Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: May 5461
Next month in: 02:14:32
Server time: 09:45:27, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation

Details

Submitted by[?]: Independence Coalition

Status[?]: passed

Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: January 2557

Description[?]:

The Independence Coalition would like to bring to the table discussion on Reconciliation and Proportional Representation.

For too long political divisions have caused unnecessary tension in our great nation.
Currently a coalition of parties of the free right holds majority over the Folkstamma, enabling us to control the office of Tenno and the Cabinet. Yet, this tactic has lead to the exclusion of parties who are controlled by reasonable, and responsible persons. We would like to urge the parties of the free right to extend the courtesy of representation in the cabinet to both the USMC and the SCP. Such an act of benevolence would go a long way to a more stable Sekowo.

This brings about the second order of business I would like to present before the Folkstamma. Proportional Representation in the Tenno's cabinet. In an effort to proliferate the spirit of Democracy (ooc: and of fair play.). We would like to propose the Folkstamma pass legislation in which the parties of Sekowo would agree to grant proportional representation in cabinet proposals. Keep in mind, that coalitions rise and fall, and power is often redistributed in unexpected ways. Legislation of this type would ensure that all parties have a say in the Tenno's cabinet in the future, regardless of the political climate.


----------


Article 1: Parties will be given representation in the cabinet proportional to the number of seats held in the Folkstamma by that party divided by the number of total seats in the Folkstamma.

((Party Seats) / (Total Seats in the Legislature)) * 13

Using the whole numbers as the initial seat distribution and apportioning the remaining whole seats using the Largest Remainder Method.

Article 2: Should any party block a proposal in which they have been given proportional representation, they shall be excluded from the cabinet at hand and their seats redistributed to the rest of Sekowo's parties in a fair manner.

Article 3: Any party having agreed to this bill and elected to the office of Tenno, but, who fails to adopt the method of distribution listed in Article 1, shall be henceforth excluding from the cabinet for a period of 50 years, or until a new bill has been passed.


*update 1: Removed exclusionary article.
*update 2: Revised Article 1 to make distribution methods more clear. Fixed the spelling of "proportional"
*update 3: Added new Article 3 -- failure to comply w/ article 1
*update 4: Article 1 apportionment altered.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date16:26:54, April 02, 2008 CET
FromConservative Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageIn response to Article 3 about excluding the DSP, the CP and DSP have worked together in the past.

Date23:21:02, April 02, 2008 CET
FromRevolutionary State Socialist Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageWe are glad to see that the IC is indeed still lead by the reasonable leaders that we had feared gone in recent times.

Date05:55:46, April 03, 2008 CET
FromSekowan Communist Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageCapitalists though the IC may be, we appreciate this move towards reconciliation and appreciate that we are no longer associated with the revisionists of the DSP.

Date06:34:53, April 03, 2008 CET
FromNormand Pluralist Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageWe would support this with a provision: That any party which votes against this bill shall be excluded from such a hegemony, and additionally (and more importantly) any party, having agreed to this bill and elected to the office of Tenno, but who fails to adopt the method of distribution listed here in realigning the cabinet, shall be henceforth excluding from the cabinet for 50 years, or until a new bill has been passed.

Also: A specific method of distribution needs to be developed, to leave nothing to chance.

Date07:29:47, April 03, 2008 CET
FromConservative Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageIC, thank you for excluding the article about DSP.

In response to NPP's also, what about using the Largest Remainder Method? Your popularity percentage of the total percentage of parties forming the cabinet is taken and multiplied by the number of seats in the cabinet: 13. If all parties are forming the cabinet, then your popularity percentage is your taken over 100. The integer before the decimal, is your guaranteed number of seats. Your decimal number is your tie-breaker number. If there are remaining seats left, the party with the highest decimal gets the seat. The decimal is four percent precision so the odds are 1/10000 that two decimals are identical and even less likely they are the two highest. If such a case does happen, I say let the 3rd highest party get the seat to be fair. Below is an example of what would happen after last election if all remaining parties formed the cabinet. Notice that the 3.70% of PPS makes the total out of 96.30%, not 100.00%. Notice after first calculations, only 9 of 13 seats are awarded. After second round, all seats have been awarded.


DSP 16.37% 17.00% 2.2100 seats 2 + 0 = 2
FDP 16.05% 16.67% 2.1671 seats 2 + 0 = 2
SCP 12.18% 12.65% 1.6445 seats 1 + 1 = 2
USMC 11.91% 12.37% 1.6081 seats 1 + 1 = 2
CP_ 11.56% 12.00% 1.5600 seats 1 + 1 = 2
NPP 11.26% 11.69% 1.5197 seats 1 + 0 = 1
IC__ 11.11% 11.54% 1.5002 seats 1 + 0 = 1
PSFA 05.85% 06.07% 0.7891 seats 0 + 1 = 1
PPS 03.70% EXCLUD 9.---- seats 9 + 4 = 13 seats

Date07:48:08, April 03, 2008 CET
FromNormand Pluralist Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageNot a bad method.

