NationStates Jolt Archive

OFFICIAL RESULTS

With the voting (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423271) now closed, this is the official announcement of the number of seats for each party. I would like to thank everyone who took the time to vote, read the manifestos and take an interest in the debate, as well as the members of the various parties who took part in the campaign and election.

Cult of TInk Party: 2.28 seats => 2 seats
Democratic Socialist Party: 4.86 seats => 5 seats
Mole and Other Burrowing Rodents' Alliance: 0.86 seat => 1 seat
NS Classic Liberals: 4.83 seats => 5 seats
NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans: 2.32 seats => 2 seats
Party of Order: 0.6 seat => 0 seat
Party of Whatever Works: 2.68 seats => 3 seats
Revolutionary Trostkyist Party: 1.16 seats => 1 seat
United Democratic Communist Party: 2.58 seats => 3 seats
"Up yours!" Party: 2.85 seats => 3 seats

The results with quorum gave a total of 24 seats. Subsequent rounding attributed one seat to MOBRA, for a total of 25 seats in Parliament.

If all parties would like to make it known whom their seats are going to, a full list of NS General MPs can be drawn up.

(Note: Links to the parties' manifestos can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423271).)

= = = = =

List of MPs:

Cult of TInk Party
FairyTInkArisen
Skinny87

Democratic Socialist Party
Argesia
Deleuze
Leonstein
Spaam
Knootoss

Mole and Other Burrowing Rodents' Alliance
Moleland

NS Classic Liberals
Vittos Ordination
Alien Born
Wegason
Uginin
The Amazon Desert

NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans
Crimson Sith
Undelia

Party of Whatever Works
Bitchkitten
Marmite Toast
Eutrusca

Reason Party (formerly: "Up yours!" Party)
Melkor Unchained
Xaosis Redux
Objectivist Patriots

Revolutionary Trostkyist Party
DHomme

United Democratic Communist Party
Ariddia
Pure Metal
New Burmesia


= = = = =

List of proposals formally adopted by Parliament:

* Procedures (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426484) (by 18 votes to 2)
* Right to a Fair Trial (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428161&page=1&pp=15) (by 18 votes to 1, with one abstaining vote)

Will you be linking to party manifestos from this page?

Where does it go from here? After the MPs have been chosen, will there be some kind of 'NS parliamentary debates' or something similar?

I suppose some kind of parliamentary protocol would have to be written up...

I suppose some kind of parliamentary protocol would have to be written up...

Indeed. And that can perhaps be the first thing that Parliament does. And yes, I'm hoping there will be Parliamentary debates, decisions, etc...

Indeed. And that can perhaps be the first thing that Parliament does. And yes, I'm hoping there will be Parliamentary debates, decisions, etc...

Oh, fun fun. :)

*readies AK-47's and molotov cocktails for the NS General anarchist revolution*

woohoo! 3 seats to the UDCP! not bad at all. congrads to all the parties who won seats, and commiserations to my buddy TIN who's PoO won none :(

congrats to all

OK, we here at DSP have a problem, we have 5 seats, 3 active members and a missing leader. I would like The Odd One to be in the parlaiment but don't know how to contact him... So till when do we have to tell you who is going to be in the parlaiment?

*readies AK-47's and molotov cocktails for the NS General anarchist revolution*
*prepares vanguard to hijack anarchist revolution*

W00t!
1 seat!
I have submitted myself as my parties representive...

*Evil laugh*

OK, we here at DSP have a problem, we have 5 seats, 3 active members and a missing leader. I would like The Odd One to be in the parlaiment but don't know how to contact him... So till when do we have to tell you who is going to be in the parlaiment?
well the UDCP is likely to hold internal elections to decide on two of our MPs, so i would say not to worry about time that much - a day or two isn't going to be a problem imo

Hmmm... Classic Liberals and Democratic Socialists win... imagine that... :rolleyes:

Is there gonna be another election soon? I would like to get my party in here, though it probably won't stand a chance.

*prepares vanguard to hijack anarchist revolution*

Ugh. :mad:

OK, we here at DSP have a problem, we have 5 seats, 3 active members and a missing leader. I would like The Odd One to be in the parlaiment but don't know how to contact him... So till when do we have to tell you who is going to be in the parlaiment?
I did a lot of campaigning in the past 24 hours, and got a lot of my Heartland comrades to vote for us. So if you want, I can represent the DemSocs.

What about some sort of government coalition? Right now, the Left and Right are tied at 10 seats each, with the remaining seats going to centrist or otherwise bizzare (MOBRA) parties.

I was not elected? I am not angered. I guess my ideas for government are a little too extreme for you. Perhaps one day, when you realise that Capitalism and communism just don't work, you'll try my ideas of order. On that day, I will await you.

I hereby disband the Party of Order, as it is less popular than the guy with the glasses off the Halifax adverts.

(But a bunch of Moles beating me? Ahh, it makes perfect sense.)

What about some sort of government coalition? Right now, the Left and Right are tied at 10 seats each, with the remaining seats going to centrist or otherwise bizzare (MOBRA) parties.
i'm pretty much dead against the idea of coalitions

read: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9018003&postcount=126

if there aren't coalitions on EITHER SIDE then parliament will be far more open and, as you say, we will definatley support each other on common issues, while keeping not only our party identity, but also being able to push for party-specific issues that could be swallowed up (and potentially ignored) under coalition


i still say that a parliament without the coalitions would be more free and open to a healthier & wider variety of opinons. sure there wouldn't be any definite balance of power (with no majortiy) but that would actually make it more interesting than one dominated by a single group. the different parties will band together and support each other on certain issues much as we would through coalition - forming almost like temorary alliances on a per issue basis, depending on the issue and what it means/how important it is to those parties.

perhaps, in that the MPs (UDCP as yet unchosen apart from Aridd) are soon to discuss & write the parliamentary protocol, perhaps official or long term coalitions should be disallowed? this would ensure the free & dynamic parliament as mentioned above

What about some sort of government coalition? Right now, the Left and Right are tied at 10 seats each, with the remaining seats going to centrist or otherwise bizzare (MOBRA) parties.

You calling me bizarre? I'm calling al l the other parties bizarre! you want to stay above the ground!

I was not elected? I am not angered. I guess my ideas for government are a little too extreme for you. Perhaps one day, when you realise that Capitalism and communism just don't work, you'll try my ideas of order. On that day, I will await you.

I hereby disband the Party of Order, as it is less popular than the guy with the glasses off the Halifax adverts.

(But a bunch of Moles beating me? Ahh, it makes perfect sense.)

I think the surfacers feared you. You got more than half of a seat, which rounded up should give you a seat....

I think the surfacers feared you. You got more than half of a seat, which rounded up should give you a seat....
When the rounding was done for those that achieved quorum, there was one seat left and the closest party to a seat was MOBRA, so they got the seat

Someone who got less than half a seat, should have lost one, and the PoO should have got one.

So there :p

Oh I don't care. It's only a game. I doubt Parliament will actually Achieve Anything.

With nobody forming coalitions, nothing will; happen...

I wuz thinking of starting a thread saying "Give TIN a 26th seat!"

...But nah, thats too pathetic.

*Gives TIN cookies*

Nevermind. Can continue this RP, Or shall I start my next RP?

*Gives TIN cookies*

Nevermind. Can continue this RP, Or shall I start my next RP?

Whatever. It's up to you. But this is my last week, so I was thinking of hanging around general, to prepare to say goodbye.

With nobody forming coalitions, nothing will; happen...
i disagree. the left and right parties all share common ground and respective parties will support each other on many issues. other issues will divide parliament and lead to interesting and engaging debate

this will be more interesting than an effective 2 party parliament, diametrically opposed, leading to literally nothing happening and only the coalition with greater seats being able to do anything. in fact if there is a distinct concentration of power/majority of one of the coalitions, we may as well not have a parliament as they'll just put through the policies they want, with little or no debate. whats the point in that? we have to wait till a new election just to get a different opinion?
sure that will get more done, but what are we trying to achieve anyway? this parliament is fictional and has no real power over anything. i'd rather have a fractured parliament with dynamic and interesting debate than one dominated by a single coalition which can admittedly get stuff done, but to no purpose.

Whatever. It's up to you. But this is my last week, so I was thinking of hanging around general, to prepare to say goodbye.
:eek: last week??

:eek: last week??

Yes, I leave college this week, and seeing as I still can't get that damned system to work... looks like i'm leavin' NS for good.

Yes, I leave college this week, and seeing as I still can't get that damned system to work... looks like i'm leavin' NS for good.
whats up with the PC? maybe i can help

Yes, I leave college this week, and seeing as I still can't get that damned system to work... looks like i'm leavin' NS for good.
you can't leave!

you can't leave!
what she said!

Yes, I leave college this week, and seeing as I still can't get that damned system to work... looks like i'm leavin' NS for good.

Well... Check your Pm's in a minute :(

whats up with the PC? maybe i can help

It wouldn't read any HD I tried on it... Even though they were ATA drives, and further research has discovered that aparrently I can no longer buy a compatable HD for the motherboard - So I now need to buy a new system. I'm looking into small and cheap £99 internet systems.

It wouldn't read any HD I tried on it... Even though they were ATA drives, and further research has discovered that aparrently I can no longer buy a compatable HD for the motherboard - So I now need to buy a new system. I'm looking into small and cheap £99 internet systems.
i had no idea.... that sucks dude :(
it probably depends on the type of ATA you're using. i doubt that motherboard can handle anything above ATA100. but then even if you were using ATA133+ HDs it should have worked, just at slower ATA100 speed... what did you discover to be the incompatibility? again maybe i can help, save you some cash, and prevent you from having to leave :(:(


edit: you weren't trying serialATA HDs on there were you? :confused:

Oh don't worry PM... perhaps I need to get away from the computer for a while anyway, and try to improve my social skills.

Oh don't worry PM... perhaps I need to get away from the computer for a while anyway, and try to improve my social skills.
well it would be more than a damn shame to see you go :(

don't forget to do a farewell thread, and if you like we can keep your nation alive should you ever wish to return (tink already has the codes right?)

Oh don't worry PM... perhaps I need to get away from the computer for a while anyway, and try to improve my social skills.
They're overrated

well it would be more than a damn shame to see you go :(

don't forget to do a farewell thread, and if you like we can keep your nation alive should you ever wish to return (tink already has the codes right?)

I'm giving TIN to Moleland for RP purposes until IF I return.

well you should return... just come and check up on us in a few months when you can :)


and back to the election: when will the next elections be held? the term of office should be set as part of this parliamentary protocol we're discussing.

i say every 6 months. a year would be too long considering the turnaround of this place (with posters leaving and the rate at which noobs join) and could lead to issues and parliament in general becoming quite stale.
perhaps even 6 months is too long... how about 4?




and just reaffirming my anti-coalition stance http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9018223&postcount=29

They're overrated

LOL

well you should return... just come and check up on us in a few months when you can :)


and back to the election: when will the next elections be held? the term of office should be set as part of this parliamentary protocol we're discussing.

i say every 6 months. a year would be too long considering the turnaround of this place (with posters leaving and the rate at which noobs join) and could lead to issues and parliament in general becoming quite stale.
perhaps even 6 months is too long... how about 4?

and just reaffirming my anti-coalition stance http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9018223&postcount=29

I think we'll soon find that Parliament collapses into verbal fisticuffs between Right and left, and the crazy people who Nuke everyone and kill all surfacers with Giant rats...

and back to the election: when will the next elections be held? the term of office should be set as part of this parliamentary protocol we're discussing.

i say every 6 months. a year would be too long considering the turnaround of this place (with posters leaving and the rate at which noobs join) and could lead to issues and parliament in general becoming quite stale.
perhaps even 6 months is too long... how about 4?

and just reaffirming my anti-coalition stance http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9018223&postcount=29
3 months would be better length of time between elections i feel. Four elections a year is nice thing to have.

