NationStates Jolt Archive

This I am starting as a condensation of the suggestions made in the NS Parliament thread. The idea is to discuss these rules and come to some agreement as to how the Parliament will work. Additionally it would be nice to establish if any further constitutional principles are to be adopted, but to do this I think we should use a separate discussion (to keep thread lengths decent and content connected) So I hjave started a separate thread for that and it is http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9030305

The following are suggestions from the NSGeneral Parliament thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9029986) or additions that I have made. They are for discussion, correction, ammendment, alteration, deletion etc. We need to have a true consensus on these points if this project is to work.

Procedural Rules:
Elections:-
1. Free and open elections shall be held every four months at the minimum.
2. The parliament may, by a two thirds (17) or greater majority vote to call an election at any time prior to the next scheduled date. (This alows us to advance an election to avoid exams, Easter etc. )
3. All parties that meet the qualification requirements shall be elligible to enter the general election
4. The general election shall be a contest between parties, not between individuals.
5. Voting shall be by public poll held within the Nation States General Forum
6. Qualification of parties for the general election is to be seperately discussed and agreed during the term of the first parliament. It is to be established in time for parties to qualify for the next election.
7. There shall be a quorum based proportional representation system of determining the outcome of the election
8. Elections shall run for a minimum of five (5) days to allow opportunity for all members of NS general to vote.

Make up of the Parliament
1. Each party shall be responsible for nominating individuals to occupy all and any seats gained in the election. (delegates)
2. No person may occupy more than one seat (This includes puppets)
3. It is recommended, but not required, that seats be occupied by party members.
4. Non party members can not be obligated to a party whip.
5. Any delegate resigning from a party also resigns their seat in the parliament. This covers the following situations:

The delegate is switching parties
The delegate is voting against something which is explicitly in the manifesto.
Zell Miller style defamation of the own party

6. Any unoccupied party seat does not vote on a whip.
7. A party may change their delegates as required.
8. There is to be no official cabinet nor ministers although parties may nominate delegates as spokesmen for specific affairs if they so wish.

Debate
1. Any delegate may post a debate proposal outline, with a public poll asking ifd the proposal is of interest to the parliament.
2. If the proposal receives indication of interest from at least one third (9) of the parliament it is to be debated.
3. The outline is then fleshed out into a full proposal and a debate started by the posting of this proposal within three days of the outline reaching quorum, or immediately on the completion of the previous debate, whichever is later.
4. If there is more than one debate proposal queued priority shall be established by the date and time of posting the outline proposal.
5. A debate shall last seven (7) days.
6. At the start of a debate each party is to confirm the identity of their delegates.
7. The proposer is to act as speaker for the debate.
8. A debate comment thread is also to be created to allow non MPs to comment.
9. The first post of the debate shall contain a link to the debate comment thread and a standard request for non MPs to post in this parallel thread
10. The debate thread shall have a public, single selection poll with the options: Yea - MP, Nay - MP, Abstain - MP, Yea - I am not an MP, Nay - I am not an MP, Dont Care - I am not an MP. The question on the poll shall be "I vote in respect of the proposal in post 2 below":
11. Post 2 shall contain the Proposal developped from the outline.
12. At the end of the debate time the voting can be confirmed and a law issued or not.

Any further suggestions please

Re Debate point 11.

A Technical suggestion. Post two quick marker posts in creating the thread, and do not worry about the poll initially. Then go back, and edit post one - Pasting in from here when it is developped the standard advice, and creating the poll. Then edit post 2 pasting in from wherever it is the proposal. This way you ensure the structure.

I have to say I'm not a fan of this "No defections" idea. It opens the door for a party to denounce a MP as having "Defected" after having cast a vote they didn't like. It restricts the freedoms of the MP to vote as s/he sees fit. Furthermore, the edict is impossible to enforce against parties with just one seat.

Procedural Rules:
Elections:-
1. Free and open elections shall be held every four months at the minimum.
2. The parliament may, by a two thirds (17) or greater majority vote to call an election at any time prior to the next scheduled date. (This alows us to advance an election to avoid exams, Easter etc. )
3. All parties that meet the qualification requirements shall be elligible to enter the general election
4. The general election shall be a contest between parties, not between individuals.
5. Voting shall be by public poll held within the Nation States General Forum
6. If there are more than ten parties legally entered then there shall be preliminary contests for each of the five regions of the political compass. Each region shall enter a number of parties into the final election pro rata to the number of parties registered, with a minimum of one for each region provided that the region has at least one legally registered party.
7. There shall be a quorum based proportional representation system of determining the outcome of the election
8. Elections shall run for a minimum of seven (7) days to allow opportunity for all members of NS general to vote.


I agree with most of these, but feel that #6 should be left open to further discussion. As for #8, seven days seems unneccesarily long.


Make up of the Parliament
1. Each party shall be responsible for nominating individuals to occupy all and any seats gained in the election. (delegates)
2. No person may occupy more than one seat (This includes puppets)
3. It is recommended, but not required, that seats be occupied by party members.
4. Non party members can not be obligated to a party whip.
5. Any delegate resigning from a party also resigns their seat in the parliament (no defections)
6. Any unoccupied party seat does not vote on a whip.
7. A party may change their delegates as required.
8. There is to be no official cabinet nor ministers although parties may nominate delegates as spokesmen for specific affairs if they so wish.


I agree, although maybe we should leave #8 open for now.


Debate
1. Any delegate may post a debate proposal outline, with a public poll asking ifd the proposal is of interest to the parliament.
2. If the proposal receives indication of interest from at least one third (9) of the parliament it is to be debated.
3. The outline is then fleshed out into a full proposal and a debate started by the posting of this proposal within three days of the outline reaching quorum, or immediately on the completion of the previous debate, whichever is later.
4. If there is more than one debate proposal queued priority shall be established by the date and time of posting the outline proposal.
5. A debate shall last seven (7) days.
6. At the start of a debate each party is to confirm the identity of their delegates.
7. The proposer is to act as speaker for the debate.
8. A debate comment thread is also to be created to allow non MPs to comment.
9. The first post of the debate shall contain a link to the debate comment thread and a standard request for non MPs to post in this parallel thread
10. The debate thread shall have a public, single selection poll with the options: Yea - MP, Nay - MP, Abstain - MP, Yea - I am not an MP, Nay - I am not an MP, Dont Care - I am not an MP. The question on the poll shall be "I vote in respect of the proposal in post 2 below":
11. Post 2 shall contain the Proposal developped from the outline.
12. At the end of the debate time the voting can be confirmed and a law issued or not.


Agreed.

Nice work! :)

Oh, just a detail... It should be specified that the speaker has, of course, the right to vote on his/her own proposal, like any other MP.

