[Draft] Underoverrepresentation?

[Marxist Germany]

Underoverrepresentation?

Validity:
No Upper House, Devolution (is there a more appropriate policy to represent a federation?)

Description:
Frustrated by the abolishment of the Upper House, smaller states all over @@NAME@@ have adopted a policy of absenteeism as a form of protest against the decision. The media mocked the government for its half empty parliament, a representative was caught snoring out loud during one of the sessions, and many bills were suspiciously passed unanimously.

Option 1:
"Clearly, the solution is to budge in to our demands and reinstate the upper house," suggests @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, one of the absentees, "the upper house guaranteed that EVERY state had equal representation, giving us smaller states more power against the tyrannical large states. Why should people from a few megalopolii decide the fate of the entire country!?" @@HE_1@@ leaves the room, @@HIS_1@@ shoes squeaking with every step.

Effect 1: @@LEADERNAME@@ has been nicknamed "The Flip-Flop"

Option 2:
"For the sake of equal representation and democracy, you should not!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, a representative from @@CAPITAL@@, "the upper house was full of old farts who knew nothing about modern politics, and smaller states were overrepresented. Besides, why should empty fields get as much voting power as developed cities? I suggest we ignore their demands and fire the absentees." @@HE_2@@ takes a step to the window, overlooking @@CAPITAL@@, and laughs with an evil tone.

Effect 2: representatives that are 5 minutes late are ejected from the parliament

Option 3:
"This raises a bigger question, " exclaims a shady person, who seems to have appeared out of nowhere, "why don't we only allow rural areas to be represented in the parliament? After all, hard working farmers know more about running the country than drugged out hippies in crime-ridden cities..." he disappears as mysteriously as his entry.

Effect 3: @@NAME@@ is undergoing rapid deurbanisation

[Marxist Germany]

My 3rd attempt at writing an issue, feel free to shred this to pieces!

[Outer Sparta]

I think a 4th option that makes you dictator would be a nice option to contrast with the talk about legislature houses.

[Vivolkha]

Devolution is the policy for federalism, yes.

Frustrated by the abolishment of the Upper House, smaller states all over @@NAME@@ have adopted a policy of absenteeism as a form of protest against the decision, after the media mocked the government for its half empty parliament, it has been decided that its time to deal with the issue.

This could be broken in two sentences to make it more comfortable to read, like this:

Frustrated by the abolishment of the Upper House, smaller states all over @@NAME@@ have adopted a policy of absenteeism as a form of protest against the decision. After the media mocked the government for its half empty parliament, it has been decided that its time to deal with the issue.

This small punctuation problem affects some of the options as well:

Option 1:
"Clearly, the solution is to budge in to our demands and reinstate the upper house," suggests @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, one of the absentees, "the upper house guaranteed that EVERY state had equal representation, giving us smaller states more power against the tyrannical large states, why should people from a few megalopolii decide the fate of the entire country!?" @@HE_1@@ leaves the room, @@HIS_1@@ shoes squeaking with every step.

to

Option 1:
"Clearly, the solution is to budge in to our demands and reinstate the upper house," suggests @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, one of the absentees, "the upper house guaranteed that EVERY state had equal representation, giving us smaller states more power against the tyrannical large states. Why should people from a few megalopolii decide the fate of the entire country!?" @@HE_1@@ leaves the room, @@HIS_1@@ shoes squeaking with every step.

And for Option 2:

Option 2:
"For the sake of equal representation and democracy, you should not!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, a representative from @@CAPITAL@@, "the upper house was full of old farts who knew nothing about modern politics, and smaller states were overrepresented; besides, why should empty fields get as much voting power as developed cities? I suggest we ignore their demands and fire the absentees." @@HE_2@@ takes a step to the window, overlooking @@CAPITAL@@, and laughs with an evil tone.

to

Option 2:
"For the sake of equal representation and democracy, you should not!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, a representative from @@CAPITAL@@, "the upper house was full of old farts who knew nothing about modern politics, and smaller states were overrepresented. Besides, why should empty fields get as much voting power as developed cities? I suggest we ignore their demands and fire the absentees." @@HE_2@@ takes a step to the window, overlooking @@CAPITAL@@, and laughs with an evil tone.

