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: The Final Expansion
Details
Submitted by[?]: Sekowan Freedom Party
Status[?]: passed
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: November 2230
Description[?]:
| This is our final attempt to give lesser parties opportunities for seats (no matter how few) in the Council of Peers. If nothing else, this will expand the electorate's influence on their government. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The total number of seats in the legislative assembly. Should be between 75 and 750.
Old value:: 625
Current: 450
Proposed: 725
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:49:18, May 19, 2006 CET | From | People's Liberation Army | To | Debating the The Final Expansion |
| Message | More seats doesn't mean more seats for the parties. If anything, they convolute the people's voice. Too many cooks in the kitchen if you get our drift... |
| Date | 16:35:59, May 19, 2006 CET | From | Sekowan Freedom Party | To | Debating the The Final Expansion |
| Message | Currently we have two parties overshadowing all the others taking up every last seat. The only way to give smaller parties a chance to have any say in government is to expand the number of seats. This would mean a smaller percentage of votes would still gain at least one seat in the Council. And any voice at all in how the government is run is better than none. And as far as 'too many cooks in the kitchen' goes, I would rather have 725 opinionated people voting on bills than a smaller group of megalomaniacs running the nations as they deem fit within their own little fraternity. If we take away excessive power from singular Peers, we are more likely to have fair representatives with motivations for working together and listening to the people. |
| Date | 18:57:39, May 19, 2006 CET | From | Cruzada Tradicionalista Sekowana | To | Debating the The Final Expansion |
| Message | A better way to do this might be to change the seat distribution algorithm. The current set-up gives a slight edge to larger regions. If we changed that to one that gives a slight edge to smaller regions, it would provide more opportunities to get seats by catering to particular regions. |
| Date | 01:37:38, May 20, 2006 CET | From | Sekowan Freedom Party | To | Debating the The Final Expansion |
| Message | This would not be a fair system (and this is coming from the party that has consistently won over 75% of the smaller region votes). Such an algorithm gives people in lesser populated regions a larger voice than those in larger regions. At least by giving larger populations larger voices we are staying proportional (or as proportional as the game allows. Personally, I would go for each ___ votes rendering one seat on the Council nationwide. |
| Date | 06:20:57, May 20, 2006 CET | From | People's Liberation Army | To | Debating the The Final Expansion |
| Message | By the Freedom Party's logic, the current large amount of seats should have already been distributed among the parties. Changing the number of Peers will not change the dominance of Sekowo by two parties currently, as much as we want to. |
| Date | 17:15:48, May 20, 2006 CET | From | Sekowan Freedom Party | To | Debating the The Final Expansion |
| Message | The more seats available, the lower percentage of votes a party needs to gain a seat in the Council. I get your argument that the change may be negligible, but I also think that it is worth a chance. I don't see any dangers in increasing the seats as it helps smaller parties become more visible and it gives minority-party voters more influence. Also, the cynism in the last post is unfair. A) Given time and chances to vote all parties can raise their visibilities to create electoral support. Just because it has not happened yet, does not mean it isn't possible. B) It may not be the all-powerful cure to our flawed two-party system, but it is a step in the right direction. Perhaps a step is all we can hope for right now. |
| Date | 21:12:43, May 20, 2006 CET | From | People's Liberation Army | To | Debating the The Final Expansion |
| Message | Perhaps it is a step.. at least we hope it is seeing as how this will pass. |
| Date | 13:23:10, May 21, 2006 CET | From | Cruzada Tradicionalista Sekowana | To | Debating the The Final Expansion |
| Message | I doubt this will help, but I will vote for it anyway. The current algorithm disproportionately favors large regions taking votes away from regions that are already weak due to small population. There is no perfectly fair distribution of seats. The algorithm simply determines whether the small error serves to increase the voice of the weak or to promote the absolute tyranny of the majority. |
| Date | 16:52:54, May 21, 2006 CET | From | Sekowan Freedom Party | To | Debating the The Final Expansion |
| Message | Perhaps it means to give larger populations more say in government than smaller populations. Doesn't it make sense that a region 500 people have five seats while a region of 100 have only one? (Hypothetically speaking--that doesnt exactly compute to current seat placement) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 625 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
| Random quote: "Sometimes democracy must be bathed in blood." - Augusto Pinochet |