This I am starting as a condensation of the suggestions made in the NS Parliament thread. The idea is to discuss these rules and come to some agreement as to how the Parliament will work. Additionally it would be nice to establish if any further constitutional principles are to be adopted, but to do this I think we should use a separate discussion (to keep thread lengths decent and content connected) So I hjave started a separate thread for that and it is http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9030305

The following are suggestions from the NSGeneral Parliament thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9029986) or additions that I have made. They are for discussion, correction, ammendment, alteration, deletion etc. We need to have a true consensus on these points if this project is to work.

Procedural Rules:
Elections:-
1. Free and open elections shall be held every four months at the minimum.
2. The parliament may, by a two thirds (17) or greater majority vote to call an election at any time prior to the next scheduled date. (This alows us to advance an election to avoid exams, Easter etc. )
3. All parties that meet the qualification requirements shall be elligible to enter the general election
4. The general election shall be a contest between parties, not between individuals.
5. Voting shall be by public poll held within the Nation States General Forum
6. If there are more than ten parties legally entered then there shall be preliminary contests for each of the five regions of the political compass. Each region shall enter a number of parties into the final election pro rata to the number of parties registered, with a minimum of one for each region provided that the region has at least one legally registered party.
7. There shall be a quorum based proportional representation system of determining the outcome of the election
8. Elections shall run for a minimum of seven (7) days to allow opportunity for all members of NS general to vote.

Make up of the Parliament
1. Each party shall be responsible for nominating individuals to occupy all and any seats gained in the election. (delegates)
2. No person may occupy more than one seat (This includes puppets)
3. It is recommended, but not required, that seats be occupied by party members.
4. Non party members can not be obligated to a party whip.
5. Any delegate resigning from a party also resigns their seat in the parliament (no defections)
6. Any unoccupied party seat does not vote on a whip.
7. A party may change their delegates as required.
8. There is to be no official cabinet nor ministers although parties may nominate delegates as spokesmen for specific affairs if they so wish.

Debate
1. Any delegate may post a debate proposal outline, with a public poll asking ifd the proposal is of interest to the parliament.
2. If the proposal receives indication of interest from at least one third (9) of the parliament it is to be debated.
3. The outline is then fleshed out into a full proposal and a debate started by the posting of this proposal within three days of the outline reaching quorum, or immediately on the completion of the previous debate, whichever is later.
4. If there is more than one debate proposal queued priority shall be established by the date and time of posting the outline proposal.
5. A debate shall last seven (7) days.
6. At the start of a debate each party is to confirm the identity of their delegates.
7. The proposer is to act as speaker for the debate.
8. A debate comment thread is also to be created to allow non MPs to comment.
9. The first post of the debate shall contain a link to the debate comment thread and a standard request for non MPs to post in this parallel thread
10. The debate thread shall have a public, single selection poll with the options: Yea - MP, Nay - MP, Abstain - MP, Yea - I am not an MP, Nay - I am not an MP, Dont Care - I am not an MP. The question on the poll shall be "I vote in respect of the proposal in post 2 below":
11. Post 2 shall contain the Proposal developped from the outline.
12. At the end of the debate time the voting can be confirmed and a law issued or not.

Any further suggestions please
I forsee major objections to a few of those rules.

Oh, just a detail... It should be specified that the speaker has, of course, the right to vote on his/her own proposal, like any other MP.

I was intentionally leaving that open for discussion. I feel that they should only vote in the result of a tie. (As is the case in the UK).


We need to decide on the acceptable limits of behaviour, the standards of proof required for claims, the punishments available for breach of protocol etc.

What do we do about:
Ad Hominems?
Unsubstantiated claims?
Spamming the debate?
Disobeying the Speaker?

Then there is the question of what to do about bad or poor moderation?
Do we have a no confidence motion system ,and if a vote of no confidence is carried who takes over as speaker for the debate?

I forsee major objections to a few of those rules.

Fine. Please object. Suggest alternatives. We need to obtain agreement on these types of rules before we can do any serious debating.

I'm repeating what I said in the other thread because it think it holds relevance here.

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-

Fine. Please object. Suggest alternatives. We need to obtain agreement on these types of rules before we can do any serious debating.
I know this. I'm currently analyzing the proposed rules and will shortly post my recommendations.

I have to say I'm not a fan of this "No defections" idea. It opens the door for a party to denounce a MP as having "Defected" after having cast a vote they didn't like. It restricts the freedoms of the MP to vote as s/he sees fit. Furthermore, the edict is impossible to enforce against parties with just one seat.
I'm not seeing a response to this and it's a major concern of mine.

Re: ad hominems, spamming etc: they're not permitted in the forum anyway, so I fail to see why anything different could or should be done about them in here....

I was intentionally leaving that open for discussion. I feel that they should only vote in the result of a tie. (As is the case in the UK).


All right... Though ultimately that amounts to almost the same thing.


What do we do about:
Ad Hominems?
Unsubstantiated claims?
Spamming the debate?
Disobeying the Speaker?


As Melkor said. For unsubstantiated claims, they'll only make the claim-issuer look bad anyway, so I don't see it as a major problem. Disobeying the speaker could perhaps result in losing one's right to vote on the issue at hand, after two warnings. Unless a vote of no-confidence in the speaker ensues.


Then there is the question of what to do about bad or poor moderation?
Do we have a no confidence motion system ,and if a vote of no confidence is carried who takes over as speaker for the debate?

I suggest that a vote of no-confidence could be implemented if backed by two-thirds of Parliament, and that another member of the party should take over as speaker. In the case of parties with only one member, the new speaker could be someone who backs the proposal.

I have to say I'm not a fan of this "No defections" idea. It opens the door for a party to denounce a MP as having "Defected" after having cast a vote they didn't like. It restricts the freedoms of the MP to vote as s/he sees fit. Furthermore, the edict is impossible to enforce against parties with just one seat.

Perhaps there should be a measure saying that an MP has to be disowned through an internal vote within a party before he/she can be said to have defected?

I'm not seeing a response to this and it's a major concern of mine.

Re: ad hominems, spamming etc: they're not permitted in the forum anyway, so I fail to see why anything different could or should be done about them in here....

I can give a response, but as I posted the original list, you know where i stand. However I will justify and explain.

The elections are specificaly to elect representatives of parties, with the number being proportional to the vote received for that party's platform. Now the delegate is not directly elected, he or she is nominated, by whatever method, by the party to represent the platform of the party in the parliament. Thus if a delegate decides to not represent the platform the elector is being disenfranchised by this dlegate. that is not acceptable in my view, and the remedy is to not allow defection.

Yes there is a problem with single member parties, and this in itself should reduce the voting for the 'novelty' platforms, but I see this as less damaging than to misrepresent the votes of thirty or so NSers. There is also a question of internal party politics, but what is new about that.

