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: Mayoralty Act of 2894
Details
Submitted by[?]: House Lusk-Nat'l Syndicalist Party (UM)
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: March 2897
Description[?]:
| This act will update the Mayoralty Act of 2891: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=280060 Suggestions for additions to the schedule are encouraged. I. Each Council shall have a mayor elected for a term between two and ten years. II. Each Council must select a method of election from the schedule, or use election by single plurality, which can be granted to a council by His Most Royal and Serene Majesty for a period of twenty years. A council wishing to discard single plurality may do so without further approval. III. The right of councils to remove mayors from office, as described in Article V of the Local Government Act of 2888, shall not be construed to be infringed by this act. Schedule. 1. Election by instant-runoff voting. 2. Election by two-round voting. 3. Election by exhaustive balloting by an electoral college, the members of which are chosen through an election from a single multiple-member district. 4. Election by exhaustive balloting by an electoral college, the members of which are chosen by lot from a set of districts. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:53:47, February 16, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Mayoralty Act of 2894 |
| Message | We believe that every Signle-Winner voting system should be in the Schedule, but especially First Past The Post, which is the most popular system in the majority of Hutorian councils. |
| Date | 17:13:32, February 16, 2010 CET | From | House Lusk-Nat'l Syndicalist Party (UM) | To | Debating the Mayoralty Act of 2894 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, the first past the post system cannot be the most popular method of election, because currently all mayors are elected through instant-runoff voting. A simple plurality system is exceedingly foolish, since it encourages tactical voting and the propping-up of similar candidates. This House has never allowed the simple plurality in legislative elections— why should we allow it in mayoral elections? |
| Date | 10:06:27, February 17, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Mayoralty Act of 2894 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, the FPTP system ensures that the most popular candidate is elected, whilst other systems ensure only that the least unpopular candidate is elected, not the setting for a great system. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the NSP have often accused other parties of being too interventionist towards local government, and we would put it to them that such matters should be left for their consideration. [OOC: How do you know what our system is? I always assumed it was pretty much FPTP - there's no proof otherwise...] |
| Date | 14:22:34, February 17, 2010 CET | From | Northern Arrow Party (UM) | To | Debating the Mayoralty Act of 2894 |
| Message | We feel that 10 years is too long a term--what about between two and six years? We also agree with the NSP that we would prefer to see councils restricted to instant-runoff voting and two-round voting. We fear that FPTP tends towards a two party system over time. |
| Date | 16:24:55, February 17, 2010 CET | From | House Lusk-Nat'l Syndicalist Party (UM) | To | Debating the Mayoralty Act of 2894 |
| Message | [OOC: The previous mayoralty act established instant-runoff voting as the standard form of election: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=280060 ] |
| Date | 11:41:19, February 18, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Mayoralty Act of 2894 |
| Message | [OOC: Apologies - I thought you were referring to national elections] Madam Speaker, why should the national government dictate to the local councils what system they should use. It should be the decision of the councils. |
| Date | 17:52:21, February 18, 2010 CET | From | House Lusk-Nat'l Syndicalist Party (UM) | To | Debating the Mayoralty Act of 2894 |
| Message | Mme Speaker, we had exactly the same thought as the honorable member. That is why we intend to offer councils a wide variety of choices. |
| Date | 09:23:03, February 19, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Mayoralty Act of 2894 |
| Message | In that case, Madam Speaker, I encourage the honourable gentleman to add FPTP to the Schedule. It is absurd to exclude it when just about any other option is available. |
| Date | 18:54:09, February 19, 2010 CET | From | House Lusk-Nat'l Syndicalist Party (UM) | To | Debating the Mayoralty Act of 2894 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, we have amended the second article of this act to permit plurality voting with the approval of the King. We now move this bill to a vote. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 122 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 269 |
| Random fact: Culturally Open nations can adopt advisory/non-enforceable Nation Descriptions. See http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6242 |
| Random quote: "The best politics is right action." - Mahatma Gandhi |