision while retaining current rules for determining the number of seats in parliament.

Why is the "not counting the first Minister" thing being stricken if the goal is to maintain the status quo? Striking that would actually change the status quo on lowest seats from 4+FM to 3+FM, as the FM is a sitting member of Parliament.

Because the first minister is not a "Member of Parliament" —they're the head of government and act as a member in that capacity. The inclusion of that clause in the original amendment was a typo.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Right —so when we passed the Second Parliamentary Enumeration Amendment earlier this session, it included language specifying that if fewer than four candidates declare for a general election, we just won't have an election—period. This Amendment would strike that provision while retaining current rules for determining the number of seats in parliament.

Why is the "not counting the first Minister" thing being stricken if the goal is to maintain the status quo? Striking that would actually change the status quo on lowest seats from 4+FM to 3+FM, as the FM is a sitting member of Parliament.

Because the first minister is not a "Member of Parliament" —they're the head of government and act as a member in that capacity. The inclusion of that clause in the original amendment was a typo.

It never seemed to me that was a typo.  I thought it was in there for the sake of clarity.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Right —so when we passed the Second Parliamentary Enumeration Amendment earlier this session, it included language specifying that if fewer than four candidates declare for a general election, we just won't have an election—period. This Amendment would strike that provision while retaining current rules for determining the number of seats in parliament.

Why is the "not counting the first Minister" thing being stricken if the goal is to maintain the status quo? Striking that would actually change the status quo on lowest seats from 4+FM to 3+FM, as the FM is a sitting member of Parliament.

Because the first minister is not a "Member of Parliament" —they're the head of government and act as a member in that capacity. The inclusion of that clause in the original amendment was a typo.

It never seemed to me that was a typo.  I thought it was in there for the sake of clarity.

I would argue referring to the first minister as a Member of Parliament when in fact he is not is counterproductive to that point.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If there is no further debate, I move for a final vote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I will support this.  The current form of the amendment was shortsighted on my part, though I'm still skeptical that a body of less than four or five members can be very deliberative.  If the Parliament desires to adjust its size, however, then snap elections should continue to be an option.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I will support this.  The current form of the amendment was shortsighted on my part, though I'm still skeptical that a body of less than four or five members can be very deliberative.  If the Parliament desires to adjust its size, however, then snap elections should continue to be an option.

I agree.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seeing no objection, we proceed to a vote. Members will vote Aye, Nay, or abstain. Voting will last 48 hours or until all members have voted.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Aye!

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Aye

[Virginiá]

Aye

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Now that the elections are behind us: with four votes in favor and one member not voting, the resolution passes. The Apportionment Sanity Amendment will now proceed to a public referendum.