NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is for the NS MPs to debate and vote on the issue given in post #2 below.

A parallel thread for discussion by non MPs will be created and linked to here

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426485

The voting options in this thread include options for MPs and Non MPs, and the voting is public. (You can see how your MPs voted). If you are not an MP please use the Non MP options.

The parliament is asked to approve the following procedural items:

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.

The issues that have been of substance in the proposal phase were point 6 in the election section, which we have put aside to allow more time to debate on the suggestion of a member of the DSP

The issue of party defection which we now hope is at a reasonable compromise between various opinions held

And the issue of time periods, which may still easily be ammended.

Personally - AB, not the NSCL - I support the procedure as it stands.

F*ck! sorry for voting wrong, wont do it again

This proposal will be submitted to the members of the UDCP for their input. I personally approve of it, but, as representative, I will vote in a few days when the Party as a whole has had the opportunity for a say.

I am still very, very opposed to this concept of being able to kick people out who don't vote party line or change their minds on major issues during the season. I'm also rather surprised that you would endorse this idea, as it flies in the face of the individual decision making rights you keep endorsing.

Nothing will get done if this is the case. Parties will simply eject members that fail to vote in accordance with their wishes, whip or no. It's too open ended.

Furthermore, do you see people getting kicked out of Congress for voting against the party line or [gasp!] making decisions for themselves? No. You don't. I think if this is going to turn into anything resembling an engaging experience, we need to look into revising this rule. Bigtime. Essentially it makes the attendant debate before the vote completely useless, because in most cases we will be arguing concepts that exist within one or more party's manifesto. Thus, it stands to reason that anyone who is actually moved by the other sides' arguments will not be allowed to voice his opinion. The votes will have the same outcome every time.

Furthermore, you state:
7. There shall be a quorum based proportional representation system of determining the outcome of the election.
This rule has already been broken [MOBRA did not reach quorum] and it seems laughable at best that you would be proposing this now, as opposed to back when it was actually an issue.

While I sympathise with Melkor's points, there is the consideration that the MPs were elected on the basis of the manifestos and not on their personalities. This is why a compromise had to be drawn up.

As it stands in the proposal it is only when the party objects to the MPs vote and it is demonstrably and explicitly against a clear point in the manifesto.

If your party does not approve of this, then if no complaint is made, no action will result.

The point on Quorum is to enforce that this is held in future elctions. I, like yourself, was severely disapoionted that quorum rules were not strictly applied this time round. Thus it is included explicitly to establish the groundrules for future elections. (The last election went remarkably smoothly considering there were no ground rules established.)

The point on Quorum is to enforce that this is held in future elctions. I, like yourself, was severely disapoionted that quorum rules were not strictly applied this time round. Thus it is included explicitly to establish the groundrules for future elections. (The last election went remarkably smoothly considering there were no ground rules established.)

Quorum was strictly applied in the first count of votes / distribution of seats. That count gave Parliament only 24 seats, so the party closest to obtaining an additional seat (MOBRA) gained one.

If Parliament wants the procedure to change, that's possible - although it would result in a less representative, less fair composition of Parliament, since some other party would have been rounded instead.

Quorum was strictly applied in the first count of votes / distribution of seats. That count gave Parliament only 24 seats, so the party closest to obtaining an additional seat (MOBRA) gained one.

If Parliament wants the procedure to change, that's possible - although it would result in a less representative, less fair composition of Parliament, since some other party would have been rounded instead.

It depends on what you understand by quorum. I understand it to mean that only parties that reach a minimum threshold, that of sufficient to gain one seat, should be involved in any rounding procedure. MOBRA did not reach that threshold, and as such should not have been awarded the seat.

However it was not worth arguing about at the time as we had, as I said, not established ground rules. Which is what we are trying to do here.

First of all, I would like to thank the Rt. Hon. Member Alien Born of the Liberals for bringing this issue to the attention of the Parliament. I am hoping for the quick adoption of constructive rules.

