NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the thread for the fourth NS General Parliament. A list of MPs can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=502218). Procedures can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9084706&postcount=2) (ignore the first line).

Happy debating!

May the customary paddling of new members of parliament begin!

I would like to introduce to Parliament:

Representation of the People Bill

RECOGNISING the dispute caused by the electoral system at the Fourth Nationstates General Election has raised issues that are of concern to Parliament.

RECOGNISING that there are other systems more suitable for a party-list electoral system (commonly D'Hondt and Sailte-Lague) than the one currently used. (Similar in practice to a largest remainder system).

PROPOSES that Parliament have 35 members elected by the Sainte Lague system, as follows:

1. For all parties a quota shall be calcualted as follows, Q=(V/(s+1)) where 'Q' is the Quota, 'V' is the amount of votes, 's' is the amount of seats awarded to a party so far.

2. The party with the largest quota will be awarded a seat.

3. Steps 1-2 shall be recalculated until 35 seats are awarded.

4. Parties shall designate MPs equal to their amount of seats as per the parliamentary procedures enacted by the first Parliament.

PROPOSES to maintain transparency Parliament, before any election, shall nominate a member to perform the above calculation, who shall post results, as well as a complete copy of their workings, so that any issues may be further resolved by the elected Parliament.

PROPOSES that upon the passage of this Bill, Parliament shall vote to reapportion itself according to the above method, and that all members of the fourth parliament be considered members of the new fourth parliament should their party have the same amount, or more, seats.

RECOGNISES the concerns brought about by the unoffical poll, and the efforts by Pure Metal in providing a poll free from double and puppet voting.

PROPOSES that there be no unofficial polls in the same thread as that of the election hereafter.

RECCOMENDS that in the hopefully unlikely and undesireable event of another dispute over the results that parties do not resort to not accepting results of elections, and instead that parties settle dispute through parliamentary means.



So far in support: (Need 9 to reach quorum, let me know if you support so I can put you down)
1. New Burmesia
2. Jello Biafra
3. Wonderjar
4. Kinda Sensible people
5. Anarchuslavia
6.
7.
8.
9.

I would like to introduce to Parliament:
That's a a grand idea. Because that's not totally, unnecessarily confusing on a silly internet game, wot! :rolleyes:

That's a a grand idea. Because that's not totally, unnecessarily confusing on a silly internet game, wot! :rolleyes:

No more or less so than the current system.

That's a a grand idea. Because that's not totally, unnecessarily confusing on a silly internet game, wot! :rolleyes:

I agree. I see nothing wrong with the current system.


Also, I greatly approve of sarcasm :D

whats the NS General Parliament all about im confused:confused:

NB, I'm kinda confused by that....


If I understand it right, it sounds good. :D

To (possibly) confuse things further.

I propose that the Choose Your Pogo Stick Wisely Party Holy Constitution(with some small changes) be ratified as the Official NationStates General Forum Constitution, including information regarding ammedments to the constitution. Watch this post for edits with said constitution and ammendment making stuff.

The Holy Constitution, Blessed by Pope Zilam XXX:

1. All citizens, regardless of age, gender, color, or creed are required to wear a hat. No exceptions. All hats are regularly inspected for lint by government agents.

2. All citizens shall praise thy holy Peechland.

3. Every family shall receive their choice of a free Panda, Penguin, or Duck-Billed Platypus.

4. Reduced taxes for those who join the anti-fluffle movement.

5. Walking is banned. Any form of transportation must be by Pogo Stick And/Or spam car only.

6. Unlimited spam and random hi-jacks.

7. All citizens are required to consume at least one half pint of rainbow sherbet daily.

8. Silly poll options.

* For both serious, and silly threads.

9. Whenever the Parliament convenes, The Mormon Tabernacle Choir will perform beforehand.

10. Sig worthy posts.

11. +1

12. Pi is the official religion of the forum. 3.14% of all taxes will go to Pope Zilam XXX, head of the Church of Pi.

13. Our goal is to make you smile.

14. The Speed Department is here to help in the fight against slow Jolt.

15. The right to choose is held sacred.

* You've been chosen to participate in an international debate that will be televised all over the world. Topics will be drawn from a hat, but will be very similiar to the topics discussed here on NS. Each participant from the winning team will receive $250k cash, a new car and a their picture on the front page of Time Magazine.

Now choose your team from the players of NS. Who would your team consist of? For fun, you also have to name your team. Please try to have a minimum of 4 members in your team. You may of course have more. 16. The right to choose.

* Max Barry has decided to produce his own reality tv show and you have been chosen to participate. You have to select other members of NS to live with in a large house for a 6 month time period. If everyone plays nice, you will all receive $250k cash and will all be characters in Max's next book. But, if anyone gets reported to the "Mods", then upon review of the situation, that person will be sent home.....in reality tv terms- eliminated. No prize.

17. Classes on corrupting the masses are offered for free to Members of NationStates General Parliament.



Foreign Policy:

NationStates General is in a state of perpetual war with all other nations. As such, we believe in maintaining a strong army of Rhinos and Squirrels to make preemptive strikes against all neighboring countries. All soldiers will be issued sweater vests made from industrial strength bubble-wrap for armor, and yarn garrotes for weapons. Once an enemy country has been subjugated, the Holy Constitution will be enforced upon the natives.

Any proposed ammendment shall only be ratified if it has the support of a 2/3 (18 MNSGPs) majority. Also Party Leader Il Ruffino and Pope Zilam XXX shall have vetos on any ammendments. The CYPSWP Cabinet shall also have a veto, but only if they unnamimously agree upon using that veto.

NB, I'd get rid of the automatic re-proportionment, seeing as how that's unlikely to go over well with the entrenched parties.

To (possibly) confuse things further.

I propose that the Choose Your Pogo Stick Wisely Party Holy Constitution(with some small changes) be ratified as the Official NationStates General Forum Constitution, including information regarding ammedments to the constitution. Watch this post for edits with said constitution and ammendment making stuff.

NationStates will soon become a part of the Commonwealth of Nations and accept the Queen as head of state. Furthermore, Britain has no written constitution and nor do we need one. Particulary a 'holy' constitution, we do not mix politics and religion wot!

NB, I'd get rid of the automatic re-proportionment, seeing as how that's unlikely to go over well with the entrenched parties.

Possibly a good idea. Or, I might add a clause allowing Parliament to vote whether to dissolve and reapportion itself after the Bill is passed. That way, you don't necessarily have to throw out one with the other, but still leaves the possibilty of reapportionment, if you get my drift.

NationStates will soon become a part of the Commonwealth of Nations and accept the Queen as head of state. Furthermore, Britain has no written constitution and nor do we need one. Particulary a 'holy' constitution, we do not mix politics and religion wot!

I'm willing to make some concessions, good Lady sah. It could be The Somewhat Similar To, But Definately Not A Constitution of NationStates General, a Region of the Commonwealth of Nations.

I'd also be willing to remove some of the religious aspects and replace them with pro-tea, anti-coffee laws.

NB, I'm kinda confused by that....


If I understand it right, it sounds good. :D

Basically, it's just a wordy description of a new (fairer) way to convert votes to seats.

I've produced pie charts of what Parliament looks now, and under the proposed system, which showed how biased it is, and better at reflecting the voters.

I'm willing to make some concessions, good Lady sah. It could be The Somewhat Similar To, But Definately Not A Constitution of NationStates General, a Region of the Commonwealth of Nations.

I'd also be willing to remove some of the religious aspects and replace them with pro-tea, anti-coffee laws.

I am still not keen on this constitution, no matter what you change its name to. However if you were to bring up a few points from your manifesto individually, then we might come to some sort of agreement over certain things. I am willing to compromise a little seeing as in the past you have proven yourself to be a gentlemen. Feel free to pop into the NBIP thread at anytime for a cup of tea and a chat, good sah!

Sahs, the NBIP wishes to introduce legislation!

From this day forth, the official language of NationStates General shall be British English. All other forms of English, as well as damn foreign languages, are prohibited.

Shall we vote, wot?

Sahs, the NBIP wishes to introduce legislation!

From this day forth, the official language of NationStates General shall be British English. All other forms of English, as well as damn foreign languages, are prohibited.

Shall we vote, wot?

Read the procedures good sah. 9 MPs must approve first, unless I have read incorrectly.

Speaking of which, I approve of this bill, and I trust that leniency shall be granted to those unfortunates who do not have English as a first language.

I am still not keen on this constitution, no matter what you change its name to. However if you were to bring up a few points from your manifesto individually, then we might come to some sort of agreement over certain things. I am willing to compromise a little seeing as in the past you have proven yourself to be a gentlemen. Feel free to pop into the NBIP thread at anytime for a cup of tea and a chat, good sah!

Very good, good lady sah, wot. As such I wish to withdraw my proposal. I or one of my fellow party members may bring up some of the points within at later dates.

Read the procedures good sah. 9 MPs must approve first, unless I have read incorrectly.

Speaking of which, I approve of this bill, and I trust that leniency shall be granted to those unfortunates who do not have English as a first language.

Pfft. Procedures? Who cares for procedures when Her Majesty has commanded it!

Besides, I feel that we, the NBIP and the CypsWP should assume emergency powers, given that the Parliament is below its full numbers, wot! Why, with 21 members, we are only 3 short of a full majority! We shall rule in the name of Emparh, Queen Elizabeth and Pogo Sticks across the land!

Sahs, the NBIP wishes to introduce legislation!

From this day forth, the official language of NationStates General shall be British English. All other forms of English, as well as damn foreign languages, are prohibited.

Shall we vote, wot?

Personally I do not mind those threads devoted to a specific foreign language. However I do find it annoying when people start having non-english conversations in any old thread. Do these people not realise that it is rude to speak a different language in front of others that cannot understand?

As for this appalling ''l337'' speak, this must be banned at once! Also correct grammar and English spelling must be used. Those that do not even attempt to use good spelling and grammar should be sent back to school and beaten with a cane, I say!

Personally I do not mind those threads devoted to a specific foreign language. However I do find it annoying when people start having non-english conversations in any old thread. Do these people not realise that it is rude to speak a different language in front of others that cannot understand?

As for this appalling ''l337'' speak, this must be banned at once! Also correct grammar and English spelling must be used. Those that do not even attempt to use good spelling and grammar should be sent back to school and beaten with a cane, I say!
You are of course right, good Lady Sah; I too have no objection to the Dutch thread, wot! I included it in the Bill, though, because I knew that some damn foreigner would try and get round our ban on the foul Americano by 'hilariously' posting in another language instead, wot!

Do you have any suggestions on how to amend the Bill, wot?

Pfft. Procedures? Who cares for procedures when Her Majesty has commanded it!

Besides, I feel that we, the NBIP and the CypsWP should assume emergency powers, given that the Parliament is below its full numbers, wot! Why, with 21 members, we are only 3 short of a full majority! We shall rule in the name of Emparh, Queen Elizabeth and Pogo Sticks across the land!

This is indeed intriguing good sah. Of course I cannot speak for my party, but I see no reason why the two largest parties in parliament should not assume emergency powers in this dark hour of a partially filled parliament building.

This is indeed intriguing good sah. Of course I cannot speak for my party, but I see no reason why the two largest parties in parliament should not assume emergency powers in this dark hour of a partially filled parliament building.

I have been in conference with the leader of the Moles too, good sah (at least he has been in conference with me - I keep forgetting to reply, wot!); I believe that he too would be willing to join any coalition, wotwot!

This shall indeed be a glorious Parliament! Huzzah!

You are of course right, good Lady Sah; I too have no objection to the Dutch thread, wot! I included it in the Bill, though, because I knew that some damn foreigner would try and get round our ban on the foul Americano by 'hilariously' posting in another language instead, wot!

Do you have any suggestions on how to amend the Bill, wot?

We shall allow each foreign language to have its own thread, but one thread only! This way those bloody yanks can only have one American English thread, which we can easily avoid.

We shall allow each foreign language to have its own thread, but one thread only! This way those bloody yanks can only have one American English thread, which we can easily avoid.

A truly excellent suggestion! Then all the appalling talk of 'Baseingball' and 'American Football-where-the-foot-never-touches-the-ball' can stay in one place for good!

I have been in conference with the leader of the Moles too, good sah (at least he has been in conference with me - I keep forgetting to reply, wot!); I believe that he too would be willing to join any coalition, wotwot!

This shall indeed be a glorious Parliament! Huzzah!

Huzzah indeed sah. If memory serves, MOBRA have 3 seats, which would give our glorious coalition a majority over this slighty-filled parliament.

We shall allow each foreign language to have its own thread, but one thread only! This way those bloody yanks can only have one American English thread, which we can easily avoid.

As long as they make sure to have the thread title in proper British English, so we can understand it.

Huzzah indeed sah. If memory serves, MOBRA have 3 seats, which would give our glorious coalition a majority over this slighty-filled parliament.

Then we must discuss policy, good sah! I am happy to leave negotiations between our two parties regarding the implementation of both of our manifestos to my colleague, Good Lady Sah Vacuumhead. Perhaps you could present a joint policy document to the Parliament, wot?

A truly excellent suggestion! Then all the appalling talk of 'Baseingball' and 'American Football-where-the-foot-never-touches-the-ball' can stay in one place for good!

Baseingball? Oh, you mean that ballbase game! :rolleyes:

It is similar to our game of rounders, except that all these ballbase players are kitted out in helmets and big gloves and uniforms. Even their children have to wear all this needless stuff, you would think their schools would spend the money instead on giving them a decent education. Many of these damn colonials cannot even speak good English, wot! :eek:

As long as they make sure to have the thread title in proper British English, so we can understand it.
No, it must be written in this awful ''American English'' language as a warning to us civilised people to avoid the damn thread.
Then we must discuss policy, good sah! I am happy to leave negotiations between our two parties regarding the implementation of both of our manifestos to my colleague, Good Lady Sah Vacuumhead. Perhaps you could present a joint policy document to the Parliament, wot?

I presume that the gentleman Ifreann is the representative for the CypsW party in this matter, and I already know the leader of the moles. I will do my best, sah!