What could be done is a parliamentary appeal made by the ex delegate, and if the parliament decides that the delegate had been unfairly ousted, he or she could be reinstated.

There is a lot to be discussed yet on the qualification of parties for elections. I believe that there should be a minimum party membership, and this could be used to control single seat parties from drifting wherever they like.

On to the Ad Hominem and Spam aspects. The forums do have such rules, but I am sure that we do not want to be depending upon the judgement of Moderators all the time (I am sure that you of all people will appreciate that). Now I assume that there are guidelines provided to mods to judge these things by. We could simply adopt these guidelinnes, as rewflected in the One-stop rules shop, or we could adopt slightly tighter rules. These debates are likely to be contentious given the diametrically opposed nature of the delegates, and if they aree to work, without caling down the wrath of the mods repeatedly, we need to have clear and solid guides as to acceptable behaviour laid out, and the pnishments that we can impose. (Gagging orders, loss of delegacy for a period, expulsion, required apology, disclosure, public retraction are just some suggestions)

1. Free and open elections shall be held every four months at the minimum.

Personally I find this a bit on the long side. There's a danger things may stagnate, and it's a long time to wait between elections if you just missed out last time. I'd prefer 3 month, or even 2 month, election cycles. Better too short then too long.

6. If there are more than ten parties legally entered then there shall be preliminary contests for each of the five regions of the political compass. Each region shall enter a number of parties into the final election pro rata to the number of parties registered, with a minimum of one for each region provided that the region has at least one legally registered party.

I'd not sure on this. What about the parties that don't have a set idealogy? Plus it seems like it'd be very complicated to set up and that it would discourage idealogical biases in Parliament (Which I'm against but if people vote for them...), couldn't setting up multiple public polls and then checking that no one voted more then once be another possibility?

No specific problems on the rest, though I'm worried this Parliament may be getting a little over regulated. (Plus the use of NS terms is mighty confusing)

Personally I find this a bit on the long side. There's a danger things may stagnate, and it's a long time to wait between elections if you just missed out last time. I'd prefer 3 month, or even 2 month, election cycles. Better too short then too long.
Given that It takes a week or two to get parliament running and another couple of weeks to hold the election. The actual paarliamentry term would be something like 13 weeks if we hold elections every 4 months. Also we do not want to induce boredom with the whole electoral process by holding elections too frrequently. However it was a suggestion that was made in the NS General Parliament thread, and is open to modification. What suggestions do we have?
4 months
3 Months
2 Months

to which I will add my personal preference of
6 months

Could people indicate preferences in their posts, I will try to tally these as we go.


I'd not sure on this. What about the parties that don't have a set idealogy?
There are two types of party that don't have an explicit ideology:
Those that are centerist (the fifth region e.g. PoWW in this election) and those that are not political (e.g MOBRA) The latter is a problem but we could create a sixth area for "crazy" parties. However when this whole thing started I had to go and plead the case that this was serious political debate with the mods for them not to shut the parties down as being copycats. If too many stupid parties apear, then the whole thing will be killed. For this reason I would not like to encourage other 'non political' parties to form.

Plus it seems like it'd be very complicated to set up and that it would discourage idealogical biases in Parliament (Which I'm against but if people vote for them...), couldn't setting up multiple public polls and then checking that no one voted more then once be another possibility?
I do not see how it would discourage ideological bises in Parliament. It is just a series of primaries. The extreme authoritarians could win 23 of 25 seats at the end of the day (There is a quorum requirement in the seat allocation).

On the second point. Do you want to cross check three or four polls with 70+ voters in each for duplicates That is 4,200+ comparisons of names with three pollls, or 8,200+ comparisons with four polls. Not practical

What suggestions do we have?
4 months
3 Months
2 Months

to which I will add my personal preference of
6 months

Could people indicate preferences in their posts, I will try to tally these as we go.


2 months is much too short, and 6 probably a little long. I would opt for 4 months, with 3 being acceptable also.

Lotsa stuff
I understand all of that. Believe it or not, I was actually considering all of this when I voiced my complaint. The complaint still stands. What will end up happening now is if someone actually happens to change their mind on an issue, their parent party will just go "oh, well he's a defector" and boot him from his seat. Your concerns are all well and good, but from where I sit they do not trump my 'free voting' concern. What will end up happening is a stagnation of thought and ideas; wherein the people who actually [i]do think [gasp!] for themselves will be condemned as party deserters. Imagine if Congress were obligated to oust all of its members who decided to vote for or against a certain bill, should that vote run contrary to the party line. This idea promotes a blind adherance to the party manifestos, and does nothing but promote conceptual retardation and mediocrity.

My 'party,' for example, will vote purely according to their best interests. By your logic, I would be more or less required to eject them from their spot if they should happen to vote againt my manifesto. Fuck that, thanks.

My 'party,' for example, will vote purely according to their best interests. By your logic, I would be more or less required to eject them from their spot if they should happen to vote againt my manifesto. Fuck that, thanks.

Actually, no. There's no requirement for every member of a party to vote the same thing. If a party were to kick out an MP every time one voted differently from the "party line", then that party would quickly run short of potential MPs, and end up with empty seats.

I doubt any of the parties presently in Parliament would eject their MPs simply for voicing their own opinions.

I am a part of the moderate conservative party, and although we don't have any seats, I am interested in the rules you guys institute as we build and vote on our manifesto. Can we specify specifically in the party Manifesto or charter just how our MPs are voted out if they start siding with another party against ours? It seems to me that this would work, since a party member would have to abide by the rules of his party in order to be a member, and would have to be a member in order to be an MP in the first place.

I understand all of that. Believe it or not, I was actually considering all of this when I voiced my complaint. The complaint still stands. What will end up happening now is if someone actually happens to change their mind on an issue, their parent party will just go "oh, well he's a defector" and boot him from his seat. Your concerns are all well and good, but from where I sit they do not trump my 'free voting' concern. What will end up happening is a stagnation of thought and ideas; wherein the people who actually [i]do think [gasp!] for themselves will be condemned as party deserters. Imagine if Congress were obligated to oust all of its members who decided to vote for or against a certain bill, should that vote run contrary to the party line. This idea promotes a blind adherance to the party manifestos, and does nothing but promote conceptual retardation and mediocrity.

My 'party,' for example, will vote purely according to their best interests. By your logic, I would be more or less required to eject them from their spot if they should happen to vote againt my manifesto. Fuck that, thanks.


