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: Seats in Parliament
Details
Submitted by[?]: Crimson Conservative Elite
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 2206
Description[?]:
| There are way too many seats in Parliament. The number should be lowered. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The total number of seats in the legislative assembly. Should be between 75 and 750.
Old value:: 750
Current: 450
Proposed: 500
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:56:41, March 21, 2006 CET | From | AntiNeoCon Party | To | Debating the Seats in Parliament |
| Message | we think that 750 better represents the people |
| Date | 03:51:24, March 21, 2006 CET | From | Whigs | To | Debating the Seats in Parliament |
| Message | Don't fix what ain't broken. |
| Date | 23:05:10, March 21, 2006 CET | From | Crimson Conservative Elite | To | Debating the Seats in Parliament |
| Message | 750 seats just allows for a greater gap between parties... pretty much making the top parties the most dominant within the system and making most legislation up to them. i'm not sure if that better represents all the people. but whatever, we will not put this up for legislation if the two leading parties are going to shoot it down. if anyone is in favor of this, please let us know. for a possible future reference. |
| Date | 00:01:53, March 22, 2006 CET | From | Whigs | To | Debating the Seats in Parliament |
| Message | It's all based on percentages. I have a certin percentage of seats, and by having more seats, we get a more accurate reprensation. For instance if you have a parliament of 100 seats and i have 25.60% of the seats, i will get 25 or 26 (depending on how the rest of the percentages work out). If i have 500 seats then i have 128, exactly. The more seats we have, the closer we have to actual representation. It may seem like a small difference, but every little bit helps in the overall fair representation of the people's beliefs. |
| Date | 04:16:48, March 22, 2006 CET | From | AntiNeoCon Party | To | Debating the Seats in Parliament |
| Message | well said, whigs. if the people want the gap, let there be the gap. |
| Date | 07:05:22, March 22, 2006 CET | From | Corporatists for Quanzari | To | Debating the Seats in Parliament |
| Message | We agree with this proposal. The Whigs and the Anti-NeoCons simply wish to protect their monopoly; their opinion is heavily biased. The size of our country better fits a smaller parliament. |
| Date | 02:02:31, March 23, 2006 CET | From | Socialist Ecology Party | To | Debating the Seats in Parliament |
| Message | When the SEP first joined a similar proposal was made by one of the parties in the middle as far as number of seats goes, this was shot down by the makority party at the time, with the same general reasons stated as the current majority parties. |
| Date | 18:31:49, March 23, 2006 CET | From | AntiNeoCon Party | To | Debating the Seats in Parliament |
| Message | we do not have a monopoly, and actually usually vote opposite ways. democracy is healthy in quanzari. if we were not the majority party we would still vote against this bill. please send it to vote. |
| Date | 02:47:57, March 24, 2006 CET | From | Whigs | To | Debating the Seats in Parliament |
| Message | The more seats do not make a gap at all! It's all done on percentages! I have a certain percentage of seats right now, based on the percentage of votes I won at the election. The only thing having more seats does is give a more accurate representation of the people's votes. There is no mathematical reason to explain why having less seats will end my "monoploy" on Parliament. I just explained to you, in a perfect example, that regardless of the max number of seats, I will have the same percentage of seats in relation to anyone else. So, while I have less votes, so will everyone else, and the "disparity" will stay the same. Although, I should point out that I have been given these seats in a fair election, and I am merely representing the will of the people. And, as ANCP said, we often cancel each other out as we rarely vote the same way on bills. So, really, the policies ARE being decided by the average sized parties. |
| Date | 03:12:10, March 24, 2006 CET | From | Socialist Ecology Party | To | Debating the Seats in Parliament |
| Message | I was not in any way attempting to put down either of the current majority parties, I was mearly stating my past observation. As far as SEP is concerned, we do not see much of a problem with the current number of seats. |
| Date | 03:57:11, March 28, 2006 CET | From | Whigs | To | Debating the Seats in Parliament |
| Message | I beg someone to tell me why having less seats in Parliament will help our nation. Please be rational, and back it up with reason. 'Cause, honestly, I don't get it. |
| Date | 04:44:02, March 28, 2006 CET | From | Corporatists for Quanzari | To | Debating the Seats in Parliament |
| Message | To those parties too enraptured in delusions of their own grandeur to see the purpose for such a bill, the Corporatists of Quanzari shall outline it clearly and simply. 1) Our nation is far too small for such a large number of seats. 750 is a number that is both pretentious and filled with conceit, inflating the egos of those large parties who dominate it. 2) The gap in the numbers is greatly a superflous factor, and yet it is imperative to take into account the surrealistic ideal that is created by such a gap; closer party numbers represent the people better, if not necessarily in an actual sense, than in rather a mindset. 3) The factor that the Anti-NeoCons and the Whigs are so opposed to such a move clearly shows that they have something to hide. Whatever it is, it shall not long hide from the Corporatists. Long live corporatism, long live democracy, and long live the Union of Quanzari Soviets!!! |
| Date | 06:48:49, March 28, 2006 CET | From | AntiNeoCon Party | To | Debating the Seats in Parliament |
| Message | "As far as SEP is concerned, we do not see much of a problem with the current number of seats." |
| Date | 22:35:46, March 28, 2006 CET | From | Whigs | To | Debating the Seats in Parliament |
| Message | 1. The size of the country should not determine the number of seats in Parliament. (The Great Britain HoC and HoL are comparable in number to the US house and senate, yet the US has far more citizens and landmass. Both are perfectly functioning democracies) And, what do you mean by filled with conceit? That's crazy! 2. You want to make a bill that will hurt the country in an actual sense (the more seats, the better the representation of the people, as i exibited) so that you can create a mindset? 3. I'm opposed to a bill that reduces the the accuracy of the party system! I was given these seats by the votes of the people, with great accuracy. You are aware that by reducing the seats, you will be furthering the gap between the large and small parties! For example, a minor party that may only be able to capture a few seats, say 4, in a Parliament of 500 will not even get a single seat in a Parliament of 100! The more seats, the more power that is given to the larger parties. So, by all means, vote for this bill if you believe in a disproportionately representation of larger parties and taking away power from very minor parties!!! So, it would seem that the Whigs and the ANCP are PROTECTING the power of the smaller parties by asking that we keep the current amount of seats. The more seats, the better the accuracy of the representation, and the more likely minor parties are to have a say in our laws! |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 377 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 297 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 76 |
| Random fact: "Kubrk" is a Jelbic word that has the colloquial meaning "old man" or "geezer". |
| Random quote: "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman." - Arnold Schwarzenegger |