NSG Senate General Discussion Thread (Former Lobby)

[The New World Oceania]

Easier solution than "financial realism" and fake campaigning — district system. Coalitions have their power distributed so that a major coalition vote is weighted equally as a third party's.

What, how is having districts with their lines and stuff easier than simple formula in excel spreadsheet? Also how will this actually work given coalitions are not stable bodies.

Districts don't require subjectively estimating how well a campaign went. The district system is cut and dry for calculations, but forces actual, targeted campaigning strategies in order to win a successful election. In Aurentina, the relevant part of its first proposal read:

An electoral system is established.
13 Districts shall exist.
A District is defined as a collection of Constituencies.
Each District shall have 37 Constituencies.
Every Senator must represent a Constituency.

Senators shall vote as defined by the Presidential Election Procedures Act.
Votes shall be tallied for each District individually.
Senator votes within Districts will be counted equivalently to other Senator votes within the same District and within other Districts.
The District votes are counted as would be individual votes. A simple majority of District votes determines the winner of a vote.

District votes will be counted equivalently to other District votes.
If an entire District fails to vote, that District shall be presumed to Abstain.

Districts will be redrawn every four months.

Then, there was no outstanding IC reason to institute the system. Now, in our search for better management of elections, it presents an alternative to tedious spreadsheet juggling.

[New Zepuha]

And where did you hear this from?

Experience. The USA has almost never had election net gains on the president party.

Wrong.

1934, 1962, 1970, 1982, 2002, all saw gains on the President's party. While it is not common, it happens.

[Murkwood]

That would be really fun, actually.

That's why I have Tropico

Good job, El Presidente! You received over 100 votes! Only 26 citizens failed the elections by not voting for you.

[Belmaria]

That's why I have Tropico

Good job, El Presidente! You received over 100 votes! Only 26 citizens failed the elections by not voting for you.

Remember! El Presidente is always right, especially when he is wrong!

[Kralta]

I'm fine with a banana republic, but we need to outlaw hat consumption by llamas.

[Belmaria]

I'm fine with a banana republic, but we need to outlaw hat consumption by llamas.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

Experience. The USA has almost never had election net gains on the president party.

Indeed. It's practically a law here in America.

Well it's not where I'm from, usually it's one election of gains, one of losses for the ruling party. Also, America has pretty different political climate from most countries as it only has two major parties.

[Unicario]

I demand that all government computers run Red Hat Linux.

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

Experience. The USA has almost never had election net gains on the president party.

Wrong.

1934, 1962, 1970, 1982, 2002, all saw gains on the President's party. While it is not common, it happens.

Also 1998. And 1970 and 1982 didn't, IIRC.

[The Nihilistic view]

My updated proposal:

I really like the idea of our nation having a Constitutional Monarch. Here's my ideas for it:

The Monarch would be RP'd, probably by a prolific Monarchist or admin.

The Monarch would have the following powers: The appointment of judges, the dismissal of ministers/government, veto power and the calling of referenda.

The Monarch would be the official Head of State.

The Monarch's signature is required before any bill is passed. The Monarch holds veto power over any bill, but a parliament majority of 75% or more may overrule the monarch. If a bill is vetoed, there will be a mandatory one week period before it is allowed to be brought up again. Any bill establishing a Republic, however, is immune from the Monarch's veto.

To be honest I don't know why anybody is even contemplating more than the British Monarchy. It's the only type of monarchy compatible with the original idea of the senate.

[Ainin]

Why -(.25*[number of seats owned by party if current President/PM is in Party]? Surely if president/ PM is in the party, party gains greater publicity (since media will cover event if president/PM appears rather than if leader of random party appears) which should translate to more seats...

It has been a proven fact that the incumbent's party loses seats in an election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ions,_2012

[Dragomerian Islands]

It has been a proven fact that the incumbent's party loses seats in an election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ions,_2012

Try election 2014.

[Ainin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ions,_2012

Try election 2014.

Your claim is that it's "a proven fact that the incumbent's party loses seats in an election", not "sometimes the incumbent party loses seats". Just the existence of 2012 results disproves your claim.

2014 is irrelevant.

[Jetan]

My updated proposal:

I really like the idea of our nation having a Constitutional Monarch. Here's my ideas for it:

The Monarch would be RP'd, probably by a prolific Monarchist or admin.

The Monarch would have the following powers: The appointment of judges, the dismissal of ministers/government, veto power and the calling of referenda.

The Monarch would be the official Head of State.

The Monarch's signature is required before any bill is passed. The Monarch holds veto power over any bill, but a parliament majority of 75% or more may overrule the monarch. If a bill is vetoed, there will be a mandatory one week period before it is allowed to be brought up again. Any bill establishing a Republic, however, is immune from the Monarch's veto.

To be honest I don't know why anybody is even contemplating more than the British Monarchy. It's the only type of monarchy compatible with the original idea of the senate.

This.

[Of the Quendi]

To be honest I don't know why anybody is even contemplating more than the British Monarchy. It's the only type of monarchy compatible with the original idea of the senate.