A mis understanding. In the list of prposals I refer to a party whip. This is the party saying that they have a sapecific opinion on the matter in debate and the party requires that they vote this way or that way. A defector would be a delegate that opposed such a whip. However the whip has to be declared. If a party uses a whip too often, as Ariddia says they will be out of members pretty soon and lose their say anyway. Where there is no declared whip, the party is leaving its delegates free to vote as they choose. In the NSCL for instance I can not see a whip ever being used. However there has to be some mechanism to deal with some one obtaining a delegacy under false pretences. Hence the defection idea. Do you have a better idea? If you go bck to page 2 and 3 of the NSCL thread, you will see the odd one considering joining us. If he had, but had kept fairly quiet, then got to be a delegate and started voting DSP line all the time, we would have to have the power to do something about it.

I am a part of the moderate conservative party, and although we don't have any seats, I am interested in the rules you guys institute as we build and vote on our manifesto. Can we specify specifically in the party Manifesto or charter just how our MPs are voted out if they start siding with another party against ours? It seems to me that this would work, since a party member would have to abide by the rules of his party in order to be a member, and would have to be a member in order to be an MP in the first place.

That seems a good idea to me. Additionally parties are free to set their manifestos as they want to.

Bump de novo

3. All parties that meet the qualification requirements shall be elligible to enter the general election
6. If there are more than ten parties legally entered then there shall be preliminary contests for each of the five regions of the political compass. Each region shall enter a number of parties into the final election pro rata to the number of parties registered, with a minimum of one for each region provided that the region has at least one legally registered party.

Parties should only be allowed to run if they receive a vocal support sufficient to insure that they will actually have a chance to gain a seat. There may be a situation where there are 10 parties that inhabit a region, yet none have more than 5 supporters, while a 2 parties may inhabit a region with 50 supporters each.

Maybe a petitition system where small and new parties must be required to get approval from a number of posters that is at least 2% of the number of votes from last election. Parties with 3 or more delegates can bypass the petition stage. A non-partisan collection of party representatives can oversee this process.

5. Any delegate resigning from a party also resigns their seat in the parliament (no defections)

This should be the party's decision, although I think the effect will be the same.

I was thinking that parties ought to have a minimum membership to run in future elections. The party does not have to be huge, but I think at least three members that are exclusively members of that party shoulds be required. i.e. Ariddia would not count for either COTP or UDCP.

I considered suggesting five members, but as only the two leading parties managed to win five seats this time round, and next time it is less likely to be a two horse race ;) , three seemed a better number if we stick to a 25 seat parliament.

Maybe a petitition system where small and new parties must be required to get approval from a number of posters that is at least 2% of the number of votes from last election. Parties with 3 or more delegates can bypass the petition stage. A non-partisan collection of party representatives can oversee this process.


That would add a whole new layer of procedure, and would mean that voters would be called upon twice. I'm not sure the gain outweighs the downsides.


I was thinking that parties ought to have a minimum membership to run in future elections. The party does not have to be huge, but I think at least three members that are exclusively members of that party shoulds be required. i.e. Ariddia would not count for either COTP or UDCP.

Well, I already weed out inactive/defunct parties before an election, so not every party actually gets to stand anyway. Also, a party already is not considered an official party until it has backing, i.e. at least two members and a manifesto drawn up after discussions within the party. (The "Up yours!" Party was an exception, in the sense that being a one-man party was actually part of its policy, and furthermore it had backing - i.e., there were people willing to be members).

Oh, and as a sidenote I don't see why people who are members of several parties should not count for one of them. ;)

It seems we all agree on several points, so perhaps we should examine the points there's still disagreement on one by one, rather than all at a time?

Which then are the points of disagreement?

1. Defections
2. Interval between elections
3. Party qualification

Any more?

Which then are the points of disagreement?

1. Defections
2. Interval between elections
3. Party qualification

Any more?

Well the only real points I had a problem were these:


6. If there are more than ten parties legally entered then there shall be preliminary contests for each of the five regions of the political compass. Each region shall enter a number of parties into the final election pro rata to the number of parties registered, with a minimum of one for each region provided that the region has at least one legally registered party.

8. Elections shall run for a minimum of seven (7) days to allow opportunity for all members of NS general to vote.

I think #6 should be discussed more, and that seven days is needlessly long.

Well the only real points I had a problem were these:



I think #6 should be discussed more, and that seven days is needlessly long.

I agree that #6 needs further discussion, but we need some counter suggestions for how to deal with more than 10 parties.

The reason for allowing seven days for the election is to give as many NSers the chance to vote as is possible. There may well be NSers that can only post once a week. (School kids in classes, people that only get home on the weekend etc.)

I agree that #6 needs further discussion, but we need some counter suggestions for how to deal with more than 10 parties.

For now, all I can think of is to have two threads/polls...


The reason for allowing seven days for the election is to give as many NSers the chance to vote as is possible. There may well be NSers that can only post once a week. (School kids in classes, people that only get home on the weekend etc.)

That's true; but seven days does seem awfully long... We can plan it to be four days including a week-end, for example.

Well, how about we address/debate these points one by one, in an effort to get things moving and sorted out?

1. Defections
2. Interval between elections
3. Party qualification (What exactly do you mean by that, Alien Born? How to sort out which parties will stand in an election?)
4. Length of elections

Also, do we all agree on the procedure for debates? I.e., an MP puts forth a proposal, becomes the Speaker while it's debated, and votes if there's a tie? We need to decide how long a debate can go on for. Also, I suggested that addressing new proposals should be a two-step procedure, with Parliament first deciding whether it wants to debate the proposal or discard it outright (so as not to clog up Parliament with constant debates). Perhaps all this could form a fifth point, after the four listed above.

Well, how about we address/debate these points one by one, in an effort to get things moving and sorted out?

1. Defections
2. Interval between elections
3. Party qualification (What exactly do you mean by that, Alien Born? How to sort out which parties will stand in an election?)
4. Length of elections

Also, do we all agree on the procedure for debates? I.e., an MP puts forth a proposal, becomes the Speaker while it's debated, and votes if there's a tie? We need to decide how long a debate can go on for. Also, I suggested that addressing new proposals should be a two-step procedure, with Parliament first deciding whether it wants to debate the proposal or discard it outright (so as not to clog up Parliament with constant debates). Perhaps all this could form a fifth point, after the four listed above.
the debate procedure seems fine to me - but let me just get this straight: the Speaker can't take sides in the debate (can only mod it effectively) unless there's a tie?

for length i think a debate thread should be open for a week or until it dies (not bumped for a while) until the poll is opened, and it should be a public poll that goes on for another week, maybe? that would make each proposal take 2 weeks to debate and vote on... quite lengthy, really :(

and there should be a parliamentary debate suggestion thread, as you imply. having every single proposition or idea of the 25 MPs having to go through this process would bring down jolt! ;)
it'd be unnecessary, anyway.