I must also emphasise that, as the Rt. Hon. Member already pointed out, there is an explicit restriction of cases in which a member of this parliament may be expelled from this parliament. I feel this satisfies the concerns about individual decision-making.

In addition, and with all respect for the people electing the, uhm, Mole representative, I feel that a quorum rule is only fair to democracy.

I would therefore like to encourage my fellow members of the DSP and the other members of this Parliament to vote in favour of this set of rules so we can begin implementing our progressive agenda of change.

Even though I have serious concerns about portions of the proposed procedural rules, I'm voting for them, if for no other reason than to avoid any further delays.

It depends on what you understand by quorum. I understand it to mean that only parties that reach a minimum threshold, that of sufficient to gain one seat, should be involved in any rounding procedure. MOBRA did not reach that threshold, and as such should not have been awarded the seat.


That's a reasonable position, and I don't oppose it in principle, but then we do need something that's going to be fair in practical terms. If the seat hadn't gone to MOBRA, then some other party would have needed rounding up by a significant degree (by which I mean, of course, over half a seat).

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I'm just saying that it poses problems too.

While I sympathise with Melkor's points, there is the consideration that the MPs were elected on the basis of the manifestos and not on their personalities. This is why a compromise had to be drawn up.

As it stands in the proposal it is only when the party objects to the MPs vote and it is demonstrably and explicitly against a clear point in the manifesto.
That's still one weak argument in favor of, and several strong arguments against. I see no logic in pursuing this line of thought in the face of what I stated earlier; the problems far outweigh the benefits.

That's still one weak argument in favor of, and several strong arguments against. I see no logic in pursuing this line of thought in the face of what I stated earlier; the problems far outweigh the benefits.

The relative strengths of the argument depend heavily on your particular political views. Your fear that MPs will become simply party puppets is only relevant if the party is authoritarian. If you are an authoritarian, then this is not a problem with the system it is a benefit. If your party is not authoritarian in nature then it is unlikely to use this procedure.

The problems do not outweigh the benefits as there are no problems for those parties that do not take this line of thinking. It is not compulsory that an MP is removed if they vote against a manifesto, it is not something that can be requested by anyone, it can only be requested by the party of the MP concerned.

Just because a provision is made for an action, does not require the action to be taken if it is against your principles.

The relative strengths of the argument depend heavily on your particular political views. Your fear that MPs will become simply party puppets is only relevant if the party is authoritarian. If you are an authoritarian, then this is not a problem with the system it is a benefit. If your party is not authoritarian in nature then it is unlikely to use this procedure.

The problems do not outweigh the benefits as there are no problems for those parties that do not take this line of thinking. It is not compulsory that an MP is removed if they vote against a manifesto, it is not something that can be requested by anyone, it can only be requested by the party of the MP concerned.

Just because a provision is made for an action, does not require the action to be taken if it is against your principles.

I agree. I don't see it as being a problem. As I stated in another thread, it would ultimately be harmful to a party to abuse this, and, most importantly, the fact that people vote for a party means that all seats should stay with the party they were attributed to.

Bump for votes/comments/discussion.

Oh, right, I was gonna post here.

Melkor, I agree with your sentiments, but think in this case they're ill founded. The actual text of this doesn't in any way tell parties that they should have a whip, or delineate anything about the whip's powers (such as kicking MPs out of office), or, frankly, tell even what a whip is. The whip only seems to get a mention via limitation of it's power, in that a party whip can't, er, "whip" non-party members. It doesn't however say that a party whip can or should have any power over members of parliament. So basically, this procedure leaves the question of the 'whip' concept up to individual parties - how parties run their own affairs is their business. You have to admit that parties DO have a huge say-so over their representatives. In the NSCL we elected the MPs, so the 'whip' in that case would be one of our MPs simply not getting elected if his voting record displeases the party. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this, AB.)