Of course, I expect an additional title seeing as I am taking on more duties...

Then we must discuss policy, good sah! I am happy to leave negotiations between our two parties regarding the implementation of both of our manifestos to my colleague, Good Lady Sah Vacuumhead. Perhaps you could present a joint policy document to the Parliament, wot?

No, it must be written in this awful ''American English'' language as a warning to us civilised people to avoid the damn thread.


I presume that the gentleman Ifreann is the representative for the CypsW party in this matter, and I already know the leader of the moles. I will do my best, sah!

Of course, I expect an additional title seeing as I am taking on more duties...

Alas good sah and good lady sah, I believe many, if not all, of my party colleagues are offline, and it would be improper of me to enter negotiations without their support.

Of course, I expect an additional title seeing as I am taking on more duties...

You are indeed a real Lady Gentleman, good Sah! There is a mercenary nature to your character that the Party finds quite endearing...

You shall be officially promoted to Vice Leader of NBIP, if you accept this role, wot! What say you?

Alas good sah and good lady sah, I believe many, if not all, of my party colleagues are offline, and it would be improper of me to enter negotiations without their support.

Oh course, old boy! But, should your colleagues object, let it be known that we speak of a coalition, not a merger, wot! Our parties shall remain independent, but united in goals.

Alas good sah and good lady sah, I believe many, if not all, of my party colleagues are offline, and it would be improper of me to enter negotiations without their support.
That is fair enough, old chap. We shall give you time to discuss this. However I am confident that your fellow CypsW members will agree to this, as it will prove beneficial to all parties involved.

You are indeed a real Lady Gentleman, good Sah! There is a mercenary nature to your character that the Party finds quite endearing...

You shall be officially promoted to Vice Leader of NBIP, if you accept this role, wot! What say you?

I accept my role as Vice Leader of the NBIP, and I give my thanks. Truly I am grateful, good sah Philosopy.

I accept my role as Vice Leader of the NBIP, and I give my thanks. Truly I am grateful, good sah Philosopy.

I have made the changes to the NBIP members list. Congratulations, good Lady Sah!

Oh course, old boy! But, should your colleagues object, let it be known that we speak of a coalition, not a merger, wot! Our parties shall remain independent, but united in goals.
I will relay this sentiment to them sah.
I accept my role as Vice Leader of the NBIP, and I give my thanks. Truly I am grateful, good sah Philosopy.
May I be the second to congratulate you on your new role good lady vice leader sah

I have made the changes to the NBIP members list. Congratulations, good Lady Sah!

May I be the first to congratulate you on your new role good lady vice leader sah

Thank you, my dear fellows. I feel like a celebration is in order. Let us sit down and enjoy a nice cuppa, wot!

I will relay this sentiment to them sah.

May I be the second to congratulate you on your new role good lady vice leader sah

First? Second yes!

Your reactions are too slow, old chap. You must be tea deprived! :eek:

Thank you, my dear fellows. I feel like a celebration is in order. Let us sit down and enjoy a nice cuppa, wot!

Now you're talking, old boy! Tea is what this Parliament is all about, wotwot!

First? Second yes!

Your reactions are too slow, old chap. You must be tea deprived! :eek:

It is not I, but my latop whose reactions are slow. But worry not, the application of a good cuppa should speed things up greatly.

Now you're talking, old boy! Tea is what this Parliament is all about, wotwot!

Indeed it is. Us MPs need tea to function, wot!

It is not I, but my latop whose reactions are slow. But worry not, the application of a good cuppa should speed things up greatly.
Yes, tea is such a wonderful thing. :)

I would like to propose a toast, to tea! *Sups tea*

Indeed it is. Us MPs need tea to function, wot!

Being Irish I require alcohol and potatoes to function, so my tea shall be suitably Oirish, wot.

And the NSG Parliament degenerates into spam immediately with no discussion of a very good proposal.

Kudos to New Burmesia.

And the NSG Parliament degenerates into spam immediately with no discussion of a very good proposal.

Kudos to New Burmesia.

Well, if you consider 'spam' to be forming Parliamentary coalitions and 'good proposals' to be needlessly complicated nonsense, then you're absolutely right.

And the NSG Parliament degenerates into spam immediately with no discussion of a very good proposal.

Kudos to New Burmesia.

Spam is party policy.

A very complicated and unneeded proposal.


+1

And the NSG Parliament degenerates into spam immediately with no discussion of a very good proposal.

Kudos to New Burmesia.

Have you come up with any good proposals are are you just content with complaining?

I have a proposition:



Separate Threads for All debates, using Parliament Thread as an HQ of Sorts Bill


Seeing That this thread is being cluttered

Recognizing the need for individual debates to be focused in one section, or thread

May we create separate threads for separate Act debates, but using this as the Parliament HQ, where we eventually post completed bills, rejected bills, repealed acts/laws, New Laws, NSG Constitution, etc?

Oh course, old boy! But, should your colleagues object, let it be known that we speak of a coalition, not a merger, wot! Our parties shall remain independent, but united in goals.

Are our goals sufficiently similar to allow us to be united? Perhaps we should make a list of our common goals and what we are ok to comprimise on.

Are our goals sufficiently similar to allow us to be united? Perhaps we should make a list of our common goals and what we are ok to comprimise on.

This seems wise. Do we need a new thread or shall we continue to abuse our position as MPs?

*drinks heavily from parliament bar*

This seems wise. Do we need a new thread or shall we continue to abuse our position as MPs?

*drinks heavily from parliament bar*

I don't think we need a new thread. Perhaps we could discuss our positions in our respective party threads, and post a finalised list here?

.....anyone notice my proposal?

.....anyone notice my proposal?

Yeah. Don't like it. I reckon it's better having everything in one place. A bit cluttered, yes, but better than having loads of proposal threads and this one.

Yeah. Don't like it. I reckon it's better having everything in one place. A bit cluttered, yes, but better than having loads of proposal threads and this one.

Yes, it's more easily accesible to everyone to have it here. Provided we don't attempt to discuss five seperate issues at once, it should be fine to put them here as intended.

Yeah. Don't like it. I reckon it's better having everything in one place. A bit cluttered, yes, but better than having loads of proposal threads and this one.

Meh, I tried......:)

Have you come up with any good proposals are are you just content with complaining?

I expressed my support for the changes New Burmesia has listed long before this Parliament actually convened.

I am not an MP, only an observer.

Well, if you consider 'spam' to be forming Parliamentary coalitions and 'good proposals' to be needlessly complicated nonsense, then you're absolutely right.

I consider discussing having a cup o' tea with fellow party members to be spam.

Not one dissenter has even countered New Burmesia's correct assertion that his proposed system provides a much more accurate allotment of seats, nor has one of them explained why this is needlessly complicated (I think they saw a little bit of Algebra and shat their pants).

Well, if you consider 'spam' to be forming Parliamentary coalitions and 'good proposals' to be needlessly complicated nonsense, then you're absolutely right.

As I stated previously, it is no more or less complex than the previous system. Mathematically, it could even be argued that the proposed system is less so, and offers a far more accurate translation of votes to seats.

And, at some point we will need a thread for each proposal, simply in order to have a poll to vote on it. I shall do that later, although I won't put a poll until we have had some debate.

I would like to introduce to Parliament:I approve. I would suggest changing the number of seats to 33, though, because the percentages are easier to approximate. This wouldn't be necessary for the actual determining of who gets seats, but rather for the observers who want to know how well their party is doing at any given time.

Additionally, which party is which on the pie charts?

I expressed my support for the changes New Burmesia has listed long before this Parliament actually convened.

I am not an MP, only an observer.
I am sorry about my last comment, I admit that it was a little bitchy. I just resent that you called the discussion between myself, Lord Philosopy and Ifreann spam. Good sah Philosopy brought up a very good point that was mentioned in the NBIP thread, about requiring that good English be used in NS general. I for one agree with this. I think that people should at least make an effort to use correct spelling and grammar, and this awful 1337 must be banned immediately.
I consider discussing having a cup o' tea with fellow party members to be spam.
Did you not notice that it was members of two different parties that were sitting down to enjoy a cuppa? Did you also fail to notice the discussion of a coalition between these two (and possibly one other) parties? This does not seem like spam to me. Being polite and friendly is vital for negotiations. Stop being a stick-in-the-mud and complaining when others want to have fun and roleplay actually being in the House of Parliament.

I am sorry about my last comment, I admit that it was a little bitchy. I just resent that you called the discussion between myself, Lord Philosopy and Ifreann spam. Good sah Philosopy brought up a very good point that was mentioned in the NBIP thread, about requiring that good English be used in NS general. I for one agree with this. I think that people should at least make an effort to use correct spelling and grammar, and this awful 1337 must be banned immediately.

That's funny, you wish for proper english, but I don't think this word "sah" is the correct word. Unless you consider Philosophy to be a "bleeding between the pia mater and the arachnoid of the brain."

Did you not notice that it was members of two different parties that were sitting down to enjoy a cuppa? Did you also fail to notice the discussion of a coalition between these two (and possibly one other) parties? This does not seem like spam to me. Being polite and friendly is vital for negotiations. Stop being a stick-in-the-mud and complaining when others want to have fun and roleplay actually being in the House of Parliament.

I apologize, I assumed that it was just the members of the NBIP hijacking the thread.

That's funny, you wish for proper english, but I don't think this word "sah" is the correct word. Unless you consider Philosophy to be a "bleeding between the pia mater and the arachnoid of the brain."

When us NBIP members say sah or huzzah and such, we are just having fun roleplaying stereotypical Brits wot! You know what fun is right? You know, ha ha? Seriously though, joking aside, I do find it annoying when people make no effort whatsoever to use good English. If anyone continuously fails to use capital letters at the beginning of their sentences, then we shall send a gunboat after them wot!

I apologize, I assumed that it was just the members of the NBIP hijacking the thread.
I accept your apology, commoner Vittos.

When us NBIP members say sah or huzzah and such, we are just having fun roleplaying stereotypical Brits wot! You know what fun is right? You know, ha ha? Seriously though, joking aside, I do find it annoying when people make no effort whatsoever to use good English. If anyone continuously fails to use capital letters at the beginning of their sentences, then we shall send a gunboat after them wot!

Yes, I was joking as well.

I accept your apology, commoner Vittos.

Commoner?

*spikes NBIP tea with rum*

*spikes NBIP tea with rum*
Thank you, old chap. This is rather good stuff wot! It is better than those pirate scum deserve. Do me a favour and tell Sir Rubiconic Crossings to have some filthy pirate ships hunted down and their rum taken. It should be honourable Brits like us that drink this wonderful stuff, not those bloody P&P party members. What say you?

Thank you, old chap. This is rather good stuff wot! It is better than those pirate scum deserve. Do me a favour and tell Sir Rubiconic Crossings to have some filthy pirate ships hunted down and their rum taken. It should be honourable Brits like us that drink this wonderful stuff, not those bloody P&P party members. What say you?<Wonders how the P&Pers feel about the issue of electoral reform.>

*spikes NBIP tea with rum*

*Steals tea*

>.>

<.<

AHOY! i be apologisin' for my absence, i ha' bin trawlin' the waters o' yonder, n' barely be makin' it back in time to study fer my final exams. it be leavin' not much time for parliament-ing, yarrrr

on the topic of the electoral reform proposal, i dont think i can really say until i know for sure which parties are which in the pie graphs. and i really do like the pie graphs, if i may be sayin'. i havent been really following the whole election problems, though. was their ever any consideration of adopting a real-life country's election system?

in regards to the official language, i say nay. there is to be no discrimination on grounds of language in this parliament. it, by its very nature, spans the world, and many cultures and tongues. it is clearly stated in the goals of the P&P party that we shall encourage freedom, including, the freedom of language. if one feels like being an idiot and speaking 1337, one has every right to.

erm. what else is there to comment on? ah yes. spam. as they say "one person's spam is another person's ordinary post". so spam away.

*drinks some o' that rum-spiked tea*

Those MPs who are interested in the bill (see below) please say so. I will need nine of you good chaps to state an interest before I can try to get it passed.

MPs wishing to bring this bill to vote:
1. Vacuumhead - NBIP
2. Philosopy - NBIP
3. Ifreann - CypsW
4. The Beautiful Darkness - CypsW
5. WC Imperial Court - CypsW
6. Gravlen - CypsW
7. Fleckenstein - NS Dems

Proposes an enforcement of good English in NS General.

An effort to use correct spelling and grammar must be made by all who post in General. Occasional typos will be tolerated, and we shall be lenient with those johnny foreigners (and bloody Welshmen) who are not fortunate enough to have English as a first language. However, those who continuously fail to use capital letters at the start of their sentences shall be mocked unceasingly until they do so. People will be expected to use the correct spelling of words such as we in Britain use, not these damn colonial spellings. 1337 5P34K will henceforth be outlawed and will now be referred to as the devil's language. Anyone who insists on typing in this vile devil's language must be shunned. An official moratorium is to be put in place upon the phrases "Well done" and "Congratulations". Instead, the phrase "Jolly good show!" must be used.

Commoner?

Behold, the democratic process.

Those MPs who are interested in the bill (see below) please say so. I will need nine of you good chaps to state an interest before I can try to get it passed.

MPs wishing to bring this bill to vote:
1. Vacuumhead - NBIP
2. Philosopy - NBIP
3. Ifreann - CypsW

Yes, I support this. :)

NationStates will soon become a part of the Commonwealth of Nations and accept the Queen as head of state. Furthermore, Britain has no written constitution and nor do we need one. Particulary a 'holy' constitution, we do not mix politics and religion wot!

Those MPs who are interested in the bill (see below) please say so. I will need nine of you good chaps to state an interest before I can try to get it passed.

MPs wishing to bring this bill to vote:
1. Vacuumhead - NBIP
2. Philosopy - NBIP
3. Ifreann - CypsW

I've got a problem with the spelling thing. I like leaving out bloody unnecessary "u"s in words like honor and labor and color. Asking me to spell that way is as difficult as asking a foreigner to have perfect syntax and spelling.

