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: Electoral reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Bicky Forever - MSCC
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: October 2463
Description[?]:
| BF proposes the following bill. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The method used to determine the number of seats each region receives in the national legislature.
Old value:: A proportional algorithm that gives a very small advantage to larger regions.
Current: A pseudo-proportional algorithm that gives considerable advantage to smaller regions.
Proposed: A pseudo-proportional algorithm that gives considerable advantage to smaller regions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:32:14, September 29, 2007 CET | From | Red Dawn | To | Debating the Electoral reform |
| Message | We want to know the pro's and con's of this. |
| Date | 17:06:13, September 29, 2007 CET | From | Yellow Party | To | Debating the Electoral reform |
| Message | Why would you want to give a smaller amount of seats to a larger amount of people? It doesn't make any sense. I mean if you want to give equal seats to every region thats fine, but more seats for smaller regions is completely nonsensable. |
| Date | 18:56:45, September 29, 2007 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Electoral reform |
| Message | I think YP has misunderstood our proposal. Indeed it doesn't make sense to give region A more seats than region B, if region B is bigger than region A. My proposal doesn't deal with that. We only want to protect the minorities in Ikradon. It's not because the two biggest regions represent 51% of our nation's population that they could overrule the other five regions (in a manner of speaking). Smaller regions must have some proportionally more political weight, in order to protect the minority rights of the citizens of that region. |
| Date | 18:57:22, September 29, 2007 CET | From | Red Dawn | To | Debating the Electoral reform |
| Message | We will support Bicky Forever. |
| Date | 20:11:46, September 29, 2007 CET | From | Iqembu Sokusebenzisana Yeningi | To | Debating the Electoral reform |
| Message | SPECTRUM is still undecided. On the one hand, the current method is the fairest to each individual; to the maximum extent possible, each vote couts the same. On the other hand, BF has a salient point about minorities -- although many minorities may not be geographically united, many are, and their rights shoul be protected. In the end it would come down to whether giving power to these minorities would be likely to lead to the protection of their rights, or whether it would lead to the dominance of those minorities over the majority. The latter is a situation that must be with certainty avoided. We will be evaluating our vote based on our calculations of the relative risk. |
| Date | 21:35:25, September 29, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Electoral reform |
| Message | BF's fear will not come true given the current figures: 24% 24% 21% 16% 15% it takes 3 provinces to push something through, no matter their size. it's also funny that our all time favourite for equality is willing to value the votes of people differently, which should never happen and luckely in the current system each vote has the same value. |
| Date | 22:16:04, September 29, 2007 CET | From | Bicky Forever - MSCC | To | Debating the Electoral reform |
| Message | To II: these values fluctuate every election. They're not a constant value at all. Since when are we the "all time favourite for equality"? Another correction: in the current system not each vote has the same value! People of larger regions have even more to say than their majority in numbers would justify. That isn't fair at all! |
| Date | 22:37:58, September 29, 2007 CET | From | Red Dawn | To | Debating the Electoral reform |
| Message | I'd say II was referring to Red Dawn. And we do indeed value equality, and if minorities can't look out for their interests, that'd be unequal. |
| Date | 23:02:03, September 29, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Electoral reform |
| Message | Please proof that an individual vote is unequal in the current situation, it will definetly be way more unequal if this bill passes though (not to mention the figures right now don't support BF). Anyway, solving minorities problems by imposing double standards, long live equality :) |
| Date | 11:41:40, September 30, 2007 CET | From | Red Dawn | To | Debating the Electoral reform |
| Message | We laugh at II's attempt to lecture us, Red Dawn, about equality. The minorities needs protection and a way to be equal to the majority, this is a good way to create such equality. |
| Date | 16:11:18, September 30, 2007 CET | From | Ikradonian Interest | To | Debating the Electoral reform |
| Message | Changing a mathematical equation ain't a durable solution for the problems of minorities, I hope RD understands this. |
| Date | 16:14:34, September 30, 2007 CET | From | Red Dawn | To | Debating the Electoral reform |
| Message | Of course more is needed. It is better than nothing for now, though, hence our support of it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 159 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 107 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 33 |
| Random fact: Submitting a bill without any proposals in it will not attract or detract voters. It will not raise your visibility or change your political position. |
| Random quote: "Because we don't think about future generations, they will never forget us." - Henrik Tikkanen |