Senate Disscussion

What method do you like as an alternative? Also, it sounds like you want to concentrate power among one or two of the largest groups. What is your ideological motivation for that? What if your party is one of the excluded parties? My guess is that the one who will suffer the most is Billy's moderate conservative party and I'd like to see it have a role. Do you want to exclude him completely from the Representative branch despite his hard work?

~Ulrika~

Obviously you havent bothered to read anything I've written thus far...

I wish the fairest of fair in the senate ...so at this point I think the only fair representation of the people is to elect one person from EVERY party to the senate...then there is no majority or minority.

Your reason for giving the minority power is just as bad as the majority having it...thus the minority befcome the majority with its power.

I call that partiees be established and every party have a representitive...there will be no need for elections then and we can get on with the business at hand

(Edit by Ulrika: Bah! I accidentally hit "Edit" instead of "Quote". I'm sorry. Nothing was changed.)

!? Why is everyone so jumpy in this forum lately.
Neither is good or bad. They're just different. I like to favor minority parties as it gives more people a role in shaping the future of the city at the risk of stability. I'm just curious what your reasons are. Once we understand each other's reasons for choosing a particular type of representation we can make compromises.

~Ulrika~

Sorry dont mean to get jumpy Ulrika but I'm starting to see things I dont like.

Minotity/majority.....nothing will ever be fair...so lets just make it fair...with every party being represented there is no majority or minority. it is equal and good for the people...forcing all parties to work together to further the peoples wishes.

The other 2 branches are self regulated leaving the senate to the people...the people can elect who they want from each party and then we have full representation.

We would just need Party guidlines IE how many needed to form and keep a party active withinn a city. ALL party members must be group members of the project....Whatever other restrictions we decide to make it fair for all parties.

I agree with Talen on this one. And I see what you are saying Ulrika, but if we have it so that one person from each party can be in one of the 3 branches. There will be no minority. It also means that technically you could have one party that has a person in each of the 3 branches.

By doing it this way, there should be no minorities. If each party is considered an official party once they have 5 members, then it does not matter if they have 5 or 50 members. They still have the opportunity to have their party fully represented in each of the branches.

Hmmm... I am not for the 1 party 1 vote thingy. What if 1 party has 50 members and another one 5? That is not fairly representing the will of the people.

I have an idea though. This is just on the top of my head so if it sucks please just say so... hehe.

How about we say there will be 9 seats and we have 2 kinds of seats. 1 seat per party (min 5 members) that is appointed by the party (usually the party leader) and the rest open seats to be voted on by the citizens.

We only give one vote per citizen. Lets say there are 4 parties that qualify then there are 5 open seats. We also allow independents to run if they wish. Then the top 5 vote getters have the 5 open seats. It is hard to say that the will of the people was not accomplished and every party gets representation.

Example:
Party A 30 members - 7 candidates
Party B 20 members - 4 candidates
Party C 8 members - 1 candidate
Party D 5 members - 1 candidate

If everyone only has 1 vote there is a better chance of Parties D & E getting additional seats due to concentrating its votes on just 1 candidate.

Party A runs a huge risk running 7 members because they have diluted their strength in numbers. Surely there will be a favorite person for party A, who may even get 50-70% of the votes from the party.

Larger parties will have to balance the number of candidates with their likely voters

Smaller parties may throw their vote together to assure at least 1 seat between them.

Give the leading vote getter the title "Chief of the Senate" and power to break ties. This assures that the larger parties lose power if they try to fool with the votes by spreading them out over all of their candidates. They will surely not win the Chief seat if they do that.

The Chief of the Senate will probably be more moderate than the party leader who is ineligible because his seat was not won because of votes.

Anyway, that's just an idea. What do Y'all think?

Wow, back to my calculator... I'm glad for that

Ulrika, I agree that the Sainte Laguë gives more representation to minority parties. I have no problem in adopting that instead of the de Hondt method, as I stated before. The principle is basically the same, the actual formula differs slightly, and can/should be tweaked to allow for our feelings (ie. empowering minorities or minimizing legislature fragmentation - which are opposite trends).

However, I saw that you're applying the method not to elect seats in the legislature, but to the votes for the passing of a bill instead! (it was only devised as a proportionality method for distributing seats among party-based legislatures). Hmmm, now that's intriguing Actually, I have to admit that I never thought it would work at all for Yes/No voting That's creative! I have no clear opinion on this, it sounds more intriguing than "simple majority", so I'd like to see it applied just to see how it works!