I would like to introduce myself to the good members as an "Acting MP". I am in the lead for a seat but not all members of my party have voted. However considering that Parliament has already started and the fact that if somehow the late votes should turn against me I shall glady turn the seat over to my successor I have heard no qualms from any member of my party about my representing our party here. To not raise my voice against this would be dishonorable.

Ergo I should to offer an opnion on this matter that while I do both commend and applaud the attempt to encourage proper spelling and grammar I do not think that limiting it to British usage would be right. After all if you use land area or population as a guide the English, and I say the English not the British because other members of the British Empire use different versions of the language, have no claim to majority or primacy. It may be henceforth argued that other criteria should be used but I think and indeed put forth as my party's policy that English as spoken correctly in all English speaking countries should be allowed and yea even embraced like a sister.

Whether it be Aussie or American or a gaelic flavored Irish brogue it is all English and should be equally allowed.

Thank you for your kind attention.

I would like to introduce myself to the good members as an "Acting MP". I am in the lead for a seat but not all members of my party have voted. However considering that Parliament has already started and the fact that if somehow the late votes should turn against me I shall glady turn the seat over to my successor I have heard no qualms from any member of my party about my representing our party here. To not raise my voice against this would be dishonorable.

Ergo I should to offer an opnion on this matter that while I do both commend and applaud the attempt to encourage proper spelling and grammar I do not think that limiting it to British usage would be right. After all if you use land area or population as a guide the English, and I say the English not the British because other members of the British Empire use different versions of the language, have no claim to majority or primacy. It may be henceforth argued that other criteria should be used but I think and indeed put forth as my party's policy that English as spoken correctly in all English speaking countries should be allowed and yea even embraced like a sister.

Whether it be Aussie or American or a gaelic flavored Irish brogue it is all English and should be equally allowed.

Thank you for your kind attention.
hiya!

And yay!! Bumboat agrees with me! (I think...whats with all the big ass words??!! lol, j/k...sortof ;) ):fluffle:

Upon consultation with my esteemed colleague WC from the CWP party we realize that our respective parties have an objective in common.
The freedom to be nude without fear of arrest for exposure!

I hereby then propose a law stating that nudity is legal and optional except where hygiene would demand otherwise.

We think that our also esteemed colleague TBD and our respective parties will gleefully endorse this proposal.

Do we have a means to move to censure MPs for abusing their parliamentary power?

This is absurd. This simulation parliament was meant to be a simulation of a legislative body, not a parody. If the "Representatives" from the CyPSWP and the NBIP cannot concern themselves with real issues, perhaps it is time for them to depart the parliament in the name of allowing the game to do what it was supposed to: Discuss real issues.

I move to close the Parliamentary Floor to Spam (can I actually do that?).

Do we have a means to move to censure MPs for abusing their parliamentary power?

This is absurd. This simulation parliament was meant to be a simulation of a legislative body, not a parody. If the "Representatives" from the CyPSWP and the NBIP cannot concern themselves with real issues, perhaps it is time for them to depart the parliament in the name of allowing the game to do what it was supposed to: Discuss real issues.

I move to close the Parliamentary Floor to Spam (can I actually do that?).
What are the real issues facing NSG today which we might address? To be honest, irritating misspelling and abuse of the English language is one real thing which DOES affect all Generalites which we might actually resolve.

Also, iirc, CYPSW won the second highest amount of seats. Which suggests that perhaps generalites would be just as happy with us discussing the issues outlined in our platform than with "real" issues.

Methinks you ought to lighten up. But if you will not, then at least suggest something else for us to discuss, instead of simply accusing us of spamming. Because although you refer to these "real" issues, I have no idea as to what they might be.

I have been in conference with the leader of the Moles too, good sah (at least he has been in conference with me - I keep forgetting to reply, wot!); I believe that he too would be willing to join any coalition, wotwot!

This shall indeed be a glorious Parliament! Huzzah!
Indeed you have...

Those MPs who are interested in the bill (see below) please say so. I will need nine of you good chaps to state an interest before I can try to get it passed.

MPs wishing to bring this bill to vote:
1. Vacuumhead - NBIP
2. Philosopy - NBIP
3. Ifreann - CypsW

I wish death on you for such a bill.

I think that at some stage new bills should have their own thread.

No sense in clogging this up/me having to read it all.;)

Upon consultation with my esteemed colleague WC from the CWP party we realize that our respective parties have an objective in common.
The freedom to be nude without fear of arrest for exposure!

I hereby then propose a law stating that nudity is legal and optional except where hygiene would demand otherwise.

We think that our also esteemed colleague TBD and our respective parties will gleefully endorse this proposal.

What party are you in? And how did you know I would agree with you? ;)

I approve. I would suggest changing the number of seats to 33, though, because the percentages are easier to approximate. This wouldn't be necessary for the actual determining of who gets seats, but rather for the observers who want to know how well their party is doing at any given time.
This system soesn't work on percentages, instead being a direct votes to seats translation, so I don't think that's necessary. Although, come to think of it, 33 does have more aesthetic value than 35.

Additionally, which party is which on the pie charts?
I didn't include that intentionally as to discourage parties that stand to lose a seat (the UDCP being one) from voting against it for that very reason, but if MPs want it, I will be more than willing to post it.

I didn't include that intentionally as to discourage parties that stand to lose a seat (the UDCP being one) from voting against it for that very reason, but if MPs want it, I will be more than willing to post it.It seems so far that the UDCP is in support of the resolution...you might have a point about the other parties, though.

It seems so far that the UDCP is in support of the resolution...you might have a point about the other parties, though.

It is a bit patronising witholding it, but I'd rather debate it based on its merits, not on a my-party-could-lose-seats basis.

I wish death on you for such a bill.

Now we're like a real parliament :)

Yes, I support this. :)
Why thank you, old chap! :)><:)
I've got a problem with the spelling thing. I like leaving out bloody unnecessary "u"s in words like honor and labor and color. Asking me to spell that way is as difficult as asking a foreigner to have perfect syntax and spelling.
If you would re-read my proposal, you will notice that I suggest no punishment for using your damn colonial spellings. It is only a request that you use proper British English, wot! The only two things that should be enforced are:

All generalites must make an effort to use good spelling and grammar, failure to do so will result in being mocked.
Those who insist on using the devil's language (this horrid 1337 thing) shall be shunned.


The freedom to be nude without fear of arrest for exposure!

I hereby then propose a law stating that nudity is legal and optional except where hygiene would demand otherwise.


Seconded. ;)

What are the real issues facing NSG today which we might address? To be honest, irritating misspelling and abuse of the English language is one real thing which DOES affect all Generalites which we might actually resolve.

Also, iirc, CYPSW won the second highest amount of seats. Which suggests that perhaps generalites would be just as happy with us discussing the issues outlined in our platform than with "real" issues.

There cannot be "issues" facing a forum because it is not a true government. That is an obnoxious strawman. As to how the CyNBIPWP manage to gain power in the parliament, one need only remind them that while they have a number of seats, they do NOT hold a true majority.

Methinks you ought to lighten up. But if you will not, then at least suggest something else for us to discuss, instead of simply accusing us of spamming. Because although you refer to these "real" issues, I have no idea as to what they might be.

Methinks you ought to look at Post 3, which the Joke parties have buried under spam. NB's proposal (which has my support), might be discussed beyond bluffing "It makes things complicated" (in fact, it does not).

Those MPs who are interested in the bill (see below) please say so. I will need nine of you good chaps to state an interest before I can try to get it passed.

MPs wishing to bring this bill to vote:
1. Vacuumhead - NBIP
2. Philosopy - NBIP
3. Ifreann - CypsW

And so the truth comes out. The NBIP needs only remove it's 'I' to realize what has become. Constraining free speech is their goal.

You are, essentially, hindering parties who do not speak your variant of English as well as you by making speech more difficult for them. That is a constraint on their ability to carry out their duty. How would people feel if the HRP asked every member of the parliament to speak in pig latin? It would make it harder for constituents to read our threads (so much for transperancy in government) and harder for posters to post.

I call on parliament to reject this proposal.

There cannot be "issues" facing a forum because it is not a true government. That is an obnoxious strawman. As to how the CyNBIPWP manage to gain power in the parliament, one need only remind them that while they have a number of seats, they do NOT hold a true majority.
Since there are no issues facing this forum let's disband, since we're obviously not going to ahcieve anything.


Oh wait, we knew that from the start and nobody cares. And I for one am glad the parliament is doing something other than whine about the elections for once.



Methinks you ought to look at Post 3, which the Joke parties have buried under spam. NB's proposal (which has my support), might be discussed beyond bluffing "It makes things complicated" (in fact, it does not).
Well then those who support it should try and make a case for it, rather than running in circles crying about how everyone ignored the great and wonderful bill.

And so the truth comes out. The NBIP needs only remove it's 'I' to realize what has become. Constraining free speech is their goal.

We have become the National Braille Press, wot? :confused:

http://www.nbp.org/

Well then those who support it should try and make a case for it, rather than running in circles crying about how everyone ignored the great and wonderful bill.

But if they did that, they'd have to accept that they lost the election, wot!

Certain people would much rather sit at the side screaming "it's not fair that I lost, wah wah wah, it's not because I was no good, it's because the system is unfair, wah!"

The irony is that I do believe that CypsW and NBIP lost more from the current system than anyone else. But, like you say, we are also the only parties trying to actually do something beyond complain about the elections for once.

Since there are no issues facing this forum let's disband, since we're obviously not going to ahcieve anything.

But there do not need to be no issues facing the parliament. Just because we are a fake governing body does not mean we cannot vote on "serious" proposals like, say, educational reform (for which we have never passed legislation) or military budgeting.


Oh wait, we knew that from the start and nobody cares. And I for one am glad the parliament is doing something other than whine about the elections for once.

Even when you have just turned this into something that belongs in the spam forum? Even when your actions are burying interesting information in a gallon of disgusting idiocy? I, for one, did not join parliament to listen to you discuss the value of tea.

Well then those who support it should try and make a case for it, rather than running in circles crying about how everyone ignored the great and wonderful bill.

I think that the pie charts that NB posted speak for themselves. By adopting his proposal, we come closer to representing the true vote.

We have become the National Braille Press, wot? :confused:

http://www.nbp.org/

No, I've just become dyslexic.

I meant the BNP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party)

No, I'm just dyslexic.

I meant the BNP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party)

That would require a considerable reorganisation of our letters, good sah! Perhaps you are the Sadist Peasants of Korea, wot?

But if they did that, they'd have to accept that they lost the election, wot!

Certain people would much rather sit at the side screaming "it's not fair that I lost, wah wah wah, it's not because I was no good, it's because the system is unfair, wah!"

Or, perhaps, we could see the real reasons, by looking at the charts posted by NB, who showed that representation would better fit results under his system.

The irony is that I do believe that CypsW and NBIP lost more from the current system than anyone else. But, like you say, we are also the only parties trying to actually do something beyond complain about the elections for once.

False. You would, in fact, lose a bit of power in terms of representation, which is why you oppose the bill. You simply cling to illegitimate power.

But there do not need to be no issues facing the parliament. Just because we are a fake governing body does not mean we cannot vote on "serious" proposals like, say, educational reform (for which we have never passed legislation) or military budgeting.
Well by all means make a proposal on educational reform(small technicality that just occured to me, does it count as reform is NS has no education system to speak of?) or military budgeting.




Even when you have just turned this into something that belongs in the spam forum? Even when your actions are burying interesting information in interparty talks regarding a possible alliance? I, for one, did not join parliament to listen to you discuss an alliance with NBIP and MOBRA.
Fixed. :)



I think that the pie charts that NB posted speak for themselves. By adopting his proposal, we come closer to representing the true vote.

The poorly labelled pie charts that could represent anything? The whole point of pie charts is to make information easily available to anyone, which these pie charts fail to do.

But there do not need to be no issues facing the parliament. Just because we are a fake governing body does not mean we cannot vote on "serious" proposals like, say, educational reform (for which we have never passed legislation) or military budgeting.

I think we should ban the sniper and mp5 smilies from NS. Really getting sick of n00bs throwing them out.

Why thank you, old chap! :)><:)

If you would re-read my proposal, you will notice that I suggest no punishment for using your damn colonial spellings. It is only a request that you use proper British English, wot! The only two things that should be enforced are:

All generalites must make an effort to use good spelling and grammar, failure to do so will result in being mocked.
Those who insist on using the devil's language (this horrid 1337 thing) shall be shunned.


Seconded. ;)
Brilliant! Then you have my support for your bill!

I think we should ban the sniper and mp5 smilies from NS. Really getting sick of n00bs throwing them out.

I love you. I may have your children if you include the upyours smilie.

I think we should ban the sniper and mp5 smilies from NS. Really getting sick of n00bs throwing them out.
Seconded.

I think we should ban the sniper and mp5 smilies from NS. Really getting sick of n00bs throwing them out.

NBIP supports this!

Or, perhaps, we could see the real reasons, by looking at the charts posted by NB, who showed that representation would better fit results under his system.



False. You would, in fact, lose a bit of power in terms of representation, which is why you oppose the bill. You simply cling to illegitimate power.

I love how collegial and friendly you are towards your fellow MPs. :rolleyes:

Rules matter. Different ways of counting votes benefits different people. The world isn't perfect, and life isn't always fair to everyone.

Changing the vote counting system will bring about more confusion and just change the people who are alienated, not unify everyone. And don't start on about how I feel this way because I am from CWP. Because I'm only here because my party elected me. I certainly did not vote for myself. That claim doesn't even make sense. Why would a spammy, just-for-fun party cling to power?

Also, I did see the election reform post before. But I thought it was to serious in nature and simultaneously too inconsequential to merit a response. Since it had been allowed to be buried under discussion of more lighthearted topics, I presumed no one cared deeply about it.

I think we should ban the sniper and mp5 smilies from NS. Really getting sick of n00bs throwing them out.

HEAR HEAR!!! A serious issue indeed! I support this motion!http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/gen046.gif

Basically, it's just a wordy description of a new (fairer) way to convert votes to seats.

