NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

[Atlanticatia]

There is a difference between reducing taxes to moderately stimulate growth and slashing taxes. Government spending increases economic growth at a greater rate than the cutting of taxes. Ensuring the government has the base needed to spend in that manner is way more important than ensuring the rich have even more money to save, and that is exactly what the vast majority of that money would be used for - savings.

Trickle down is bullshit that gets spoon fed to the poor to make them think they're winning when the government cuts taxes. It's a fantasy designed by the same pack of hustlers that want to destroy all government regulations pertaining to safety, collective bargaining rights and pollution in order to further pad their bottom line. These same people would want to abolish the military and the police in favor of PMCs and private security firms if those same groups didn't provide such huge sources of sales. It is at the very core of anarcho-capitalist thought.

Where Keynes went wrong, however, was demeaning savings. While it is true that direct government spending has a larger multiplier effect in the short run, every dollar of savings eventually translates into a dollar of investment, which has an even higher multiplier effect than does government spending (because there is more "leakage" in government). Really, the only difference is that government spending may work more quickly than savings, but even then, government spending lags.

Furthermore, taxing capital gains and income at a high rate will reduce direct investment, which also reduces aggregate demand. So if you're so concerned with improving the economy, do your stimulus thing but also keep taxes low in order to ensure that the private sector can contribute to healthy growth.

And your entire argument in the second paragraph is a strawman and an ad hominem attack. Not every person who wants low taxation wants to abolish the military and all regulation. You're right that pretty much all anarcho-capitalists believe in low (or nonexistent) taxes, but not all people who believe in low taxes are anarcho-capitalists. Likewise, all rectangles are squares, but not all squares are rectangles.

"Trickle-down" economics may be pushed by some people who want to pad their bottom line, but the reason I and some of the opposition are pushing it is that it is the healthiest way to grow our economy, which will benefit all Calaverdeans, not just the rich.

As I demonstrated in my previous post, you want to impose huge tax increases on the poor (who have a high marginal propensity to consume), while imposing huge tax cuts on the rich (who have a lower marginal propensity to consume); the net effect of your proposal to cut taxes for the rich while increasing taxes on the poor will have a net negative effect on economic growth.

The wealth isn't going to trickle down. That has been tried for the past 3 decades all over the world and has not worked.

[Bleckonia]

Do you honestly expect us to check your dumb Coalition thread every day? Do you honestly expect me to believe that no opposition members wanted to be a part of the budget process?

No, you intentionally did not make us aware of what was going on in order to avoid our criticism. Don't bullshit me.

You need to cool your horses, firstly.

Second, if you guys were a proper opposition coalition, you'd keep tabs on the government, so that you could offer alternatives to our policies.

Don't get angry and bitchy because you guys aren't doing your jobs.

You should have notified some opposition members in some way (to be frank, we do need work organizing into a coalition). When I was working with Osea 767, I reached out to him to tell him what was going on because I was actually interested in what he had to say. I didn't just leave him in the dark and expect him to keep up with every little thing I was doing.

[Lykens]

You need to cool your horses, firstly.

Second, if you guys were a proper opposition coalition, you'd keep tabs on the government, so that you could offer alternatives to our policies.

Don't get angry and bitchy because you guys aren't doing your jobs.

You should have notified some opposition members in some way (to be frank, we do need work organizing into a coalition). When I was working with Osea 767, I reached out to him to tell him what was going on because I was actually interested in what he had to say. I didn't just leave him in the dark and expect him to keep up with every little thing I was doing.

Murkwood is on the coalition thread quite often, he could have informed you.

We aren't you, and the CA isn't Osea 767. Most of the things the CA spews very few people want to hear.

[Bleckonia]

Where Keynes went wrong, however, was demeaning savings. While it is true that direct government spending has a larger multiplier effect in the short run, every dollar of savings eventually translates into a dollar of investment, which has an even higher multiplier effect than does government spending (because there is more "leakage" in government). Really, the only difference is that government spending may work more quickly than savings, but even then, government spending lags.

Furthermore, taxing capital gains and income at a high rate will reduce direct investment, which also reduces aggregate demand. So if you're so concerned with improving the economy, do your stimulus thing but also keep taxes low in order to ensure that the private sector can contribute to healthy growth.

And your entire argument in the second paragraph is a strawman and an ad hominem attack. Not every person who wants low taxation wants to abolish the military and all regulation. You're right that pretty much all anarcho-capitalists believe in low (or nonexistent) taxes, but not all people who believe in low taxes are anarcho-capitalists. Likewise, all rectangles are squares, but not all squares are rectangles.