*readies AK-47's and molotov cocktails for the NS General anarchist revolution*

Readies his semtex and AK as well :sniper:

*makes a secret anarchists hideout in his basement with food and beer*

With nobody forming coalitions, nothing will; happen...

As it should.....politicans should NEVER actually be able to effect the lives of people at all...EVER

*makes a secret anarchists hideout in his basement with food and beer*

Woohoo!!

*throws beer at Libertarian Gun Owners*

Woohoo!!

*throws beer at Libertarian Gun Owners*
Hey! It's a place to hide...... you know.....like when you just blew up Melkor Unchained (hint hint) and the coppers are after you...

*sigh*

*gets new beer*

Hey! It's a place to hide...... you know.....like when you just blew up Melkor Unchained (hint hint) and the coppers are after you...

*sigh*

*gets new beer*

I understand.

...

*Throws beer at Libertarian Gun Owners*

*Eats Kanabia*

Mmm... human...

I understand.

...

*Throws beer at Libertarian Gun Owners*
:rolleyes: Men!

*gets water instead of beer*

So,

Do we have a Social Democratic PM or a Classical Liberal PM?

Don't tell me we have to count ridings :rolleyes: ?

Ahhh...Politics....

*Bridges fingers*

Voting...coalitions...national governments...corruption...bribery...propaganda...blackmail...

Now I really do feel at home. Let the briber....I mean democratic process begin!

So,

Do we have a Social Democratic PM or a Classical Liberal PM?

Don't tell me we have to count ridings :rolleyes: ?

I don't think we have a PM. Each Party represented is likely to have a leader, but this is of course up to them (some may be more equal than others I suppose), but as there is no clear government and no likelyhood of a majority coalition forming, it is going to be a much more active parliament that the real world produces. We need a little time to organise and negotiate both internally and between parties. Then we will se what emerges.

Readies his semtex and AK as well :sniper:

Very realistic! Nothing's settled, and revolution is beginning already! :p

Pah you're just a bunch of poser revolutionaries

I think we need introduce some debating proceedure.

1. Any party is allowed to draw up some issue and 'law' to vote on (One at a time... obviously)

2. The 'Submitter' is allowed to have a member of there party talk about it.

3. Each party (In alfabetical(Sp?) order) is allowed to say what they think of it. When the partiy representive has finished, any party can ask them a questio. When the representive doesn't wish to answer anymore questions, or no more sensible questions are being asked, debate moves on.

4. When al parties have their say, everyone votes.

5. Options will be 'For, against, abstain'.

6. If the majority votes for, what has been voted for becomes 'law'.

7. If the majority votes against, it does not become law. HOWEVER If the number of peopel who abstained plus those who voted for would make a majority, the vote is retaken (With nobody allowed to abstain).

This any good?

http://ns.goobergunch.net/nsg1.png

Heh, I hope it all falls apart.

I think we need introduce some debating proceedure.

1. Any party is allowed to draw up some issue and 'law' to vote on (One at a time... obviously)

2. The 'Submitter' is allowed to have a member of there party talk about it.

3. Each party (In alfabetical(Sp?) order) is allowed to say what they think of it. When the partiy representive has finished, any party can ask them a questio. When the representive doesn't wish to answer anymore questions, or no more sensible questions are being asked, debate moves on.

4. When al parties have their say, everyone votes.

5. Options will be 'For, against, abstain'.

6. If the majority votes for, what has been voted for becomes 'law'.

7. If the majority votes against, it does not become law. HOWEVER If the number of peopel who abstained plus those who voted for would make a majority, the vote is retaken (With nobody allowed to abstain).

This any good?


It has some weaknesses in that there is no account taken of the relative strengths of the parties in the debate phase (one post per party is not representative) It also does not allow response to be made to claims by any opposition.

I prefer time limited debates rather than post count limited. There would of course have to be rules on behaviour. No flamming, no ad hominems etc.

Maybe for each debate one mp can be a moderator, with that mp having a deciding vote in the result of a tie. (Probably the person proposing the motion). The moderator would require sources for statistical claims, castigate out of order posts (offensive, baiting etc) and general keep the debate in order. Think of the speaker in the House of Commons in the UK, but on a rotating basis, not as a fixed position.

However there are some other items that need to be dealt with first.

Is there to be a codified constitution, and if so how is this to be decided? (I am opposed personally, but it needs to be discussed)

What are to be the rules of procedure in the parliament? (A discussion we are starting here above)

How do we keep Parliament orderly and effective? (Hecklers etc?)
(I propose a debate thread with a parallel comment/heckle thread. A standard NS MPs only post here, others post in this link, type paragraph at the top of the debate.)

What is the term of office?
(I go with PMs 4 months but we cut it short by one week and hold the election in that week. 3 elections a year. We have to try to time these so that they do not clash with holiday periods or Christmas etc.)

It has some weaknesses in that there is no account taken of the relative strengths of the parties in the debate phase (one post per party is not representative) It also does not allow response to be made to claims by any opposition.

I prefer time limited debates rather than post count limited. There would of course have to be rules on behaviour. No flamming, no ad hominems etc.

Maybe for each debate one mp can be a moderator, with that mp having a deciding vote in the result of a tie. (Probably the person proposing the motion). The moderator would require sources for statistical claims, castigate out of order posts (offensive, baiting etc) and general keep the debate in order. Think of the speaker in the House of Commons in the UK, but on a rotating basis, not as a fixed position.

However there are some other items that need to be dealt with first.

Is there to be a codified constitution, and if so how is this to be decided? (I am opposed personally, but it needs to be discussed)

What are to be the rules of procedure in the parliament? (A discussion we are starting here above)

How do we keep Parliament orderly and effective? (Hecklers etc?)
(I propose a debate thread with a parallel comment/heckle thread. A standard NS MPs only post here, others post in this link, type paragraph at the top of the debate.)

What is the term of office?
(I go with PMs 4 months but we cut it short by one week and hold the election in that week. 3 elections a year. We have to try to time these so that they do not clash with holiday periods or Christmas etc.)

Fair enough

Not entirely sure how to put this but should we have like a set amount of votes a bill has to pass by to avoid those oh so irritating 12-13 voting possibilities?

http://www.hlj.me.uk/poof.jpg

Maybe for each debate one mp can be a moderator, with that mp having a deciding vote in the result of a tie. (Probably the person proposing the motion). The moderator would require sources for statistical claims, castigate out of order posts (offensive, baiting etc) and general keep the debate in order. Think of the speaker in the House of Commons in the UK, but on a rotating basis, not as a fixed position.

How do we keep Parliament orderly and effective? (Hecklers etc?)
(I propose a debate thread with a parallel comment/heckle thread. A standard NS MPs only post here, others post in this link, type paragraph at the top of the debate.)

What is the term of office?
(I go with PMs 4 months but we cut it short by one week and hold the election in that week. 3 elections a year. We have to try to time these so that they do not clash with holiday periods or Christmas etc.)
i like those first two ideas especially - perhaps we can even get the MP discussion thread stickied and leave the comment thread normal. of course an alternative could be for the NS MPs to use another offsite forum like Goobergunchia's one http://ns.goobergunch.net/general/

agreed that we should keep the elections out of holiday times. i think that should include exam times for all the students on here. i know, personally, that the election has played havoc with my revision :p


and we need to discuss the isse of coalitions. i'm dead against (see post 26 in this thread i think)

The parliamentary representatives for The Meritocratic Representative Republican Party are:
Zethistania
Crimson Sith

Congratulations to one and all, I look forward to working with you.

Perhaps this idea http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9018953&postcount=1797

Would be a good one for getting a Prime Minister? Just a thought.

Perhaps this idea http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9018953&postcount=1797

Would be a good one for getting a Prime Minister? Just a thought.

I very much like this idea myself. :)

It could work Wegason, but the question is why do we need a prime minister? It is not like we have to have someone to represent us to other nations.

It could work Wegason, but the question is why do we need a prime minister? It is not like we have to have someone to represent us to other nations. A very good point, meh, maybe a sort of figurehead? To stand as speaker, to organise parliament, ensure bills are heard and debated on perhaps?

http://ns.goobergunch.net/nsg1.png

I just wanted to note that the MRR should be left of the Classic Liberals on this spectrum.

It could work Wegason, but the question is why do we need a prime minister? It is not like we have to have someone to represent us to other nations.
its a good idea for getting a PM imo, and it may be useful to have a PM to cast a deciding vote in a tie for example, especially if coalitions are off the adgenda (i hope)

A very good point, meh, maybe a sort of figurehead? To stand as speaker, to organise parliament, ensure bills are heard and debated on perhaps?

Yes indeed. We need an arbitor, someone who will keep order and observe protocol during parliamentary sessions. If not a Prime Minisiter, then at least a Speaker of the House is in order.

i like those first two ideas especially - perhaps we can even get the MP discussion thread stickied and leave the comment thread normal. of course an alternative could be for the NS MPs to use another offsite forum like Goobergunchia's one http://ns.goobergunch.net/general/

agreed that we should keep the elections out of holiday times. i think that should include exam times for all the students on here. i know, personally, that the election has played havoc with my revision :p


and we need to discuss the isse of coalitions. i'm dead against (see post 26 in this thread i think)

I dont think we should ask for stickies. It is not too hard to subscribe to thread after all. I was considering more a separate thread for each debate, with a public poll attached. Only votes of registered MPs would be counted at the end. The advice would be not to vote until the end of the debate, as if everyone votes at the start there is no reason to debate. (Perhaps add the poll after a set time of debate, and leave for two or three days for voting.)

Coalitions are a matter for the individual parties to decide. It is not a matter for the body politic to rule on as a general case. If you are opposed, then do not support any coalition, but your opposition to them should not prevent others who wish to use them from doing so.

It could work Wegason, but the question is why do we need a prime minister? It is not like we have to have someone to represent us to other nations.C'mon, think of the power, the prestige, the fame! I mean, what do the earls and barons and whatnot in Britain do? Not much. But they're popular! ;)


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

A very good point, meh, maybe a sort of figurehead? To stand as speaker, to organise parliament, ensure bills are heard and debated on perhaps?

I had a rather fairer suggestion for this:

Maybe for each debate one mp can be a moderator, with that mp having a deciding vote in the result of a tie. (Probably the person proposing the motion). The moderator would require sources for statistical claims, castigate out of order posts (offensive, baiting etc) and general keep the debate in order. Think of the speaker in the House of Commons in the UK, but on a rotating basis, not as a fixed position.

I do not think that the burden of moderating 24 NS posters should always be on the shoulders of one person. It should rotate around the Parliament. Now this could be a simple rota, or it could be that the party bringing forward the matter for debate nominates one of its own members as moderator.