I've produced pie charts of what Parliament looks now, and under the proposed system, which showed how biased it is, and better at reflecting the voters.

Please show the pie chart with lables.

The poorly labelled pie charts that could represent anything? The whole point of pie charts is to make information easily available to anyone, which these pie charts fail to do.

This was intentional, since I would rather have debated the issue of electoral reform based on its relative merits, not on the idea that XYZ party would get more or less seats.

Please show the pie chart with lables.

Done

HEAR HEAR!!! A serious issue indeed! I support this motion!http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/gen046.gif

And I'm sure the motion would be passed easily. I'll add Ifreann's request as well. Ban the upyours smilie as well!

*nods*

Brilliant! Then you have my support for your bill!

I am pleased to hear that, good lady sah! :)
I only need another four more MPs to state their interest in the bill before I can bring it to the vote. Huzzah!



If you are irritated by those who cannot even be bothered to use capital letters, or who insist on typing in that bloody awful 1337, then support my bill wot! What the heck, even if you do not agree with my proposal, still mention that you would like to bring it to vote. At least then we will actually be doing something besides from just reading the boring drivel of these complaining old tossers.

I am pleased to hear that, good lady sah! :)
I only need another four more MPs to state their interest in the bill before I can bring it to the vote. Huzzah!

I support getting this bill to the vote :)



*Pockets bribe*

I support getting this bill to the vote :)



*Pockets bribe*

Huzzah! Thanks a lot, good chap sah!

Just three more to go, wot! :)

whats the NS General Parliament all about im confused:confused:
Pure Pointlessness.

Pure Pointlessness.

I applaud you for your ironic wit, good sah! You have demonstrated perfectly what this Bill is all about, wotwot!

If you are irritated by those who cannot even be bothered to use capital letters, or who insist on typing in that bloody awful 1337, then support my bill wot! What the heck, even if you do not agree with my proposal, still mention that you would like to bring it to vote. At least then we will actually be doing something besides from just reading the boring drivel of these complaining old tossers.

I will support it, on one condition:

I get to be a Commodore in your shipshape navy with a small Caribbean command.

And I want the uniform fully paid for.

After that, every vote you ask for is done.

I will support it, on one condition:

I get to be a Commodore in your shipshape navy with a small Caribbean command.

And I want the uniform fully paid for.

After that, every vote you ask for is done.

I am sure that can be arranged, good sah! I will just check with Her Majesty...

Commodore Fleckenstein, it is my pleasure to say ''jolly good show'' to you for being awarded with such a high rank, which you undoubtedly deserve.

I am sure that can be arranged, good sah! I will just check with Her Majesty...

Commodore Fleckenstein, it is my pleasure to say ''jolly good show'' to you for being awarded with such a high rank, which you undoubtedly deserve.

*cocks hat* Whee!

So, when does this wondefully great piece of legislation go for vote?

*cocks hat* Whee!

So, when does this wondefully great piece of legislation go for vote?

I just need to bribe two more jolly old chaps to support this bill before it can be put up for the vote. It should not take too long, I am rather good at pestering people, wot!

I just need to bribe two more jolly old chaps to support this bill before it can be put up for the vote. It should not take too long, I am rather good at pestering people, wot!

I notice you have not included all of NBIP in your list of supporters, old chap! I believe you should, as per Party rules! Then we can get voting on this matter as soon as possible, wotwot!

Erm, i'm not sure how this works. So i'll just post here :p

Can I join a party? I just graduated with a ehm, Oxford degree in politics and am looking to join maybe the british imperial party, wot?

Well by all means make a proposal on educational reform(small technicality that just occured to me, does it count as reform is NS has no education system to speak of?) or military budgeting.





Fixed. :)





The poorly labelled pie charts that could represent anything? The whole point of pie charts is to make information easily available to anyone, which these pie charts fail to do.

Posts related to having tea and unrelated to Parliamentary action:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11841099&postcount=38
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11841104&postcount=39
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11841110&postcount=40
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11841125&postcount=41
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11841208&postcount=42
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11844823&postcount=63
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11844940&postcount=64
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11845025&postcount=66

Even your discussion of a party coalition was nothing more than a comedy routine about ruling for the Queen and pogo sticks and outlawing "baseingball."

I apologized when you expressed indignation, but upon looking back, I was correct.

Rules matter. Different ways of counting votes benefits different people. The world isn't perfect, and life isn't always fair to everyone.

I love the old "Sure the rules are screwed up, but so is life" excuse.

Changing the vote counting system will bring about more confusion and just change the people who are alienated, not unify everyone.

You need to back this up.

I would bet that you do not quite understand how Arridia allotted the seats at present (I was in on the discussions concerning seat allotment, and I don't really know how it was done).

The fact is that Arridia's process and the 4% threshhold is far more confusing than NB's plan which can be neatly laid out in an excel spreadsheet.

(As if the voters actually cared enough to note the results in the first place.)

Why would a spammy, just-for-fun party cling to power?

For their own entertainment.

I would also like to point out that, since this parliament has been a massive failure, its approval is not necessary for its own dissolution.

All that is required is for interested parties to form a new parliamentary system, with carefully set rules and regulations (all amendable, of course) prior to the election.

This bill has now been brought to the vote in this jolly good thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11851624&posted=1#post11851624) wot!

I love how collegial and friendly you are towards your fellow MPs. :rolleyes:

I'm here as a representative of a serious party with a real agenda. I have a job and I intend to do it.

Rules matter. Different ways of counting votes benefits different people. The world isn't perfect, and life isn't always fair to everyone.

Changing the vote counting system will bring about more confusion and just change the people who are alienated, not unify everyone. And don't start on about how I feel this way because I am from CWP. Because I'm only here because my party elected me. I certainly did not vote for myself. That claim doesn't even make sense. Why would a spammy, just-for-fun party cling to power?

Why would they run for office if they didn't want the power that came with it? To be obnoxious?

Also, I did see the election reform post before. But I thought it was to serious in nature and simultaneously too inconsequential to merit a response. Since it had been allowed to be buried under discussion of more lighthearted topics, I presumed no one cared deeply about it.

It was buried so quickly that it was never given the attention it deserved.

Posts related to having tea and unrelated to Parliamentary action:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11841099&postcount=38
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11841104&postcount=39
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11841110&postcount=40
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11841125&postcount=41
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11841208&postcount=42
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11844823&postcount=63
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11844940&postcount=64
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11845025&postcount=66

Even your discussion of a party coalition was nothing more than a comedy routine about ruling for the Queen and pogo sticks and outlawing "baseingball."

I apologized when you expressed indignation, but upon looking back, I was correct.
:eek: Oh NOES! People were having fun in a Parliament thread! Off with their heads!:rolleyes:

Honestly. Chillax. I thought this was a game. As in, ya know, for fun?

Isn't there already the UN for debating "serious" topics anyways?

I love the old "Sure the rules are screwed up, but so is life" excuse.
I'm glad you approve.

No system is perfect. That is all I am saying.

You need to back this up.
I don't even know what "this" is anymore. So, I shall do what I do whenever I am in doubt, and someone tells me to back something up.

*Finds willing MP, grinds, singing "back that thing up."*


I would bet that you do not quite understand how Arridia allotted the seats at present (I was in on the discussions concerning seat allotment, and I don't really know how it was done).

The fact is that Arridia's process and the 4% threshhold is far more confusing than NB's plan which can be neatly laid out in an excel spreadsheet.

(As if the voters actually cared enough to note the results in the first place.)
As I understand it, for every 4% of the vote, you get one seat in parliament, and the parties with the smallest margin from an additional seat get the remaining seats. Is this terribly far off?

And if the voters don't care, why should we? Aren't they our constituents?


For their own entertainment.
Pfft. I think, given the nature of spammers, they'd be just as content to spam the parliament thread without having to deal with the serious issues. I, for one, would.

I'm here as a representative of a serious party with a real agenda. I have a job and I intend to do it.
I am here as a representative of a playful party whose agenda is primarily happiness and friendliness. Pardon my for having a good time.

Why would they run for office if they didn't want the power that came with it? To be obnoxious?
I didn't nominate myself to be an MP. My party members thought I was suitable for the job, and I am loyal to them, so agreed to serve.

If you mean why would they run for seats in parliament, well, I thought this was like highschool student government, where elections are essentially popularity contests.

Furthermore, there is no real power in this body. I was under the impression my fellow MPs were doing this for fun. Not to go on some ego trip.


It was buried so quickly that it was never given the attention it deserved.
I addressed the issue above, so kindly stop whining. Also, next time, bring the issue back up without complaining about the rest of us. If it continually gets buried, it obviously does not deserve attention.

:
I am here as a representative of a playful party whose agenda is primarily happiness and friendliness. Pardon my for having a good time.

Part of my job is insuring that the will of the party that elected me is carried out. That includes insuring real debate on real issues (Irony noted. Don't waste your time pointing it out.) and not wasting parliament's time on tea or the Queen.


If you mean why would they run for seats in parliament, well, I thought this was like highschool student government, where elections are essentially popularity contests.

Furthermore, there is no real power in this body. I was under the impression my fellow MPs were doing this for fun. Not to go on some ego trip.

Why would they run for a legislative body without intending to win? Clearly they have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are.

I addressed the issue above, so kindly stop whining. Also, next time, bring the issue back up without complaining about the rest of us. If it continually gets buried, it obviously does not deserve attention.

If it gets buried by people spamming about unimportant nonsense then all that has been prooved is that the silly, pointless parties are abusing Parliament's time with their spam.

Chillax.

Sure.


I'm glad you approve.

No system is perfect. That is all I am saying.

Are you also saying that no system can be improved? Otherwise that statement is irrelevant.

I don't even know what "this" is anymore. So, I shall do what I do whenever I am in doubt, and someone tells me to back something up.

*Finds willing MP, grinds, singing "back that thing up."*

"This" meant your statement.

But I have no doubt you will find a willing CYPSW MP.


As I understand it, for every 4% of the vote, you get one seat in parliament, and the parties with the smallest margin from an additional seat get the remaining seats. Is this terribly far off?

No, that is about right. Good job if you didn't have to look back at the election thread.

Now, why is that less complex than the NB proposal?


And if the voters don't care, why should we? Aren't they our constituents?

We care because it is our game.


Pfft. I think, given the nature of spammers, they'd be just as content to spam the parliament thread without having to deal with the serious issues. I, for one, would.


Spammers are a virus, they will infect any thread that presents an opportunity.

If it gets buried by people spamming about unimportant nonsense then all that has been proved is that the silly, pointless parties are abusing Parliament's time with their spam.

I'm sure you can explain why "silly, pointless parties" collectively won the election by a landslide...

The majority of Parliament will waste its time however it chooses to do so.

Why thank you, old chap! :)><:)

If you would re-read my proposal, you will notice that I suggest no punishment for using your damn colonial spellings. It is only a request that you use proper British English, wot! The only two things that should be enforced are:

All generalites must make an effort to use good spelling and grammar, failure to do so will result in being mocked.
Those who insist on using the devil's language (this horrid 1337 thing) shall be shunned.

[Originally Posted by Bumboat
The freedom to be nude without fear of arrest for exposure!

I hereby then propose a law stating that nudity is legal and optional except where hygiene would demand otherwise.]
Seconded. ;)

Thank you! I'll vote for yours then as long as I'm not being forced to add u's I'm fine with it. :)

Are you also saying that no system can be improved? Otherwise that statement is irrelevant.
No, of course improvements can be made.



"This" meant your statement.

But I have no doubt you will find a willing CYPSW MP.
I didn't remember my statement. Thanks for the vote of confidence tho ;) Looks around hopefully. . .


No, that is about right. Good job if you didn't have to look back at the election thread.

Now, why is that less complex than the NB proposal?
Thanks, and know, i remembered that from when they announced the results to the votings. You can take as proof that I didn't look back the knowledge that I don't care enough to put in that effort.

Speaking of, what exactly is NB's proposal?


We care because it is our game.
Our, correct. Collective. And yes, game. As in play. As in fun.


Spammers are a virus, they will infect any thread that presents an opportunity.
pffft!

The TRUE spammers don't need the thread to present an opportunity. we just invade and spam away!

I'm sure you can explain why "silly, pointless parties" collectively won the election by a landslide...

The majority of Parliament will waste its time however it chooses to do so.

Thank you love. Fluffle?

Thank you! I'll vote for yours then as long as I'm not being forced to add u's I'm fine with it. :)
She said we can spell u-lessly. which is awesome. I already voted for it. There is a thread. :fluffle:

Ok so our Legal Public Nudity bill has 4 MPs supporting. Anyone else care to support? Anyone have questions?

I'm sure you can explain why "silly, pointless parties" collectively won the election by a landslide...

The majority of Parliament will waste its time however it chooses to do so.

Your "majority" is hardly sizable, and certainly no landslide, if we look at percentages. You received Between 50 and 53 percent of the vote, depending on the inclusion of the reunification and alchohol parties.

Essentially, your "landslide" victory in Parliament (14 of 25 awarded seats, or 14 of 23 actually claimed seats) is not a landslide, and it's unrepresentational nature in terms of seats is proof that, in fact, the election did not reflect the votes.

Your "majority" is hardly sizable, and certainly no landslide, if we look at percentages. You received Between 50 and 53 percent of the vote, depending on the inclusion of the reunification and alchohol parties.

Essentially, your "landslide" victory in Parliament (14 of 25 awarded seats, or 14 of 23 actually claimed seats) is not a landslide, and it's unrepresentational nature in terms of seats is proof that, in fact, the election did not reflect the votes.

Instead of bickering, why not contribute something to the thread?

Instead of bickering, why not contribute something to the thread?

I beleive that the post you quoted not only argued for an important reform, but also refuted a false claim. Both of those are, in fact, contributions to real issues on the thread.

But, since you insist, I will begin drawing up an education bill to submit to the Parliament.

I think we should ban the sniper and mp5 smilies from NS. Really getting sick of n00bs throwing them out.

Huzzah! What we need is red-coated smilies with maxim guns to be used only in threads where the author approves, says I!