"Trickle-down" economics may be pushed by some people who want to pad their bottom line, but the reason I and some of the opposition are pushing it is that it is the healthiest way to grow our economy, which will benefit all Calaverdeans, not just the rich.

As I demonstrated in my previous post, you want to impose huge tax increases on the poor (who have a high marginal propensity to consume), while imposing huge tax cuts on the rich (who have a lower marginal propensity to consume); the net effect of your proposal to cut taxes for the rich while increasing taxes on the poor will have a net negative effect on economic growth.

The wealth isn't going to trickle down. That has been tried for the past 3 decades all over the world and has not worked.

Actually, unlike your plan, my plan offers automatic transfer payments to the poor, increasing their incomes and thus increasing consumption. Thus, my plan is more pro-poor and more pro-consumption than yours.

Cutting taxes on the rich and on the poor like my plan does will increase consumption from both groups, since the rich people's MPC is not 0 (but is lower than the poor's).

[The New World Oceania]

Do you honestly expect us to check your dumb Coalition thread every day? Do you honestly expect me to believe that no opposition members wanted to be a part of the budget process?

No, you intentionally did not make us aware of what was going on in order to avoid our criticism. Don't bullshit me.

You need to cool your horses, firstly.

Second, if you guys were a proper opposition coalition, you'd keep tabs on the government, so that you could offer alternatives to our policies.

Don't get angry and bitchy because you guys aren't doing your jobs.

I have to agree with Lykens here. It was our opportunity to be in the Democratic threads. After all, I'm present in the Cabinet thread and I'm not even a part of the government let alone the left.

[Bleckonia]

.

[Bleckonia]

You need to cool your horses, firstly.

Second, if you guys were a proper opposition coalition, you'd keep tabs on the government, so that you could offer alternatives to our policies.

Don't get angry and bitchy because you guys aren't doing your jobs.

I have to agree with Lykens here. It was our opportunity to be in the Democratic threads. After all, I'm present in the Cabinet thread and I'm not even a part of the government let alone the left.

I kind of agree, but I still think that CA should have made it more public.

I'm just curious, why didn't you post in the FCP thread or something that there were budget talks going on? I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm just curious.

[Atlanticatia]

As I demonstrated in my previous post, you want to impose huge tax increases on the poor (who have a high marginal propensity to consume), while imposing huge tax cuts on the rich (who have a lower marginal propensity to consume); the net effect of your proposal to cut taxes for the rich while increasing taxes on the poor will have a net negative effect on economic growth.

The wealth isn't going to trickle down. That has been tried for the past 3 decades all over the world and has not worked.

Actually, unlike your plan, my plan offers automatic transfer payments to the poor, increasing their incomes and thus increasing consumption. Thus, my plan is more pro-poor and more pro-consumption than yours.

Cutting taxes on the rich and on the poor like my plan does will increase consumption from both groups, since the rich people's MPC is not 0 (but is lower than the poor's).

False.

I have written a Ministry of Social Development bill for a system of welfare entitlements for people on low incomes - an unemployment benefit of $90 per week for people with no or low income. That's $4,680 per annum. (before assistance for housing costs) I assume the Free Citizens' Party is opposed to this.
You'd transfer $2,500 per annum to people, cutting people's welfare entitlements by 47%. No one can live on $48 per week.

Not to mention, my bill for a universal child benefit of $900 per annum for every child is much more beneficial to hardworking families than your plan for a $100 tax deduction.

Families will be worse off under a FCP/CA Government.

[The New World Oceania]

I have to agree with Lykens here. It was our opportunity to be in the Democratic threads. After all, I'm present in the Cabinet thread and I'm not even a part of the government let alone the left.

I kind of agree, but I still think that CA should have made it more public.

I'm just curious, why didn't you post in the FCP thread or something that there were budget talks going on? I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm just curious.

I wasn't present in the FCP and CA threads until a few days ago, and even then I hadn't realized this was as important as it was. Definitely something I'll be sure of in the future.

[Heraklea-]

There is a difference between reducing taxes to moderately stimulate growth and slashing taxes. Government spending increases economic growth at a greater rate than the cutting of taxes. Ensuring the government has the base needed to spend in that manner is way more important than ensuring the rich have even more money to save, and that is exactly what the vast majority of that money would be used for - savings.

Trickle down is bullshit that gets spoon fed to the poor to make them think they're winning when the government cuts taxes. It's a fantasy designed by the same pack of hustlers that want to destroy all government regulations pertaining to safety, collective bargaining rights and pollution in order to further pad their bottom line. These same people would want to abolish the military and the police in favor of PMCs and private security firms if those same groups didn't provide such huge sources of sales. It is at the very core of anarcho-capitalist thought.