Organising parliament wshould be the first matter of the first session, Setting up parliamentry rules, standards of behaviour, procedural directives etc. so that from there on we can debate the politics without too many fights.

Pah you're just a bunch of poser revolutionaries

Fine then, don't join the coup. See if I care.


...

please?

:p

I dont think we should ask for stickies. It is not too hard to subscribe to thread after all. I was considering more a separate thread for each debate, with a public poll attached. Only votes of registered MPs would be counted at the end. The advice would be not to vote until the end of the debate, as if everyone votes at the start there is no reason to debate. (Perhaps add the poll after a set time of debate, and leave for two or three days for voting.)

Coalitions are a matter for the individual parties to decide. It is not a matter for the body politic to rule on as a general case. If you are opposed, then do not support any coalition, but your opposition to them should not prevent others who wish to use them from doing so.
frankly i think coalitions would utterly wreck the parliamentary process and everything all these parties and posters have worked to achieve over the last couple of weeks. coalitions should be outlawed from the parliamentary process to protect that very process

but i agree with your ideas in the first part. perhaps the role of a prime minister should be to start those debate threads and act as the speaker of the house (as was mentioned earlier, rather than being a rotating MP). the PM could then start the poll neutrally, rather than when the starter of the thread/proposer of bill decides its in their favour to do so (like if they are currently winning the debate)

of course the role of PM would have to come with certain responsibilites, therefore.

maybe instead of a PM we should have a neutral mediator/leader of the house?

frankly i think coalitions would utterly wreck the parliamentary process and everything all these parties and posters have worked to achieve over the last couple of weeks. coalitions should be outlawed from the parliamentary process to protect that very process
Stop trying to impose your political views on others here. It is not, and never has been, anywhere a matter of parliamenty concern whether parties aly or not. If you ban it officially it will simply occur behind the scenes. (see the history of the odd one and the proposed alliance of DSP with your party.) It is up to the parties what they decide to do. Decreeing that coalitions are illegal or compulsory is ridiculous.

but i agree with your ideas in the first part. perhaps the role of a prime minister should be to start those debate threads and act as the speaker of the house (as was mentioned earlier, rather than being a rotating MP). the PM could then start the poll neutrally, rather than when the starter of the thread/proposer of bill decides its in their favour to do so (like if they are currently winning the debate)

of course the role of PM would have to come with certain responsibilites, therefore.

maybe instead of a PM we should have a neutral mediator/leader of the house?
Why should it always be the same person? Why not a rota systyem? The PM has no more power than any other MP here, so it matters not if they are from DSP or MOBRA, all that matters is that the debate is started, and that it is moderated. To ask one person to do this all the time is a cruel and unusual punishment for being nominated an MP in my opinion.

Stop trying to impose your political views on others here. It is not, and never has been, anywhere a matter of parliamenty concern whether parties aly or not. If you ban it officially it will simply occur behind the scenes. (see the history of the odd one and the proposed alliance of DSP with your party.) It is up to the parties what they decide to do. Decreeing that coalitions are illegal or compulsory is ridiculous.


can you not see how much these coalitions will damage the parliamentary process? how having an effective two party parliament is pointless when we aren't trying to achive anything specific, and that if one coalition gains majority of seats we may as well abandon having a parliament alltogether?
a coaliton system will take the politics away from the public eye and parliament, and subvert it into 'back alley' inter-party deals and politics... which is simply not what this is all about!
for the good of the parliament coalitions should be banned, or at least parties should swear not to form them.

just because its not done in other RL systems doesn't mean its not the best thing for OUR system


[Why should it always be the same person? Why not a rota systyem? The PM has no more power than any other MP here, so it matters not if they are from DSP or MOBRA, all that matters is that the debate is started, and that it is moderated. To ask one person to do this all the time is a cruel and unusual punishment for being nominated an MP in my opinion.
i suggested the PM have this power because there is great responsibility with organising debates, forming the polls, essentially modding the debates and so forth. i don't think all MPs are trustworthy with this responsibility and a single, elected PM could be more trusted and better held to account for any wrongful actions.
what matters is not just that the debate is moderated, as you say, but moderated WELL and FAIRLY.

it would be a lot of responsibility and would quite likely take a fair amount of time, but lets say only those who put themselves forward for nomination to be PM should be candidates. that way the responsibility is theirs and theirs alone if they have chosen to take up the task, and understand the pressures they'll be under.

Fine then, don't join the coup. See if I care.


...

please?

:p
I'm gonna have my own coup... with blackjack and hookers.

In fact, forget the coup!

Whats the point in having a PM- it'll just give too much power to either the righties or the lefties and the other side will constantly piss and moan about it

I agree with DHomme, it would overthrow a delicate balance of power.

Whats the point in having a PM- it'll just give too much power to either the righties or the lefties and the other side will constantly piss and moan about it
there is great truth in this post, says yoda (mmmmmhmm)

if we all take responsibility to moderate our own debates and can trust the thread starter to produce unbiased polls at the end of the debate period (a very good idea there AB), then there is no need for a PM.

It wouldn't read any HD I tried on it... Even though they were ATA drives, and further research has discovered that aparrently I can no longer buy a compatable HD for the motherboard - So I now need to buy a new system. I'm looking into small and cheap £99 internet systems.
Let me know if you're having trouble raising the $$$. I might be able to help a bit. :)

can you not see how much these coalitions will damage the parliamentary process? how having an effective two party parliament is pointless when we aren't trying to achive anything specific, and that if one coalition gains majority of seats we may as well abandon having a parliament alltogether?
a coaliton system will take the politics away from the public eye and parliament, and subvert it into 'back alley' inter-party deals and politics... which is simply not what this is all about!
for the good of the parliament coalitions should be banned, or at least parties should swear not to form them.

just because its not done in other RL systems doesn't mean its not the best thing for OUR systemI cannot agree, coalitions must be allowed to form but the rules must say that no party can force another to vote one way as that is impossible and that MPs can go against their party line if they so wish without being ejected from Parliament (they will just be deselected next time round most likely).
i suggested the PM have this power because there is great responsibility with organising debates, forming the polls, essentially modding the debates and so forth. i don't think all MPs are trustworthy with this responsibility and a single, elected PM could be more trusted and better held to account for any wrongful actions.
what matters is not just that the debate is moderated, as you say, but moderated WELL and FAIRLY.

it would be a lot of responsibility and would quite likely take a fair amount of time, but lets say only those who put themselves forward for nomination to be PM should be candidates. that way the responsibility is theirs and theirs alone if they have chosen to take up the task, and understand the pressures they'll be under.

They must be elected, if only one candidate then a majority must be in favour of them. They can also be removed from office by a majority vote against or a 60% vote against if it is felt that they are not acting fairly or allowing debate.

As it should.....politicans should NEVER actually be able to effect the lives of people at all...EVER
ROFL! Interesting position! :D

Should we create an off-site forum for the parliament?

I'm gonna have my own coup... with blackjack and hookers.

In fact, forget the coup!

Yeah, sod it. Let's just get drunk and whinge about how unfair everything is later.

They must be elected, if only one candidate then a majority must be in favour of them. They can also be removed from office by a majority vote against or a 60% vote against if it is felt that they are not acting fairly or allowing debate.
they must indeed be elected, and agreed.
but it comes back to the question of whether we need a PM.
I cannot agree, coalitions must be allowed to form but the rules must say that no party can force another to vote one way as that is impossible and that MPs can go against their party line if they so wish without being ejected from Parliament (they will just be deselected next time round most likely).
if coalitions are allowed we'll see the whole parliament dissolve into petty inter-party politics, unfair balances of power and a great big mess.
i'd rather restrict the "freedoms" of the parties here and disallow coalitions than to see the parliamentary process ruined in the name of "freedom"

A very good point, meh, maybe a sort of figurehead? To stand as speaker, to organise parliament, ensure bills are heard and debated on perhaps?
Sounds like a good idea to me. :)

I dont think we should ask for stickies. It is not too hard to subscribe to thread after all. I was considering more a separate thread for each debate, with a public poll attached. Only votes of registered MPs would be counted at the end. The advice would be not to vote until the end of the debate, as if everyone votes at the start there is no reason to debate. (Perhaps add the poll after a set time of debate, and leave for two or three days for voting.)

Coalitions are a matter for the individual parties to decide. It is not a matter for the body politic to rule on as a general case. If you are opposed, then do not support any coalition, but your opposition to them should not prevent others who wish to use them from doing so.
I like this, all except for the idea of a public poll for each debate. Those, IMHO, should be started by the individuals ( regardless of party membership ) who have an interest in a particular debate, as an entirely separate thread.

If we're not careful, we could wind up making the entire process far more cumbersome than it needs to be. Things are going to be tough enough without adding lots of unnecessary encumbrances.

frankly i think coalitions would utterly wreck the parliamentary process and everything all these parties and posters have worked to achieve over the last couple of weeks. coalitions should be outlawed from the parliamentary process to protect that very process

but i agree with your ideas in the first part. perhaps the role of a prime minister should be to start those debate threads and act as the speaker of the house (as was mentioned earlier, rather than being a rotating MP). the PM could then start the poll neutrally, rather than when the starter of the thread/proposer of bill decides its in their favour to do so (like if they are currently winning the debate)

of course the role of PM would have to come with certain responsibilites, therefore.

maybe instead of a PM we should have a neutral mediator/leader of the house?
Good luck "outlawing" coalitions! How would you even monitor that, much less prohibit it???

I like this, all except for the idea of a public poll for each debate. Those, IMHO, should be started by the individuals ( regardless of party membership ) who have an interest in a particular debate, as an entirely separate thread.

If we're not careful, we could wind up making the entire process far more cumbersome than it needs to be. Things are going to be tough enough without adding lots of unnecessary encumbrances.

Maybe I'm going retarded, but it seems to me that you disagreed with him, and then repeated exactly what he just wrote using different wording. Could someone explain please?

Good luck "outlawing" coalitions! How would you even monitor that, much less prohibit it???
There is no way to do so. There are ways to form a coalition without the general public being aware.

if coalitions are allowed we'll see the whole parliament dissolve into petty inter-party politics, unfair balances of power and a great big mess.
i'd rather restrict the "freedoms" of the parties here and disallow coalitions than to see the parliamentary process ruined in the name of "freedom"
Coalitions will be formed if it is banned or not. If you ban it, and you see parties voting together on certain issues frequently, you'll just see accusations of coalition forming when they could just be agreeing with things.

As long as MPs are allowed to vote freely coalitions will not be that strong, the centrist parties will not subscribe to the radical liberal economic agenda nor any socialist one. The socialists will oppose the abolition of private property from the communist side. Depending on peoples views social issues will be different across the spectrum. I'd vote for gun control, others in my party would vote against it for example.

[B] Why should it always be the same person? Why not a rota systyem? The PM has no more power than any other MP here, so it matters not if they are from DSP or MOBRA, all that matters is that the debate is started, and that it is moderated. To ask one person to do this all the time is a cruel and unusual punishment for being nominated an MP in my opinion.
I rather suspect a rota system would make the Parliament even more unworkable. I recommend electing a PM every time new elections are held. That way, the office of PM would reflect any changes in the allocation of seats. If we like, we could also make a "no confidence" proviso whereby the MPs could require a PM to stand for re-election.