This.

Murkwood's proposal is obviously incompatible with the original idea of the Senate but if we had to do a monarchy there are plenty of different (and better) models then becoming a commonwealth realm.

[The Nihilistic view]

This.

Murkwood's proposal is obviously incompatible with the original idea of the Senate but if we had to do a monarchy there are plenty of different (and better) models then becoming a commonwealth realm.

Nowhere did I say we should be a Commonwealth realm.

[Murkwood]

This.

Murkwood's proposal is obviously incompatible with the original idea of the Senate but if we had to do a monarchy there are plenty of different (and better) models then becoming a commonwealth realm.

A British Monarch would be better than nothing, but I'd rather have something new.

[Of the Quendi]

Nowhere did I say we should be a Commonwealth realm.

How then would you have me understand "British Monarchy" if not as a call of making QEII our monarch?

[The Nihilistic view]

Nowhere did I say we should be a Commonwealth realm.

How then would you have me understand "British Monarchy" if not as a call of making QEII our monarch?

"The only type of Monarchy". Type of monarchy being Constitutional ceremonial monarchy.

[Belmaria]

Try election 2014.

Your claim is that it's "a proven fact that the incumbent's party loses seats in an election", not "sometimes the incumbent party loses seats". Just the existence of 2012 results disproves your claim.

2014 is irrelevant.

Oh, why can't you just leave him the hell alone already? As an American political science student, this is a widely-known and taught concept. In most mid-term elections, the incumbent's party loses. Now enough with this childish display. It's as if you're arguing just to argue, which is pathetic.

[Of the Quendi]

"The only type of Monarchy". Type of monarchy being Constitutional ceremonial monarchy.

Well then we agree (though I do not particular favor monarchy in the first place).

[New Bierstaat]

Try election 2014.

Your claim is that it's "a proven fact that the incumbent's party loses seats in an election", not "sometimes the incumbent party loses seats". Just the existence of 2012 results disproves your claim.

2014 is irrelevant.

I believe he means in midterms. 2012 was a presidential year. See my post on the previous page.

If we have an electoral system like the one proposed, we need to be very careful to limit it's scope lest the game become too scripted.

[Ainin]

To be honest I don't know why anybody is even contemplating more than the British Monarchy. It's the only type of monarchy compatible with the original idea of the senate.

Eh. The reserve powers parts of a Westminster-like monarchy would still be a bit iffy to RP, but I mostly agree with you, a monarchy that acts as a rubber stamp like in the Commonwealth is pretty much the only type of monarchy that would really work with our current Senate framework. Maybe an elective one would work as well, but I'm not all that sure about it.

(PS: Viva la republica )

Oh, why can't you just leave him the hell alone already? As an American political science student, this is a widely-known and taught concept. In most mid-term elections, the incumbent's party loses. Now enough with this childish display. It's as if you're arguing just to argue, which is pathetic.

Stop taking these things so personally.

[Great Nepal]

Districts don't require subjectively estimating how well a campaign went. The district system is cut and dry for calculations, but forces actual, targeted campaigning strategies in order to win a successful election. In Aurentina, the relevant part of its first proposal read:

An electoral system is established.
13 Districts shall exist.
A District is defined as a collection of Constituencies.
Each District shall have 37 Constituencies.
Every Senator must represent a Constituency.

Senators shall vote as defined by the Presidential Election Procedures Act.
Votes shall be tallied for each District individually.
Senator votes within Districts will be counted equivalently to other Senator votes within the same District and within other Districts.
The District votes are counted as would be individual votes. A simple majority of District votes determines the winner of a vote.

District votes will be counted equivalently to other District votes.
If an entire District fails to vote, that District shall be presumed to Abstain.

Districts will be redrawn every four months.

Then, there was no outstanding IC reason to institute the system. Now, in our search for better management of elections, it presents an alternative to tedious spreadsheet juggling.

This is clearly more complicated, both from management and end user point of view. In your proposal, a player needs to know:
1. Which district they belong to.
2. Who are their district mates.
3. How have their district mates voted.
4. How many of their district mates voted.
While person managing votes needs to know:
1. Which district a player is from.
2. How to redraw the district lines.
3. How many votes have been cast from the district.

On the other hand, election and weighted vote system is immeasurably simpler from end user point of view and simpler from management point of view. End user needs to know:
1. How much is one vote of their party equivalent to - number posted in front page of every senate and signature of admin account.
Party leaders need to know:
1. How many members are their in their party.
2. How much of campaigning budget they have and from what source.
Management needs to know:
1. Is the source and budget reasonable.
2. Which party does the voter belong to.

[Belmaria]

Oh, why can't you just leave him the hell alone already? As an American political science student, this is a widely-known and taught concept. In most mid-term elections, the incumbent's party loses. Now enough with this childish display. It's as if you're arguing just to argue, which is pathetic.

Stop taking these things so personally.

You're a bully. I hope you realize that.