Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5461
Next month in: 02:13:04
Server time: 13:46:55, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: 449 Seats in Parliament

Details

Submitted by[?]: Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry'

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: January 2209

Description[?]:

Echoing the reasons and calls of the FHP in May 2166 (http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=40698), with a Pontesi of 60,000,000 citizens, our jobs as parliamentary representatives mean we have the weight of around 200,000 people on a representative's shoulder on average. This means whereas some will have slightly less of a responsibility, some will have have in excess of that to represent. We need more representatives to better voice the desires of the people, especially with the recent squashed election results.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date21:43:20, March 08, 2006 CET
FromTHEM
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageHow 'bout not.

Date21:49:38, March 08, 2006 CET
From Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry'
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageWe are also curious as to which number the parties would prefer if they disagree with our own; the title will change to reflect the current proposal, not be a proviso.

Date21:52:20, March 08, 2006 CET
From Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry'
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageOOC: "How 'bout not." It was so tempting to say "Oh, fair enough then." for a joke :P

Date22:06:58, March 08, 2006 CET
FromLabour Party
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageMore seats would be good, might give a better 'spread' of election results. But I don't know if 599 isn't a bit high. Maybe something between 300-400, see how that pans out?

Date23:45:42, March 08, 2006 CET
FromGeorgeonian Centrist Party
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageWe feel that the current number of seats gives sufficient representation to all of the parties and that increasing the number of seats would be pointless and inefficient.

Date01:41:48, March 09, 2006 CET
FromLibertarian Party
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageIt is the view of the Libertarian party that the people are best served with a small federal government, with minimal overall powers, providing greater power and responsibilities to the local governments.

Date02:15:43, March 09, 2006 CET
From Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry'
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageSo the Libertarian, GFP, Centrists and I'd imagine the PFC would be juxtapose to a change. Perhaps political opinion favours a reduction at the moment instead of an increase. Thoughts while the forum is here?

As such, this bill will remain open for discussion but will not go to vote until such time as an increase is desired. Any reduction should be by a separate party wanting a reduction so that they can cop the credit for its creation, which we don't seek to infringe upon.

Date06:49:52, March 09, 2006 CET
FromPontesi Fascist Coalition
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
Message"MP Inflation" is purely pointless from our perspective, but could be a certain dramatic irony in boasting my number of seats... The PFC needs more time...

Date11:56:49, March 09, 2006 CET
FromOne Nation Conservative Party
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageThe ONCP will support any increase in seats between 350 and 575

Date02:15:36, March 10, 2006 CET
From Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry'
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageProposal reduced to 449. A 150% population increase would probably be more suitably represented by a 150% seat increase than a 200%.

Date05:26:39, March 10, 2006 CET
FromTHEM
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageI'd like 100 seats again, but that's just me.

Date10:51:50, March 10, 2006 CET
FromLibertarian Party
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageThe Libertarian party is still opposed to any increase in the number of seats, and is considering proposing a bill to instead reduce the number of seats to 149. A majority government would require 75 seats, while a 2/3rds majority would be 100. Simple round numbers. With this reduction of seats, the Libertarian party would consider increasing spending on necesssary social programs, or more likely cutting taxes, as throwing money at a problem never solves the problem in the first place.

Date13:56:23, March 10, 2006 CET
From Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry'
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageWhat's not round about 225 and 300?
The Bastards would probably oppose a bill proposing a reduction in seats.

Date20:57:30, March 10, 2006 CET
FromOne Nation Conservative Party
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageThe ONCP believe more representation is good for democracy and so will vote against any proposal that reduces the number of seats.

Date14:51:56, March 17, 2006 CET
FromPnték Prsakij Prta (Phalangists)
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageWe would love to have less seats. As our system is proportional an not constituency based, the ratio between MP's and constituents is meaningless, because MP's represent those who voted for their party.