Maybe I'm going retarded, but it seems to me that you disagreed with him, and then repeated exactly what he just wrote using different wording. Could someone explain please?I must be going retarded too, i thought that

I rather suspect a rota system would make the Parliament even more unworkable. I recommend electing a PM every time new elections are held. That way, the office of PM would reflect any changes in the allocation of seats. If we like, we could also make a "no confidence" proviso whereby the MPs could require a PM to stand for re-election.I suggested that earlier in the thread. Edit: post 87

I have an idea to make the votng process in the election less corrupt. A week or so before the election people have to register to vote. There will be a cut-off point. We make the poll a public one and count only the registered voters. That still allows puppeteering, but it gives it a beating.

Should we create an off-site forum for the parliament?
I recommend that we have an off-site forum for non-public sessions of Parliment, but hold all public debates in a thread on here created for that purpose. There are times when any public body needs to talk among themselves without the glare of publicity! :)

I recommend that we have an off-site forum for non-public sessions of Parliment, but hold all public debates in a thread on here created for that purpose. There are times when any public body needs to talk among themselves without the glare of publicity! :)
Each party could have a section of their own for offices, etc.

There is no way to do so. There are ways to form a coalition without the general public being aware.
One again, my distinguished colleage on the right has clearly elucidated the problem. :)

Each party could have a section of their own for offices, etc.
Sounds workable to me! :)

I suggested that earlier in the thread. Edit: post 87
I know. I didn't see your post on that until after I had already commented. :)

I rather suspect a rota system would make the Parliament even more unworkable. I recommend electing a PM every time new elections are held. That way, the office of PM would reflect any changes in the allocation of seats. If we like, we could also make a "no confidence" proviso whereby the MPs could require a PM to stand for re-election.


What is this obsession everyone has with having a PM. The role of the PM is to represent the country to other countries. In NS we do not have other countries. If what you want is a speaker, as a fixed figure for each term, then fine, but bear in mind that the speaker can not participate in the debate. They are a moderator and that only. They do not even get to vote unless the vote is tied.

These are the reasons why the speaker position should change with each debate. It is not complicated to do this. Either a random list is generated once all the MPs are known (easily done) or the party moving the motion nominates from their MPs a speaker for that debate. Why do you consider that it would be complicated to do this?

Sounds workable to me! :)
What should be used, the average Invisionfree, phbbp, or something of a higher quality?

OK, we here at DSP have a problem, we have 5 seats, 3 active members and a missing leader. I would like The Odd One to be in the parlaiment but don't know how to contact him... So till when do we have to tell you who is going to be in the parlaiment?
Wow. And you WON?

See what happens when you put Socialists in power?







/me runs :p

These are the reasons why the speaker position should change with each debate. It is not complicated to do this. Either a random list is generated once all the MPs are known (easily done) or the party moving the motion nominates from their MPs a speaker for that debate. Why do you consider that it would be complicated to do this?
I think that they mean an PM as a sort of clerk to keep track of all debates and records. If I am mistaken I apologise.

Maybe I'm going retarded, but it seems to me that you disagreed with him, and then repeated exactly what he just wrote using different wording. Could someone explain please?
Perhaps I misunderstood, or was unclear.

I think the votes of individual members of Parliament should be made public knowledge, but trying to use a Jolt thread poll for voting by them would be impossible to control, IMHO. Everyone who wanted to toss a monkey wrench into the works could vote, yes?

I strongly recommend that we create an entirely separate form for use by Parlaiment for all actions except public debate. Public debates could be held in here on NS, even though there would be the occasional heckler. :)

Coalitions will be formed if it is banned or not. If you ban it, and you see parties voting together on certain issues frequently, you'll just see accusations of coalition forming when they could just be agreeing with things.

As long as MPs are allowed to vote freely coalitions will not be that strong, the centrist parties will not subscribe to the radical liberal economic agenda nor any socialist one. The socialists will oppose the abolition of private property from the communist side. Depending on peoples views social issues will be different across the spectrum. I'd vote for gun control, others in my party would vote against it for example.
coalitions involve compromise and a coming together of policies from a number of parties. on a great number of issues coalitions would simply lead to two sets of MPs towing their coalition's compromised line/policy.

for example in the left wing coalition we were having to discuss how we were going to accomodate and compromise our divergent policies to form an effective single voice. if this happens on both sides or parliament

i'm not saying this won't happen - in fact i was banking on parties supporting common policies, to form, effectively, short-term coalitions, in earlier posts. in this way MPs would be truly able to vote freely, and thus we'll have a more dynamic parliament.
official & entrenched coalitions will only serve to bog down the system and lead us to a 2 party state, with only mild disagreements on the (extremist) fringes. and thats not forgetting that a coalition with majority control of parliament will have an unfair balance of power, being able to push through almost whatever they want (see Tony Blair's 2nd term majority). sure this wouldn't be a problem if MPs are still able to 'vote freely' irrespective of their coalition, but then what is the point of having coalitions in the first place? their existance threatens the freedom of the parliamentary process! not allowing them will help to move us towards such freedom.

Perhaps I misunderstood, or was unclear.

I think the votes of individual members of Parliament should be made public knowledge, but trying to use a Jolt thread poll for voting by them would be impossible to control, IMHO. Everyone who wanted to toss a monkey wrench into the works could vote, yes?

I strongly recommend that we create an entirely separate form for use by Parlaiment for all actions except public debate. Public debates could be held in here on NS, even though there would be the occasional heckler. :)

It would allow people to see the debate and also to maybe join in if we want that? Its a good idea, i favour an external forum for us to vote on.

What should be used, the average Invisionfree, phbbp, or something of a higher quality?
Something easily understood and easily used, IHMO. We have no idea at this point how long this Parlaiment will exist. I forsee MPs who will have real life intereferences, who lose interest and just wander off, etc. Let's take it a bit slow, keep it as simple as possible, and see what happens, yes? :)

Edit----------

Edit: Just read Eutrisca's post.

Should there be a thread, non-sticky, that has the rules of the Parliament so that the general public can see them? I am not sure if this has been covered already.
Yes. How about a thread dedicated to activities of Parliament, with the first post being the Parliamentary rules we decide on?

It would allow people to see the debate and also to maybe join in if we want that? Its a good idea, i favour an external forum for us to vote on.
I shudder to imagine some of the posts we will have from the public, but if other members agree, then I will go along.

I think that all votes by Parliament should be made public, even if the actual process of voting is done in a different forum. The political process should be as transparent as possible, IMHO.

OK, I've been away for the past six hours, and you've all been very busy, so bear with me. ;)

Regarding a PM, I'm neither in favour nor against it, and if we are to have one I agree he/she should be elected by Parliament amongst candidates put forth by each party, in a two-round election. Also, the PM would have to be an MP (so as not to give any party an extra seat/vote!), and would have a purely honorary function.

A House speaker or whatnot to keep order to debates, on a rotational basis, is indeed a good idea, I think. And I also agree that elections should be held every three months (or maybe four), with no elections being held during certain holidays when few people are available.

Here was what I was thinking, for debates. Tell me what you think:

Any MP can put furth a proposal, keeping it short and to the point: just a few lines to describe a principle. Parliament then has, say, five days to decide whether or not to take it further (i.e., whether to vote on it). If a majority of MPs approve the idea of discussing, and voting on, that principle, then the MP who suggested it then prepares a more detailed version of it, and submits it to discussion and vote by Parliament.

When a proposal has been approved for discussion, then no other proposals may be submitted until that proposal has been voted on. But as long as no proposal has been approved for discussion, there can be several proposals put forth for consideration (so as to keep things active and interesting). The House organiser (or whatever) keeps track of these proposals, and of the date by which they must be approved by a majority of MPs in order to enter the stage of formal discussion.

Wow. And you WON?

See what happens when you put Socialists in power?

/me runs :p

I took this as joke with no harm intetions and laugh at it from the bottom of my heart. I hope it was ment that way ;)

I have a question, how do you envision those debates, if you think that we'll be debating at the same time, I think it's kind of impossible, different time zones, or previous ocupation, and also I'm quite busy during the summer (holidays, camps, etc...) so what happens if one doesn't vote, debate a topic?

I think that all votes by Parliament should be made public, even if the actual process of voting is done in a different forum. The political process should be as transparent as possible, IMHO.

I agree. MPs are accountable to the voters, so it should be known what each MP votes on every issue.

Perhaps I misunderstood, or was unclear.

I think the votes of individual members of Parliament should be made public knowledge, but trying to use a Jolt thread poll for voting by them would be impossible to control, IMHO. Everyone who wanted to toss a monkey wrench into the works could vote, yes?

I strongly recommend that we create an entirely separate form for use by Parlaiment for all actions except public debate. Public debates could be held in here on NS, even though there would be the occasional heckler. :)

So long as it is a public poll, it would not be too difficult to find the 25 MPs amongst the listed voters. This could then be reported at the end of the debate. Making it clear where each MP stands (essential for democracy) and allowing non MPs to track the voting. If the poll included "I am not an MP- Yea", and "I am not an MP - Nay" options so people can see the partial results and express their opinion it should not be too difficult to clean at the end.

I object strongly to the NS parliament voting outside of NS. We are representatives of the forum users who voted for us, we should be here and visible to them. I would recommend boycotting any movement to use an external forum for voting, on this basis and on the basis of the security of the off site poll.

OK, I've been away for the past six hours, and you've all been very busy, so bear with me. ;)

Regarding a PM, I'm neither in favour nor against it, and if we are to have one I agree he/she should be elected by Parliament amongst candidates put forth by each party, in a two-round election. Also, the PM would have to be an MP (so as not to give any party an extra seat/vote!), and would have a purely honorary function.

A House speaker or whatnot to keep order to debates, on a rotational basis, is indeed a good idea, I think. And I also agree that elections should be held every three months (or maybe four), with no elections being held during certain holidays when few people are available.

Here was what I was thinking, for debates. Tell me what you think:

Any MP can put furth a proposal, keeping it short and to the point: just a few lines to describe a principle. Parliament then has, say, five days to decide whether or not to take it further (i.e., whether to vote on it). If a majority of MPs approve the idea of discussing, and voting on, that principle, then the MP who suggested it then prepares a more detailed version of it, and submits it to discussion and vote by Parliament.

When a proposal has been approved for discussion, then no other proposals may be submitted until that proposal has been voted on. But as long as no proposal has been approved for discussion, there can be several proposals put forth for consideration (so as to keep things active and interesting). The House organiser (or whatever) keeps track of these proposals, and of the date by which they must be approved by a majority of MPs in order to enter the stage of formal discussion.
Do we really need two offices in the Parliament? In the interests of keeping things as simple as possible, I would prefer to see the PM perform both functions you have suggested above. What thinkest thou? :)

So long as it is a public poll, it would not be too difficult to find the 25 MPs amongst the listed voters. This could then be reported at the end of the debate. Making it clear where each MP stands (essential for democracy) and allowing non MPs to track the voting. If the poll included "I am not an MP- Yea", and "I am not an MP - Nay" options so people can see the partial results and express their opinion it should not be too difficult to clean at the end.

I object strongly to the NS parliament voting outside of NS. We are representatives of the forum users who voted for us, we should be here and visible to them. I would recommend boycotting any movement to use an external forum for voting, on this basis and on the basis of the security of the off site poll.
Good points. I simply don't know how it would be possible to separate the votes of MPs from the votes of "private citizens." Or are you speaking of a poll where each person who votes is identified? That would be fine with me, and would also make the process even more transparent, as you indicate.