Where Keynes went wrong, however, was demeaning savings. While it is true that direct government spending has a larger multiplier effect in the short run, every dollar of savings eventually translates into a dollar of investment, which has an even higher multiplier effect than does government spending (because there is more "leakage" in government). Really, the only difference is that government spending may work more quickly than savings, but even then, government spending lags.

Furthermore, taxing capital gains and income at a high rate will reduce direct investment, which also reduces aggregate demand. So if you're so concerned with improving the economy, do your stimulus thing but also keep taxes low in order to ensure that the private sector can contribute to healthy growth.

And your entire argument in the second paragraph is a strawman and an ad hominem attack. Not every person who wants low taxation wants to abolish the military and all regulation. You're right that pretty much all anarcho-capitalists believe in low (or nonexistent) taxes, but not all people who believe in low taxes are anarcho-capitalists. Likewise, all rectangles are squares, but not all squares are rectangles.

"Trickle-down" economics may be pushed by some people who want to pad their bottom line, but the reason I and some of the opposition are pushing it is that it is the healthiest way to grow our economy, which will benefit all Calaverdeans, not just the rich.

Hey, as far as I'm concerned the best thing for our economy and public is for the government to take direct control of the economy and begin a central planning regime. Keynes has plenty of ideas that work for the growth of a capitalist economy, but that growth inevitably winds up growing in the pockets of the already wealthy while the poor get nothing, which is part of why I am not a Keynesian. That saved dollar may eventually make its way into investment, but would be better off being invested directly by the government now.

It is true that not everyone who advocates low taxes is one of the hustlers I've described, but if you're quite done tilting at windmills you may actually find that I said that the trickle-down lie was created by them and not exclusively pimped by them. Many who do are those same political and economic hustlers. Others are the bought and paid for talking-heads who read their scripts without deviation. The greatest number are the ones who have bought the lie and don't understand how badly they're getting screwed.

[Bleckonia]

Actually, unlike your plan, my plan offers automatic transfer payments to the poor, increasing their incomes and thus increasing consumption. Thus, my plan is more pro-poor and more pro-consumption than yours.

Cutting taxes on the rich and on the poor like my plan does will increase consumption from both groups, since the rich people's MPC is not 0 (but is lower than the poor's).

False.

I have written a Ministry of Social Development bill for a system of welfare entitlements for people on low incomes - an unemployment benefit of $90 per week for people with no or low income. That's $4,680 per annum. (before assistance for housing costs) I assume the Free Citizens' Party is opposed to this.
You'd transfer $2,500 per annum to people, cutting people's welfare entitlements by 47%. No one can live on $48 per week.

You don't have to get rid of the unemployment benefit system or the entire welfare system; however, I am doing you a favor by allowing you to cut the bureaucracy and waste associated with these sorts of programs (you'd only have to pay $42 per week in unemployment benefits, for example, to get the same amount of total transfer payments).

Also, my plan would ensure that discouraged workers would still be entitled to a baseline income of $2500, since your plan only applies to the unemployed.

[Atlanticatia]

False.

I have written a Ministry of Social Development bill for a system of welfare entitlements for people on low incomes - an unemployment benefit of $90 per week for people with no or low income. That's $4,680 per annum. (before assistance for housing costs) I assume the Free Citizens' Party is opposed to this.
You'd transfer $2,500 per annum to people, cutting people's welfare entitlements by 47%. No one can live on $48 per week.

You don't have to get rid of the unemployment benefit system or the entire welfare system; however, I am doing you a favor by allowing you to cut the bureaucracy and waste associated with these sorts of programs (you'd only have to pay $42 per week in unemployment benefits, for example, to get the same amount of total transfer payments).

Also, my plan would ensure that discouraged workers would still be entitled to a baseline income of $2500, since your plan only applies to the unemployed.

Unemployment benefits would continue indefinitely, as long as they meet the income test and look for work. You've also made no allowance for single parents, the disabled, etc.

You also haven't addressed the universal family assistance programme.

[Bleckonia]

Where Keynes went wrong, however, was demeaning savings. While it is true that direct government spending has a larger multiplier effect in the short run, every dollar of savings eventually translates into a dollar of investment, which has an even higher multiplier effect than does government spending (because there is more "leakage" in government). Really, the only difference is that government spending may work more quickly than savings, but even then, government spending lags.

Furthermore, taxing capital gains and income at a high rate will reduce direct investment, which also reduces aggregate demand. So if you're so concerned with improving the economy, do your stimulus thing but also keep taxes low in order to ensure that the private sector can contribute to healthy growth.

