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: Legislative Reform Act 2198
Details
Submitted by[?]: Keymon Ruling 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: April 2200
Description[?]:
| 100 legislators is just not enough to fully allow for the hard working people of Keymon to be properly represented. |
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: 99
Proposed: 299
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:01:50, March 12, 2006 CET | From | Christian Democrats | To | Debating the Legislative Reform Act 2198 |
| Message | "299 is both a bizarre number and too many. 100 may be too small but 299 doesn't even make sense. We propose a limited increase in the size of the assembly to 120 members. This will let us give greater representation to the communities in Keymon that have grown in the last decade." -- Director General Amadee Savoy (CD) |
| Date | 03:21:31, March 13, 2006 CET | From | Just as Silly party | To | Debating the Legislative Reform Act 2198 |
| Message | We would prefer a number closer to 200. But we're willing to compromise:)" |
| Date | 07:02:17, March 13, 2006 CET | From | Redfly Progressives | To | Debating the Legislative Reform Act 2198 |
| Message | The progressives would be happy with an big, odd number. 299 is less arbitrary than 120, and the grand point of a larger assembly is not to grant the communities power, but to give the smaller parties, currently unrepresented (cough: me: cough) a larger say in power. As a progressive, I beleive firmly in granting more power to the progressives. I mean, people who vote progressive. Hell, who am I kidding. 20 votes / 400,000 .... I'd need to see a house of 2,000 members before i represent anyone. GO PROGRESSIVES! |
| Date | 07:03:27, March 13, 2006 CET | From | Redfly Progressives | To | Debating the Legislative Reform Act 2198 |
| Message | What i meant to say is that compromise is important to us. See what repealing the drug laws has led to?? |
| Date | 12:16:16, March 13, 2006 CET | From | Keymon Ruling Party | To | Debating the Legislative Reform Act 2198 |
| Message | In essence an uneven number of seats makes forming a government all that much easier. For example, under the current numbers if a party gets 40 seats and their coalition partner 10, then they still won't be able to pass legislation. Likewise having a figure that is relatively easy to divide by three makes it easier to see what is needed for the 2/3 majority for constitutional change. Under the current number of seats you need 66.666666666 seats to pass a constitutional bill, with 299 you basically know that you need 200 votes in the legislature to pass a constitutional bill, and 150 to pass an 'ordinary' bill. Conversely, at 120, you need 61 to pass a normal bill, and 90 to pass a constitutional bill. So basically the numbers 299 and 599 are ideal from the PoV of making life easier when it comes to forming coalition governments, and figuring out if you'll be able to pass a bill that you want passing. I think that 599 is perhaps a bit too much for a country of our limited population though, so 299 gives us the maximum efficiency, as well of course as increasing the representation of the electorate. |
| Date | 17:07:35, March 13, 2006 CET | From | Christian Democrats | To | Debating the Legislative Reform Act 2198 |
| Message | "We have never seen a bill fail because of a tie, nor have we ever seen a bill fail to reach a 2/3 majority because of a fractional vote. We are arguing about something that has not occured in the past twenty years. "Furthermore, we were a tiny party in Keymon and stood for elections when there were 299 seats. The result was no votes. We stood for elections when there were 151 seats. The result was no votes. It is an illusion to think that a weird number of seats, or a larger number of seats, will solve the problem of giving small parties representation. In truth, it will just give us another several hundred busybody politicians looking for a way to make a dollar. "We are impacably and completely opposed to implementing a strange (ooc: gamey) number of seats. We are similarly opposed to excessively increasing the size of the legislature. 120 is a number we would support and have proposed legislation to that end." -- Director General Amadee Savoy (CD) |
| Date | 01:18:18, March 14, 2006 CET | From | Just as Silly party | To | Debating the Legislative Reform Act 2198 |
| Message | Think of the # of seats you get based on the % of the votes. If you receive .04% the votes you get .04% of the seats... or zero. We would need around 1112 seats to make for a person with 0.09% get 1 seat (redfly you're getting zero at the moment) You might get 1 seat if you managed to get 0.99% of the vote with 102 seats, but 1 seat doesn't do much. Heck 4 seats doesn't do much. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 53 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 47 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Whilst the use of non-English languages can be appropriate for nation names, party names, constitutional titles and other variables, English is the official language of communication in the game. All descriptive texts and public communications should be in English or at least appear alongside a full English translation. |
| Random quote: "I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word." - Martin Luther King, Jr. |