And the quorem thing was already explained; I think we only did it *now* because before now, there wasn't an actual NS parliament to decide how the voting works exactly, there was just Ariddia.

After careful review of the proposed procedures, I am happy to announce that I fully endorse this document in its current state.

To the right honorable member, Melkor Unchained, I would like to say, sir, that I find your concerns to be well founded. Indeed, it would be ideal to avoid a reality where a member of parliament will not vote contrary to his party line for fear of losing his position. However, we must remember that the people did vote for the party and their programs, and not for the individual members. Therefore, in the case of party v.s. member, parliamentary protocol should decidedly favor the rights of the former. A member who is chosen by his party to sit in parliament is rightfully expected by said organization to represent the will of the party, rather than his own fancies. A member who votes contrary to the party line is in essence revoking the position of the very organization which granted him his position, and in so doing does logicaly revoke his own right to represent said party in parliament. It is therefore my opinion that the currently proposed system for judging such issues is sound, and should be supported.

The relative strengths of the argument depend heavily on your particular political views. Your fear that MPs will become simply party puppets is only relevant if the party is authoritarian. If you are an authoritarian, then this is not a problem with the system it is a benefit. If your party is not authoritarian in nature then it is unlikely to use this procedure.

The problems do not outweigh the benefits as there are no problems for those parties that do not take this line of thinking. It is not compulsory that an MP is removed if they vote against a manifesto, it is not something that can be requested by anyone, it can only be requested by the party of the MP concerned.

Just because a provision is made for an action, does not require the action to be taken if it is against your principles.


If you don't want your party to tell you what every vote to make then don' join authoritanan parties. That's why i joined the PoWW. I believe my party will give me some leeway in my voting as long as I stick to the general ideas of our platform.

Not being able to have some control over your party members leaves you vunerable to "invaders." Outsiders could pretend to be party loyalists and purposely vote contrary to the party platform.

If you don't want your party to tell you what every vote to make then don' join authoritanan parties. That's why i joined the PoWW. I believe my party will give me some leeway in my voting as long as I stick to the general ideas of our platform.

Hear hear. This is true of most parties represented we think.

If you don't want your party to tell you what every vote to make then don' join authoritanan parties. That's why i joined the PoWW. I believe my party will give me some leeway in my voting as long as I stick to the general ideas of our platform.

Not being able to have some control over your party members leaves you vunerable to "invaders." Outsiders could pretend to be party loyalists and purposely vote contrary to the party platform.
This is accurate. The way the POWW is designed, MPs are expected to vote their conscience on almost all issues. When there is a conflict between the party platform and how an MP wishes to vote, MPs are encouraged to discuss their vote with members of the POWW, but are not required to do so.

If a party doesn't practice democratic processes internally, how can they legitimately support them in the Parliament?

The "invaders" comment is well-taken too. This is one reason why all MPs from POWW are elected by the Party membership at large.

The following MPs have yet to vote. If you are a member of their party and have means to contact them and urge them to vote, please do so. (We would like to get this motion out of the way as soon as possible and move on to real political debate rather than boring but necessary bureaucracy)

Cult of TInk Party
FairyTInkArisen
Skinny87

Democratic Socialist Party
Argesia
CoolDynasty42
Leonstein

Mole and Other Burrowing Rodents' Alliance
Moleland

NS Classic Liberals
Wegason
Uginin

NS Meritocratic Representative Republicans
Zethistania

Reason Party
Xaosis Redux

United Democratic Communist Party
Ariddia
Pure Metal
New Burmesia

12 valid votes cast.
13 not yet voted.

As indicated earlier to my esteemed colleagues, I am waiting to see if any members of my Party wish to express thoughts on the matter at hand, before I cast my vote as their representative. This poll will remain open several days, will it not?

As indicated earlier to my esteemed colleagues, I am waiting to see if any members of my Party wish to express thoughts on the matter at hand, before I cast my vote as their representative. This poll will remain open several days, will it not?