Upon further thought, I agree with the concept of making voting public, especially since the issues with which this Parliament will be dealing aren't going to change the course of history. :)

How do we establish and register a party for the next election?

Good points. I simply don't know how it would be possible to separate the votes of MPs from the votes of "private citizens." Or are you speaking of a poll where each person who votes is identified? That would be fine with me, and would also make the process even more transparent, as you indicate.

Upon further thought, I agree with the concept of making voting public, especially since the issues with which this Parliament will be dealing aren't going to change the course of history. :)

When you create a poll on NS there is an option to make it public or private. If you make it public then when you click on one of the poll options in the thread it shows the username of who voted for which option. This is the type of poll we should use, and also use for the next election to prevent puppeteering. (with the asisstance of a mod or two)

When you create a poll on NS there is an option to make it public or private. If you make it public then when you click on one of the poll options in the thread it shows the username of who voted for which option. This is the type of poll we should use, and also use for the next election to prevent puppeteering. (with the asisstance of a mod or two)
Who will be maintaining the official list of MPs?

How do we establish and register a party for the next election?

You esatablish it by creating a thread, attracting membersa etc. When the next election comes around there will be an election thread in which you will have to post a link to your manifesto to register. It may be that some other criteria will be established, by the existing parliament, but that is how it stands at the moment.

But you are always welcome to join the Classic Liberals for now. :D

Do we really need two offices in the Parliament? In the interests of keeping things as simple as possible, I would prefer to see the PM perform both functions you have suggested above. What thinkest thou? :)

A PM on a rotational basis, then? ;) Well, why not...

Who will be maintaining the official list of MPs?

Look at post 1 of this thread for now. What will happen in the future I am not sure, but each party could nominate its MPs for each debate at the start of the debate. This would allow for substitution of MPs due to RL commitments (exams/work/holidays etc.) I think I like this idea. Comments?

Edit: Rotational PM with this system would have to be done by the PM being allocated to the debate by seat number, and the parties having fixed seat numbers that they occupy for that debate as they internally define.

When you create a poll on NS there is an option to make it public or private. If you make it public then when you click on one of the poll options in the thread it shows the username of who voted for which option. This is the type of poll we should use, and also use for the next election to prevent puppeteering. (with the asisstance of a mod or two)

I agree on a public poll for votes in Parliament. For the next election, a public poll may be a good idea (if a mod would be willing to weed out cheats); the only thing I'm concerned about is that it may dissuade some people from voting. Still, a lot of voters seemed willing (and eager) to say whom they had voted for... ;)

I want an external forum merely to set up offices and also to not fill up the NS forum with Parliament related threads. Voting should be public, but maintain an extenal forum for record keeping and offices.

I agree on a public poll for votes in Parliament. For the next election, a public poll may be a good idea (if a mod would be willing to weed out cheats); the only thing I'm concerned about is that it may dissuade some people from voting. Still, a lot of voters seemed willing (and eager) to say whom they had voted for... ;)

The reason for secret ballots in RL is to eliminate intimidation and strong arm tactics. On an anonymous internet forum, this is not a problem. If you do not want the general public to know who you voted for, then creatre a puppet and vote with that, but not with your main nation. Secrecy can still be there.

I object strongly to the NS parliament voting outside of NS. We are representatives of the forum users who voted for us, we should be here and visible to them. I would recommend boycotting any movement to use an external forum for voting, on this basis and on the basis of the security of the off site poll.

You have my full support in this matter. This parliament was created by NSer votes, and we should remain open and public to the NS community in all our dealings. Let us remember that, though we all have our own interests in participating in this project, as a governing body our first and foremost duty is to the voters. Our activities should remain translucent and easily accessable for anyone interested at all times.

Look at post 1 of this thread for now. What will happen in the future I am not sure, but each party could nominate its MPs for each debate at the start of the debate. This would allow for substitution of MPs due to RL commitments (exams/work/holidays etc.) I think I like this idea. Comments?

So, a list of permanent MPs, but a provision for substitutes to be brought in should an MP declare him- or herself unavailable for a while. Sounds fine.


Edit: Rotational PM with this system would have to be done by the PM being allocated to the debate by seat number, and the parties having fixed seat numbers that they occupy for that debate as they internally define.

Either that, or regular votes by Parliament to elect a new PM (or confirm leaving the present one in place). Say, every three weeks?

You have my full support in this matter. This parliament was created by NSer votes, and we should remain open and public to the NS community in all our dealings. Let us remember that, though we all have our own interests in participating in this project, as a governing body our first and foremost duty is to the voters. Our activities should remain translucent and easily accessable for anyone interested at all times.
Agreed. If MPs need to discuss issues and legislation in private, they can always use TGs or any of several other methods.

I still think my vote should count as three. :p

Either that, or regular votes by Parliament to elect a new PM (or confirm leaving the present one in place). Say, every three weeks?

You are suggesting that we exclude an MP from participating in the debate for three weeks at a time. I can't agree to that. Topic by topic, seems fairer.

Remember the PM will effectively be the speaker and as such have to be neutral during the debate (good practice for some of us including myself)

I still think my vote should count as three. :p

So nominate yourself three times as an MP. What happens if you can't participate in the debate? Your views will remain unrepresented.

Actually I am not sure if people should be allowed to occupy more than one seat. It would resolvce DSP's problem, but it feels unfair for some reason.

I still think my vote should count as three. :p

Maybe we should just disband parliament and declare you supreme dictator of NS. It would save everyone alot of time and headache, no? :D

I still think my vote should count as three. :pNice try Melkor :D Anyway, if you haven't already, check the Liberal Party forum, i found the links that you asked for regarding tex. Found some others potentially as well.

Maybe we should just disband parliament and declare you supreme dictator of NS. It would save everyone alot of time and headache, no? :D
Oh, but of course. I can dream, can't I?

Nice try Melkor :D Anyway, if you haven't already, check the Liberal Party forum, i found the links that you asked for regarding tex. Found some others potentially as well.
I've already deat with that situation, Tex and I talked about it last night.

I've already deat with that situation, Tex and I talked about it last night.Ok. Nevermind :)

Actually I am not sure if people should be allowed to occupy more than one seat. It would resolvce DSP's problem, but it feels unfair for some reason.

They can't; that's already been settled.

Now... It seems we all agree that votes in Parliament should be public. Good. Just goes to show there are things we can all agree on. ;)

You are suggesting that we exclude an MP from participating in the debate for three weeks at a time. I can't agree to that. Topic by topic, seems fairer.

Remember the PM will effectively be the speaker and as such have to be neutral during the debate (good practice for some of us including myself)

Hmm. That poses a problem. For one thing, it means constantly depriving one party or another of a vote, which could be crucial. For another, it means there would only ever be 24 MPs voting at a time, and Parliament could be blocked at 12/12 (unlikely, but possible).

I think it should be possible for the PM to take part in debates, and vote. It'll be a little odd, but I don't see why it shouldn't be workable. After all, I organised this election while taking part in it. *shrugs*

Hmm. That poses a problem. For one thing, it means constantly depriving one party or another of a vote, which could be crucial. For another, it means there would only ever be 24 MPs voting at a time, and Parliament could be blocked at 12/12 (unlikely, but possible).

I think it should be possible for the PM to take part in debates, and vote. It'll be a little odd, but I don't see why it shouldn't be workable. After all, I organised this election while taking part in it. *shrugs*I have to agree, the discussion leader has to be able to vote to ensure democracy and to prevent ties. Its why their are a odd number of seats in the first place is it not?

When's the next elections going to be? I think they should be soon, because right now alot of new active parties are popping up.

Here's another something to ponder. I feel its important to clear up this issue now, so there are no misunderstandings later. If a member of parliament leaves his party for another, or declares himself independant of his party, does he take his seat with him, or does the seat stay with the party?

You are suggesting that we exclude an MP from participating in the debate for three weeks at a time. I can't agree to that. Topic by topic, seems fairer.

Remember the PM will effectively be the speaker and as such have to be neutral during the debate (good practice for some of us including myself)
this is why i suggested a Speaker of the house be an indipendent neutral poster with no affiliation to any of the parties earlier on

problem is finding that person...
again it would be a lot of responisbility and time.

could always have a bunch of indipendents acting as speakers on rotational basis, but that means finding even more people :headbang:



and what of the coalition arguement? i felt i was fighting a loosing battle before, but i want to bring the issue up again ;)
i'm not against informal coalitions, but formal ones would just divide parliament into a two party load of crap

When's the next elections going to be? I think they should be soon, because right now alot of new active parties are popping up.
Why is everyone asking this?! For Christ's sake, the election ended just twelve freaking hours ago!

Why is everyone asking this?! For Christ's sake, the election ended just twelve freaking hours ago!

Word.

Here's another something to ponder. I feel its important to clear up this issue now, so there are no misunderstandings later. If a member of parliament leaves his party for another, or declares himself independant of his party, does he take his seat with him, or does the seat stay with the party?
I was just about to raise that issue. *shakes fist*
I am divided over this issue, i am not sure what we would do. I think maybe its a risk a party has to run, that their MPs may be disillusioned and leave the party. It means only those they trust will be MPs. I think they should be allowed to keep their seat, but of course, they cannot stand as an independent at elections, they would either need to join another party or start their own.

I was just about to raise that issue. *shakes fist*
I am divided over this issue, i am not sure what we would do. I think maybe its a risk a party has to run, that their MPs may be disillusioned and leave the party. It means only those they trust will be MPs. I think they should be allowed to keep their seat, but of course, they cannot stand as an independent at elections, they would either need to join another party or start their own.

This sounds reasonable to me.

this is why i suggested a Speaker of the house be an indipendent neutral poster with no affiliation to any of the parties earlier on

problem is finding that person...
again it would be a lot of responisbility and time.

could always have a bunch of indipendents acting as speakers on rotational basis, but that means finding even more people :headbang:

and what of the coalition arguement? i felt i was fighting a loosing battle before, but i want to bring the issue up again ;)
i'm not against informal coalitions, but formal ones would just divide parliament into a two party load of crap


Hmm..independent speaker, not sure we can find one. Jocabia is ok i think, not sure. I don't think it would be two coalitions necessarily. There will be social liberals vs social conservatives (well, at the next election anyway) and economic liberals vs economic protectionists vs communists.

Here's another something to ponder. I feel its important to clear up this issue now, so there are no misunderstandings later. If a member of parliament leaves his party for another, or declares himself independant of his party, does he take his seat with him, or does the seat stay with the party?
he should loose his seat and have to stand for election again as an indipendent/with his new party. if he transfers to a new party he looses his seat.

this is because people are voting for PARTIES not for people. the party is given the seats and distributes them amongst its members, so the party retains the seat once the defector leaves party membership.

AS in this election people voted for party manifestos not for MPs then if anyone abandons the party they abandon the seat. It was not them personally that was elected, they were votes for the party they have left. Bye Bye from parliament.

No. they do not get to keep the seat, think about it.