Which isn't that necessary here but simplifies the whole thing.

Sorry if it is too nitpicky. I like the concept though.

[Marxist Germany]

Being nitpicky is exactly what the editors want! Ill make changes.

[Outer Sparta]

Being nitpicky is exactly what the editors want! Ill make changes.

It's always good to know the exact macros so the issue can be formally implemented by the editors. Otherwise, this is a good concept.

[Vivolkha]

Being nitpicky is exactly what the editors want! Ill make changes.

It's always good to know the exact macros so the issue can be formally implemented by the editors. Otherwise, this is a good concept.

For reference, see this.
But for now, @@LEADER@@ > @@LEADERNAME@@.

[USS Monitor]

Macros are a little annoying to clean up, but not a huge factor in what gets edited or not.

The biggest reason why I would not snap this up to edit is because the opening doesn't grab me. That's a combination of the premise and the way it's presented. The technical workings of the legislature are an acceptable topic for issues, but they aren't the most spicy. The opening might be improved by drawing more attention to the image of the half-empty legislature and leaving out stuff like "it has been decided that its time to deal with the issue" that just takes up space without adding any flavor.

[Marxist Germany]

Macros are a little annoying to clean up, but not a huge factor in what gets edited or not.

The biggest reason why I would not snap this up to edit is because the opening doesn't grab me. That's a combination of the premise and the way it's presented. The technical workings of the legislature are an acceptable topic for issues, but they aren't the most spicy. The opening might be improved by drawing more attention to the image of the half-empty legislature and leaving out stuff like "it has been decided that its time to deal with the issue" that just takes up space without adding any flavor.

Yeah I'm not liking the description either, I'll try to make changes.

[Chan Island]

That title is giving me airplane flashbacks.

Anyway, seems interesting. I'm not sure why smaller states would inherently be against the abolishment of the upper house by themselves. Perhaps have it be an immediate reaction to it being abolished?

[Marxist Germany]

That title is giving me airplane flashbacks.

Anyway, seems interesting. I'm not sure why smaller states would inherently be against the abolishment of the upper house by themselves. Perhaps have it be an immediate reaction to it being abolished?

I think this implies that it happened immediately?

Frustrated by the abolishment of the Upper House, smaller states..

[USS Monitor]

That title is giving me airplane flashbacks.

Anyway, seems interesting. I'm not sure why smaller states would inherently be against the abolishment of the upper house by themselves. Perhaps have it be an immediate reaction to it being abolished?

I think it's assuming a system like the US, where the smaller states are more influential in the Senate than they are in the House.

[Chan Island]

That title is giving me airplane flashbacks.

Anyway, seems interesting. I'm not sure why smaller states would inherently be against the abolishment of the upper house by themselves. Perhaps have it be an immediate reaction to it being abolished?

I think this implies that it happened immediately?

Frustrated by the abolishment of the Upper House, smaller states..

Fair enough.

That title is giving me airplane flashbacks.

Anyway, seems interesting. I'm not sure why smaller states would inherently be against the abolishment of the upper house by themselves. Perhaps have it be an immediate reaction to it being abolished?

I think it's assuming a system like the US, where the smaller states are more influential in the Senate than they are in the House.

Which might be considered a big assumption actually. Lots of different senates out there.

[USS Monitor]

I think it's assuming a system like the US, where the smaller states are more influential in the Senate than they are in the House.

Which might be considered a big assumption actually. Lots of different senates out there.

Yes, it would be good if it can be made less assumptive.

[Marxist Germany]

I changed the description

[Australian rePublic]

Who said that smaller states don't have cities? They
just have smaller/fewer of them


Option 3- who said that cities are crime ridden?

Option 4- wanting votes in the city is causing this. F€€k democracy, dictatorships benefit everyone

Option 5- develop these bloody states. Flood them with immigrants. The new population will come so it will justify new infrastructure. Who cares where they get water from- that's a later problem