as for defecting, i still say that the voters vote for the party & not the MP in this current system we have. unless the system changes defectors should loose their seat, unless they can prove to the rest of parliament that their party has changed beyond all recognition (from the time when they were elected), hence the reason they want to defect. if this can be shown the defecting MP(s) should be allowed to set up their own alternative party in parliament, retaining their seat, or be an indipendent MP until the next election (i prefer the latter idea).
if the reason for defecting is anything else (like the defecting MP's own views have changed) they should loose their seat.
if they are defecting to another party we can assume that the party they are going to does not have any spare MP seats, and therefore for the 'voting for the party not the person' reason above, they should loose their seat. the vacant seat in the original party will be filled by spare party members.

what if there are no members spare to fill said spare seat? i don't know...

anyways, i hope that makes sense - i only got 2 1/2 hours sleep last night & my head's not screwed on right today :p



edit: we reached a loose consensus on length between elections: between 3 and no later than 4 months, being flexible to avoid the holidays and exams for students. the elections to take place inside the last week of office

the debate procedure seems fine to me - but let me just get this straight: the Speaker can't take sides in the debate (can only mod it effectively) unless there's a tie?

Yes, this is kind of problematic. If someone presents a legislative proposal to the House, shouldn't it be automatically assumed that said proposal has his support?

for length i think a debate thread should be open for a week or until it dies (not bumped for a while) until the poll is opened, and it should be a public poll that goes on for another week, maybe? that would make each proposal take 2 weeks to debate and vote on... quite lengthy, really :(

I agree, the process should be kept within a 7 day timeframe.


as for defecting, i still say that the voters vote for the party & not the MP in this current system we have.

Yes indeed.

unless the system changes defectors should loose their seat, unless they can prove to the rest of parliament that their party has changed beyond all recognition (from the time when they were elected), hence the reason they want to defect.

How exactly would an MP prove something like this?

edit: we reached a loose consensus on length between elections: between 3 and no later than 4 months, being flexible to avoid the holidays and exams for students. the elections to take place inside the last week of office

I personaly think that around 4 months between elections would be just right.

Which then are the points of disagreement?

1. Defections
2. Interval between elections
3. Party qualification

Any more?

1. Well, I think that certainly MPs should have a certain amount of leeway in voting. Just being able to kick people out like that is, in my opinion, not a good thing. While it is true that people vote for a party they also go by what these people in the party say.

Now, if it is a case of "HA HA I AM SECRETLY CNUSUURVUTIVE SUCK IT COMMIES LOL" I understand that this measure can be taken, but more often there will be honest disagreement about how the manifesto should be interpreted. In that case, I feel that MPs should be able to vote their concience. Some sort of measure should be in place here. Or a protection, if you will.

2. I'd favour a 2-3 month interval. NS time is slow! And we want lots of elections. :p

3. Bleh. If the problem occurs, weed out the parties with the least support and activity. Also: encourage voting alliances. I could see a Classical Liberal / Up Yours ticket happening for example. They could divide the seats they win together in their own system while running under one banner.

How exactly would an MP prove something like this?

by going back to their parties' manifesto as it was when they got elected, and pointing out how it has changed, and why that has lead to their decision to defect

Two other issues:

-We could debate in the parliament in a House of Commons-type style, if people are up to that. Theatrics = win. >:D

-What issues exactly are up for discussion? Do we follow active issues in the General forum (I feel we should.) Do we become some sort of double for the NSUN? Do we pretend we share a nation? (If so, how the heck would that nation look?) I think following general forum debate would be a nice thing to do. For example a motion in support of Amnesty International, or something like that. That way the general forum as a whole is more involved.

the debate procedure seems fine to me - but let me just get this straight: the Speaker can't take sides in the debate (can only mod it effectively) unless there's a tie?

That's Alien Born's suggestion. I can't say I quite agree with it, although it wouldn't make that big a difference.


for length i think a debate thread should be open for a week or until it dies (not bumped for a while) until the poll is opened, and it should be a public poll that goes on for another week, maybe? that would make each proposal take 2 weeks to debate and vote on... quite lengthy, really :(


How about six days of debating, then four days of voting? That should be sufficient, I think.

I agree with you on defections.


Two other issues:

-We could debate in the parliament in a House of Commons-type style, if people are up to that. Theatrics = win. >

-What issues exactly are up for discussion? Do we follow active issues in the General forum (I feel we should.) Do we become some sort of double for the NSUN? Do we pretend we share a nation? (If so, how the heck would that nation look?) I think following general forum debate would be a nice thing to do. For example a motion in support of Amnesty International, or something like that. That way the general forum as a whole is more involved.


Interesting ideas. Let's stick to the topic of defections for now, though, and discuss those points in detail later. ;)

On the Speaker issue. My suggestion is that the speaker does not participate in the debate as participating and moderating at the same time I feel to be too difficult to do fairly. However I am willing to drop this as it was only a suggestion. We need a moderator for each debate, and if people think that it is reasonable to participate and moderate at the same time, then we can go with that.

Defections.

No one was suggesting that anyone voting once in opposition to their party would automatically lose their seat. What was being suggested was that if someone (let us make this improbable in the extreme) like Pure Metal had a sudden change of position and decided to act as a Classic Liberal, then he could be denounced by his party as a defector and be removed from the parliament. It would be up to the party to denounce defectors. The Parliament could evaluate this claim and accept or reject it, if people are concerned about excessive internal politicing.

Edit:
3. Party qualification (What exactly do you mean by that, Alien Born? How to sort out which parties will stand in an election?)

You got it. Sorry it wasn't clear.

On the other hand, it could be argued that not doing this gives parties an incentive to make sure they have good candidates. It is far too easy to abuse the expulsion procedure for power-politics, especially with NS parties with informal hierarchies, to say the least.

IRL, Senators and MPs have a personal mandate when they are in even if they are elected purely on a party ticket. (Thinking of my own country here) and you cannot expect Parlimentarians to decide on things in good concience with the constant threat of expulsion. When there are new elections, a party can always decide not to nominate a certain MP again for their party lists. This is a big enough stick, I would say.

The discussion on defections was based on the loss of representation of the electorate. It is reallly a parliamentary procedural matter and not one for the parties themselves.

Where you have FPP systems then voting is for the representative. Here we used a PR system which means that voting was for the policies. Now we have to ensure that the intent of the electorate is reflected in the parliament. This does not mean to say that the MP has to be a robotic follower of party line, but if they go too far outside this on a frequent basis there is cause for concern.

I suggest that we adopt a system of party whips. i.e. a party specifies with regard to each debate whether a party whip applies to that subject. If it does, then the MPs are obliged to vote according to the party instructions. Not doing so may, on the decision of the party, result in expulsion and loss of the seat. Where no whip is declared each MP is free to vote as they feel fit.