Hmm..independent speaker, not sure we can find one. Jocabia is ok i think, not sure. I don't think it would be two coalitions necessarily. There will be social liberals vs social conservatives (well, at the next election anyway) and economic liberals vs economic protectionists vs communists.
actually that is true - this election saw relatively few parties compared to the next, so the bipolarity of coalitions this time round probably won't be the case next time. which will please me immensely.
to clarify: its this bipolarity that i feel will freeze up the parliamentary process.

and Aridd would make a great indipendent speaker (has run the election neutrally so far, with the exception of the debates of course), but (thankfully) he's a member of the UDCP! ;)



edit: that brings up another issue. if there are more than 10 parties in the next election, how will voting work? accross 2 threads making sure that everyone who votes in one votes in the other?

AS in this election people voted for party manifestos not for MPs then if anyone abandons the party they abandon the seat. It was not them personally that was elected, they were votes for the party they have left. Bye Bye from parliament.

No. they do not get to keep the seat, think about it.

Think about this: what you are suggesting basically makes the smaller parties one man dictatorships. The success of the party is determined by the activities of all its members, not just the party founder. And if the founder totaly strays from the agreed upon party program, or becomes inactive, then what are the other reps to do, grin and bear it?

and Aridd would make a great indipendent speaker (has run the election neutrally so far, with the exception of the debates of course), but (thankfully) he's a member of the UDCP! ;)
I would second that nomination.

AS in this election people voted for party manifestos not for MPs then if anyone abandons the party they abandon the seat. It was not them personally that was elected, they were votes for the party they have left. Bye Bye from parliament.

No. they do not get to keep the seat, think about it.Ok, agreed. Perhaps we establish that MPs are can vote freely without threat of expulsion? Have we already decided that?

AS in this election people voted for party manifestos not for MPs then if anyone abandons the party they abandon the seat. It was not them personally that was elected, they were votes for the party they have left. Bye Bye from parliament.

No. they do not get to keep the seat, think about it.

I agree. People voted for parties, not individuals. So every party should keep its present number of seats until the next election.

Now... It seems we all agree that votes in Parliament should be public. Good. Just goes to show there are things we can all agree on. ;) Yep, :)



Hmm. That poses a problem. For one thing, it means constantly depriving one party or another of a vote, which could be crucial. For another, it means there would only ever be 24 MPs voting at a time, and Parliament could be blocked at 12/12 (unlikely, but possible).
In the UK system, and here in Brazil, the speaker votes, if and only if the vote is tied. Thgis is why I suggested that the speaker should be drawn from the party proposing the motion. i.e. a tie = a win

I think it should be possible for the PM to take part in debates, and vote. It'll be a little odd, but I don't see why it shouldn't be workable. After all, I organised this election while taking part in it. *shrugs*

Yes I know you did, but it was hard work and we appreciate your efforts :fluffle:

The problem is that a participating moderator is not often a fair moderator. In the election thread you were more administrating than moderating. Only rarely (and how this happened is a mystery) did the thread get a little out of control, and then it was self moderated. However can we trust actual debate to be so gentlemanly?

Think about this: what you are suggesting basically makes the smaller parties one man dictatorships. The success of the party is determined by the activities of all its members, not just the party founder. And if the founder totaly strays from the agreed upon party program, or becomes inactive, then what are the other reps to do, grin and bear it?
grin and bear it, or leave and run against their former founder in the next election, campaigning against them.
the alternative of MPs keeping their seats just doesn't make sense. besides, in these small party dictatorships (i assume you mean where the party has 1 MP) the other members won't be MPs anyway, so this doesn't apply. the only person who could leave and keep/not keep their seat is that very same dictator

grin and bear it, or leave and run against their former founder in the next election, campaigning against them.
the alternative of MPs keeping their seats just doesn't make sense. besides, in these small party dictatorships (i assume you mean where the party has 1 MP) the other members won't be MPs anyway, so this doesn't apply. the only person who could leave and keep/not keep their seat is that very same dictator

No, I'm referring to parties that have two or three seats. Sorry you missed that. :rolleyes:

I would second that nomination.
it wasn't a nomination! i'm not letting Aridd leave the UDCP! :eek: :D

I would second that nomination.

Eh... Thank you. :) But I would suggest the position being on a rotational basis, with the speaker/PM being an MP and able to vote.

Think about this: what you are suggesting basically makes the smaller parties one man dictatorships. The success of the party is determined by the activities of all its members, not just the party founder. And if the founder totaly strays from the agreed upon party program, or becomes inactive, then what are the other reps to do, grin and bear it?

Any party could have the right to 'impeach' their own representative in parliament and thereby replace them. But that would have to be on a party by party basis. If you are worried about this in your own party, then set up some party rules to avoid the possibility. I would imagine that so long as these rules are clear and in existence and agreed to by the individual so expelled, the parliament would respect them and remove such a person from the post of MP for the party concerned.

But it has to be decided by the party how this will work in their case.

In the UK system, and here in Brazil, the speaker votes, if and only if the vote is tied. Thgis is why I suggested that the speaker should be drawn from the party proposing the motion. i.e. a tie = a win

Hmm. That sounds like a good solution.


Yes I know you did, but it was hard work and we appreciate your efforts :fluffle:


You're welcome. :)


The problem is that a participating moderator is not often a fair moderator. In the election thread you were more administrating than moderating. Only rarely (and how this happened is a mystery) did the thread get a little out of control, and then it was self moderated. However can we trust actual debate to be so gentlemanly?

I hope so, and I think we probably can. Besides, we can have a provision whereby Parliament votes a vote of no confidence in the speaker if he/she doesn't handle things fairly.

No, I'm referring to parties that have two or three seats. Sorry you missed that. :rolleyes:
then i fail to see how these 2 or 3 man parties are one man dictatorships :confused:

the party founder has no more political power in parliament than his other party MPs. if the founder makes changes to his own party these can be disputed by the party members and MPs. if the founder goes ahead anyway, the other MPs can leave.

but i now see where you're coming from...


perhaps these cases can be decided upon by parliament on a case-by-case basis, seeing as they are unlikely to be regular occurances.
for example if the founder makes massive changes to their party without consulting its members or MPs, those MPs can appeal to parliament to set up a party representing the views of their former party before the founder's changes - the views for which they were elected. in essence its not the MPs who keep the seats, but a transferral of seats from the new version of the currently elected party to a new party upholding the elected views of the old one.
if that makes any sense...

in other cases where the changes aren't so great parliament can reject the institutionalisation of the new party, meaning the old party keeps the seats and the desserters must stand for election like normal

of course this is assuming a literal party dictatorship where members and/or MPs have no control over party policy

edit: that brings up another issue. if there are more than 10 parties in the next election, how will voting work? accross 2 threads making sure that everyone who votes in one votes in the other?

*groans*

I've been wondering about that. And yes, the only thing I can think of so far is having the vote spread across two threads/polls, with the understanding that people can only vote for one party overall, and not one per thread.

Again, though, I'm open to suggestions.

Oh, and to answer an earlier question, the date for the next election has not yet been set. There's no rush. I agree with whomever said it should be once every three or four months. And there would definitely be more seats up for grabs, because I can easily foresee us having an election with twenty or so parties, given all those that have been popping up recently...

Oh, and yes, problems within a party regarding an MP should be settled by that party.

Any party could have the right to 'impeach' their own representative in parliament and thereby replace them. But that would have to be on a party by party basis. If you are worried about this in your own party, then set up some party rules to avoid the possibility. I would imagine that so long as these rules are clear and in existence and agreed to by the individual so expelled, the parliament would respect them and remove such a person from the post of MP for the party concerned.

But it has to be decided by the party how this will work in their case.

Hmmm, a good suggestion, to be sure. Well, I'm not worried about anything really being amiss in my own party, rather I thought it would be prudent to discuss this issue now, to avoid misunderstandings later on. If the shit hit the fan, and there was no record of our coming to an understanding about such matters beforehand, then it could evolve into quite the mess. Just trying to look at this from all angles, so we go in as prepared as we can be, you know what I mean?

Well if there are more than 10 parties set up you could hold nomination elections. With people voting for those parties they would most likely vote for. The top ten parties (ones with most nominations) then are able to stand in the proper election.

EDIT: Plus Parliament could vote to disqualify those parties that are too similar to ones already in existance. For example, i just noticed a Marxist Universalist Democratic Party (MUD), which is very similar to the UDCP i believe

perhaps these cases can be decided upon by parliament on a case-by-case basis, seeing as they are unlikely to be regular occurances.
for example if the founder makes massive changes to their party without consulting its members or MPs, those MPs can appeal to parliament to set up a party representing the views of their former party before the founder's changes - the views for which they were elected. in essence its not the MPs who keep the seats, but a transferral of seats from the new version of the currently elected party to a new party upholding the elected views of the old one.
if that makes any sense...

It makes perfect sense, and I agree in full. Thank you for your insightful answer. :)

Well if there are more than 10 parties set up you could hold nomination elections. With people voting for those parties they would most likely vote for. The top ten parties (ones with most nominations) then are able to stand in the proper election.

Or we could do this on a petition basis. Each party would be responsible for collecting signatures petitioning for the party to take part in the election. The 10 parties with the most signatures would make the cut....something like that.

Or we could do this on a petition basis. Each party would be responsible for collecting signatures petitioning for the party to take part in the election. The 10 parties with the most signatures would make the cut....something like that.Excellent idea. With no person allowed to be on more than one party's signature list, if they are, they are wiped from all of them.

AS in this election people voted for party manifestos not for MPs then if anyone abandons the party they abandon the seat. It was not them personally that was elected, they were votes for the party they have left. Bye Bye from parliament.

No. they do not get to keep the seat, think about it.
This makes a bit more sense to me. :)

I've been wondering about that. And yes, the only thing I can think of so far is having the vote spread across two threads/polls, with the understanding that people can only vote for one party overall, and not one per thread.

Again, though, I'm open to suggestions.

What could be done is to divide up the parties into sections of the political compass, and run off for each section, weighting the number of parties accepted into the final ballot by the numbers in the section run offs. (Primaries for parties folks.) Of course we would have to decide on a fair way of dividing up the political compass, but that is possible. This would then force similar parties that lost out in the first round to form alliances with their political brethren in the final ballot, or to simply wait until next time around.

Just a suggestion.

if there are more than 10 parties in the next election, how will voting work? accross 2 threads making sure that everyone who votes in one votes in the other?
Raise the bar for minimum number of votes in order to have a seat in Parliament???

Raise the bar for minimum number of votes in order to have a seat in Parliament???

Yes, but that wouldn't eliminate the problem of the voting being spread over two threads...

Excellent idea. With no person allowed to be on more than one party's signature list, if they are, they are wiped from all of them.

Puppets folks, puppets. All it takes is a few dishonest people with one extermist view and we end up with ten parties from that position in the election. :mad:

Think about this: what you are suggesting basically makes the smaller parties one man dictatorships. The success of the party is determined by the activities of all its members, not just the party founder. And if the founder totaly strays from the agreed upon party program, or becomes inactive, then what are the other reps to do, grin and bear it?
Elections were held. If enough people vote for a small party to send it to even one seat in Parliament, their MP(s) should be there until the next election, yes??

Puppets folks, puppets. All it takes is a few dishonest people with one extermist view and we end up with ten parties from that position in the election. :mad:

Well, we have the same problem with the election proper, so.....what do you suggest?

I'm a MRR Party Parliment member :p

Elections were held. If enough people vote for a small party to send it to even one seat in Parliament, their MP(s) should be there until the next election, yes??

