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: Senatorial Expansion and Equilibrium Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Coalition for National Unity [CNU]
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: December 2943
Description[?]:
| ==CMP: Your Solentia== "The Conservative and Morality Party has traditionally opposed needless constitutional change, especially in relation to the size of the Government. In this Act, we see that traditional stance challenged in the face of the political and social reality of Solentia today. In this model, the number of Seats in Senate is increased to 425. The CMP does not underestimate how challenging this change will be to accept in Senate and what a reshaped political landscape this will create. Looking beyond the constitutional traditionalism, which remains firmly in our manifesto, we can see that this proposal fits into the agenda of all sides of the Senate. Some would like to see higher and more localised representation and will no doubt welcome the chance to have a representative democracy that is even closer to the public. Parties, like the CMP, who opt for traditionalism will note that this number was the initial seat number before it became 100 during a reformation. The number 425 is not a random number, but is a real representation of what Solentia's consitutional landscape once looked like. For Traditionalists, this is even more traditional than what we have now. The number 425, as stated, us not random. At the moment, with four major parties, it remains a consitutional posibility to have four parties with equal numbers of seats, forced coalitions, and even when two coalitions are created, it is possible for them to be evenly matched. This proposal offers the chance to end political stagnation and prevent a future stalemate. No four parties or even two coalitions can have the exact same number of seats in this model and thus the CMP wishes to return to use it as part not only of a restoration of the Greater Solentia but also as a representative piece of the modern political and social reality in this country." James Clarke, Leader of the Conservative and Morality Party |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The total number of seats in the legislative assembly. Should be between 75 and 750.
Old value:: 100
Current: 75
Proposed: 425
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:05:00, May 23, 2010 CET | From |  Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Senatorial Expansion and Equilibrium Act |
| Message | " the name of corss-party agreement, we shall leave debate open for the time-being." Annie Weston, Shadow Senate Warden. |
| Date | 22:39:39, May 23, 2010 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Senatorial Expansion and Equilibrium Act |
| Message | As of the moment we are opposed to this legislation. We feel as though the Senate is operational with 100 seats and fairly efficient because of this. However, we are cognoscente of the system employing 425 Senators as we have supported the amount in the past rigorously and originally set the number. Therefore, we are open to discussion and negotiation, but need more time to review the proposal. Senator Sherrod Ridal |
| Date | 22:58:55, May 23, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Senatorial Expansion and Equilibrium Act |
| Message | "Could the F.I.P explore the cirumstances in which they would support such a model? By this we mean, what would the shape of the political situation be in order for the FIP to once more grant their backing to this model?" Annie Weston, Shadow Senate Warden. |
| Date | 23:12:11, May 23, 2010 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Senatorial Expansion and Equilibrium Act |
| Message | The CPS will not support this legislation in even the most obscurely imaginable circumstance. The traditionalist argument offered by the CMP is rendered void by the fact that before the Senate was comprised of 425 seats, it was comprised of first 100 and later 175 Senators. The fact that Solentia long had 425 Senators does not mean that Solentia ONLY ever had 425 Senators, and tradition need not apply here. Suppose, Ms. Weston, that a fifth party were to enter Solentian politics and each party were to obtain 85 seats in the Senate. Will we then expand it to some unfathomably large number and so on and so on until a representative democracy is done away with in favor of direct democracy? As the size of government increases, the efficiency drops radically. The CPS does not support. |
| Date | 23:40:41, May 23, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Senatorial Expansion and Equilibrium Act |
| Message | If the true desire of the CMP is to prevent stagnation, what say you abut having a Senate of only 79 members? We find the current system does work well, but if the only reasoning is to return to tradition, then the argument doesn't stand by itself. If, however, the true purpose is to prevent ties from apperaring (which by the way is extremely unprobable), then nowbody can object on a 79 members Senate, 79 being a prime number. |
| Date | 00:49:48, May 24, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Senatorial Expansion and Equilibrium Act |
| Message | "The purpose of proposing 425 was to accept both traditionalist thinking and an anti-stalemate argument. Is the CSP actually interested in bi-partisanism or is it yet another facade that they throw around when it suits them? Again I find myself telling you that there is more at stake here than just the CSP policy." James Clarke, CMP Leader. |
| Date | 00:50:12, May 24, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Senatorial Expansion and Equilibrium Act |
| Message | *USP policy sorry. |
| Date | 03:01:41, May 24, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Senatorial Expansion and Equilibrium Act |
| Message | Well, that was precisely the reason we should in that case propose 79 members of the Senate, because as we have already said it, mathematical speaking, it would be your solution and multi-partisanship would still be needed. If your only reason is because of the tradition, then there is no chance for a future if we shall return in time. |
| Date | 04:16:29, May 24, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Senatorial Expansion and Equilibrium Act |
| Message | "I do not think you've understood why this number was created. 425 offers both Mathematical sense and some traditionalist backing. It is effectivly able to satisfy both arguments without favouring one above the other. We do make this proposal on lines of traditionalism, not in the sense that we want to return to the past but in that we, at the beginning of this term before the 8 seats of the Civic Actionists were abandoned, had a sitution following the election whereby no natural coalition was able to form a majority and thus needed a system that had proven to solve this issue. The system works mathematically and produces a solid answer to our needs, should the same situation happen again, increases democratic representation and has worked in the country before." James Clarke, CMP Leader. |
| Date | 05:45:49, May 24, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Senatorial Expansion and Equilibrium Act |
| Message | The idea is interesting, but we are opposed to such an increase in the Senate. We do believe that to create a system in which a majority or a coalition is a must, compromises representativity. If the Action of Civic Democrats hadn't left its seats, it would yet be possible to have a running coalition. For this case a two-party possibility would have been a grand coalition: CPS-FIP or a FIP-UPS coalition. The fact that this 2 coalitions do not currently exist, in fact proof how important it is to negotiate. We do hope that alliances change and that a common agenda is defined as one enters into a coalition. 100 seats is a respectable method, but if you are looking for a number which guarantees a Senate where no ties are possible, I would suggest a prime number; the smallest one if possible. We will not support this bill if one of the main arguments continues being only the tradition. We need some other sort of proof. |
| Date | 05:49:06, May 24, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Senatorial Expansion and Equilibrium Act |
| Message | And by the way. It does not have a true mathematical sense: 425 = 25 x 17 So you have way to many possible combinations and you cannot exclude the possibility of a third bloc having an even number of seats. |
| Date | 13:50:10, May 24, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Senatorial Expansion and Equilibrium Act |
| Message | "Negotiation be damned. We have better things to be doing than pandying to the ever-increasing demands of an egotistical UPS. We vote now and let the public decide at the polls." James Clarke, CMP Leader. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 8 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 84 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When forming a cabinet, try to include as few parties as possible, while still obtaining a majority of the seats. |
| Random quote: "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." - Ayn Rand |