On the other hand, it could be argued that not doing this gives parties an incentive to make sure they have good candidates. It is far too easy to abuse the expulsion procedure for power-politics, especially with NS parties with informal hierarchies, to say the least.


Well, as I pointed out earlier, if parties abusively kick out MPs, it'll only hurt them in the long run; they'll risk eventually running out of potential MPs, not to mention the fact that people could feel dissuaded from joining them, and maybe even voting for them. It's not in any party's interest to abuse the system in this matter.

Alien Born: parlimentarians tend to have a right to their personal vote of concience, even in a PR system. In the PR systems I am most familiar with (Netherlands, Belgium) this is the case. People can always be removed from the party, but to take someones seat away is a different matter entirely.

If there is disagreement within the party

It should be up to the Party to use its internal democracy (/autocracy) to decide party policy.
It should be up to the voter to decide who is right in the conflict over what viewpoint should be represented in the Parliament.


A whip system would only make this worse: issues that are not even in the manifesto could be declared 'whip' issues and thus become grounds for expulsion.

Remember: these parties lack a huge and active backing, there are no scientific institutes and policy bureaus that have established positions on every imaginable issue. It would appear to me, therefore, that some leeway ought to be given to the people who were elected in their party to represent it.

The assumption of "willfully acting different" doesn't really work for me. More often, people within a party will genuinly disagree over what, for example, the Classical Liberal or Social Democratic point of view should be.

With so many people availiable, I doubt "running out of MPs" will be a problem, even if it will create a disgruntled class of ejected, voiceless MPs because they disagreed with other people in their party on some issue.

Some parties may handle this issue responsibly, but I don't think we should encourage this kind of behaviour in the parliamentary rules. Personally. I don't know who is in agreement with me though.

You certainly would have support from Melkor Unchained, Knootoss.

The question I ask is on what basis is the seat allocated to someone?

The seat is allocated to the party by popular franchise. It does not, in any way, pertain to an individual to claimn the seat as belonging to them. So in removing defectors we would not be removing 'tehir seat' as it was not theirs to start with.

We have a chance to deal with some of the problems in RL political systems, and a major one of these in PR systems is this conception that the seat belongs to the delegate and not the party.

It would be an internal party issue as to whether an issue is a whip issue or not. If anyone does not agree in the basic thinking of their party in this respect, then they should not be a delegate for that party. That is the whole point of the whip system. It does not make the situation worse, it simply clarifies for the delegates whether the party has a defined position or not.

As our election allocated seats to parties, we have to respect the wishes of the electorate, or do you really believe that the possessor of the seat is no longer obligated to the electorate once the election is over. (One of the fundamental problems of representative democracy). Each party had clear manifestos. We could simply declare any MP voting contrary to the Manifesto for which their party gained the seat to be disqualified, but this would lead to lots of sematic challenges etc within the Parliament itself. The party though, should have the power to remove from office anyone abusing the position of responsibility granted to them.

How do you suggest we ensure that the express desire of the electorate as reflected in the election results is enacted in Parliament if we do not make provision for the removal of defecting members.

Interpreting if people are acting in accordance with the manifesto is a very political decision. If you insist on having declared party policy rule the day then I don't see a point in having delegates in the first place because you don't want a representative democracy.

The wishes of the electorate are exactly the thing being interpreted by the party! Some unelected party chairman has no more legitimacy to interpret what is right or wrong then any delegate has. That is why we have multiple delegates, multiple points of view instead of some stock market.

No RL country has a clause declaring that people are "voting contrary to the Manifesto" for very good reasons, because it will become a matter of simple majority to decide if this is the case. I.e. a political decision, not a reference to some greater ideal. The whole point is that people in a party are disagreeing on how that ideal should be reached.

*shrug* I must therefore wholly disagree with your nation that every liberal democracy in the world has got it wrong and that we should do it differently.

Representatives have been elected by their party to represent their party. If the party gains seats, these people get seats. It is then up to the MP to represent the people that elected him. If he doesn't do this well he can be kicked out of the party (and if the electorate does not like him/her he'll be gone the next time).

Parties can always draw up their own agreements that candidates for their posts have to sign if they want to be candidates. No need to make this a parliament issue though. Each party can then decide for itself how it wants to deal with this issue.

First to deal with the issue at hand:


Parties can always draw up their own agreements that candidates for their posts have to sign if they want to be candidates. No need to make this a parliament issue though. Each party can then decide for itself how it wants to deal with this issue.

It only becomes a parliament issue if dispute arises between a party and its supposed delegate. If the party disowns the delegate but the delegate denies this possibility, who is the parliament to support?

If this situation were not possible, then it would not be a matter for the parliament, but we do need to have some guidelines as to how to act in this situation.

What I had recommended is that we support the party, but allow an appeal on the part of the delegate which would be require both parties to provide evidence to support their cases. We can not just suspend parliament while such an appeal is ongoing, so the delegate would be removed from their seat pending this appeal result.

Now to deal with the straw men:

Firstly I did not insist on declared party policy ruling, I simply argued that the manifesto is what was voted for, not the occupant of the seat. Where the two are in conflict then there is a loss of sufrage if there is no means of redress. No party has a complete manifesto covering all aspects of every issue. So there is plenty of scope for the individual. But if a Classic Liberal were to vote in favour of compulsory government pensions or insurance, then they would be opposing the desire of those that voted for that seat. If they supported gun control then this is not necessarily opposing the electorate. There are shades of grey here. It is only the cases of Black that we need to be concerned with.

Secondly, an unelected party chairman would only have that power in some parties. It would be an internal matter for the party, not for the Parliament.

Many real life country have whip clauses. Which does amount to what is being suggested here. You appear to be opposed to the idea that a person should support those principles for which their party was elected to support. I simply can not see what the problem is unless you intend to vote contrary to the basic principles of your party.

I do find it offensive that you assume that a political system that evolved out of a system of personal priveleges and special grants should necessarily be the model on which to base a system that does not have this restriction. In addition to your comment concerning "all liberal democracies" this comment is plain wrong. Only those that use Proportional Representation have this problem. In other systems the electorate vote for the representative, not for the party. (There are lots of problems with that system too though). Argument from flawed authority is never very successful, and the existing political systems in Western Europe are highly flawed.

If a representative is kicked out of a party, he immediatley loses his status as an MP for that party. It is simple, uncomplicated, and only a problem for those that do not trust their own party.

Tagged.

Nononono… you did not get my point. My point was that it is very likely that in controversial issues the party will be split. I am against one half of the party telling the other half how to vote by danger of ejection on a majority+1 basis. Give delegates a little bit of a mandate of their own so the people within the party have to compromise instead of just forcing the issue with the biggest intra-party faction. That way you can have a real debate.