Yes it will. As we had at the start of this no set procedurte, the intention is to keep this open until all 25 MPs have manifested their opinion. However this intention is not going to be subject to abuse. I would suggest no more than seven days should be allowed, with any non voting MPs being regarded as abstensions and their absence being reported to the relevant parties.

I just gave this thread a read-through, and I agree with Melkor. It's a boring system where everyone's votes are predetermined by the manifestos, which they are under the current rules.

The only vaguely persuasive argument I've heard on the other side is that people voted for the parties, not the individuals. Given the strength of the other arguments, this calls for a revision of the election rules. Fix the thing that's broken, don't break the thing that works.

Yes it will. As we had at the start of this no set procedurte, the intention is to keep this open until all 25 MPs have manifested their opinion. However this intention is not going to be subject to abuse. I would suggest no more than seven days should be allowed, with any non voting MPs being regarded as abstensions and their absence being reported to the relevant parties.

Agreed.


I just gave this thread a read-through, and I agree with Melkor. It's a boring system where everyone's votes are predetermined by the manifestos, which they are under the current rules.

The only vaguely persuasive argument I've heard on the other side is that people voted for the parties, not the individuals. Given the strength of the other arguments, this calls for a revision of the election rules. Fix the thing that's broken, don't break the thing that works.


I haven't seen any truly persuasive arguments in favour of changing it. The fact that people vote for parties, and that MPs should not blatantly violate that which they were elected for, should be upheld. The arguments against this are, in my view, unrealistically alarmist. Each party remains free to do as it please, so nothing is being forced on anyone. There's nothing broke that needs fixing.

You say that people's votes will be "predetermined by the manifestos". That's a misleading statement. MPs should, of course, not vote against their own manifestos, because they would then be voting against that which they were chosen for. But in most cases a manifesto will provide no clear guidelines, and MPs will have significant free reign.

I just gave this thread a read-through, and I agree with Melkor. It's a boring system where everyone's votes are predetermined by the manifestos, which they are under the current rules.

The only vaguely persuasive argument I've heard on the other side is that people voted for the parties, not the individuals. Given the strength of the other arguments, this calls for a revision of the election rules. Fix the thing that's broken, don't break the thing that works.

How many times does this have to be said before it is understood. The system does not require the MPs to vote in any way at all. What it does is to provide a means by which a party can free itself of a rogue member, who joined under false pretences. That is all.

If a party does require its MPs to vote a specific way on all issues, then this had better be an authoritarian party, or its hypocricy will be clear to all.

Both Melkor and Deleuze apear to believe that if some provision is made for a party to reject a rogue member then this will necessarily occur. If that is the faith and trust you have in your fellow party members then we would suggest that you reconsider the association you have with them.

Yea.

I support these rules and procedures. They are well thought out and address a number of issues i had about the NS General Parliament. I feel they will work and are going to be very valuable to ensuring a nice civil Parliament rather than something else. I understand and agree on some points with the argument put forward by Melkor and i have utmost respect for their view however i feel the rules as they are guarantee that only those MPs that go consistently against the party line and/or principles will be replaced.

After all, if this is not the case, we can make an amendment to the rules.

At this point, with a majority of Yeas having been established. It is possible to declare these procedures approved.

The dissention of the individual members of the Reason Party is recognised and we would take this opportunity to invite dissenting members of the parliament to propose ammendments or alterations as and when they so desire. The procedure rules should be and are to be flexible and adapt to the requirements of the parliament.

As we now have an established procedure, we open the Parliament for business and request that members raise proposals for bills at will.

Seems fine to me.

Given that the 'Yea' vote has already obtained an absolute majority, and given that the UDCP members who have expressed an opinion on the topic were all in favour, I have now added my vote as 'Yea', in accordance with my own preference and that of the Party members.

Bump.

