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: Apathetic Voter Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Centrist 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: January 2076
Description[?]:
| Elections are regional rather than districted. All of our parties front 200 candidates per election. That means an average of 40 candidates per party, per region. That means that every single voter has to vote yes or no on 400 candidates at every election! We should lessen the burden on the suffering voter, and lower the number of seats that are elected. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The total number of seats in the legislative assembly. Should be between 75 and 750.
Old value:: 325
Current: 213
Proposed: 99
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:30:25, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Edelweiss Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | Could you give some argues that this proposal is not a 'death stab' for smaller parties? |
| Date | 15:37:40, June 27, 2005 CET | From | mutt Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | We vote no. |
| Date | 15:45:21, June 27, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | SocialGreens: I recognize that problem but don't know how to solve it. 400 choices for whom to vote on seems a worse proposition. Maybe instead, we should flesh out our electoral system. Suggestions on a working system would be appreciated. |
| Date | 16:19:28, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | Nope. That would LOWER representation. Increase it and we'll be likely to support a bill to shorten the term. |
| Date | 18:34:27, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | I thought this was a regional proportional representation system, whereby the population of each region voted on each party rather than on each seat, then seats alotted accordingly. |
| Date | 18:57:32, June 27, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | LPE: That was what I was actually looking for. PSD: Look at what the LPE just said. Raising seats does not raise representation under a system where people only vote for parties. |
| Date | 19:45:38, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | But each seat is in a riding. Each ride has a certain number of representatives. Even though the people vote for a party and not the rep themselves, they are still going to need representation. You're used to the electoral collage. The system the game uses is parliamentary, where while you vote for a party, every riding, based on a proportional ratio due to population size and density would need a representative that can serve as their medium. By decreasing the numbers, you're creating an undemocratic procress. In a parliamentary system, the ridings are best divided based on population. |
| Date | 20:49:11, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | so... confused :-s |
| Date | 22:08:15, June 27, 2005 CET | From | mutt Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | I think we should increase the number of seats. More representation. |
| Date | 14:44:46, June 28, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | There are no ridings, though. People do not vote for representatives. They vote on a regional basis for entire parties. By the position you just explained, we should decrease the size of the parliament to only five people. Then every region could directly elect it's own representative. We have no smaller districts. We cannot set any smaller districts. The prefectures are the only valid "districts" available to us. Every single person in the parliament is appointed by the parties according to how many votes the PARTY got. Increasing the seats only allows the parties to seat more politicians. Decreasing the seats doesn't affect people's voting at all, since they have no direct say in parliamentary seats anyways. To put it another way. Say we have a 100 seats available and I win 10% of the vote nationwide. So, I get to choose any 10 people out of the LFP and appoint them to Parliament. If I got 20%, I'd get to chose 20 people out of the LFP. The people didn't elect their representatives, they elected -me- and I appointed their representatives. As you can see, this is a long long ways from a direct diplomacy, and not even very close to a standard republic. |
| Date | 14:45:24, June 28, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | (from a direct democracy* not diplomacy.) |
| Date | 15:57:37, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | That is the next best thing to bloody communist China! |
| Date | 18:06:55, June 28, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | I do not know if that is true or not. I do, however, know that it is the system and neither of us has the power to change it. Sometimes, we must work within systems we do not like when we have not the power to change them. Now is one of those times. |
| Date | 01:43:37, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Söhne der Freiheit | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | Each type of person should have a party to voice his or her beliefs. This will stifle smaller parties. This bill will not have the CFP's support. |
| Date | 22:50:12, July 02, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | I don't think it has any effect on how you do.. We've changed it before...and I don't think we lost any small parties then |
| Date | 08:30:22, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | I disagree with NCP is saying. How about we have a District Candidate and A Party vote 1 Vote Elected Member and 1 for Your Party of Choice that way you vote al of twice and you may Love a party but hate their representative and so you get to make a better Democratic decision as such i vote no. |
| Date | 10:32:50, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | Maybe if it was a round number like 100, or the non-round number had some significance the Republican Party could support this. However, as none has been presented, we see no reason to vote in favor at this. |
| Date | 11:18:26, July 04, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Apathetic Voter Bill |
| Message | The non-round number is to ensure that there will never be a situation where the legislative assembly is divided exactly 50-50...that tends to stall bills that are very close... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 47 | ||||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 153 | ||||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Kubrk" is a Jelbic word that has the colloquial meaning "old man" or "geezer". |
| Random quote: "The payment of taxes gives a right to protection." - James M. Wayne |