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: Abolish gerrymandering
Details
Submitted by[?]: Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness
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: April 3693
Description[?]:
| We argue for a independent non partisan commission of demographers for the redistricting of provincial voting districts. This will prevent the usual partisan redistricting which marginalizes voter groups less favorable to their party. Demographers will map districts according to actual populations rather then politically. Voters should choose representatives, not representatives choose voters. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:00:04, July 06, 2014 CET | From | Kirlawan People's Justice Party | To | Debating the Abolish gerrymandering |
| Message | We certainly agree that gerrymandering is bad, but this bill is nonsensical; it's proposing a half-solution to a problem which has already been completely solved. Gerrymandering is already impossible here; there are no "districts" (representation being fully proportional instead), so there is no redrawing of districts, so the partisan-ness of any redrawing of districts is non-applicable already. So, we do completely agree in theory -- because, _if_ Kirlawa _did_ use the archaic, obsolete, complex, and unfair approach of single-member districts, we would eagerly support the proposed partial fix, until such time as the complete fix (proportional representation) could be achieved. But the complete fix has already been achieved. Meaning that, in practice, this bill is utterly non-applicable at best -- and at worst would partially re-create the problem which it seems to have been intended to ameliorate -- so unfortunately we must vote against. |
| Date | 20:00:12, July 06, 2014 CET | From | Kirlawan People's Justice Party | To | Debating the Abolish gerrymandering |
| Message | It would be rather like proposing, kindheartedly but obliviously, additional funds for research toward finding a cure for the horrendous and deadly disease of smallpox ... in an era when smallpox has _already_ been completely eradicated. Because, if smallpox _were_ a problem, we would of course agree with such research. But considering the facts on the ground, such would instead constitute merely a waste of money. |
| Date | 20:18:47, July 06, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Abolish gerrymandering |
| Message | This deals with provincial districts rather then the provinces themselves. Provinces have a certain number of seats, but each district elects their respective portion of said seats. I am assuming you thought we were discussing the provinces as a whole? Perhaps the lack of population differences you often mention regarding the archaic seat apportionment issue? Because neither apply in this case. Or is it some other thing your so vague about that your not even effectively arguing against? |
| Date | 20:21:13, July 06, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Abolish gerrymandering |
| Message | Somehow I read the 2nd before the 1rst, gosh I wish there was a delete option for comments. |
| Date | 20:33:19, July 06, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Abolish gerrymandering |
| Message | Last I knew proportional systems are an alternative districting system, rather then an abolishment of. "Single district" is not synonymous with "district" . Gerrymandering can still occur in proportional systems. Granted their is less of the "wasted vote" effect to exploit, but it's still existent. (Ooc:Ireland is a proportional system and they have their districts, granted I believe their called 'electoral areas' but you get the point) |
| Date | 21:40:43, July 06, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Abolish gerrymandering |
| Message | Looking through legislation I believe I found the legislation you are referencing: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=283817 , which only applies to senate elections and not the general assembly, I recall the senate is different from general assembly? http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=169034 the general assembly still runs off the first past the post rule: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=70937 , and their is one district per seat: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=82737 |
| Date | 22:43:38, July 06, 2014 CET | From | Kirlawa Liberal Party | To | Debating the Abolish gerrymandering |
| Message | I strongly agree with this many countries have this system including Britain, Canada etc. I allows you to actually elect a representative for your district not just a party for your country, this would allow districts to be better represented. Many countries in Terra have this system as well, oh and as for the senate I have been reading up on it in wiki why don't we bring it back? |
| Date | 01:00:05, July 07, 2014 CET | From | Kirlawan People's Justice Party | To | Debating the Abolish gerrymandering |
| Message | "This deals with provincial districts rather then the provinces themselves." There are no districts. Of course we can't affect the provincial boundaries themselves; they're hard-coded into the game. "Provinces have a certain number of seats, but each district elects their respective portion of said seats." There are no districts. Provinces each elect 143 or 144 representatives, proportionally, ever since Wouter made all their populations equal. "I am assuming you thought we were discussing the provinces as a whole?" No. "Perhaps the lack of population differences you often mention regarding the archaic seat apportionment issue? Because neither apply in this case. Or is it some other thing your so vague about that your not even effectively arguing against?" I don't understand. And why the hostility? :( "Last I knew proportional systems are an alternative districting system, rather then an abolishment of." I disagree. It is possible for a districted system to be adjusted so as to resemble proportionality a little bit more closely, but it'll still never be as good as a true proportional one. Proportional ones don't have districts. " "Single district" is not synonymous with "district" ." Please explain; I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. "Gerrymandering can still occur in proportional systems. Granted their is less of the "wasted vote" effect to exploit, but it's still existent." No, it can't; there are no districts, so there is no gerrymandering. "(Ooc:Ireland is a proportional system and