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: Easy National Assembly Math Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Populist Liberal Party
Status[?]: passed
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: July 2102
Description[?]:
| Whereas, we see no reason not to have a round number of assembly seats, and Whereas, it would make it quick to figure out just how well a party did in an election to have such a round number, and Whereas, it also makes it slightly easier to figure out what parties can make for a majority coalition, and Whereas, more assembly seats would allow for regional votes to be represented more accurately in seats, We hereby propose that the number of seats in the national assembly be increased to the round number of 500. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The total number of seats in the legislative assembly. Should be between 75 and 750.
Old value:: 429
Current: 105
Proposed: 599
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 07:03:05, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Easy National Assembly Math Act |
| Message | This is obviously going to have nearly no effect on what bills get passed or anything of the like or how what percentage of the seats a particular party will get, although the more seats the more exactly the number of representatives from each region will match the vote percentage. It is simply intended to make for very simple math in figuring out what combinations of parties can make a cabinet, or can pass a piece of legislation, or anything of the sort. |
| Date | 11:22:14, August 26, 2005 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Easy National Assembly Math Act |
| Message | And then you get inactive parties which periodically leave a whole bunch of seats vacant... |
| Date | 11:45:06, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Easy National Assembly Math Act |
| Message | Well, it would simplify things. 600 might be better though, since half the parliament becomes a round hundred number, and more importantly the 2/3 supermajority for constitutional changes becomes dead simple as well. |
| Date | 12:45:58, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Neoretropostmodernist Party | To | Debating the Easy National Assembly Math Act |
| Message | NDP, it would still be the same percentage seats vacant, regardless of number. I would say yes to either 450 or 600, preferably 450 as adding too many seats seems unnecessary. Maybe 449 would be better as it would prevent tie. |
| Date | 13:53:32, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Easy National Assembly Math Act |
| Message | What about 300 seats then? It's easily dividable by 2 and 3 and could be sold to voters as a way to reduce governmental expenses ;) |
| Date | 16:08:18, August 26, 2005 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Easy National Assembly Math Act |
| Message | Point is you want an odd number to avoid ties. If ease of calculation is that important, we would be fine with 401 or 501. |
| Date | 18:00:30, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Easy National Assembly Math Act |
| Message | Why would having the occasional tie be a problem? The algo handles it fine (the bill is defeated). Plus with several hundred MPs, the risk of ties are extremely small anyway. |
| Date | 20:39:57, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Underappreciated Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Easy National Assembly Math Act |
| Message | The UPI supports this measure. We prefer 450 from a mathematical standpoint, though we see a certain art to having an average of 100 seats per region. Would make region size comparisions easier as a function of seats in the Assembly. We would also support 300. We won't vote no on an odd number, but we prefer an even number because we agree with the FSA on the issue of ties. |
| Date | 21:03:53, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Easy National Assembly Math Act |
| Message | We guess it's important here for us to figure out the consensus before moving to a vote, so that this proposal can get 2/3. We accept the supermajority point as valid, and thus lean toward either 300 or 600. We lean slightly toward 600 because more seats mean that percentages of votes are modeled better; but if anyone will vote against 600, please let it be known. Our second choice would be 300. 450 allows easy math for a majority, but not quite as easy as 300 or 600. To the NDP, we'd say that with 600 members, the chance of an exact tie is extremely minimal, although given the NDP's current power if someone else with significant seats also feels it would have to be 601 (or 301), we'll yield on that matter. |
| Date | 21:39:39, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Easy National Assembly Math Act |
| Message | Okay, being very pragmatic, as is needed when a supermajority is required, we have decided (barring objection) to go with 599 for now. While we agree with those who say the risk of a tie is not a problem, we note that there are people who will vote against it if we use an even number, while those who prefer an even number (including the PLP) will still vote for it either way. If this could be passed with a majority, we would go with the even number. Since we need a supermajority, the odd number seems more certain to pass, though. We chose 599 over 601 because it does add, in one sense, an ease of calculation: You have a majority with the round number of 300, and a constitutional supermajority with the round number of 400. If there are any objections, we hope they will be expressed soon, as we would like to bring this to a vote within three months or so to make sure we get it (hopefully) passed before the new elections...with perhaps a little bit of time for parties to find additional candidates to add to their parliamentary slate. |
| Date | 22:08:02, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Easy National Assembly Math Act |
| Message | > We chose 599 over 601 because it does add, in one sense, an ease of calculation: You have a majority with the round number of 300, and a constitutional supermajority with the round number of 400. The PLP's argument makes sense. We would have preferred the "cleaner" 600, but 599 will do, and yes, it's rather better than 601. |
| Date | 09:17:28, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Evolution Party | To | Debating the Easy National Assembly Math Act |
| Message | 479 would have been a better number considering Ikradon's population of 47,890,878 and the rough representation of every 100,000 constitutents by an assemblyperson. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 326 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 83 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 20 |
| Random fact: You can view helpful ideological statistics about the regions in your nation on the region pages. You can also view detailed political opinions and the importance of them there as well. |
| Random quote: "If you're not turned on to politics, politics will turn on you." - Ralph Nader |