Now, on the whole issue of being silly, let's look at it like this: our "government" is powerless. We cannot stop n00bs from posting smilies or join the Commonwealth, nor can we reform a non-existant educational system or re-budget a fictional military. Everything we do is pointless except as a bit of fun for ourselves, really. So what do we talk about? The things that actually go on on NS, and which we find entertaining? Or the things that don't even exist, are rather boring in my opinion, and already have a whole section (UN) for being debated?

Remeber, Right Honourable Sahs, we are all entirely powerless except over each other. So why not talk purely about what we want to?

Now we're like a real parliament :)
Like the Chinks or the Ruskies, they get into fist fights.:)

Now, on the whole issue of being silly, let's look at it like this: our "government" is powerless. We cannot stop n00bs from posting smilies or join the Commonwealth, nor can we reform a non-existant educational system or re-budget a fictional military. Everything we do is pointless except as a bit of fun for ourselves, really. Certainly. And since the Parliament was intended as a way for people who think it's fun to talk about serious issues using specific methods, talking about such things are fun to us. Certainly you're welcome to think it isn't fun, but...

So what do we talk about? The things that actually go on on NS, and which we find entertaining? Or the things that don't even exist, are rather boring in my opinion, and already have a whole section (UN) for being debated?...there's an entire forum for spam. When I feel like spamming, I go there. You can, too.

Remeber, Right Honourable Sahs, we are all entirely powerless except over each other. So why not talk purely about what we want to?Those of us who are trying to get election reform passed are talking about what we want to.

And I'm sure the motion would be passed easily. I'll add Ifreann's request as well. Ban the upyours smilie as well!

*nods*
Woohoo, I very much support you bill!
I would also like to point out that, since this parliament has been a massive failure, its approval is not necessary for its own dissolution.

All that is required is for interested parties to form a new parliamentary system, with carefully set rules and regulations (all amendable, of course) prior to the election.
I don't remember anything in the procedural rules about the parliament having to dissolve if it's a massive failure(not that I think it is).
This bill has now been brought to the vote in this jolly good thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11851624&posted=1#post11851624) wot!
Huzzah! *runs to vote*
Part of my job is insuring that the will of the party that elected me is carried out. That includes.......

You got elected to complain? Wow, people will vote for anything.

You got elected to complain? Wow, people will vote for anything.

I got elected by my party to enact the party's platform and its policy. Unfortunately, part of that policy is insuring that Parliament spends it's time on real issues, and not merely on trifiling unimportances.

You may characterize it as whatever you like though.

I should also think that, judging from the fact that people voted for the CypsWP and the BNP- er, NBIP- that they really will vote for anything.

I got elected by my party to enact the party's platform and its policy. Unfortunately, part of that policy is insuring that Parliament spends it's time on real issues, and not merely on trifiling unimportances.

You may characterize it as whatever you like though.

I should also think that, judging from the fact that people voted for the CypsWP and the BNP- er, NBIP- that they really will vote for anything.

Perhaps you would better serve your party by trying to enact their platform and all that. Because I don't see how you could possibly stop us from spending our time on "trifling unimportances".

Perhaps you would better serve your party by trying to enact their platform and all that. Because I don't see how you could possibly stop us from spending our time on "trifling unimportances".

No, but I can certainly remind voters that some parties are using parliament correctly, and that others are spamming it.

I am, however, working on an education bill, so you needn't worry about my service to my party (I'll thank you to let me worry about it, thank you very much).

Huzzah! What we need is red-coated smilies with maxim guns to be used only in threads where the author approves, says I!

Now, on the whole issue of being silly, let's look at it like this: our "government" is powerless. We cannot stop n00bs from posting smilies or join the Commonwealth, nor can we reform a non-existant educational system or re-budget a fictional military. Everything we do is pointless except as a bit of fun for ourselves, really. So what do we talk about? The things that actually go on on NS, and which we find entertaining? Or the things that don't even exist, are rather boring in my opinion, and already have a whole section (UN) for being debated?

Remeber, Right Honourable Sahs, we are all entirely powerless except over each other. So why not talk purely about what we want to?
Here here! Well said, sir!

I got elected by my party to enact the party's platform and its policy. Unfortunately, part of that policy is insuring that Parliament spends it's time on real issues, and not merely on trifiling unimportances.

You may characterize it as whatever you like though.

I should also think that, judging from the fact that people voted for the CypsWP and the BNP- er, NBIP- that they really will vote for anything.
Oh, I love condescending MPs! :fluffle:

Perhaps you would better serve your party by trying to enact their platform and all that. Because I don't see how you could possibly stop us from spending our time on "trifling unimportances".
I could not have said it better myself! :fluffle:

No, but I can certainly remind voters that some parties are using parliament correctly, and that others are spamming it.

I am, however, working on an education bill, so you needn't worry about my service to my party (I'll thank you to let me worry about it, thank you very much).

You are very welcome.

Now, let us stop. After all, "let's not bicker and argue about who killed whom."

If I am correct, issues currently on the floor are the Proper English Bill, which has a thread to vote for (or against, I suppose), Elections Reform, Banning Gunnies (gun smilies), and the Public Nudity Law, which has the support of 4 MPs.

Altho I like the thought of banning the gun smilies, it sort of smacks of censorship, doesn't it?

Also, I kinda like the gundge, cuz it looks like he is shooting snot, which i find inherently funny.

Altho I like the thought of banning the gun smilies, it sort of smacks of censorship, doesn't it?Wouldn't the proper English bill also be censorship?

Wouldn't the proper English bill also be censorship?

Well, sort of, but you can still say whatever you want. It simply calls for capitalization and punctuation.

I'd probably still vote for the bill if it banned mp5, sniper, and upyours but left the gundge.

Why are there 2 gun smilies anyways? what does mp5 convery that sniper doesnt?

Well, sort of, but you can still say whatever you want. It simply calls for capitalization and punctuation.True, but you can't say it how you want to.

True, but you can't say it how you want to.

You still can, if you want. You just must be willing to face the consequences of shunning and mockery. And lets face it, on NS, you face those same consequences for stating certain political POVs.

You still can, if you want. You just must be willing to face the consequences of shunning and mockery. And lets face it, on NS, you face those same consequences for stating certain political POVs.True, you also face it for improper spelling and grammar. I don't think we need a bill to mandate the shunning and mockery.

True, you also face it for improper spelling and grammar. I don't think we need a bill to mandate the shunning and mockery.

This is true. But it justifies it a bit. And to be fair, it only asks that you try for proper grammar and spelling. No one expects perfection.

I should also think that, judging from the fact that people voted for the CypsWP and the BNP- er, NBIP- that they really will vote for anything.
Oh stop whinging, for the Queen's sake!

I am not in the slightest bit suprised that your party did not get any where near the amount of votes we did. What did your election campaign involve, ruining everyone's fun with your constant moaning?


I am, however, working on an education bill, so you needn't worry about my service to my party (I'll thank you to let me worry about it, thank you very much).
I hope that you are going to re-introduce the cane, wot? Young 'uns these days deserve a good beating...

Also, I kinda like the gundge, cuz it looks like he is shooting snot, which i find inherently funny.
I love to gundge, it is rather fun. :D :gundge:
As long as nobody tries to ban the use of green goo, then I will vote to ban these guns smilies.

I see that someone wants this to be a simulation of a real-life parliament, but fails at it. Don't like that the CypsWP and the NBIP are the largest parties? Tough! You think other parties out in the world - the minority parties - like the larger ones? Not bloody likely. I bet they think some of the larger ones are utter morons too. But what do they do? Simply complain about the stupidity of the voters and the result itself? Well, OK, some do...

But the ones that get up in the world and get their policies enacted aren't usually those. Those who do their best to alienate the largest parties should not be surprised when their suggestions falls on deaf ears. It's the ones with a bit of cleverness and a bit of adaptability that gets ahead - not to mention those who show curtesy and respect (as they should expect to recieve in return).

That said, let's get down to legislating:

I see no reason to change the system of voting. It might reflect to voters direct opinion more, but it would make parliament inefficient and chaotic. Hence, I won't support the bill.

I propose a Bill regarding the outlining of the Crown's Jewels.

1) The Crown's Jewels are to be seen as priceless and full of juicy inards.

2) The Crown's Jewels are, as she's a fetish-driven Brit, place upon here head unless...

3)...They are seperated from their owner, a painful operation, into a glass chamber to ensure theat they are, erm, safe. Wot wot!

I may not be an MP but dammit I'm British!

I see that someone wants this to be a simulation of a real-life parliament, but fails at it. Don't like that the CypsWP and the NBIP are the largest parties? Tough! You think other parties out in the world - the minority parties - like the larger ones? Not bloody likely. I bet they think some of the larger ones are utter morons too. But what do they do? Simply complain about the stupidity of the voters and the result itself? Well, OK, some do...

Some? I'm pretty sure you mean next to all do, given that the best way to unseat a sitting government is to point out all of it's flaws.

But the ones that get up in the world and get their policies enacted aren't usually those. Those who do their best to alienate the largest parties should not be surprised when their suggestions falls on deaf ears. It's the ones with a bit of cleverness and a bit of adaptability that gets ahead - not to mention those who show curtesy and respect (as they should expect to recieve in return).

I.E. Lick our boots and we might feel kind to you.

Thank you, but I think the HRP will decline your oh so generous offer.

I see no reason to change the system of voting. It might reflect to voters direct opinion more, but it would make parliament inefficient and chaotic. Hence, I won't support the bill.


Nonsense! It wouldn't make anything more complex. If anything it is easier, because, as NB, pointed out, it can be easily layed out on a spreadsheet.

Besides which, which do you value more: The voter's choice, or your own convenience?

Ok so our Legal Public Nudity bill has 4 MPs supporting. Anyone else care to support? Anyone have questions?

ahoy! i think i be supportin' this one. i couldn't find the original proposal. but im pretty sure i had no objections.



If I am correct, issues currently on the floor are the Proper English Bill, which has a thread to vote for (or against, I suppose), Elections Reform, Banning Gunnies (gun smilies), and the Public Nudity Law, which has the support of 4 MPs.

Altho I like the thought of banning the gun smilies, it sort of smacks of censorship, doesn't it?
.


i say: NAY to banning gun smilies. indeed, smacks of censorship.
NAY to the proper english bill. [vote already registered]

and to the election reform, i just want to clarify something:

PROPOSES that upon the passage of this Bill, Parliament shall vote to reapportion itself according to the above method, and that all members of the fourth parliament be considered members of the new fourth parliament should their party have the same amount, or more, seats.

so, if the reform is passed, then this current parliament will be automatically reassigned to what it would have been, or will some decision about reapportioning be made after the law is passed?

because i would be opposed to this parliament being figured out by use of the new system. the system would have to take effect from the next election.

ahoy! i think i be supportin' this one. i couldn't find the original proposal. but im pretty sure i had no objections.




i say: NAY to banning gun smilies. indeed, smacks of censorship.
NAY to the proper english bill. [vote already registered]

and to the election reform, i just want to clarify something:

so, if the reform is passed, then this current parliament will be automatically reassigned to what it would have been, or will some decision about reapportioning be made after the law is passed?

because i would be opposed to this parliament being figured out by use of the new system. the system would have to take effect from the next election.

Thanks for your support of our Public Nudity Bill Anarchuslavia!

I agree about any election reform not taking effect until next election.

Thanks for your support of our Public Nudity Bill Anarchuslavia!

I agree about any election reform not taking effect until next election.

I'll support the Public Nudity Law as well.

I'll put in my support for tha anti-1337speak bill and the nudity thing.

I'd like to thank both of you for your support. :fluffle:

Some? I'm pretty sure you mean next to all do, given that the best way to unseat a sitting government is to point out all of it's flaws.
Ah yes, that might be the way to unseat a sitting majority government - at the next election. However, we haven't formed any kind of alliances yet, nor do we have an executive branch... So what you're doing is declearing your unwillingness to be a part of any alliance with the largest parties before that debate has gotten very far.


I.E. Lick our boots and we might feel kind to you.

Thank you, but I think the HRP will decline your oh so generous offer. Suit yourself - it was a piece of advice more than an offer, but if you would like to make yourself and your party irrelevant then so be it - feel free to keep on whining, and don't expect the parties you don't treat politely to offer support for your future proposals either. That's not how politics works you know ;)


Nonsense! It wouldn't make anything more complex. If anything it is easier, because, as NB, pointed out, it can be easily layed out on a spreadsheet.
The voting and the results wouldn't be more complex - parliament would, because there would be more one-seat parties to deal with.


Besides which, which do you value more: The voter's choice, or your own convenience?
The bribes. *nods*

I agree about any election reform not taking effect until next election.

I thought that went without saying? Retroactive legislation is a no-no.

and to the election reform, i just want to clarify something:

so, if the reform is passed, then this current parliament will be automatically reassigned to what it would have been, or will some decision about reapportioning be made after the law is passed?

because i would be opposed to this parliament being figured out by use of the new system. the system would have to take effect from the next election.

Under the proposed legislation reapportionment would only happen if a motion reapportioning Parliament was passed by a majority of MPs, separate from the current reform Bill.

I'll put in my support for tha anti-1337speak bill and the nudity thing.

The Proper English bill has already gone to vote, somewhere. I'll fish around for the thread.

Under the proposed legislation reapportionment would only happen if a motion reapportioning Parliament was passed by a majority of MPs, separate from the current reform Bill.

okay, good
the election reform proposal officially has my support

The voting and the results wouldn't be more complex - parliament would, because there would be more one-seat parties to deal with.

I fail to see how the inclusion of more voters would really make Parliament significantly more complex. Even with the addition of 10 new people to this thread, it would only really equal the same number of people than any other large thread had.


The bribes. *nods*

Evading the question completely.

I fail to see how the inclusion of more voters would really make Parliament significantly more complex. Even with the addition of 10 new people to this thread, it would only really equal the same number of people than any other large thread had.
10 new manifestos to compromise with? It would be complicated.


Evading the question completely.

