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: The Lower Number of Seats Act of 2616
Details
Submitted by[?]: Socialist Party of Aldegar
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: May 2617
Description[?]:
We need to lower the number of seats. Thinking RP it's harder to work out compromises OOC it will be better for us to estimate percentage of vote we all got. RP and OOC it will not matter as we have a party list voting system and it will not matter as there are algorightims that give us a number of seats if we have barely failed to reach a threshold but have in another province. The system will be better and easier to track. I mean come on 750 seats? It's hard to track what number we need to have a majority, a supermajority, number needed to form a cabinet. All of those problems would be easily removed with a 100 divisible system of 100 seats. Take a chance and you will find you will like it. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The total number of seats in the legislative assembly. Should be between 75 and 750.
Old value:: 750
Current: 700
Proposed: 100
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 04:34:45, August 05, 2008 CET | From | Socialist Party of Aldegar | To | Debating the The Lower Number of Seats Act of 2616 |
Message | Besides there are no constituencies and local representatives so it is not less representation. It is still representation based on population in each province. Look up a party-list it's pretty much a lazy way to giving seats to a large area without doing the work of dividing them up into local constituencies like in the UK or the USA. It's like one large area in our cases it's the satrapies, we have like five of them and there are seats guaranteed for each one. Now the system gives a number based on the algorithm to give larger areas more representatives and thresholds you have to reach to get a certain number. |
Date | 09:30:07, August 05, 2008 CET | From | Party of the Terravore | To | Debating the The Lower Number of Seats Act of 2616 |
Message | It doesnt matter. Really. |
Date | 15:08:13, August 05, 2008 CET | From | Socialist Party of Aldegar | To | Debating the The Lower Number of Seats Act of 2616 |
Message | Well I mean the 100 seats is better because we can judge just based on our results how much of the support of the people and the percentage of the House of Commons' support we have. It does matter. |
Date | 19:39:30, August 05, 2008 CET | From | Zoroastrian People's Party | To | Debating the The Lower Number of Seats Act of 2616 |
Message | While I believe this would work out to my benefit I think it's a bad idea in terms of long term game play. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||||
yes | Total Seats: 362 | |||||
no |
Total Seats: 388 | |||||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Selucia is Particracy's modern take on Ancient Rome, located on the continent of Majatra. |
Random quote: "A wise ruler ought never to keep faith when by doing so it would be against his interests." - Niccolo Machiavelli |