You should probably read through the thread rather than randomly responding to posts. This issue has already been settled.

I'm a MRR Party Parliment member :p

No you're not. What the hell... :confused:

You should probably read through the thread rather than randomly responding to posts. This issue has already been settled.
Verily the real world doth intervene at times! :p

Puppets folks, puppets. All it takes is a few dishonest people with one extermist view and we end up with ten parties from that position in the election. :mad:

You're right. :(

Well, perhaps we can just allow them all to stand. At least it'll give voters a wide spectrum of choice. Your "primaries" suggestion was interesting, but I'm not sure it can be made to work fairly in practice.

Well if there are more than 10 parties set up you could hold nomination elections. With people voting for those parties they would most likely vote for. The top ten parties (ones with most nominations) then are able to stand in the proper election.

EDIT: Plus Parliament could vote to disqualify those parties that are too similar to ones already in existance. For example, i just noticed a Marxist Universalist Democratic Party (MUD), which is very similar to the UDCP i believe
while i agree with the second idea, the first will always limit the number of parties to 10, and i simply think the more parties, the better
perhaps there should be a cap so things don't get too complicated, but it should be more than 10 imho


It makes perfect sense, and I agree in full. Thank you for your insightful answer. :)
:D

I know I use this term a lot, but MUD is actually being operated by a racist pretending to be a communist. Look at pages 11/12/13 (i think) of the RTP link in my sig. Look at his region description. Note his emphasis on judeism.

*readies AK-47's and molotov cocktails for the NS General anarchist revolution*


*readies the secret police, the standing army, the tanks, the helicopters, the secret jails, the work camps, the rack, the gallows, the gas chamber, the firing squad*

I think the parliament should definitely have an independent Speaker. How about if we made a separate thread with a list of candidates for the position of Speaker, and then let only the MP's vote for them. That way the speaker would be someone who parliament trusted.

And then the Speaker could moderate discussions in an impartial way and allow each party a fair amount of time to speak. It would save MP's the trouble of having to administrate their debates as well as participate.

Edit: It's not too early to start up a new party is it? I think it's time to begin work on the Localitarian party manifesto... :cool:

I know I use this term a lot, but MUD is actually being operated by a racist pretending to be a communist. Look at pages 11/12/13 (i think) of the RTP link in my sig. Look at his region description. Note his emphasis on judeism.

Its just precious. Either there's more than one person controling this nation, or the kid is really split between being a white supremacist or a white hater. Either way, ble and ick. :p

I think the parliament should definitely have an independent Speaker. How about if we made a separate thread with a list of candidates for the position of Speaker, and then let only the MP's vote for them. That way the speaker would be someone who parliament trusted.

And then the Speaker could moderate discussions in an impartial way and allow each party a fair amount of time to speak. It would save MP's the trouble of having to administrate their debates as well as participate.
no no no! sorry but if only the MPs are able to vote then the speaker isn't likely to be very neutral are they?

i suggest letting the public vote but with evaluated suggestions from the MPs.

ah hell that could lead to a bias too, but probably less of one than if MPs alone could vote...


anyway i'm off for tea and after that i've got to drive down to cardiff for another exam tomorrow :(
so i might not be on again tonight, and won't be back till 4 or 5ish tomorrow afternoon. don't do anything crazy without me! ;)

Well, we have the same problem with the election proper, so.....what do you suggest?

I made a suggestion here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9020106&postcount=176)

I made a suggestion here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9020106&postcount=176)

So, it would be something like three seperate prelections, one for the right, left, and center? Interesting...

edit: but how would this be a solution to the puppet wankery?

So, it would be something like three seperate prelections, one for the right, left, and center? Interesting...

edit: but how would this be a solution to the puppet wankery?

The concern with the puppets was that you would end up with ten parties from the same politacal corner in the election, thus eliminating choice.

This way you are guaranteed representatives of the five political regions (if there are any Authoritarian parties next time). So the voter has some real choice in the final election. Not just Vote dictator 1, or the dictator 1 party.

We can always make it a public vote to keep the puppets under control, but this way we don't have to impose too much on the mods before the final election.

I made a suggestion here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9020106&postcount=176)
I like the idea of primaries. As you said placing them on the spectrum is the most difficult because it's usually not that simple.

The concern with the puppets was that you would end up with ten parties from the same politacal corner in the election, thus eliminating choice.

This way you are guaranteed representatives of the five political regions (if there are any Authoritarian parties next time). So the voter has some real choice in the final election. Not just Vote dictator 1, or the dictator 1 party.

We can always make it a public vote to keep the puppets under control, but this way we don't have to impose too much on the mods before the final election.

A fine proposition. Though I agree that the most difficult thing will be categorizing the parties. I suppose we could just go by the official political compass scores for each party.

I like the idea of primaries. As you said placing them on the spectrum is the most difficult because it's usually not that simple.

So we divide the Political Compass up into the five zones (a square box in the middle for centrists, and each of the four L shaped pieces surrounding this box) and the parties themselves define which area they are in. This would be reviewed by the parliament to prevent malicious abuse of a vacant region, but in cases of uncertainty, the party itself decides.

So we divide the Political Compass up into the five zones (a square box in the middle for centrists, and each of the four L shaped pieces surrounding this box) and the parties themselves define which area they are in. This would be reviewed by the parliament to prevent malicious abuse of a vacant region, but in cases of uncertainty, the party itself decides.
Sounds fair.

Questions

1. Won't much of what is being discussed here be also covered in Parliament?

2. Will we need a constitutional drafting committee?

3. When will the first session of Parliament convene?

Questions

1. Won't much of what is being discussed here be also covered in Parliament?
Here we are speaking as ourselves and not as party representatives. For you and I this may make little differenc but for others it may do.



2. Will we need a constitutional drafting committee?
Don't jump the gun and assume that we will have a codified constitution. There may be many opposed to this. I am opposed for one. We need a thread to discuss constitutional issues up to and including the drafting of a constitution if it is decided we should have one.

3. When will the first session of Parliament convene?
Let the parties with large memberships sort out their internal elections first. I would guess we will have a procedural session starting by Friday or something like that. I return your own advice to me earliier, patience my friend.

Here we are speaking as ourselves and not as party representatives. For you and I this may make little differenc but for others it may do.

Don't jump the gun and assume that we will have a codified constitution. There may be many opposed to this. I am opposed for one. We need a thread to discuss constitutional issues up to and including the drafting of a constitution if it is decided we should have one.

Let the parties with large memberships sort out their internal elections first. I would guess we will have a procedural session starting by Friday or something like that. I return your own advice to me earliier, patience my friend.
Good advice! :p

I was just curious. :)

So we divide the Political Compass up into the five zones (a square box in the middle for centrists, and each of the four L shaped pieces surrounding this box) and the parties themselves define which area they are in. This would be reviewed by the parliament to prevent malicious abuse of a vacant region, but in cases of uncertainty, the party itself decides.

Sounds good, for now. There's still lots of time before the next election, so we've got time to think about it.

So where do we go from here?

How about each party nominating members to discuss constitutional matters. Or should each party develop their own ideal constitutional situation first and then come together to discuss. I personally prefer the former, as it is easier to obtain agreement if the discussion comes before the concretisation of ideas.

Number of delegates to such a body? One per party misrepresents, but may be the best solution.

I nominate Arridia and myself...

It is actiually a serious question. Moleland, I presume that you would represent MOBRA, however the rest of the delegates are not so obvious. Nor is it obvious if we should have many or few.

It is actiually a serious question. Moleland, I presume that you would represent MOBRA, however the rest of the delegates are not so obvious. Nor is it obvious if we should have many or few.If we want the consitution to reflect the results of the election then the delegates appointed should be proportional.

I've really had too much work on today to follow this thread, could somebody briefly explain what's happening or direct me to a post that does?

Cheers

OK, we here at DSP have a problem, we have 5 seats, 3 active members and a missing leader. I would like The Odd One to be in the parlaiment but don't know how to contact him... So till when do we have to tell you who is going to be in the parlaiment?
Your views sound similar to mine. I'd take a seat if they're just being handed out.

I'll try and remember the details for the comrade!

We discussed the nature of the parliament, with a general conclusion that it would be one thread per debate, with a public poll which included options for non MPs to indicate their preferences.

We then moved on to moderation (PM/Speaker) position, with this being as yet not fully agreed, but leaning toward a rotating chair system (no not an office chair ok)

Then there were questions over MPs changing parties. Which was deemed to be equivalent to resigning as the party was voted for not the MP.

Some disute about the legality of coalitions but this faded out

A lot of discussion on the format of the next election, which while interesting is not urgent.

Now I am pushing to get a constitutional body set up to discuss and propose a constitution or lack there of to be ratified in some way.

Don't ever say we are selfish again, OK! :p

Oh, and we have not yet decided what size mop and bucket you will have. ;)

If we want the consitution to reflect the results of the election then the delegates appointed should be proportional.

I was thinking more of a working party that then presents the results to the parliament for ratification. Under those circumstances it does not have to be pro rata, it just has to be solid and reasonable.

I'll try and remember the details for the comrade!

We discussed the nature of the parliament, with a general conclusion that it would be one thread per debate, with a public poll which included options for non MPs to indicate their preferences.

We then moved on to moderation (PM/Speaker) position, with this being as yet not fully agreed, but leaning toward a rotating chair system (no not an office chair ok)

Then there were questions over MPs changing parties. Which was deemed to be equivalent to resigning as the party was voted for not the MP.

Some disute about the legality of coalitions but this faded out

A lot of discussion on the format of the next election, which while interesting is not urgent.

Now I am pushing to get a constitutional body set up to discuss and propose a constitution or lack there of to be ratified in some way.

Don't ever say we are selfish again, OK! :p

Oh, and we have not yet decided what size mop and bucket you will have. ;)
Cheers for that man. I'm just amazed you didn't charge me for reading it.

And any size will be fine, so long as i can sharpen the mop end, it will suffice

Well for the Democratic Socialists were still working on who else to sit in the parliament, but so far we've got
-Argesia
-CoolDynasty42
-and myself.

Two more are coming later....

he should loose his seat and have to stand for election again as an indipendent/with his new party. if he transfers to a new party he looses his seat.

Personally I'm for MPs being able to cross the floor or sit as independants. It would be an excellent way to hold parties responsible while adding another level of intrigue and excitement. I think that would be quite apparant to anyone thats been paying any attention to Ottawa this past year...

this is because people are voting for PARTIES not for people. the party is given the seats and distributes them amongst its members, so the party retains the seat once the defector leaves party membership.

A good way to avoid this in the next election would be for parties to make a list of candidates and rank them in order of who will be first to get each new seat that the parties vote share entitles them to.

That will put a more human face on the election instead of just voting for an impersonal manifesto. Also voters would be able to show support for MPs that they feel have done a competant job.

Well for the Democratic Socialists were still working on who else to sit in the parliament, but so far we've got
-Argesia
-CoolDynasty42
-and myself.

Two more are coming later....
See above. I'll help out.

I was thinking more of a working party that then presents the results to the parliament for ratification. Under those circumstances it does not have to be pro rata, it just has to be solid and reasonable.

Could you elaborate please? I'm afraid I don't have a clear idea of what you are proposing.