I still mantain that the Sainte Laguë method should be applied for electing the seats.

I can agree generally on having seats representing 10% of the population. However, I think that 5 seats is too little, even if we just happen to have 3 parties represented at the legislature. Perhaps 11 is really too much as well. Could we settle on a 7 or 9 seat minimum?

As to having every bill pass two votes - one "personal" vote, one "faction" vote - I can't really agree on that, and I second Billy on this, since I don't see the real advantage of the dual-vote system, even considering that it should be a self-check system. It also has the disadvantage of giving minorities an overlarge saying on all issues. Let's admit we have just two parties, A elected with 30 votes (and having 6 seats on a 7-seat legislature) and B with just 5 votes and 1 seat. The dual-vote system will almost always fail, and all laws will have to be passed with unanimous agreement. This is giving a 5-vote minority too much power. I cannot agree with this system at all.

Minorities are already represented by applying the Sainte Laguë method and giving them seats far beyond their real votes. I would keep their representation at that point: make sure they get some seats. Allow them to introduce bills and present their case to convince the other parties to vote favourably on them. But also make sure they won't deadlock the legislature without the appropriate "elected power" which means having won the majority of the votes at the election.

My silly example inserted here: under this "minority representation system", I could create the Griefer Faction, with the sole objective of blocking all decisions at the legislature. Since I need 5 members to create the party, and assuming they all vote on the upcoming elections, then I will have a seat at the legislature, despite everybody in Neualtenburg being fundamentally opposed to the RGF's views. Then I would introduce all kinds of silly proposals, like getting rid of the Guild or having Haney Linden as Dictator-for-Life, and make sure all bills are never passed. Even with the Gilde and the Academy blocking my silliest proposals, the fact is, nothing would ever come out of the RA.

Giving too much strength to minorities is very dangerous. Allow them enough power to effectively block the majority is too bad. Experience tells us that majorities are usually relatively balanced and moderate - that's because they will usually have the most votes, from moderate people - and radical change (for good and for worse) comes from minorities. I would like to encourage all positive radical views from minorities - that is, make sure that they are represented properly in the RA and be able to introduce bills - but make sure they cannot gridlock Government to a standstill with "too much power".

/joke mode on
(As a matter of fact, the Neualtenburger Secret Service - an organization that does not exist and that does not have any members, and if someone is telling you the contrary, he's not a member... oops - has found out about a least two groups who have found this loophole in a "minority-based" system and are prepared to take full advantage of it to guarantee the failure of our project. This is the reason why I'm trying to argue about the danger of getting too strong griefer minorities to "take over". The non-existing NSS wants the griefers to be very creative and argumentative in legislature sessions, instead of exploiting problems with the current design. There. Now I deny everything I've just said. )
/joke mode off

Last but not least, instead of an open-listed, party-based election system, I fully support Billy Grace's proposal! I think it's the same used for the Bundesrat in Germany (1): half the seats are for parties (and using a variety of Hondt/Sainte Laguë) and the other half for direct election, and independents could be directly elected, as well. So parties would present two lists: one, where you vote for the party; the other one, where you vote for the seats directly. Every citizen would have 2 votes: 1 party vote, 1 seat vote. I like it very much!

I also agree that the "Senate Chief", "Senior Senator", "First Speaker" (or whatever this office ever gets named) should be the individual most voted upon by the citizens. I remove my own suggestions and fully support Billy on this one!


(1) As a historical sidenote, this system was put in place to avoid the "Hitler effect", since it avoids minority parties becoming dominant due to fragmentation, while giving them fair representation in the Bundesrat. Germans are still paranoid about their history.

Again I have to ask...Why not have a seat for every registered party? There will never be a minority or a majority ...everyone is the equal. Every seat would have one vote and the senate would have to work together.

How about a seat for every party --and their votes weighted by party size?

This is actually an interesting example and something I had not thought about. With the nature of the projekt, we very well could get some involved that are not really wanting the projekt to succeed. I doubt they would be large in number (most would not bother), so they would probably end up being a minority. I am not one for believing in Conspiracy, but I can admit that it *is* a possibility that we should try and protect ourselves from.



I agree with this completly




I think I could be happy with this proposal. Anyone care to state a devils advocate reason that it may not work or be suitible for the projekt? Something I may not be thinking of?