Yup - I'll make a politician yet ;)

10 new manifestos to compromise with? It would be complicated.


it may, however, represent better the views of the people

and surely complexity is something we are all capable of dealing with

Yup - I'll make a politician yet ;)

All you need to prefect is mudslinging. I'm sure LG could give some pointers.

it may, however, represent better the views of the people

and surely complexity is something we are all capable of dealing with

More likely get the Parliament finally declared spam, actually.

Can you people please drop this now? You've introduced your proposal. It has failed to get the required support. You can either spend the rest of this Parliament going 'wah wah wah, I don't like losing' or actively participate in the legislative process.

You keep accusing NBIP and CypsW of spamming. I can't help but noticing that actually, it is our two parties who have already made this the most active Parliament ever! This constant 'electoral reform' nonsense is what's always held every other Parliament up in the past; just accept that, in a fictional game, it doesn't make a huge amount of difference how the seats are selected. Someone put it excellently earlier when they said, to paraphase, "who really cares how many little e-seats you get, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference."

Seriously; stop whinging and play the Parliament properly, or you are likely to see it closed down for spamming forever.

The Ministries Bill
Many members of various parties have been declared to be ministers (NBIP is a great example of this, I believe all of their members are Ministers of something or other), so with this Bill Parliament will officially recognise these Ministers and their Minstries. Ministers will not really have any new powers, but they can all feel slightly more important. Everyone needs a little ego stroking every now and then. Further, any member of any party will be allowed to be a Minister of whatever, provided there isn't already a Minister of that in their party. Also, people can resign from their Ministries without resigning from their seat in Parliament. And I might think of some other stuff to tack on here later, depends how people take this.

The Ministries Bill
Many members of various parties have been declared to be ministers (NBIP is a great example of this, I believe all of their members are Ministers of something or other), so with this Bill Parliament will officially recognise these Ministers and their Minstries. Ministers will not really have any new powers, but they can all feel slightly more important. Everyone needs a little ego stroking every now and then. Further, any member of any party will be allowed to be a Minister of whatever, provided there isn't already a Minister of that in their party. Also, people can resign from their Ministries without resigning from their seat in Parliament. And I might think of some other stuff to tack on here later, depends how people take this.

I like it, old boy! Her Majesty would be delighted for Parliament to recognise her Ministers of State, wotwot!

More likely get the Parliament finally declared spam, actually.

Can you people please drop this now? You've introduced your proposal. It has failed to get the required support. You can either spend the rest of this Parliament going 'wah wah wah, I don't like losing' or actively participate in the legislative process.

You keep accusing NBIP and CypsW of spamming. I can't help but noticing that actually, it is our two parties who have already made this the most active Parliament ever! This constant 'electoral reform' nonsense is what's always held every other Parliament up in the past; just accept that, in a fictional game, it doesn't make a huge amount of difference how the seats are selected. Someone put it excellently earlier when they said, to paraphase, "who really cares how many little e-seats you get, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference."

Seriously; stop whinging and play the Parliament properly, or you are likely to see it closed down for spamming forever.

I would like to give you a little reminder that it is not your job to decide what MPs in other parties debate on. You introduced your British English Bill. We, the UDCP and others, took part in that debate and voted on it. It's a shame that the NBIP has not done the same in turn, and instead simply refuses even to debate it, and as you have just done, sneers at anyone who tries to do so.

If you don't like debating it, that's fine, but don't stop others from doing so.

I would like to give you a little reminder that it is not your job to decide what MPs in other parties debate on. You introduced your British English Bill. We, the UDCP and others, took part in that debate and voted on it. It's a shame that the NBIP has not done the same in turn, and instead simply refuses even to debate it, and as you have just done, sneers at anyone who tries to do so.

If you don't like debating it, that's fine, but don't stop others from doing so.

And it is not your job to keep bringing up topics that the Parliament does not support.

Did the bold make it clearer for you?

The Ministries Bill
Many members of various parties have been declared to be ministers (NBIP is a great example of this, I believe all of their members are Ministers of something or other), so with this Bill Parliament will officially recognise these Ministers and their Minstries. Ministers will not really have any new powers, but they can all feel slightly more important. Everyone needs a little ego stroking every now and then. Further, any member of any party will be allowed to be a Minister of whatever, provided there isn't already a Minister of that in their party. Also, people can resign from their Ministries without resigning from their seat in Parliament. And I might think of some other stuff to tack on here later, depends how people take this.

I support this as it stands. Sounds like fun. :)

And it is not your job to keep bringing up topics that the Parliament does not support.

Yes, you will find it is, actually. That's how Parliament works. You introduce a bill, get the support of 1/3 of Parliament, and have a vote. We who support elecotral reform are in the second stage. There is no law passed or guidance in the procedures that sets a time limit for this, so we can 'bring it up' as much as we like.

Just as I ignored your discussions over the emprah and tea, you can ignore anything to do with electoral reform, if you really think it beneath you.

The Ministries Bill
Many members of various parties have been declared to be ministers (NBIP is a great example of this, I believe all of their members are Ministers of something or other), so with this Bill Parliament will officially recognise these Ministers and their Minstries. Ministers will not really have any new powers, but they can all feel slightly more important. Everyone needs a little ego stroking every now and then. Further, any member of any party will be allowed to be a Minister of whatever, provided there isn't already a Minister of that in their party. Also, people can resign from their Ministries without resigning from their seat in Parliament. And I might think of some other stuff to tack on here later, depends how people take this.

Just one thing: what if two MPs claim the same ministry? Otherwise, you have my support.

Yes, you will find it is, actually. That's how Parliament works. You introduce a bill, get the support of 1/3 of Parliament, and have a vote. We who support elecotral reform are in the second stage. There is no law passed or guidance in the procedures that sets a time limit for this, so we can 'bring it up' as much as we like.

Just as I ignored your discussions over the emprah and tea, you can ignore anything to do with electoral reform, if you really think it beneath you.

Perhaps the next piece of legislation shall be Parliamentary reform, then. Reform that limits the time a proposed Bill has to gather the required support.

Perhaps the next piece of legislation shall be Parliamentary reform, then. Reform that limits the time a proposed Bill has to gather the required support.

I look forward to discussing it, then.

Just one thing: what if two MPs claim the same ministry? Otherwise, you have my support.

They can both claim a ministry if they are from differetn parties. If, let's just say, someone from the NBIP decided the wanted to be Minsiter for Pet Distribution. They he/she would be the NBIP Minister for Pet Distribution.

They can both claim a ministry if they are from differetn parties. If, let's just say, someone from the NBIP decided the wanted to be Minsiter for Pet Distribution. They he/she would be the NBIP Minister for Pet Distribution.

Hokay :D

The Ministries Bill
Many members of various parties have been declared to be ministers (NBIP is a great example of this, I believe all of their members are Ministers of something or other), so with this Bill Parliament will officially recognise these Ministers and their Minstries. Ministers will not really have any new powers, but they can all feel slightly more important. Everyone needs a little ego stroking every now and then. Further, any member of any party will be allowed to be a Minister of whatever, provided there isn't already a Minister of that in their party. Also, people can resign from their Ministries without resigning from their seat in Parliament. And I might think of some other stuff to tack on here later, depends how people take this.
Sounds wonderful! you have my support

Yes, you will find it is, actually. That's how Parliament works. You introduce a bill, get the support of 1/3 of Parliament, and have a vote. We who support elecotral reform are in the second stage. There is no law passed or guidance in the procedures that sets a time limit for this, so we can 'bring it up' as much as we like.

Just as I ignored your discussions over the emprah and tea, you can ignore anything to do with electoral reform, if you really think it beneath you.
ARGH!!

For the bloody one-thousandth time: WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED ELECTION REFORMS???

I have asked this repeatedly, and been told something about graphs, with and without labels, and something about an excel spreadsheet.

Please, tell me what the proposed reforms entail, and if you can do it in plain English, that would be even better. Right now, I oppose it on the principal that no one will even tell me what it is!

I have asked this repeatedly, and been told something about graphs, with and without labels, and something about an excel spreadsheet.
I apologise, the first set of charts were a bit useless. I shall attach some clearer ones now, and will explain them below.

Please, tell me what the proposed reforms entail, and if you can do it in plain English, that would be even better. Right now, I oppose it on the principal that no one will even tell me what it is!

The proposed reforms are a different way to convert 'number of votes' to 'mumber of seats'. The current system is firstly biased strongly in favour of large parties, since it robs parties that would only be entitled to one or two seats ans gives them to carger parties, and potentially inaccurate since it relies on rounding.

The maths behind it is pretty similar, but slightly more complex, since you can't take any mathematical short cuts.

The pie charts attached show the vote share of all the parties compared to the seat share by all the parties under both systems, so you should be able to see how unrepresentative the current system is.

Hope that helps.

Psst! Dubsy! Over here! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11839114&postcount=3) It's the third post in this thread :p

Okay... I am gonna say how I understand it to work, and what the proposed changes would do. Please quote this and break down where exactly I've gone wrong, if I am in fact all off base. (I did read the third post, thanks Grav, but I've never been a math wiz, so please bear with me? I apologize for my lack of understanding)

So in this election, for every 4% of the vote garnered, 1 seat was awarded, yeah? But Party X who only got 3.75% of the vote (for example, i just pulled the number outta thin air) did not.

But there were a few leftover seats, yeah? Presumably because a party that garnered 11.5 % of the vote would only get 2 seats, but 4x35=total number of votes cast?

So then the parties which were closest to getting an additional seat AND who had earned at least one seat got the remaining seats? So, Party A that got 11.5% of the vote might get an additional seat, whereas Party B which had gotten 16.5% would not (Because Party A was only .5% away from an additional seat, whereas Party B was 3.5% away).

But Party X from the beginning with 3.75% does not get the seat, even tho it is only .25% away, instead of .5% away.

That is the current system, yeah? And the current complaint is that Party X is getting ripped off under it?

I have a few questions, then. How many extra seats did we end up with in this election? I thought it was about 3 or 4. Does anyone know?

And under the new proposal, the extra seats go to whomever is closest to 4%, regardless of if they made the original 4% threshhold? Is that all? Or is there more to it? IF that is all there is to it, I support the election reform. That only seems fair. If it is at all more complicated, please explain, and do NOT add my name to the list. Thank you.

10 new manifestos to compromise with? It would be complicated.

Not really. 10 new manifestos (assuming that there were, in fact, 10 new parties represented, which isn't the case) would still be dealing with individual issues and points on individual issues. Really, they don't complicate things more at all.

Besides which, as I asked before: What do you care more about: democracy or ease?

Okay... I am gonna say how I understand it to work, and what the proposed changes would do. Please quote this and break down where exactly I've gone wrong, if I am in fact all off base. (I did read the third post, thanks Grav, but I've never been a math wiz, so please bear with me? I apologize for my lack of understanding)
Hokay, I'll try and explain both systems.

So in this election, for every 4% of the vote garnered, 1 seat was awarded, yeah? But Party X who only got 3.75% of the vote (for example, i just pulled the number outta thin air) did not.
Yeah, and there were quite a few of those.

But there were a few leftover seats, yeah? Presumably because a party that garnered 11.5 % of the vote would only get 2 seats, but 4x35=total number of votes cast?
There are always 20 seats allocated by percentage and 5 left over seats allocated by rounding: the ones 'closest' to getting another seat.

So then the parties which were closest to getting an additional seat AND who had earned at least one seat got the remaining seats? So, Party A that got 11.5% of the vote might get an additional seat, whereas Party B which had gotten 16.5% would not (Because Party A was only .5% away from an additional seat, whereas Party B was 3.5% away).
That's it.

But Party X from the beginning with 3.75% does not get the seat, even tho it is only .25% away, instead of .5% away.
Correct.

That is the current system, yeah? And the current complaint is that Party X is getting ripped off under it?
Yes, it underrepresents the smaller parties and benefits the largest parties.

I have a few questions, then. How many extra seats did we end up with in this election? I thought it was about 3 or 4. Does anyone know?
5.

And under the new proposal, the extra seats go to whomever is closest to 4%, regardless of if they made the original 4% threshhold? Is that all? Or is there more to it? IF that is all there is to it, I support the election reform. That only seems fair. If it is at all more complicated, please explain, and do NOT add my name to the list. Thank you.
It's like that, but the maths is a little more complex to do so.

Hokay, I'll try and explain both systems.
Many thanks.



There are always 20 seats allocated by percentage and 5 left over seats allocated by rounding: the ones 'closest' to getting another seat.
Okay, that makes enough sense.

Yes, it underrepresents the smaller parties and benefits the largest parties. And this is the major complaint, yeah?



It's like that, but the maths is a little more complex to do so.
Okay, would it still be 20 seats allocated by percantage and 5 seats left over?

And this is the major complaint, yeah?
Yep

Okay, would it still be 20 seats allocated by percantage and 5 seats left over?
Basically all of them are done by the 'left over' way.

Yep


Basically all of them are done by the 'left over' way.

What do you mean? How can they all be done by the left over way? And how many seats would there be, still 25?

What do you mean? How can they all be done by the left over way?
Basically, the 'left over' seats are given to the party that most diserves it, the one that is closest to getting another seat.

The same is true with the proposed system. It gives a seat to the party that most diserves it, and then the one after that, until all seats are filled.

And how many seats would there be, still 25?

35.

Basically, the 'left over' seats are given to the party that most diserves it, the one that is closest to getting another seat.

The same is true with the proposed system. It gives a seat to the party that most diserves it, and then the one after that, until all seats are filled.



35.
Okay. So, Party A gets 27.5% of votes, Part B gets 15.25% of votes, Party C gets 6% of votes, and Party X gets 3.75% of the vote. (I realize there are a bunch of votes not accounted for in this example. I wanted to keep it simple. If it makes a difference, assume the remainder is spread out over a plethora of parties that garnered less than 3% of the vote.)

Under the new system, how many seats would Party A, B, C, and X get? Because the way you described it, Party A gets a seat, cuz it is most deserving, then B, then C, then X. Then all the little parties that got < 3%. Then assuming seats are left over, A gets another, then B gets another, then C, X, etc, until all the seats are filled?