See above. I'll help out.
Deleuze! Buddy! Pal! Gunnin' for a seat, eh? :D

Deleuze! Buddy! Pal! Gunnin' for a seat, eh? :D
Oh yes! :cool:

I hadn't participated much in the party thing until after the election, but I figured it might be fun.

By the way, I'll get back to our fun shortly. I'd been offline for a bit, and now can finally return to our discussion :D.

Apparantly I've been asked to sit on the Parliament, for a party I am not a member of, a party that belongs to the loudest, most arrogant, stubborn piece of work I have ever encountered in all of nation states.


So when do I start? :D

Oh yes! :cool:

I hadn't participated much in the party thing until after the election, but I figured it might be fun.

By the way, I'll get back to our fun shortly. I'd been offline for a bit, and now can finally return to our discussion :D.
Can't wait.

It could work Wegason, but the question is why do we need a prime minister? It is not like we have to have someone to represent us to other nations.
For dramatic purposes?

So, Since i've been away, what's happened?

Hey Ariddia, put me as the RTP MP

I was thinking more of a working party that then presents the results to the parliament for ratification. Under those circumstances it does not have to be pro rata, it just has to be solid and reasonable.
But hgow can any elected official (read offal...lol) truly represent the many, esp. when you consider that each indicvidual has differing goals and drives?

Personally I'm for MPs being able to cross the floor or sit as independants. It would be an excellent way to hold parties responsible while adding another level of intrigue and excitement. I think that would be quite apparant to anyone thats been paying any attention to Ottawa this past year...



A good way to avoid this in the next election would be for parties to make a list of candidates and rank them in order of who will be first to get each new seat that the parties vote share entitles them to.

That will put a more human face on the election instead of just voting for an impersonal manifesto. Also voters would be able to show support for MPs that they feel have done a competant job.

That would just turn this into another one of those damned popularity contests that were so popular a couple of months back. We are not concerned with which poster is the most popular, we are concerned with the politicial views of the community. As such we should not be voting for particular individuals, but instead we should be voting for ideologies (or the denial of ideology in the case of PoWW).

This being the case if an MP abandons the party lines too much (crosses the flor as you put it) thyen they are resigning as a member of Parliament because it was the party line that was voted for and not them.

In Real Life I support a FPP system. It avoids all this stuff about quorum and how to round to get to the right number of seats. It also provides the voter with a specific representative. However here on NS, there are no geographical or residential regions to be able to construct constituencies and it would just be a popularity contest as it has no practical effect in the long run.

Hey Ariddia, put me as the RTP MP

Done.

And I strongly feel that people should indeed be voting for parties/manifestos, and not for a list of MPs. Which is why seats should remain with a party, and no MP should be able to take his/her seat elsewhere - because the voters gave that seat to the party, and not to a specific MP.

But hgow can any elected official (read offal...lol) truly represent the many, esp. when you consider that each indicvidual has differing goals and drives?
They can't and anyone who thinks about it realises that. However there are practicalities and idealities. In this case, the work of drafting a constitution or arguing against a constitution (depending upon the party's position) it is impractical to use a direct contribution system don't you think.

@ Crimson Sith

What is being suggested is a cross party working group to draft a constitution or recommend that no codified constitution is adopted. As this has to be a party politically neutral document it seems likely that it will simply be procedural rules. As such it is probably sufficient that just one member of each party takes part in the drafting as all that they need to do is ensure that their policies are not being discriminated against or constitutionally outlawed.

Done.

And I strongly feel that people should indeed be voting for parties/manifestos, and not for a list of MPs. Which is why seats should remain with a party, and no MP should be able to take his/her seat elsewhere - because the voters gave that seat to the party, and not to a specific MP.

This would be a matter for the constitution, would it not?

Ugh. :mad:


"WE ARE MANY-THEY ARE FEW"

- The Masque of Anarchy, Shelley, Percy Bysshe


:)

Bloody anarchists....

Bloody anarchists....

Bloody RTP...

Bloody RTP...
Bloody vermin

A good way to avoid this in the next election would be for parties to make a list of candidates and rank them in order of who will be first to get each new seat that the parties vote share entitles them to.

That will put a more human face on the election instead of just voting for an impersonal manifesto. Also voters would be able to show support for MPs that they feel have done a competant job.
i like this idea.

anyway, i'm back. what'd i miss, whats going on and where are we going from here?

i like this idea.

anyway, i'm back. what'd i miss, whats going on and where are we going from here?

Yourself and Ariddia seem to be on opposite sides on this point. I suggest you get together and decide what the UDCP thinks on this point.

At the moment I am trying to get people to agree to mounting a cross party constitutional workshop, to draft or otherwise a constitution. At the moment there is little response, but it does seem like any acceptable constitution will be much more a procedural document than a statement of principles (too much conflict for that to work).

We just need something to agree on a set of debate rules...

Yourself and Ariddia seem to be on opposite sides on this point. I suggest you get together and decide what the UDCP thinks on this point.

At the moment I am trying to get people to agree to mounting a cross party constitutional workshop, to draft or otherwise a constitution. At the moment there is little response, but it does seem like any acceptable constitution will be much more a procedural document than a statement of principles (too much conflict for that to work).
lol ah well :p
i'll talk to Aridd about it then.

as for a cross party constitutional workshop, it sounds like a very good idea. the first step would probably be to start a specific thread for it and make it clear that its for MnsP's only, though it may also be best to wait till more are online.
i would be happy to participate in such a workshop, but i assume that its 1 member per party, and i think aridd would be more suited towards it than me (more level headed... heh ;))

We just need something to agree on a set of debate rules...

That would certainly have to be included. But it seemed like a good opportunity to discuss and decide on the mechanism for elections, frequency of elections, how to handle posters leaving/being banned etc.

Should there be a regulations on parties, eg. a minimum membership to be eligable for an election (to avoid the DSP and Up Yours Party problem of more seats than members). What can be done abourt MPs that mispost etc.

If we can get this all sorted out in a way that is acceptable to those that started this game, then any new parties wanting to join will know the rules.

Just bringing up again something I'd posted earlier.


Here was what I was thinking, for debates. Tell me what you think:

Any MP can put furth a proposal, keeping it short and to the point: just a few lines to describe a principle. Parliament then has, say, five days to decide whether or not to take it further (i.e., whether to vote on it). If a majority of MPs approve the idea of discussing, and voting on, that principle, then the MP who suggested it then prepares a more detailed version of it, and submits it to discussion and vote by Parliament.

When a proposal has been approved for discussion, then no other proposals may be submitted until that proposal has been voted on. But as long as no proposal has been approved for discussion, there can be several proposals put forth for consideration (so as to keep things active and interesting). The House organiser (or whatever) keeps track of these proposals, and of the date by which they must be approved by a majority of MPs in order to enter the stage of formal discussion.

@ Crimson Sith

What is being suggested is a cross party working group to draft a constitution or recommend that no codified constitution is adopted. As this has to be a party politically neutral document it seems likely that it will simply be procedural rules. As such it is probably sufficient that just one member of each party takes part in the drafting as all that they need to do is ensure that their policies are not being discriminated against or constitutionally outlawed.

I understand, and agree in full with this proposition. Thank you for clarifying. :)

Just bringing up again something I'd posted earlier.

Again, Ariddia, I think it would be a very good system. Well thought out. :)


.....I'm not used to being so agreeable, but I find that both Ariddia and Alien Born have excellent ideas which I would be hard pressed to disagree with. You gents have my respect and admiration. Now lets get pissed. :D

Can we please just start with something! My party members are getting impatient...

I didn't see it mentioned, so I had better let everyone know...

...the Party of Whatever Works is currently holding a party election to determine it's Parliament members. Voting ends (I believe) at 12:00 GMT on Thursday. I'm sure someone will be around to post the results here at that time.

Can we please just start with something! My party members are getting impatient...

Please inform your party members that governance on any level is a meticulous undertaking which cannot be rushed. If you have so little patience for the legislative process, I recommend you resign from politics altogether. The MRR would be happy to take your seat.

[QUOTE=Alien Born] In this case, the work of drafting a constitution or arguing against a constitution (depending upon the party's position) it is impractical to use a direct contribution system don't you think.
[QUOTE]--Oh I suffer from impracticallity all the time..lol With modern technology it is much easier to have a totally self representative or proxy driven contribution system (ie totally direct democracy) than has ever been possible before. My favorite bit that L. Neil Smith once did about this was that in an alternate history story he wrote, Thomas Jefferson managed to leave in the word "Unanimous" when he was writing the Declaration of Independence, so that it reads unanimous consent of the governed. Meaning that EVERYONE must be asked how they would choose to be governed, this leaves out of course the few who don't give a rats ass what govenrment does at all to their lives. This would really more affect the well informed.

Can we please just start with something! My party members are getting impatient...
agreed that we need to get the momentum going again, but the problem i can see is - at least for me - is that there's been so many arguements, counterarguements, problems people have brought up, and unresolved issues, i have no real idea where we stand in this legislative process. frankly, i'm confused.
the best thing to do would be to start a new thread for cross party constitutional discussion, and somehow summarise and clarify both what points have been agreed upon (and by who), and what the unresolved issues are.
damned if i'm going to do it though - today is yet another revision day :mad:
exams finish for me on the 14th, so i'll be able to put more time in then


edit:
I didn't see it mentioned, so I had better let everyone know...

...the Party of Whatever Works is currently holding a party election to determine it's Parliament members. Voting ends (I believe) at 12:00 GMT on Thursday. I'm sure someone will be around to post the results here at that time.
the UDCP is also holding elections to determine our 3rd MnsP, however we're asking nominees to explain briefly why they are suited to the job first, so the UDCP may take some days to finalise its 3rd MP.

NSCL is also holding internal elections to determine who shall be its representatives. This too will probably take up until the end of the weekend to sort out.

I will try and put together a summary of the procedural suggestions from this thread into a new thread to get the communal process underway again.

Moleland: patience and good wormhunting my friend/enemy/ally/opponent.

I believe that in terms of a House Speaker/Moderator there has to be an election by the parties for a nominated individual in a seperate thread. This individual would not be judged on their political views, but rather their availability and willingness to moderate debate, monitor issues and finally declare when a decision is made.

Most importantly, this individual would not be a member of any of the other parties, and thus there would be a reduced risk of bias. If more than six members feel that there is some form of underhanded favouritism, there can be a review thread, followed by a judgement on the House Speaker. If the individual in question is found to have unacceptable levels of bias, then the Speaker is removed from the parliment and elections start anew.

In fact, there should be a permanent thread with this fundamental purpose in mind, that way the Speaker can always be kept in check. (In Australia we call it: Keeping the Bastards honest)

As a voting constituant, I am strongly opposed to any party member gaining the position of House Speaker. I believe it should be staunchly independent and democratically open.

Those are my views on the matter, I bid you good night.
Falhaar-

I didn't see it mentioned, so I had better let everyone know...

...the Party of Whatever Works is currently holding a party election to determine it's Parliament members. Voting ends (I believe) at 12:00 GMT on Thursday. I'm sure someone will be around to post the results here at that time.

I really wish we had talked about it a little before running off and having an election for our seats...

NSCL Declare their MPs to be:

Vittos Ordination
Alien Born
Kervoskia
Wegason
Uginin

I really wish we had talked about it a little before running off and having an election for our seats...

Even though I got elected, I have to admit you're right.