So again, leave the setting of rules to the party. If people do not like the rules of their party they should not sign their document. If someone is clearly breaking an agreement they signed with the party they are in, they become totally incredible as a politician.

You say it is only the cases of Black that we need to be concerned with, but it is exactly the shades of grey that I am worried about. People of good will shall disagree on certain issues. When they don't, that is wonderful. We are talking about instances hen they do disagree.

I do not oppose the idea of the party coming to the conclusion that an issue is ‘core’. I certainly intend to defend all the issues of the Socialist Democratic manifesto and I will vote in accordance with those core principles. However, the decision if something is a ‘core’ issue is a political decision in itself. There is no objective standard.

The classical liberals should not appoint someone stupid (or smart, if you look at content ;) ) enough to vote for compulsory government pensions. I’d really question your recruiting skillz and the workings of your internal party democracy. However, I do see Classical Liberals disagreeing on many other issues. (Which is really why nobody should vote Classical Liberal because they lack a coherent programme outside of their neoliberal economic ideas. Damn flipfloppers.) The point being that when there is a policy disagreement, it is more likely to be over genuine issues then over the core values of the party.

I would think that political systems in Western Europe are functioning pretty well, and I really do not see the big issue with them. *shrug*

If I may suggest a compromise: rather then making the kicking a "free for all" sort of thing we could list instances where parties are allowed to replace their delegates. This would be the 'black' cases you are talking about:

The delegate is switching parties
The delegate is voting against something which is explicitly in the manifesto.
Zell Miller style defamation of the own party
<something I may have forgotten>

but don't let it be any reason because it will be abused.

Why did you ever think it was supposed to be any reason. The Black cases are all this was ever about. Defection is a very strong term, it is not just a personal disagreement, it is a complete change of political positiopn.

I agree to the list of motives for the removal of a delegates voting privelages. (Which is all we could actually do, the party would have to act from there on.)
These being:

The delegate is switching parties
The delegate is voting against something which is explicitly in the manifesto.
Zell Miller style defamation of the own party


If we have overlooked anything this should be nominated as an ammendment to our procedural regulations.

Then we are in agreement :)

Its not that I ever doubted your intentions, I am just afraid for abuses of a well-inentioned rule. I guess I share some of your Classical Liberal pessimism about human nature. *giggle*

This looks like a fine solution.

Can we move on then to the next point?

The interval between elections.

I will support the 4 month interval suggested by PM (I believe), although personally I would prefer 6 months as this would allow more decisions top be made.

If no objections are made soon (a few hours) to the compromise solution to the defections issue, I will add it to the proposals in post 1.

May I suggest simply getting a poll on that issue and taking the average? The consensus appears to be, at least, that it should be somewhere between 2 and 6 months.

May I suggest simply getting a poll on that issue and taking the average? The consensus appears to be, at least, that it should be somewhere between 2 and 6 months.
We could set polls for each and every item, just that we would never get to the end. As I understood it, this debate here has become the first proposal for a bill to be approved by the Parliament. (Correct me if I am wrong Ariddia) What I am trying to do is to knock the proposal into shape in such a way that it will obtain a unanimous or nearly unanimous aproval.
The procedure should be approved of by all parties if this is going to work.

At the moment an interval of 4 months seems to have the most support.

*nods*

Oh, and, just to re-iterate, I would support the interval being about three or four months.

I like 3 month intervals, though 4 would be okay. I like the seven day voting time, because sometimes RL gets hectic, and I'd hate to miss a vote.

An election every week!

Oh looky, I log on, and everything that I could have contributed to the latest debate has already been said, and an agreeable conclusion has been drawn. Yayz for Knoot and Alien Born being the bestest. :D

/sticks hands in pockets, bows head, walks away feeling quite redundant...

I like 3 month intervals, though 4 would be okay. I like the seven day voting time, because sometimes RL gets hectic, and I'd hate to miss a vote.

What if we make it four days, a Friday to a Monday? That way it covers two weekdays and the weekend. Or a Saturday to a Tuesday, or whatever. Seven days really does seem unecessarily long...

Everyone would know the dates of the election way in advance, so the risk of "missing" it wouldn't really be a problem.

What if we make it four days, a Friday to a Monday? That way it covers two weekdays and the weekend. Or a Saturday to a Tuesday, or whatever. Seven days really does seem unecessarily long...

Everyone would know the dates of the election way in advance, so the risk of "missing" it wouldn't really be a problem.I could live with that. I rarely miss more than two days at a time. But don't assume everyone gets weekends off. My least busy day is Tuesday.

I could live with that. I rarely miss more than two days at a time. But don't assume everyone gets weekends off. My least busy day is Tuesday.

Which is why it shouldn't just be a week-end, but should also cover a couple of week-days. :)

Which is why it shouldn't just be a week-end, but should also cover a couple of week-days. :)

I see no benefit in cutting three days off a three times a year event. The purpose of proposing a seven day voting period was to ensure, as much as possible, that everyone got time to vote. Friday to Monday presumes a certain lifestyle or working pattern, which in an international forum such as this can not be presumed.

What are the reasons for wanting a shorter period?

What are the reasons for wanting a shorter period?

It's not "shorter"; the last election lasted four days, not seven. I just don't see any use in stretching it over seven days. It just seems to long. Everyone will have voted long before it ends, and people will have started to lose interest. Four days seems a reasonable balance between "too short" and "too long".

It's not "shorter"; the last election lasted four days, not seven. I just don't see any use in stretching it over seven days. It just seems to long. Everyone will have voted long before it ends, and people will have started to lose interest. Four days seems a reasonable balance between "too short" and "too long".

I don't know... 30 seconds would be plenty long enough...

It's not "shorter"; the last election lasted four days, not seven. I just don't see any use in stretching it over seven days. It just seems to long. Everyone will have voted long before it ends, and people will have started to lose interest. Four days seems a reasonable balance between "too short" and "too long".

Sorry. I meant shorter than seven days, not than the last election.

I for one have seen several posts saying "What election? I missed it" or the equivalent. These are the reason for wanting to extend the time in comparison to the last election. However could we compromise on 5 days then. Say Thursday to Monday. The problem I have with Friday to Monday is the long weekend syndrome that hits students in particular. (And if we were to hold a census, we would find that we have a very large number of students here).

Sorry. I meant shorter than seven days, not than the last election.

I for one have seen several posts saying "What election? I missed it" or the equivalent. These are the reason for wanting to extend the time in comparison to the last election. However could we compromise on 5 days then. Say Thursday to Monday. The problem I have with Friday to Monday is the long weekend syndrome that hits students in particular. (And if we were to hold a census, we would find that we have a very large number of students here).