In other words, there is no thresh hold at all to hold a seat? All you need is one vote, and assuming there are less than 35 parties, you would get a seat? Or, for that matter, if there are 35 parties, they would each get one seat, even if one garnered 50% of the vote, and the remaining 34 parties only got 1.5%.

Please correct me if this is wrong (I sincerely hope it is!)

Okay. So, Party A gets 27.5% of votes, Part B gets 15.25% of votes, Party C gets 6% of votes, and Party X gets 3.75% of the vote. (I realize there are a bunch of votes not accounted for in this example. I wanted to keep it simple. If it makes a difference, assume the remainder is spread out over a plethora of parties that garnered less than 3% of the vote.)

Under the new system, how many seats would Party A, B, C, and X get? Because the way you described it, Party A gets a seat, cuz it is most deserving, then B, then C, then X. Then all the little parties that got < 3%. Then assuming seats are left over, A gets another, then B gets another, then C, X, etc, until all the seats are filled?

I plugged the numbers into excel. It came out as:

Party A:19
Party B:10
Party C:4
Party X:2

In other words, there is no thresh hold at all to hold a seat?
There is a threshold of around 2%, because you still need 1/35th if the entire votes to pick up a seat.

All you need is one vote, and assuming there are less than 35 parties, you would get a seat? Or, for that matter, if there are 35 parties, they would each get one seat, even if one garnered 50% of the vote, and the remaining 34 parties only got 1.5%.

Please correct me if this is wrong (I sincerely hope it is!)
You still need more than one vote. If there are 35 parties only parties with 1/35th of the votes would get a seat. If one got 50% of the vote, they would still get 50% of the seats.

I plugged the numbers into excel. It came out as:

Party A:19
Party B:10
Party C:4
Party X:2

*Chuckles*

So, your grand system for increasing democracy and reducing the power of the largest parties actually gives a majority to someone with only 27.5% of the vote?

I feel more democratic already.

*Chuckles*

So, your grand system for increasing democracy and reducing the power of the largest parties actually gives a majority to someone with only 27.5% of the vote?

I feel more democratic already.
Out of curiosity good sah, did any of the parties in the election get around 27.5% of the vote?

Out of curiosity good sah, did any of the parties in the election get around 27.5% of the vote?

I've no idea, old sport - perhaps another pie chart is in order!

I've no idea, old sport - perhaps another pie chart is in order!

I am fond of pie. I shall return and edit when I've searched out the election results.
Huzzah, found them:
New British Imperialist Party: 16.56%
Choose [Your Pogo Stick] Wisely Party: 15.89%
PUNKS AND PIRATES Party: 9.27%
United Democratic Communist Party: 9.27%
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents Alliance: 8.61%
Democratic Socialist Party: 7.95%
Human Rights Party: 7.28%
Freedom, Environment and Science Party: 5.30%
Religious Conservative Party: 4.64%
Libertarian Party: 3.31%
Autonomist Party: 2.65%
Free Republic Party: 2.65%
Opportunity & Fairness Meritocratic Party: 2.65%
Alcohol Party: 1.99%
Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland: 1.32%
Defenderist Party:0.66%

So how many seats would we each have under the new system good sahs?

*Chuckles*

So, your grand system for increasing democracy and reducing the power of the largest parties actually gives a majority to someone with only 27.5% of the vote?

I feel more democratic already.

*chuckles*

The percentages WC provided only totaled 52.5%, of which 27.5% is a majority.

WC,

The proposed system is a divisor method, in that the seats are determined by number of votes over a somewhat arbitrary divisor.

The equation may look somewhat complicated, but it is easy to work with and serves a purpose:

V/2s+1

In this V = the total number of votes and S = the number of seats the party has been given so far.

When you see it in action you can see how it works. When it assigns a seat, it automatically discounts the number a number of votes to account for that seat.

*chuckles*

The percentages WC provided only totaled 52.5%, of which 27.5% is a majority.

The percentages provided 100%, as WC said 'assume the rest are scattered among smaller parties.'

27.5% is the largest minority, not a majority. Sorry about that.

The percentages provided 100%, as WC said 'assume the rest are scattered among smaller parties.'

27.5% is the largest minority, not a majority. Sorry about that.

New Burmesia only allotted 52% of the seats since he was counting 52% of the vote.

The other 48% of vote recieving parties would recieve roughly half of the seats, even if they were lower than 3%.

You are combative and willfully obtuse. I only wish there was some accountability to this parliament so that asshattery would have negative consequences.

New Burmesia only allotted 52% of the seats since he was counting 52% of the vote.

The other 48% of vote recieving parties would recieve roughly half of the seats, even if they were lower than 3%.

So, essentially, half of the Parliament would be made up of parties that weren't able to actually gather any support at the ballet box.

Again, I'm feeling the democracy.

So, essentially, half of the Parliament would be made up of parties that weren't able to actually gather any support at the ballet box.

Again, I'm feeling the democracy.

You want to gripe that a party that received 27.5% is getting a majority of seats, and then you gripe that we are giving seats out to parties without that many voters.

Which is it? Do you want the larger parties to recieve exaggerated seat totals, or do you want every party to recieve a fair allotment of seats?

Perhaps you just enjoy being obstinate.

You want to gripe that a party that received 27.5% is getting a majority of seats, and then you gripe that we are giving seats out to parties without that many voters.

Which is it? Do you want the larger parties to recieve exaggerated seat totals, or do you want every party to recieve a fair allotment of seats?

Perhaps you just enjoy being obstinate.

Or perhaps you just enjoy spamming up the thread with "reform the vote! Bring us democracy!" without ever considering the possibility that all systems are pretty crap, and, in a silly little internet game, it's better to be simple and unfair than ridiculously complicated and unfair.

I'm just pointing out the problems with your system. It's all you're doing with ours.

Or perhaps you just enjoy spamming up the thread with "reform the vote! Bring us democracy!" without ever considering the possibility that all systems are pretty crap, and, in a silly little internet game, it's better to be simple and unfair than ridiculously complicated and unfair.

I'm just pointing out the problems with your system. It's all you're doing with ours.

No, you're obstinately dodging facts and spinning harder than a compass in an electromagnet.

We've shown, again and again, why this system is superior to the previous one, and you continue to blindly oppose it on the merit of "complication" that doesn't actually exist.

Have you joined the Republican Party, by any chance?

We've shown, again and again, why this system is superior to the previous one, and you continue to blindly oppose it on the merit of "complication" that doesn't actually exist.

All you've shown me so far is that 27.5% is enough for a majority, and, if not, 2 votes is enough for a share of half the seats in Parliament.

You're right; that's not complicated at all. It is simply awful.

All you've shown me so far is that 27.5% is enough for a majority, and, if not, 2 votes is enough for a share of half the seats in Parliament.

We have not done that, at all. You have invented those results, and I have shown why they are not true.

It is only under the present system where 27.5% of the votes can recieve half of the seats. To go with some more ludicrous scenarios, if there were one party who recieved 10% of the vote, and 30 parties that recieved 3% of the voted, under our present system that 10% would recieve every seat.

You either are playing the fool, or you are a fool.

We have not done that, at all. You have invented those results, and I have shown why they are not true.

It is only under the present system where 27.5% of the votes can recieve half of the seats. To go with some more ludicrous scenarios, if there were one party who recieved 10% of the vote, and 30 parties that recieved 3% of the voted, under our present system that 10% would recieve every seat.

I see; this is why, then, that under our present system your party, that failed at the polls, has only one less seat than NBIP, which was the victor? I'm curious as to how I have invented the results, incidently; perhaps the scroll wheel on your mouse is broken, and you cannot see where is was posted.

Your whole complaint concerns the fact that a successful party gets more seats than one that no one voted for. It's laughable that you claim to be fighting for 'democracy'.

Originally Posted by Ifreann
The Ministries Bill
Many members of various parties have been declared to be ministers (NBIP is a great example of this, I believe all of their members are Ministers of something or other), so with this Bill Parliament will officially recognise these Ministers and their Minstries. Ministers will not really have any new powers, but they can all feel slightly more important. Everyone needs a little ego stroking every now and then. Further, any member of any party will be allowed to be a Minister of whatever, provided there isn't already a Minister of that in their party. Also, people can resign from their Ministries without resigning from their seat in Parliament. And I might think of some other stuff to tack on here later, depends how people take this.

I support this.

I see; this is why, then, that under our present system your party, that failed at the polls, has only one less seat than NBIP,

My party has no seats.

which was the victor?

Did you even recieve 20% of the vote?

I'm curious as to how I have invented the results, incidently; perhaps the scroll wheel on your mouse is broken, and you cannot see where is was posted.

You took what NB posted as the seat totals for four parties out of numerous parties and assumed that they would be the final results. You have also assumed that miniscule parties without popular support would recieve over the half of the seats. Those are two mutually exclusive assumptions, yet you have made both to support whatever idiot tangent you were on at the time.

Your whole complaint concerns the fact that a successful party gets more seats than one that no one voted for. It's laughable that you claim to be fighting for 'democracy'.

No, my complaint is that there is a better system than the one we are presently using.

My party has no seats.
Oh, that's interesting. I thought you were just a misguided communist. Instead, you're showing your ulterior motive.

Oh, that's interesting. I thought you were just a misguided communist. Instead, you're showing your ulterior motive.

How mature a reply.

Perhaps the MP from the NBIP would be bettter served by adressing the facts?

Instead, you're showing your ulterior motive.

Yes, it is all part of my sinister plot to gain the one seat that our party earned through the vote.

How mature a reply.

Perhaps the MP from the NBIP would be bettter served by adressing the facts?

Do you mean the real facts, where your system is shown to have just as many inaccuracies as the current one, or your 'facts', where the system is perfect, and we all change the world with our brilliantly distributed e-seats?

Do you mean the real facts, where your system is shown to have just as many inaccuracies as the current one, or your 'facts', where the system is perfect, and we all change the world with our brilliantly distributed e-seats?

Propose any distribution of votes and I will show that the proposed system will be at least as accurate as the present, and most often more accurate.

Propose any distribution of votes and I will show that the proposed system will be at least as accurate as the present, and most often more accurate.

Do it - in non pie chart form - for this election.

Can somebody point me to the UDCP thread?

I need to make some points, shake things up a bit.

Oh, that's interesting. I thought you were just a misguided communist.

I could understand someone mistaking me for a "communist," maybe, but someone with Ludwig von Mises in their signature? How does that compute again?

**gets a Ouija board and gives Senator McCarthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy) a call to ask for help**

I think we should ban the sniper and mp5 smilies from NS. Really getting sick of n00bs throwing them out.
Nay

WC,

The proposed system is a divisor method, in that the seats are determined by number of votes over a somewhat arbitrary divisor.

The equation may look somewhat complicated, but it is easy to work with and serves a purpose:

V/2s+1

In this V = the total number of votes and S = the number of seats the party has been given so far.

When you see it in action you can see how it works. When it assigns a seat, it automatically discounts the number a number of votes to account for that seat.
V is number of votes, or percentage of votes? And the result of this division is how many seats they win?

Am I retarded, or does it seem to me that this would equal one seat per vote, since obviously we start with no seats being awarded, so it is V/2(0)+1.

Which we all know equals V.

So, essentially, half of the Parliament would be made up of parties that weren't able to actually gather any support at the ballet box.

Again, I'm feeling the democracy.
At least you are feeling my frustration.

Or perhaps you just enjoy spamming up the thread with "reform the vote! Bring us democracy!" without ever considering the possibility that all systems are pretty crap, and, in a silly little internet game, it's better to be simple and unfair than ridiculously complicated and unfair.

I'm just pointing out the problems with your system. It's all you're doing with ours.
Hey! Those were my thoughts!
No, you're obstinately dodging facts and spinning harder than a compass in an electromagnet.

We've shown, again and again, why this system is superior to the previous one, and you continue to blindly oppose it on the merit of "complication" that doesn't actually exist.

Have you joined the Republican Party, by any chance?
Are you? Because, I am NOT blindly opposing it, in fact, I am going out of my way to understand it.

I know someone's excel understands how this works. But call me crazy and cynical, but I don't trust anything I can't wrap my brain around. And I am no dummy.

Please, set me straight, because every time I come back here I become more convinced your proposed system is utter bunk.

:D *Sneak humps WC*

It is true that Democracy sucks, Winston Churchill said it was rotten.

:D *Sneak humps WC*

:D Just in time! I needed some way to release this pent up frustration!

*humps TBD merrily*

http://www.dodos-israel.com/prodspics/I%20Love%20You%20This%20Much%202006%20150.jpg

I could understand someone mistaking me for a "communist," maybe, but someone with Ludwig von Mises in their signature? How does that compute again?

**gets a Ouija board and gives Senator McCarthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy) a call to ask for help**

I very vary notice signitures, and was under the impression that Vittos had been involved with the communists. It was a simple mistake.

*Chuckles*

So, your grand system for increasing democracy and reducing the power of the largest parties actually gives a majority to someone with only 27.5% of the vote?

I feel more democratic already.

All the parties WC gave only got 52.5% of the vote. Hence, someone with 27.5% of the vote gets a majority. Assuming there were jo other parties or the others got only 0.001% of the vote or whatever.

So, essentially, half of the Parliament would be made up of parties that weren't able to actually gather any support at the ballet box.

Again, I'm feeling the democracy.

Wrong again. To qualify for a seat you still have to get roughly 2% of the vote, since in effect, each seat represents roughly 2% of the vote. Under this system, parties still have to have some support from the electorate.

Please, set me straight, because every time I come back here I become more convinced your proposed system is utter bunk.

Why so? Tell me what you want to know and I'll tell you. However, the charts I made prove how much more representative this system is comapred to the one currently in use.

Can somebody point me to the UDCP thread?

I need to make some points, shake things up a bit.Here you go: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610

Though I have to say things are stirred up fairly well here. :)

Here you go: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610

Though I have to say things are stirred up fairly well here. :)

Yeah. We've got the Nudity bill and the Ministries bill to debate here, too. Plus, Philiosophy wanted to introduce a bill limiting the time a bill has to get the support of 1/3 of Parliament. I think overall I'd give general support to all three.