And your entire argument in the second paragraph is a strawman and an ad hominem attack. Not every person who wants low taxation wants to abolish the military and all regulation. You're right that pretty much all anarcho-capitalists believe in low (or nonexistent) taxes, but not all people who believe in low taxes are anarcho-capitalists. Likewise, all rectangles are squares, but not all squares are rectangles.

"Trickle-down" economics may be pushed by some people who want to pad their bottom line, but the reason I and some of the opposition are pushing it is that it is the healthiest way to grow our economy, which will benefit all Calaverdeans, not just the rich.

Hey, as far as I'm concerned the best thing for our economy and public is for the government to take direct control of the economy and begin a central planning regime. Keynes has plenty of ideas that work for the growth of a capitalist economy, but that growth inevitably winds up growing in the pockets of the already wealthy while the poor get nothing, which is part of why I am not a Keynesian. That saved dollar may eventually make its way into investment, but would be better off being invested directly by the government now.

It is true that not everyone who advocates low taxes is one of the hustlers I've described, but if you're quite done tilting at windmills you may actually find that I said that the trickle-down lie was created by them and not exclusively pimped by them. Many who do are those same political and economic hustlers. Others are the bought and paid for talking-heads who read their scripts without deviation. The greatest number are the ones who have bought the lie and don't understand how badly they're getting screwed.

LOL no. Theory and empirics completely contradict what you say. Government is far less efficient than private firms because firms have a profit motive. Because firms want to make a profit, they try to do two things: 1. Get consumers/firms to purchase/invest in their goods and services, and 2. Maximize efficiency.

What do you do to attract customers? You offer prices at a competitive rate, and this competition ultimately encourages low prices. In a world of perfect competition, prices would settle at equilibrium. Meanwhile, government would introduce an arbitrary price that would either create artificial surpluses or artificial scarcities. Just look at crop price floors and rent control in the United States. This creates an inefficient allocation of resources, while the market would allocate them more efficiently.

Let's look at an example. Let's say we have a farmer that can produce 2 million bushels of crops. In the free market, a farmer may grow 1 million bushels of soybeans and 1 million bushels of corn; let's say that this is in equilibrium with the quantity demanded of each product. However, let's say government steps in a sets up a subsidy/price floor for corn. Now, the farmer may produce 1.5 million bushels of corn and 500 thousand bushels of soybeans. The consumer suffers as prices for corn are artificially inflated, and prices for soybeans will rise since there is now a lower supply of soybeans. AS FOOD PRICES RISE, THE POOR WILL BE SCREWED. Therefore, when government created inefficiency, it only hurt the poor. And, under the market system, the farmer responded to consumers' demands in order to maximize his profits. It was a win-win situation before government ruined it.

Furthermore, in a capitalist economy, credit is much easier to access, meaning that the poor actually have a chance at innovating and escaping their lives of poverty. Also, a safety net may be in place to catch those who may not be able to access credit. Meanwhile, in your "utopia," the poor do not have a shot at innovating; only those that the government favors do. There would also be no incentive to innovate without a profit motive, leaving society stuck without any long-run economic growth, which depends on long-term gains in productivity (which are primarily achieved through innovation).

Now, let's look at empirics. Collectivization and central planning have been failures when they've been attempted. Take, for example, the Soviets. Inefficiencies in production meant constant shortages of necessities and spare parts, while in a capitalist economy, firms would have tried to supply whatever the consumer demanded in order to maximize profit. Also, look at land collectivization in China. Only when the land reforms of the late 1970s took place did poverty decrease; from around 80% to 60%. China has almost eradicated absolute poverty due to its transition to capitalism.

But back to "trickle-down": when there is less government interference in the market, ther eis less potential for inefficiency, so the poor are actually better off.

[Bleckonia]

You don't have to get rid of the unemployment benefit system or the entire welfare system; however, I am doing you a favor by allowing you to cut the bureaucracy and waste associated with these sorts of programs (you'd only have to pay $42 per week in unemployment benefits, for example, to get the same amount of total transfer payments).

Also, my plan would ensure that discouraged workers would still be entitled to a baseline income of $2500, since your plan only applies to the unemployed.

Unemployment benefits would continue indefinitely, as long as they meet the income test and look for work. You've also made no allowance for single parents, the disabled, etc.

You also haven't addressed the universal family assistance programme.

I'm not saying we have to abolish those things.

[Atlanticatia]

But back to "trickle-down": when there is less government interference in the market, ther eis less potential for inefficiency, so the poor are actually better off.

You've literally proposed raising taxes on low-income workers. How would that make them better off?