Date16:57:13, March 17, 2006 CET
From Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry'
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageWell, if you take a statistical element there, the proportions of votes are rounded to the nearest number of seats. Hence, more seats will reduce the size of rounding errors and thus reflect the voting proportions better. This is exactly the same reason why least-squares regression is used to see how well lines of best fit suit discrete roundings from continuous scales. Increasing the divisor (the number of seats), we make the gaps between seat numbers smaller and this increases the accuracy of the roundings, leading to a democracy fulfilled by a better fit of the parties the populus want in place.

The only reason why a seat reduction would be desired would be if a party was more confident of winning seats by edging other parties out with larger rounding errors, meaning more votes are lost by statistical jiggery-pokery because they fear the populus won't select them. That brand of swindling should not be prominent in a democracy.

Date16:22:17, March 19, 2006 CET
FromPnték Prsakij Prta (Phalangists)
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageHow so? Lower numbers of seats favours larger parties, which surely means the 'jiggery pokery' arising from a 'fear (that) the populous won't select them', is unfounded. If parties were worried about not being selected by the populousl, then they would favour more seats rather than less, as that gives them more chance of being selected, due to the smaller number of votes needed in order to get elected.

Furthermore a smaller leaner parliament saves the taxpayer a considerable amount of money. Bearing in mind the number of issues that have been devolved to local legislatures, why on earth do we need more national representatives to do less work? We find it most bizarre that at the same time local government is expanding, parties would seek to expand national government.

With regards to the results at the last election, only three parties received more or less seats than they were entitled to, with the FFYRTP gaining 2 additional seats and both the GFP and CCP receiving one less. This hardly strikes us as a massive problem, would democracy really be that much better if those two seats were reapportioned more 'fairly'? We seem to remember that the shift from 100 seats to 299 was justified on the basis that it would solve inaccuracies, and yet here we are being told that only we must now have a shift from 299 to some greater figure in order to solve the massive electoral problems that are created by the misleading distribution of two seats.

Also, a increase to 449 will lead to the addition, possible addition, of up to 150 inexperienced members to Parliament after the next election? Is that right? Can the people really trust an institution of whom nearly one third of its members will be, newbies? Of course many of them will be politicians who lost out at the previous elections, but still, we will have a massive influx of new members at the next elections, which can hardly be good for democracy.

Another factor is that increasing the number of MP's in a proportional system simply makes the positions of prominant party figures even more secure. Having an extra 10-20 MP's below you on the list must be of a great relief to leaders of parties whose vote was overwhelmingly down at the last election. Should the taxpayer really be financing greater security for the leaders of parties that have been rejected, all for the imposition of an system that will overturn an inaccuracy of 2/3's of a percent? Will 449 MP's do the job better than 299?

Date16:52:14, March 19, 2006 CET
FromPnték Prsakij Prta (Phalangists)
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageAdditionally, any uneveness in the current system is actually caused by the overrepresentation of smaller states. If we wish to readdress this situation, perhaps it is actually the distribtution of seats amongst the states that should be looked at, rather than the number of seats overall.

Date22:19:48, March 20, 2006 CET
From Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry'
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageYou seem to think this has selfish motive and sour grapes about one seat. This is not the case. This debate started long before that election. In fact, it came before your return.

Experienced candidates will be favoured by the electorate and will probably come from local governments. They will either a smart man posing as an idiot or an idiot posing as a smart man. Both have seemed to have served their country well in Pontesian history, as the labels are relative.

With 449 seats, a mistake would have to convince more people to pass as law. Proportionally, it's the same. In terms of absolutes, it's a whole new ball game.

Date23:49:07, March 31, 2006 CET
From Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry'
ToDebating the 449 Seats in Parliament
MessageLet's get this out the debates. I'm sick of the sight of it.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 118

no
    

Total Seats: 175

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: In cases where players introduce RP laws to a nation and then leave, Moderation reserves the discretion to declare the RP laws void if they appear to have fallen into disuse. In particular, please bear in mind that a player who is inexperienced with Particracy role-play and has joined a nation as the only party there should not generally be expected to abide by RP laws implemented by previous players who have been and left.

    Random quote: "Because we don't think about future generations, they will never forget us." - Henrik Tikkanen

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 93