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: Constitutional Amendment 2990-Senate Enlargement
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Justice 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: December 2990
Description[?]:
| The SDWU in the previous term proposed an increase to 200 members we hope members of the Senate may consider supporting a compromise to increase the numbers to 150. Senate Warden Walton Laboissonnier |
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: 150
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:54:13, August 26, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Constitutional Amendment 2990-Senate Enlargement |
| Message | We cannot see an argument for a raise in seat numbers. Gill Reynolds Shadow Senate Warden Shadow Political reform Minister |
| Date | 17:15:38, August 26, 2010 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Amendment 2990-Senate Enlargement |
| Message | Unfortunately, as this has been the case more than a few times, this bill is a severe threat to Solentian traditionalism. The Senate has operated at a capacity of 100 representatives for centuries and has served the people quite efficiently. FIP Senator Lawrence Seville |
| Date | 19:10:31, August 26, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Constitutional Amendment 2990-Senate Enlargement |
| Message | "We do not share the unusual Independent view that more representation is in any way a threat. That is a theory that we reject." Lord Kennedy, Unionist Senatorial Lead. |
| Date | 19:53:38, August 26, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Constitutional Amendment 2990-Senate Enlargement |
| Message | We do not believe it is a threat, however this proposal would make little difference. Our current senators believe that they can manage to do their jobs well under current laws and have no issue with the number of people they are representing. 50 more senators would not reduce a constituency size that much and we don't believe an increase is needed in any case. Therefore we oppose on those grounds. Gill Reynolds Shadow Senate Warden |
| Date | 01:50:32, August 27, 2010 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Amendment 2990-Senate Enlargement |
| Message | Any change for the sake of change, Senators, is a threat to common sense. Why fix something that's not broken? This system has served Solentia well for countless years, there is no evidence that a larger chamber would work at a more progressive scale. The system in place works quite efficiently; Senators count for more and are more important because of the size of the body. An arbitrary number such as 150 is something I do not view as desirable. FIP Senator Lawrence Seville |
| Date | 04:04:21, August 27, 2010 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Constitutional Amendment 2990-Senate Enlargement |
| Message | We will go with the current number, or else return to the earlier seat count, which was, I believe, 425 or so. Someone correct me on that number, please. |
| Date | 05:56:25, August 27, 2010 CET | From | Social Justice Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Amendment 2990-Senate Enlargement |
| Message | The SDWU can in no way see any increase in representation as a threat or that it should be rejected based on "tradition". As it stands how can 100 members adequately represent the concerns of over 700 million Solentians. Such a small number of members comparative to the population makes contact with local members of the Senate incredibly difficult, and inevitable leads to lobby groups being better represented than the people. Whilst we would much prefer a Senate of 425, each time this has been proposed it has not passed. 150 members is a minimal increase but the only figure which we felt there could be some consensus on. Senate Warden Walton Laboissonnier |
| Date | 14:57:06, August 27, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Constitutional Amendment 2990-Senate Enlargement |
| Message | "We do not believe this to be a matter of change for changes' own sake, but rather of pragmatic change. As pointed out in previous debates, the ratio of Senator to Constituent is dramatically low at 1: 4,631,740. That is why the Unionist Bloc proposes the original 425 number, used until 2854 which would put the ratio at 1: 1,089,821. I am sure the Senate can see the bennefit of changing to such a ratio to make representation fairer and more local. The size of land appointed to rural Senators especially is insane, imagine in rural Shinatawa for instance, where population density is low. At the last election they returned only 15 Senators. Under the current system, a Senator is responsible for constituents who could live in an entirely different city. A man from Inner City Pinara could be expected not only to represent his City but tiny villages miles upon miles away because of this insanely low ratio of Senators. In a similar way, a man from Halion is only responsible for people in his City due to the population density of the Capitol and the State itself. He has constituents living under his nose that he cannot allocate funding to. Under a 425 Senator system, the City could be split and the areas, estates and suburbs become independently more managable, with very specific issues that the Senator can spend time on. I ardently hope that Senators in this term will grant the 425 ratio not only on basis of historical interest, but of representation, democracy and common sense." Thomas Roen, 2616 Committee Chairman. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 38 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 50 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 12 |
| Random fact: The players in a nation have a collective responsibility to ensure their "Bills under debate" section is kept in good order. Bills which are irrelevant or have become irrelevant should be deleted. Deletion can be requested for bills proposed by inactive parties on the Bill Clearout Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "It would be nice if the poor were to get even half of the money that is spent in studying them." - Bill Vaughan |