Hmm... All right, five days sounds reasonable. Although, those who missed the last election probably would have missed it even if it had been seven days; there was a lot hype before it, lots of threads, and it was announced well in advance. ;)

So Five day elections at intervals of what?

4 months still seems good. Not so often it gets boring. But frequent enough that people feel like they have a say.

If there are no more comments or disagreements I move that elections should be at 4 month intervals.

Next issue is the qualification of parties for elections. A tricky one.

Four months is a bit long, but an acceptable compromise I suppose. As for qualifications, I'd say we should have that sort itself out. The whole compass thing I don't entirely get, but I suppose it would work.

Silly parties not even fitting a general direction on the compass (or with some serious story about why they don't fit) should only be allowed to participate if there is "room".

Parties that already have seats should naturally be allowed to run for re-election unless they died out.

Should we limit it to ten parties, then, to keep things simple?

The problem with that is, if the nine parties currently in Parliament are automatically allowed to run again, then that doesn't leave much room at all for now parties. On the other hand, since people voted for these parties this time round, it seems difficult to justify not allowing them to stand again.

Perhaps we could allow twenty parties? That would present problems of its own, however; the need for two polls, for example.

If we go with the "compass solution", then silly parties could be somehow fitted into one of the five options. The question is, how do we decide how many parties are allowed through from each "quadrant"? A comparatively equal proportion from each, I suppose.

A good question. But first of all, I think we can limit the number of parties already by stating that:


We don't do parties that are only silly. Humour is good, but there should be SOME substance. (I.e. Up Yours can work, but the Pancakes are Fluffy Party cannot)
Voting alliances are encouraged - more then one party running on the same "poll item" and dividing the seats according to a predetermined formula (or perhaps with a seperate poll, or whatever they wish)
Appeal to very similar parties to merge.

A good question. But first of all, I think we can limit the number of parties already by stating that:


We don't do parties that are only silly. Humour is good, but there should be SOME substance. (I.e. Up Yours can work, but the Pancakes are Fluffy Party cannot)
Voting alliances are encouraged - more then one party running on the same "poll item" and dividing the seats according to a predetermined formula (or perhaps with a seperate poll, or whatever they wish)
Appeal to very similar parties to merge.


Response to items on the list
1. MOBRA! Do we simply decree their party to be irrelevant and go all totalitarian and restrict freedom of expression etc. I could not in all conscience support such a move, despite finding their platform laughable.
Additionally how would the Cult of Tink Party have been judged.

A counter suggestion is to create a fringe zone in the political compass style proposal, where all parties that do not fit onto the traditional scale are to be preselected.

However we should find some way of keeping the number of parties to a minimum.

@Ariddia How many qualified parties currently exist?

2. This is purely internal. You are suggesting that there is an alliance of parties in one closely tied region that then split the vote between them. The problem with this is that no such alliance was achievable between even similar parties in the first election. With some authoritarian parties now appearing, I simply do not think it will work.

3. See 2.

I would suggest that we have impose a limit on the number of parties that can form (hence the question earlier). The requirement to form should stay as Ariddia has currently stated (under pressure from mods). If we set a limit at say 24 parties, and we have primaries run offs in six areas which return a number of parties proportional to the area's percentage of total parties then we should be able to hold a reasonable election.

One of the Political quizzes provided this
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v722/Alienborn/polquiz.png
which we could use as a basis.

Four months is a bit long, but an acceptable compromise I suppose. As for qualifications, I'd say we should have that sort itself out. The whole compass thing I don't entirely get, but I suppose it would work.

Silly parties not even fitting a general direction on the compass (or with some serious story about why they don't fit) should only be allowed to participate if there is "room".

Parties that already have seats should naturally be allowed to run for re-election unless they died out.

i wish to mount a serious protest.

If we get enough votes, we are legitimate as any other party. Who are you to judge who is silly and who isn't?

Response to items on the list
1. MOBRA! Do we simply decree their party to be irrelevant and go all totalitarian and restrict freedom of expression etc. I could not in all conscience support such a move, despite finding their platform laughable..

Thank you. Have a cookie, surfacer.

Response to items on the list
1. MOBRA! Do we simply decree their party to be irrelevant and go all totalitarian and restrict freedom of expression etc. I could not in all conscience support such a move, despite finding their platform laughable.
Additionally how would the Cult of Tink Party have been judged.

I agree. If people support them, they should be allowed to stand.


A counter suggestion is to create a fringe zone in the political compass style proposal, where all parties that do not fit onto the traditional scale are to be preselected.


That's possible, yes.


@Ariddia How many qualified parties currently exist?


Counting the Party of Order: 12. But I think TIN wanted to disband that one. So that leaves the 9 currently in Parliament, plus the Moderate Conservatives and the Emphatically Silly Party. None of the others currently in existence meet the criteria to be officially recognised.


I would suggest that we have impose a limit on the number of parties that can form (hence the question earlier). The requirement to form should stay as Ariddia has currently stated (under pressure from mods). If we set a limit at say 24 parties, and we have primaries run offs in six areas which return a number of parties proportional to the area's percentage of total parties then we should be able to hold a reasonable election.


That sounds good, though I don't know whether there would even be 24 parties, since most of those that spring up don't get any backing.

We have a constituency that demands to be heard!

Yeah, whatever. I will defend to the death your right to run a platform to execute all the surfacers.

Anyway, I really dislike the political compass that Alien Born suggested on account of it being of rather Libertarian origin. Furthermore, the bias on this forum is decidedly to the left, and hence it is only natural that more progressive parties should be allowed to run.

With 24 parties I don't expect a problem with lists, but this creates entirely different problems in itself. Therefore I'd really like to have things in one poll if that is possible. Perhaps with moderator help?

Anyway, this discussion thread is moving very slowly and it is holding up parliament business. If Arridia allows, I'd like to defer the issue of the next election to a committee (read: another thread) as running parliament procedures have actually been established pretty much now.

There were, of course, my own issues about style and what kind of proposals are allowed but perhaps we should defer those as well. We risk losing momentum if this technical discussion goes on for a few more weeks.

OK. I can ammend the qualification of parties to be a seperate item for discussion and agreement prior to the next election. Do I then put this ammended set of procedures forward to be voted as the first item of business of the parliament?

Or is there still some point or other to be hammered out?

If Arridia allows, I'd like to defer the issue of the next election to a committee (read: another thread) as running parliament procedures have actually been established pretty much now.


Agreed.


OK. I can ammend the qualification of parties to be a seperate item for discussion and agreement prior to the next election. Do I then put this ammended set of procedures forward to be voted as the first item of business of the parliament?


That sounds fine. Let's get things on the move! :)