Yeah. We've got the Nudity bill and the Ministries bill to debate here, too. Plus, Philiosophy wanted to introduce a bill limiting the time a bill has to get the support of 1/3 of Parliament. I think overall I'd give general support to all three.I'm fine with the nudity bill. I'm not sure about the ministries bill...it has a vaguely religious overtone to me. Is that word also given a secular connotation over there?

I'm fine with the nudity bill. I'm not sure about the ministries bill...it has a vaguely religious overtone to me. Is that word also given a secular connotation over there?

In pretty much every European country a minister is the equivalent to a US cabinet secretary. Apart from the UK, where a minister is subordinate to a secretary.

So yeah, at least in Europe, it's generally without religious connotations.

In pretty much every European country a minister is the equivalent to a US cabinet secretary. Apart from the UK, where a minister is subordinate to a secretary.

So yeah, at least in Europe, it's generally without religious connotations.Ah, I see. I mean, I knew it was a government person, but I didn't know if it was one of those positions that was bestowed with the grace of God or whatever.
In that case, I support the idea. It gives parties a formal way of delegating responsibilities.

Ah, I see. I mean, I knew it was a government person, but I didn't know if it was one of those positions that was bestowed with the grace of God or whatever.
In that case, I support the idea. It gives parties a formal way of delegating responsibilities.

:D

V is number of votes, or percentage of votes? And the result of this division is how many seats they win?

Am I retarded, or does it seem to me that this would equal one seat per vote, since obviously we start with no seats being awarded, so it is V/2(0)+1.

Which we all know equals V.

Exactly, whoever has the most votes will be delegated the first seat. After they are delegated that seat the divisor become 2(1)+1 and their total number of votes is discounted, meaning that another party will probably recieve the next seat since they still have 1 as their divisor.

I refigured for the last election for Philosophy, but I will post it here with the math, so the process can be seen.

Since the first seat will always go to the highest vote getter NBIP will get it.

Seat #1 - NBIP - 8.333 (This is their quotient that determines when they will get their next seat, in effect they are now assigned 8 1/3 votes.)
Seat #2 - CWP - 8 (Since they still had a divisor of 1, their 24 votes was enough for this seat, and their vote total was discounted down to 8)
Seat #3 - P & P - 4.667
Seat #4 - UDCP - 4.667 (These two parties tied, and we will definitely have to resolve how to deal with ties)
Seat #5 - MOBRA - 4.333
Seat #6 - DSP - 4
Seat #7 - HRP - 3.667
Seat #8 - NBIP - 5 (Since their quotient [Discounted vote total] is higher than anyone else's [RCP had 8 total votes, CWP had a 8 discounted votes] they recieve another seat before some parties recieve their first and their vote total is discounted again by the divisor 2(2) + 1.)
Seat #9 - RCP - 2.667 (Because they had not yet recieved a seat, I favored them. It didn't affect this allotment, but it is something we need to discuss.
Seat #10 - CWP - 4.8


I don't want to post the entire tally, and I did it by hand last night so it may not be perfect, but here are the results I came up with:

25 Seat Parliament

Party - Calculated number of seats (present number of seats)

NBIP 4 (4)
CWP 4 (4)
P&P 2 (3)
UDCP 2 (3)
MOBRA 2 (3)
DSP 2 (2)
HRP 2 (2)
FESP 1 (2)
RCP 1 (2)
LP 1 (0)
Autonomist 1 (0)
OFMP 1 (0)
FRP 1 (0)
Alcohol 1 (0)

To point out the benefit of switching systems, the Religious Conservative Party recieved seven votes and got two seats. The Libertarian Party got five votes but got zero seats. In the new system, they each get one.

Also, you can see that, at only a minor cost to parties who got seats due to rounding (adding votes after the election), a great deal more parties get to add at least one delegate (probably their founder).

If the problem that everyone has is with the rounding system, why don't we just change the rounding rules, so that the 4% threshhold doesn't need to be met in order to be considered for rounding? It would still be more fair, and keep everyone happier, with out being convoluted(sp?) and confusing.

If the problem that everyone has is with the rounding system, why don't we just change the rounding rules, so that the 4% threshhold doesn't need to be met in order to be considered for rounding? It would still be more fair, and keep everyone happier, with out being convoluted(sp?) and confusing.

The 4% threshhold is definitely my major complaint.

If the problem that everyone has is with the rounding system, why don't we just change the rounding rules, so that the 4% threshhold doesn't need to be met in order to be considered for rounding? It would still be more fair, and keep everyone happier, with out being convoluted(sp?) and confusing.

Even removing the 4% rule at rounding wouldn't guarantee smaller parties representation if the larger parties are closer to getting one. For example, you could have a party with 3.5% of the vote and one with 15.9% of the vote. Since the one with 15.9% of the vote is closer, it would get the seat instead of the one with 3%, when it would still be entitled to one.

However, simply removing the 4% threshold in the rounding system is an improvement, and thus a compromise I'm willing to make, if it's more popular.

If the problem that everyone has is with the rounding system, why don't we just change the rounding rules, so that the 4% threshhold doesn't need to be met in order to be considered for rounding? It would still be more fair, and keep everyone happier, with out being convoluted(sp?) and confusing.

I would support the removal of the 4% threshold IF the number of supporters a party needs before it can be registered is raised, ideally up to 10 members. This should help to reduce the ridiculous number of parties we have, as well as remove the possibility of one vote being enough to earn a seat.

Even removing the 4% rule at rounding wouldn't guarantee smaller parties representation if the larger parties are closer to getting one. For example, you could have a party with 3.5% of the vote and one with 15.9% of the vote. Since the one with 15.9% of the vote is closer, it would get the seat instead of the one with 3%, when it would still be entitled to one.

So, you're arguing that it's somehow more democratic for a party 0.5% away from a seat to get one before one 0.1% away?

So, you're arguing that it's somehow more democratic for a party 0.5% away from a seat to get one before one 0.1% away?
Yes, because if you read my post the party with 3.5% of the vote has enough votes (more than ~2% in the 35 seat parliament under discussion) to be entitled to a seat yet does not receive one. Thus, the current 'rounding' system does not give a proportional representation of how the electorate voted.

I would support the removal of the 4% threshold IF the number of supporters a party needs before it can be registered is raised, ideally up to 10 members. This should help to reduce the ridiculous numbers of parties we have, as well as remove the possibility of one vote being enough to earn a seat.
I think 10 would be too high, but I think 5-6 would still be a reasonable number. Having only one or two is too small, by any means, because you can end up with a situation whereby a party has more seats than members.

Exactly, whoever has the most votes will be delegated the first seat. After they are delegated that seat the divisor become 2(1)+1 and their total number of votes is discounted, meaning that another party will probably recieve the next seat since they still have 1 as their divisor.

I refigured for the last election for Philosophy, but I will post it here with the math, so the process can be seen.

Since the first seat will always go to the highest vote getter NBIP will get it.

Seat #1 - NBIP - 8.333 (This is their quotient that determines when they will get their next seat, in effect they are now assigned 8 1/3 votes.)
Seat #2 - CWP - 8 (Since they still had a divisor of 1, their 24 votes was enough for this seat, and their vote total was discounted down to 8)
Seat #3 - P & P - 4.667
Seat #4 - UDCP - 4.667 (These two parties tied, and we will definitely have to resolve how to deal with ties)
Seat #5 - MOBRA - 4.333
Seat #6 - DSP - 4
Seat #7 - HRP - 3.667
Seat #8 - NBIP - 5 (Since their quotient [Discounted vote total] is higher than anyone else's [RCP had 8 total votes, CWP had a 8 discounted votes] they recieve another seat before some parties recieve their first and their vote total is discounted again by the divisor 2(2) + 1.)
Seat #9 - RCP - 2.667 (Because they had not yet recieved a seat, I favored them. It didn't affect this allotment, but it is something we need to discuss.
Seat #10 - CWP - 4.8


I don't want to post the entire tally, and I did it by hand last night so it may not be perfect, but here are the results I came up with:

25 Seat Parliament

Party - Calculated number of seats (present number of seats)

NBIP 4 (4)
CWP 4 (4)
P&P 2 (3)
UDCP 2 (3)
MOBRA 2 (3)
DSP 2 (2)
HRP 2 (2)
FESP 1 (2)
RCP 1 (2)
LP 1 (0)
Autonomist 1 (0)
OFMP 1 (0)
FRP 1 (0)
Alcohol 1 (0)

To point out the benefit of switching systems, the Religious Conservative Party recieved seven votes and got two seats. The Libertarian Party got five votes but got zero seats. In the new system, they each get one.

Also, you can see that, at only a minor cost to parties who got seats due to rounding (adding votes after the election), a great deal more parties get to add at least one delegate (probably their founder).

Big hairy monstrous no-no. There shouldn't be any room for interpretation in any system we use.

Big hairy monstrous no-no. There shouldn't be any room for interpretation in any system we use.

I agree, any system must be completely objective.

Big hairy monstrous no-no. There shouldn't be any room for interpretation in any system we use.

Good spot, old boy!

I propose a different election reform bill, then. It would be essentially the same system, with 25 seats, and ever 4% of votes earning a seat for that party. The five remaining seats, however, will be distributed to those closest to to garnering an extra seat, regardless of whether or not they met the initial 4% threshhold.

Seat #9 - RCP - 2.667 (Because they had not yet recieved a seat, I favored them. It didn't affect this allotment, but it is something we need to discuss.

Read my whole post.

I would prefer that ties went to the party with the fewer seats so that parliament would be more inclusive. But not only did I not suggest that these be the official results, I even stated that this is an important topic to address and decide upon.

Any system that we will adopt will have problems with ties because of the small vote count, and we have to account for ties.

I want this parliament to be more inclusive to all parties because it will be little more than a debate, therefore I would like to see parties with fewer seats have precedent in ties.

I propose a different election reform bill, then. It would be essentially the same system, with 25 seats, and ever 4% of votes earning a seat for that party. The five remaining seats, however, will be distributed to those closest to to garnering an extra seat, regardless of whether or not they met the initial 4% threshhold.

Do you propose that we rework the present allotment or apply this to future elections? I ask because I don't think it will be automatic that there will be five remaining seats.

Do you propose that we rework the present allotment or apply this to future elections? I ask because I don't think it will be automatic that there will be five remaining seats.

Future. Say what you like about the current system, I'm not sure anything would be more undemocratic than changing a system after the electorate have voted on it.

Future. Say what you like about the current system, I'm not sure anything would be more undemocratic than changing a system after the electorate have voted on it.

Well, I believe it would be more democratic if the system more accurately represented the votes, but oh well.

Do you propose that we rework the present allotment or apply this to future elections? I ask because I don't think it will be automatic that there will be five remaining seats.
Any change in the present allotment is unacceptable. The Parliament has started, and the present MP's were chosen after a legitimate election. Retroactive legislation is unacceptable.

Well, I believe it would be more democratic if the system more accurately represented the votes, but oh well.
Any change to the election procedure should only affect future elections.

Any change in the present allotment is unacceptable. The Parliament has started, and the present MP's were chosen after a legitimate election. Retroactive legislation is unacceptable.


Any change to the election procedure should only affect future elections.
That was your 8,888th post.

Weird. :p

Any change in the present allotment is unacceptable. The Parliament has started, and the present MP's were chosen after a legitimate election. Retroactive legislation is unacceptable.


Any change to the election procedure should only affect future elections.

I wholeheartedly agree with this!

Retroactive legislation is unacceptable.

Why?

Why?

In this case, because the MP's have been sworn in and started their work. Voting has been held among the different parties to decide who would be MP's, and it would be chaotic and unconstructive to ask parties to pick MP's who would loose their seats, not to mention that waiting for new MP's would interrupt parliamentary work - and questions would arrise about the legality of the votings the parliament has held.

All this potential chaos is pointless, since the election was legitimate.

In this case, because the MP's have been sworn in and started their work. Voting has been held among the different parties to decide who would be MP's, and it would be chaotic and unconstructive to ask parties to pick MP's who would loose their seats, not to mention that waiting for new MP's would interrupt parliamentary work - and questions would arrise about the legality of the votings the parliament has held.

All this potential chaos is pointless, since the election was legitimate.

I do not want to see any MPs lose their position after having been granted a spot. Perhaps the parties that deserve a seat from their vote totals (but were hurt by the rounding) could gain a seat without taking the other's away.

Perhaps we could expand to a 35 seat parliament immediately and add 10 MPs. That would leave everyone who is presently an MP while granting some of the parties who were cut by the threshhold a seat.

There may not be 5 leftover seats in the next election, come to think of it. So let me rephrase. For every 4% of the vote earned, a party will get one seat. After these seats have been allotted, the remaining of the 25 seats will be given to the parties who were closest to garnering an additional seat, regardless of whether or not they met the 4% threshhold.

Under no circumstances would this affect the current parliament. This would only have an impact upon future elections.

I, for one, am firmly set against any change to the elactoral system right now. All it would cause would be unnecessary panic and chaos in all parties, and the new parliament would probably only whine about how awful the new lectoral system was.

Let's just face it: we cannot fairly represent everyone. The only way to represent EVERYONE would be to allow everyone a say on bills, which is simply preposterous. So in the end, some parties without many members will not reach parliament. Do you see any British Nationalists or Standing at the Back dressed Stupidly and looking Stupid MPs in the house of commons right now?

Party - Calculated number of seats (present number of seats)

NBIP 4 (4)
CWP 4 (4)
P&P 2 (3)
UDCP 2 (3)
MOBRA 2 (3)
DSP 2 (2)
HRP 2 (2)
FESP 1 (2)
RCP 1 (2)
LP 1 (0)
Autonomist 1 (0)
OFMP 1 (0)
FRP 1 (0)
Alcohol 1 (0)As you can see from this, the UDCP is one of the parties that would stand to lose if this election had been under the proposed system. Therefore, any allegation that the UDCP wants reform in order to gain from it is erroneous.