Date07:57:15, April 03, 2008 CET
FromConservative Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageIt works for all sizes of a cabinet. The Tenno will still have to solve the issue of what position to give to each party.

Date14:45:56, April 03, 2008 CET
FromFree Democratic Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageWe're a bit wary of this, and although we do wish to work with the USMC, working with the DSP in the past has been difficult, to put it mildly. We also know that there version of a "unity" cabinet is vastly different from the rest of us.

Date19:00:56, April 03, 2008 CET
FromConservative Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageFDP, Article 2 states that those who do not want to work with the united cabinet, will be excluded from the cabinet. So if any party, could be FDP or CP even, causes trouble, we will be excluded. Simple as that. No?

Date22:25:10, April 03, 2008 CET
FromIndependence Coalition
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageThe rules outlined in this legislation are meant to apply to all 8 parties of Sekowo regardless of political ideology. For example, if the IC failed to follow the stipulations of article 1 we would expect to be punished as outlined in article 3. If we blocked fair cabinet we would expect to be excluded from the subsequent proposal, just as if the SCP, USMC, FDP, or NPP would be under this legislation.

Date23:38:33, April 03, 2008 CET
FromNormand Pluralist Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageIsn't it possible to get 12 or 14 seats if you simply use traditional rounding? Could not this lead to problems?

Date23:43:18, April 03, 2008 CET
FromIndependence Coalition
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageYes, it's possible but I'm a bit hazy about how the method of distribution proposed by the CP is supposed to work.

Date23:46:36, April 03, 2008 CET
FromIndependence Coalition
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
Messagenever mind, I am a fool.

Date23:58:42, April 03, 2008 CET
FromConservative Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageVOTERS! VOTERS! IC is run by a fool! In the next election, vote Conservative! =D Oh, if only that could be done. =)

Nah. The voting system is very simple. Just requires some mathematics. We can even make a little program that will calculate it for us. Even in Excel.

How about another article: that the largest party gets the seat of head of government? Or does nobody really want that position?

Date00:04:36, April 04, 2008 CET
FromIndependence Coalition
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageI think it is best not to state who gets which seats, as different parties prefer certain seats. (fore example, from experience I know the DSP likes Foreign Affairs and SCP likes finance.) In addition, the Tenno does deserve a certain level of discretion.

Date01:04:58, April 04, 2008 CET
FromSekowan Communist Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageWe shouldn't stipulate who gets what seat, I don't think. As IC said, I like Finance, but given the Tenno, they may not want to put a bunch of communists in charge of the economy. Give the executive some discretion. Don't want to take all the fun out of the game, after all...

Date01:35:39, April 04, 2008 CET
FromRevolutionary State Socialist Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageIts to early to argue weather me or CP get defence.

Date02:44:26, April 04, 2008 CET
FromIndependence Coalition
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageI'm going to leave this in debate until tomorrow evening for any final comments, at which time I will move for a vote.

Date06:49:46, April 04, 2008 CET
From帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageI have a question.

Let's say that CFP, CeC and 5 other past parties were to reactivate, how would it be possible to include everyone if their were more parties then cabinet seats?

I know it seems unlikely now, but given we've had 10 parties active atleast once in the last 50 game years and for the last few decades have had nine, I figure I might as well ask it.

Date07:50:52, April 04, 2008 CET
FromConservative Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageMathematically, the smallest parties would not be represented because they lack popular support. The math solves the issue. One could technically have 100 parties active and 13 seats would be distributed proportionally based on the popularity of the party among the people. Thankfully, the likelihood of more than 10 parties is not very high so some parties will have more than just 1 seat.

Another option would be to limit the cabinet to a certain number of parties (say 5) although I don't think there would be much support for it. For example, the CP would not approve of it.

Date20:56:14, April 04, 2008 CET
FromIndependence Coalition
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
Messageusing the largest remainder method if there were say for example 15 parties, represented by the first 15 letters of the alphabet, Each getting A.99, B.99, C.99, D.95, E.86, F.86, G.86, H.8, I.8, J.8 ,K.8 L.75,M .6,N .4, O.25., then parties A through M would get seats and parties N and O would not. But the probability of having 13 active parties at once is very minute in and of itself

Date21:09:03, April 04, 2008 CET
FromIndependence Coalition
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageI forgot to rename the bill before sending it to vote, but, it should be called "The Fair Apportionment Act (2556.IC.001)"

Date00:53:48, April 05, 2008 CET
FromNormand Pluralist Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageI like the idea of making largest party Prytanis, but oh well.

Date05:24:04, April 05, 2008 CET
FromConservative Party
ToDebating the Discussion: Reconciliation and Proportional Representation
MessageThe CP supports the "The Fair Apportionment Act (2556.IC.001)"

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
       

Total Seats: 485

no

    Total Seats: 0

    abstain
     

    Total Seats: 96


    Random fact: Players must never be asked for their Particracy password. This includes Moderation; a genuine Moderator will never ask for your password.

    Random quote: "You have to remember one thing about the will of the people: it wasn't that long ago that we were swept away by the Macarena." - Jon Stewart

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 90