NSG Senate Coffee Shop: 50% off Americanos [NSG Senate]

[The New World Oceania]

Counting a lack of vote as an abstention.

Note that Districts already exist: we call them parties.

Districts don't exist.

Parties exist and they are Districts which are not organized by any non-partisan force.

See this example:
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

Your current argument is "We've always done it this way and I would be sad if we changed."

[President Pro-Tempore of the Senate]

Districts don't exist.

Parties exist and they are Districts which are not organized by any non-partisan force.

See this example:
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

Your current argument is "We've always done it this way and I would be sad if we changed."

Parties are not districts.

[Geilinor]

Districts don't exist.

Parties exist and they are Districts which are not organized by any non-partisan force.

I'm not understanding. Why would a political party be renamed a "district"?

[The New World Oceania]

Parties exist and they are Districts which are not organized by any non-partisan force.



Your current argument is "We've always done it this way and I would be sad if we changed."

Parties are not districts.

You're right.

Districts are equal collections of votes.
Parties are unequal collections of votes.

Districts are better than parties.

Parties exist and they are Districts which are not organized by any non-partisan force.

I'm not understanding. Why would a political party be renamed a "district"?

Districts divide voters into equal groups. It removes the power of a party in an election.

[Corenea]

Parties exist and they are Districts which are not organized by any non-partisan force.

I'm not understanding. Why would a political party be renamed a "district"?

I thought a party is a group of people united by a shared view and a district is more of a place where people live in.

[Geilinor]

Parties are not districts.

You're right.

Districts are equal collections of votes.
Parties are unequal collections of votes.

Districts are better than parties.

Are you saying that you want parties to be made into groupings of equal size to benefit smaller ones?

[Geilinor]

I'm not understanding. Why would a political party be renamed a "district"?

I thought a party is a group of people united by a shared view and a district is more of a place where people live in.

Exactly. This is some kind of strange scheme.

[The New World Oceania]

You're right.

Districts are equal collections of votes.
Parties are unequal collections of votes.

Districts are better than parties.

Are you saying that you want parties to be made into groupings of equal size to benefit smaller ones?

Yes. That is where the debate of the necessity of the bill lies. There are understandable reasons some Senators would prefer the current system.
Understand that parties are not abolished, however.

[President Pro-Tempore of the Senate]

Parties are not districts.

You're right.

Districts are equal collections of votes.
Parties are unequal collections of votes.

Districts are better than parties.

I'm not understanding. Why would a political party be renamed a "district"?

Districts divide voters into equal groups. It removes the power of a party in an election.

Parties still exist or are you now banning the right to freely form political associations?

[The New World Oceania]

You're right.

Districts are equal collections of votes.
Parties are unequal collections of votes.

Districts are better than parties.



Districts divide voters into equal groups. It removes the power of a party in an election.

Parties still exist or are you now banning the right to freely form political associations?

Parties continue to exist. They cease to have a bearing an election.

[President Pro-Tempore of the Senate]

Are you saying that you want parties to be made into groupings of equal size to benefit smaller ones?

Yes. That is where the debate of the necessity of the bill lies. There are understandable reasons some Senators would prefer the current system.
Understand that parties are not abolished, however.

So if they are not abolished then you just undermined your own argument as larger parties will have representation in more districts. So it does nothing to solve a problem only you have decided exists.

[President Pro-Tempore of the Senate]

Parties still exist or are you now banning the right to freely form political associations?

Parties continue to exist. They cease to have a bearing an election.

They still are the main effect on an election.

[The New World Oceania]

Yes. That is where the debate of the necessity of the bill lies. There are understandable reasons some Senators would prefer the current system.
Understand that parties are not abolished, however.

So if they are not abolished then you just undermined your own argument as larger parties will have representation in more districts. So it does nothing to solve a problem only you have decided exists.

Elections would no longer be won by a popular number of votes, but a majority of Districts. Party size has far less of a bearing than formerly.

[President Pro-Tempore of the Senate]

So if they are not abolished then you just undermined your own argument as larger parties will have representation in more districts. So it does nothing to solve a problem only you have decided exists.

Elections would no longer be won by a popular number of votes, but a majority of Districts. Party size has far less of a bearing than formerly.

Nope, parties are still the only main effect as people still vote on party lines, this also has the added possibility that the candidate with less votes wins.

[The New World Oceania]

Elections would no longer be won by a popular number of votes, but a majority of Districts. Party size has far less of a bearing than formerly.

Nope, parties are still the only main effect as people still vote on party lines, this also has the added possibility that the candidate with less votes wins.

Could you provide a scenario for example, with numbers? I'm open to hearing anything I haven't considered.

[Mkuki]

Why do we want equal distribution of votes rather than majoritarian rule?

[Mediciano]

I have a solution to all the election problems: Replace the democratic system of government with a meritocratic dictatorship, as advocated by the Iron Party.

[Dangelia]

I have a solution to all the election problems: Replace the democratic system of government with a meritocratic dictatorship, as advocated by the Iron Party.

I'm telling you, it's gotta be an executive constitutional monarchy. It's the best way.

[Ainin]

I have a solution to all the election problems: Replace the democratic system of government with a meritocratic dictatorship, as advocated by the Iron Party.

Deal.

Dibs on being everything.

[Mkuki]

I have a solution to all the election problems: Replace the democratic system of government with a meritocratic dictatorship, as advocated by the Iron Party.

I'm telling you, it's gotta be an executive constitutional monarchy. It's the best way.

Could it at least be an elective monarchy?

[Geilinor]

So if they are not abolished then you just undermined your own argument as larger parties will have representation in more districts. So it does nothing to solve a problem only you have decided exists.

Party size has far less of a bearing than formerly.

So this is about helping your party at the expense of others? I, as one of the leaders of the largest party in the Senate, am not supporting this.

[President Pro-Tempore of the Senate]

We should go feudal. See who has the power to hold the position.

[Geilinor]

I'm telling you, it's gotta be an executive constitutional monarchy. It's the best way.

Could it at least be an elective monarchy?

What would be the point? It's like giving the president a crown and saying, "You're a monarch now".

[The New World Oceania]

Why do we want equal distribution of votes rather than majoritarian rule?

Parties have a strong influence on how voting happens. PpT says that the Electoral system doesn't actually stop this, so that's the proof we're currently looking for.

I have a solution to all the election problems: Replace the democratic system of government with a meritocratic dictatorship, as advocated by the Iron Party.

With 100% agreement, all votes are equal! Splendid idea!

Party size has far less of a bearing than formerly.

So this is about helping your party at the expense of others? I, as one of the leaders of the largest party in the Senate, am not supporting this.

The Libertarian Party is one of the largest in the Senate.

[Mkuki]

Could it at least be an elective monarchy?

What would be the point? It's like giving the president a crown and saying, "You're a monarch now".

Exactly.