My first reaction is that this makes sense also. But, would this not take us back to the argument that minority groups would have too little power?

a seat at the table gets their voices heard, as opposed to no seat at the table.
one must'nt look only to votes as the final arbiter of process.

True...

That would never work as one party might have 400 members and one just 5...it then makes the whole minority/majority arguement again.

If we seek to have the best representation of the people without having to pander to a majority/minority then there is only one way...

it seems to me that people would like there to be a majority/minority so they can duke it out...make it more exciting. My plan would have every party represented with no majority/minority and they could still fight but the playing field is level.

a band of small partys could easily get together in an alliance of votes --they could fillibuster--the list of options of creative politcing becomes (to me) very exciting

Talen, if we took that route (which was the one I was most supportive of) how would you propose to deal with a situation like what Gwyneth stated and that I quoted in my last post? If there is another way to deal with it, I am curious to hear it!

You do realize you're trying to set up a Representative Branch --right?
What you propose is not representative of the people.

We already have two branches of government that operate in the manner you propose.

I don't support your model at all.

I doubt very seriously it would come up personally . but we could build in safeguards for just that reason. There a million scenarios I can give for any type of system stated. There can and will most likely be rules on the proicess of making law. In these rules those very things can bve dealt with in a variety of ways.

I would much rather have a level playing field with everyone represented than choose less because I'm scared of what may happen.

All the other suggested systems could have similar problems and they would need rules set forth as well..Ever seen a democratic filobuster? They can cripple a bill and make it die while not getting anything donje....thats the 2 party way. SO don't think for a second that this possibility might not happen in any system we choose.

Of course it represents the people. not only some of them like you would like but ALL of them.
Those two other branches don't operate like thgis and they certainly aren't elected by the PEOPLE.

I see a very real problem with this. if half the seats are for the party what are the rules for the other half. Do they have to be independant? Do they have to have no party affiliations? Can they be proven to not be a shill of another party? I see this system as one that could be abused very easily even if safeguards are employed.

actually --it doesn't represent The People at all --it represents only those interested in government.

You are advocating for the loudest voice wins --I am advocating for the greater number of people wins.

Quite the reverse from what you suggest. Your way would lead to a vocal minority controlling all. My way would respond to the collective will of the people.

Suggesting that I am interested in only like-minded people is insulting and inflammatory, and I would suggest you rethink your words.

I still support this method.

There are some people who are unfit to lead a project of this size and let the people involved in the project (citizens) decide who those people are.

Some of your are suggesting that in the name of equality we let people who's primary interest maybe in seeing an experiment with VR Government fail, have an equal say as those who want the project to last (and help the land doners pay the tier).

All people are created equal, but that's not the same as having equal qualifications.

No it doesnt....it assures equal voice to anyone interested in the government yes but this benifits the people by not being a lopsided arguement between a few parties.



nope you are absolutely wrong again. How is there a loudest voice when all parties are on equal footing?
You are advocating the more of one party the better.



How does a majority of one party serve the people?

My way assures that every person can be heard...



Please stop playing the victim on my account...I didn't say you were interested in like minded people.

yah --that's exactly what you said.



plus --I fail to see how my method of having all Parties give a seat, but having their votes weighted by population, fails to represent ALL the people.

In your method only party leaders are given equal voice.
In my method equal voice is given to the city entire.

No no, I think I have more bad wording on that post.

Each party has one list. These are elected directly for, say, 5 seats. You use some sort of proportionally method to get them seats. Just as originally proposed.

However, let's assume there are 4 additional seats. For those, the parties will also have lists, but you will vote on the persons directly, and not on the parties. You could either vote on one single person or use a method similar to the Aussies - a preference list.

There will be no difference between independents or party members this way. Remember Ulrika's proposal, the Party Leader is responsbile for his/her party, and one of the repsonsabilities is informing the citizens who is going to be running for elections with their "colours".

The way I see this system can be abused is by throwing in allegedly independent people (who ordinarily don't have enough members to form their own party, but still wish to be elected) and have them "align" with the other parties (but see below).

BTW, I'm not 100% behind this system, due to its more complicated elections. I would prefer a closed-list, party-based election system. But I don't mind to the method at all.

However, remember that in any case there are always "backstage conversations" and "hidden agendas". You can have a group of people organizing themselves to present a coalition before the elections, and not say a word of it to the citizens. That's the dirty part of politics. You can't rule these things out, if you want to go the way of a "democratically elected" body. It's not really "abuse", it's "part of the system", and the way you have to deal with it is... vote differently next time!