they have their districts, granted I believe their called 'electoral areas' but you get the point)" Ireland is a semi-proportional system, with comparatively large and multi-member districts. The Netherlands, Brazil, and Israel are some nations with true proportional systems, at least for their main national chamber if not more. Ours resembles that of the latter, not the former. (Culturally and ethnically we're largely Celtic, yes. But we're not necessarily a clone of OOC Ireland in other ways. For example, would the Irish select _orange_ of all things as their primary national colour? ;) Indeed, several of Kirlawa's early players long ago were Dutch, which is reflected in some background Dutch influences to our systems, despite negligibly few of the Kirlawan citizenry being personally of Dutch culture.) "Looking through legislation I believe I found the legislation you are referencing: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=283817 , which only applies to senate elections and not the general assembly, I recall the senate is different from general assembly? http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=169034 " True. "the general assembly still runs off the first past the post rule:" No.... " http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=70937 " After posting, I looked back through what you wrote ... "redistricting of provincial voting districts." Oops. :( Yes, there indeed are the RP'd _provincial_ assemblies. Although they've seldom been used, due to lack of interest by the players. Our General Assembly is by proportional representation; but each province's, is not necessarily, and from what I can remember (it was very long ago) there indeed might well have been an FPTP interpretation there. And, especially considering your insistent emphasis on "localise everything", after posting I realised that you might indeed have been talking about those _provincial_ assemblies. And this bill 70937 was, likewise, about the provincial assemblies. " and their is one district per seat: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=82737 " Only 384 voted for this; 363 didn't vote. To force such a fundamental and thorough change to the voting system, it's reasonable to expect that such would have needed 2/3 to take effect, just like any other bill which would affect the governmental system in any other similarly fundamental way does: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=411530 http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=411531 http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=411634 http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=412179 "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." Since bill 82737 was just RP text with no game proposal, there's no way for the Particracy program to have known what that text was. Furthermore, that was in 2300, and by April 2338 there were no longer 747 seats, so there couldn't have been 747 districts anymore; so even if it were to have passed, it was soon no longer in effect anyway. ==================================================================================================== ==================================================================================================== Let's compromise, please? This current bill asks for: "We argue for a independent non partisan commission of demographers for the redistricting of provincial voting districts. This will prevent the usual partisan redistricting which marginalizes voter groups less favorable to their party. Demographers will map districts according to actual populations rather then politically. Voters should choose representatives, not representatives choose voters." Now that, upon re-reading it, I see that it is indeed referring to "the redistricting of provincial voting districts" -- that is, the provincial districts which may well exist, and not supposed national General Assembly "districts" which don't exist -- I'm willing to vote in favour of the text as written. Is this OK? |
| Date | 02:52:32, July 07, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Abolish gerrymandering |
| Message | Compromise reached regarding interpretation. We will assume their are no national districts in kirlawa based off of absence of evidence (neither of us pulled up a bill that stated how the general assembly elections run, well technically I did but it wasn't 2/3rds) even though that's technically a logical fallacy, but this is a make believe game soooo....although It does feel weird to ex-post facto nullify a law for things the makers didn't mention and those debating it didn't seem to think of, lets just assume magically the Supreme Court of kirlawa judged it unconstitutional? Anywho this will apply only to provincial assemblies rather then both national and provincial. As for "single district" vs "district" I was talking about how their is more types of districts then winner takes all. The way you had talked made it sound like you thought it was either all or nothing with no in between regarding redistricting. As for "hostility" that was a combination of a misunderstanding regarding your first statement and the fact your second statement seemed snarky to me. |
| Date | 03:02:17, July 07, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Abolish gerrymandering |
| Message | Normally I'd like these sorts of discussions before things are put to a vote but almost nobody ever wants to debate issues unless I put them to a vote first...... |
| Date | 04:00:04, July 07, 2014 CET | From | Kirlawan People's Justice Party | To | Debating the Abolish gerrymandering |
| Message | Thank you :) And no snark was intended; sorry if I inadvertently gave the impression of any. |
| Date | 04:58:48, July 07, 2014 CET | From | Vanguard for Virtue & Righteousness | To | Debating the Abolish gerrymandering |
| Message | I apologize for my hostile tone then |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 717 | |||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: RP laws follow the same passing rules as in-game variable laws. Laws that are not of a constitutional nature require a simple majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. Laws that are of a constitutional nature require a 2/3 majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. RP laws may be abolished a simple majority vote this applies to ANY RP law. |
| Random quote: "The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us, but we don't ask for their love, only for their fear." - Heinrich Himmler |