As we now have an established procedure, we open the Parliament for business and request that members raise proposals for bills at will.

BUMP again. If no-one else is going to, then I'll discuss it with my Party, and I'm sure we can come up with a proposal for a bill.

Voted yea on behalf of the UDCP.

Now we just need someone to actually make a bill for debate. Let's get our thinking caps on... :rolleyes:

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.


Based upon the above-stated rules, I, as duly elected Member of Parliament representing the United Democratic Communist Party, hereby submit the following proposal outline for consideration by my esteemed colleagues and fellow Members of Parliament:

That the death penalty be officially and solemnly opposed by this Parliament, that it be never implemented or condoned; and, further, that all suspects of any misdeed or crime, in addition to the right to life, be recognised as duly possessing the right to a fair trail, and the right to appeal against the verdict of the court.

As per Parliamentary rules of debate, should this outline be retained for consideration by at least nine Members of Parliament, I will present Parliament with a more detailed proposal, after input from my fellow Party members.

Please vote here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427448).

Based upon the above-stated rules, I, as duly elected Member of Parliament representing the United Democratic Communist Party, hereby submit the following proposal outline for consideration by my esteemed colleagues and fellow Members of Parliament:

That the death penalty be officially and solemnly opposed by this Parliament, that it be never implemented or condoned; and, further, that all suspects of any misdeed or crime, in addition to the right to life, be recognised as duly possessing the right to a fair trail, and the right to appeal against the verdict of the court.

As per Parliamentary rules of debate, should this outline be retained for consideration by at least nine Members of Parliament, I will present Parliament with a more detailed proposal, after input from my fellow Party members.

In the meantime, I will start a public poll (coming shortly).
i support this motion and move for it to be debated as the first proposal in parliament :)

On a point of Order, I'd like to to be pointed out to the Rt. Hon representative that this will, in fact, be the second proposal brought before the parliament.

On a point of Order, I'd like to to be pointed out to the Rt. Hon representative that this will, in fact, be the second proposal brought before the parliament.

So noted, and I thank my esteemed colleague and fellow representative for raising this point. This proposal is, however, the first to be put forth on the basis of the new procedural rules, and is the first ever proposal outline. Hence the title of the above-linked thread.

It would appear to me that a few people who are not MP's are voting in the MP area. Thus I believe a count of actual MP's are taken from the poll, as some have not been named as MP's. Also I'm voting no because forcing people to vote along party lines doesn't seem very democratic to me.

Members of Parliament:

Democratic Socialist Party
Deleuze
Leonstein
The Chinese Republics
Argesia

Emphatically Silly Party
Carops
IV Stalin

Mole and Other Burrowing Rodents' Alliance
(coming soon)

New British Imperialist Party
Kriegorgrad
Praetonia

NS Classic Liberals
Vittos Ordination
Santa Barbara

NS Conservative Party
Blu-Tac
Pascalini
Cristia Elite
Futuristic America
Lovers Rock of Wierd

Reason Party
Melkor Unchained
Xaosis Redux
Undelia
Euroslavia
Stephistan

Revolutionary Trotskyist Party
DHomme
Lienor

United Democratic Communist Party
New Burmesia
Ariddia

Stephistan... This vote closed four months ago. It was a proposal voted on by the first Parliament. The proposal has been adopted, and sets the procedures any proposal must now follow.

well this is democracy and also if ahnyone who is a member of RTP i would like them to please tell who they want to become 1st minister of my country because you are now the largest party in my country with 22 seats

well this is democracy and also if ahnyone who is a member of RTP i would like them to please tell who they want to become 1st minister of my country because you are now the largest party in my country with 22 seats
Could you perhaps... like, talk to these people in private as opposed to spamming up these threads with talk about your election, which is a completely seperate issue? Seems like every time I open an NS General Parliament thread, you've got a few posts in there asking people about your election. Please make your own thread or talk to the people involved off other people's threads. Thank you.