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[?]: Old School Liberal 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: June 2124
Description[?]:
| This electoral reform will hopefully provide greater political say to the people while also giving the government a modicum of time in which to pass legislation. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The method used to determine the number of seats each region receives in the national legislature.
Old value:: Equal representation, regardless of region population.
Current: Equal representation, regardless of region population.
Proposed: A proportional algorithm that gives a very small advantage to larger regions.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The length of a legislative and executive term, in months. Should be between 24 and 72.
Old value:: 25
Current: 72
Proposed: 36
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:40:35, October 10, 2005 CET | From | Sect of the Green Moon | To | Debating the Electoral Reform |
| Message | Don't agree. |
| Date | 06:50:36, October 10, 2005 CET | From | Old School Liberal Party | To | Debating the Electoral Reform |
| Message | Can we have a... reason? |
| Date | 14:36:16, October 10, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Kafuristan | To | Debating the Electoral Reform |
| Message | There isn't much reason to vote in favour of this or against it. |
| Date | 21:44:10, October 10, 2005 CET | From | Old School Liberal Party | To | Debating the Electoral Reform |
| Message | What about providing equal representation for the people? In Hiamou, one MP represents over 230,000 people. In Keletia, one MP represents only about 150,000 people. That's a sizeable difference, wouldn't you say? Sizeable enough to be considered an infringement on the political rights of Hiamouans. As for the second clause, it is important that governments have time to enact legislation. Name one government system that works well with national elections every two years. That's right. One does not exist. Three is bad enough, but it's better than two. |
| Date | 22:49:22, October 10, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Kafuristan | To | Debating the Electoral Reform |
| Message | Let's make it eleventy twelve year terms. Or not. Currently, there isn't a bad example of a nation with elections every two years. If it isn't broken, do not change it. |
| Date | 22:59:25, October 10, 2005 CET | From | Old School Liberal Party | To | Debating the Electoral Reform |
| Message | There is an example. Have you paid attention to the House of Representatives elections in the United States? The entire system is based on constant reelection campaigning and pork-barrel spending to shore up local support. That system is ridiculous, and you're saying there's nothing wrong with copying it completely? We would hardly have time enough to form new governments in two years, let alone form coherent policy. And how can you possibly continue to support even distribution of seats among regions? Is it because Hiamou is not a communist stronghold? I really hope not, and I really hope you change your mind. |
| Date | 03:18:55, October 11, 2005 CET | From | Sect of the Green Moon | To | Debating the Electoral Reform |
| Message | I disagree with Article 2 very much. However I prefer Article 1. |
| Date | 15:51:31, October 11, 2005 CET | From |  Grand National Party | To | Debating the Electoral Reform |
| Message | OOC: Actually the House of Represenatives campaining is not constant, since I work for a a few members. While pork barreling is there, some of the pork is for good, while other is just wasteful. |
| Date | 19:21:02, October 11, 2005 CET | From | Old School Liberal Party | To | Debating the Electoral Reform |
| Message | I should have been more clear. Campaigning (fundraising) is a huge part of congressional life for many representatives. Some representatives sit on very secure seats that require little fundraising, some sit on very secure seats that require more fundraising, and some sit on insecure seats that naturally need lots of fundraising. I believe it's some ridiculously high proportion of house seats that are pretty safe. But why are they safe? A good amount of that is the result of pork. Sometimes it's ideological (like in Massachusetts where the conservative voters are simply outnumbered), but pork is responsible for far too much security, and because representatives stand for reelection so often, they need to pull massive amounts of pork just to stay in office for a decent amount of time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a large portion of outgoing representatives are retiring, and many after medium length stays, yes? So only some of the outgoing representatives are elected out. Now, in a perfect world, the public would be perfectly knowledgeable and the representative perfectly accountable for his actions. However, since in the real world and in this simulation the voters are not perfectly knowledgeable, there's no reason to subject MPs to the constant polls of two-year elections, and it makes policy difficult to formulate. At least the House is only one part of a bicameral legislature in America; here EVERYTHING will go on two year terms. I guess if we're really impatient and just want elections all the time, that's fine, but I'd like the processes of coalition-making and policy-crafting to be more meaningful than it can be if elections happen so often. And uh... that was all OOC, I'm thinking. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 106 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 194 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: After 3 days (72 hours) your account will be inactivated by Moderation. If you want to be reactivated you can request reactivation located here: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4360 |
| Random quote: "An "acceptable" level of unemployment means that the government economist to whom it is acceptable still has a job." - Author Unknown |