We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Parliament Expansion Amendment of 2087
Details
Submitted by[?]: Deltarian Liberal Democracy Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2088
Description[?]:
| Due to the stalemate in discussion in a former bill regarding the number of seats in Parliament, The Liberal Democrats hereby propose that 315 seats occupy the Parliament. This number is not divisible by two, and we feel that it is modest and fair. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The total number of seats in the legislative assembly. Should be between 75 and 750.
Old value:: 100
Current: 150
Proposed: 300
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:55:20, July 29, 2005 CET | From |  Deltarian Labor Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Amendment of 2087 |
| Message | Labor believes than increasing the number of seats in the Parliament will allow for better representation. A 100 seat parliament is only capable of representing whole percentage points of the vote - more seats means more granularity, which means a parliament which more closely resembles the will of the people. |
| Date | 17:36:53, July 29, 2005 CET | From | People's Party for Freedom and Democracy | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Amendment of 2087 |
| Message | The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy agree with the Deltarian Labor Party to increase the number of seats as to more closely resemble the will of the people. The only request we make is that the ammount of seats will not be divisable by two. As the bill currently stands (315 seats), that request has been fullfilled. |
| Date | 22:15:12, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Social-Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Amendment of 2087 |
| Message | We will not vote for a bill that does not include a number divisible by two, even if we support a bigger parliament. I am dismayed that the Deltarian Liberal Democrat Party has chosen to ignore us again, even though their previous efforts failed. |
| Date | 05:39:26, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Deltarian Labor Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Amendment of 2087 |
| Message | I'd like to ask the speaker to call upon a member of the SLP to restate, for the record, the Social-Liberal objection to a bill which does not include a number divisible by two, that is to say, their reason for wanting a number of seats divisible by two. |
| Date | 13:54:48, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Social-Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Amendment of 2087 |
| Message | The SLP believes in a larger parliament to more accurately reflect the will of the Deltarian people. The SLP recognises The SLP believes in a parliament where opposition and support can be easily counted, a parliament with a number that speaks to the imagination, a powerful number but also a number where division and consent are readily reflected. The number "315" is arbitrary. 158 seats to capture a majority, or 210 seats to get a constitutional amendement are not things easily counted. This will make the voting process less transparent for common Deltarians. The SLP would have preferred 200 or 400 seats, or alternatively 300 seats, to be the new size of this House. |
| Date | 13:55:30, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Social-Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Amendment of 2087 |
| Message | ((OOC: oops. - "The SLP recognises". Believes was better after all.)) |
| Date | 17:24:54, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Deltarian Liberal Democracy Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Amendment of 2087 |
| Message | In great frustration, we will change the number to 300 and put this bill to vote. We apologize that this was not done long ago, as there can be no equal and fair compromise on this issue. |
| Date | 17:36:26, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Imperial Freedom Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Amendment of 2087 |
| Message | We've voted no. An odd number of seats is simply the most practical. It prevents a tie. Further, since the number of seats will likely change over time as our population increases, it is slightly pointless to go to the extra effort of seeking a number that 'speaks to the imagination'. Ideally, I'd like to see parliament indexed to the population, as in, one seat per x thousand citizens. |
| Date | 00:28:57, July 31, 2005 CET | From | Social-Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Amendment of 2087 |
| Message | In case of a tie, the proposal will be defeated. It is quite simple: a proposal must have the support of a majority of Deltarians. And really, is 50% + 1 support something that is so hard to ask for? Also, as indexing seats is - at the moment - impossible, it is not a valid reason to vote against this proposal. 300 is, from the perspective of indexing, as arbitrary as 315 would be. The IFP is now holding back a benefitial change for invalid reasons, in our opinion. |
| Date | 03:04:41, July 31, 2005 CET | From | Deltarian Labor Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Amendment of 2087 |
| Message | Labor will vote for this proposal out of solidarity with our colleagues in the President's proposed cabinet. |
| Date | 04:21:04, July 31, 2005 CET | From | Traditional Progressives | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Amendment of 2087 |
| Message | The TPP will vote against this bill in protest at the lack of any form of representation in the Presidents proposed cabinet. And also at the movement to vote without the addition of a promised amendmant by the DLDP to change the number to three hundred and fifteen. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 44 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 56 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar). |
| Random quote: "The government was set to protect man from criminals, and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government." - Ayn Rand |