Not to mention, I imagine the FCP would destroy the proposed welfare state, taking benefits off people who rely on them. Taking money away from people will not make them 'better off' -- it'll just make them more poor.

[Ainin]

But back to "trickle-down": when there is less government interference in the market, ther eis less potential for inefficiency, so the poor are actually better off.

Somalia confirmed for egalitarian paradise

[Heraklea-]

-snip-

You need to more carefully study economic history. The Soviet economy was plagued with plenty of problems, but their cause was not the "inefficiency of government." The Soviets were forced to import grain from the West because farmers who used to effectively produce cereals fled Russia due to the forced atheism policies of the Soviet Union. Governmental corruption from unelected officials further undermined the Soviet ability to provide for their people, a similar problem that China faces even today despite "almost eradicating absolute poverty." The problem with the Soviet Union, China and other states with no political freedom is just that: no political freedom. No check on the actions of government officials. Corruption is the enemy of a strong economy, not government interference.

A private firm is of course more effective at making a profit because of their profit driven motives. That's also why private firms shouldn't be trusted with management of the economy. They pour the money into their own coffers and fuck everyone else. Economic efficiency shouldn't be the goal, it should be the assurance of a basic standard of living. But that obviously doesn't fit in with you rugged individualism ideals, as though that actually works for the majority of people.

[Lykens]

Heraklea, get on IRC nao.

[Collatis]

Thoughts/sponsors?

Elections Act

---

Sponsor: Aldbelwamasy Njil (SNP)
Signatories:

---

1. In the case of a vacancy in Office of the President, defined as the inability of the President to serve due to illness, death, or resignation, they shall be replaced as Head of State. Should their replacement be unable to fulfill the duties, they shall be replaced similarly, and so on, in the following line:
   
   • President
     
   • Vice President
   • Speaker of the RIGHT GODDAMN SEIMA YOU HEAR ME RIGHT Parliament
   • Prime Minister
   • Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
   • Minister of Foreign Affairs
   • Minister of Finance
   • Minister of Defense
   • Procurator-General or whatever the hell they're called
   • Minister of Justice
   • Minister of Agriculture
   • Minister of Labor
   • Minister of Health
   • Minister of Transport
   • Minister of Environment
   • Minister of Education
   • Prime Minister
   1. The Prime Minister (or the individual statutorily responsible for appointing a given position) will appoint the replacement for the former position of the new President, but the line of succession will continue until the Prime Minister must be appointed President and the line must restart. If a position is vacant it will be skipped for succession.
2. The Electoral Committee shall be the founded to administer all Calaverdean executive elections. This Committee shall conduct business neutrally.
   
3. The office of the Ministry of Elections shall be enstated like unto other members of the Cabinet, however the Minister of Elections shall serve for terms of six months, though may be dismissed by at any time by the consensus of both the President and the Prime Minister.
   
   1. The Minister of Elections shall not vote unless circumstantially demanded.
4. Presidential elections shall be spaced two months apart from each other.
   
5. The Electoral Committee may register presidential candidates two weeks before the elections begin. Candidates may run as independent or represent a party or a coalition.
   
   1. If a candidate is representing their party, the party must have agreed for that candidate to represent them.
   2. To be officially represented on the ballot, a party must be officially recognized.
      
      1. An exception exists where a party has existed on the ballot in the past: if this is the case, then they secure a position on the ballot for the following four elections.
6. A District system shall be used to organize voting.
   
   1. A District is defined as a collection of constitutencies.
   2. 210 constituencies shall be recognized by the Electoral Committee.
   3. 14 Districts shall exist.
   4. Each District shall have 15 constituencies.
   5. The Electoral Committee may add districts to the country in multiples of 15, OR they may revise the number of constituencies in each District.
   6. An MP must represent a constituencies in order to vote.
   7. The Electoral Committee will redraw Districts every four months.
      
      1. At least 4 of the districts within a given District must be separated from each other.
      2. At least 8 of the districts within a given District must be removed from their former District.
   8. Each District counts for one vote.
      
      1. How a District votes is determined by the majority of votes from constituencies within said District.
         
         • If no one in a District votes, the District is presumed to abstain.
         • If a District ties internally, the majority party in that District will vote on behalf of the District.
           
           •If there is no clear majority party in a District, and only in this circumstance, the Electoral Committee shall enter a blank vote on behalf of the District.
7. 1. There shall exist one round of voting, wherein all senators may vote for candidates in numerical order of preference, the first their top preference, the second their second preference, and so on, whom registered between two weeks prior to voting and one day prior to voting. Voters need not rank every candidate. Voting shall last for 96 hours.
   2. At the close of the vote, the votes shall be counted by at least two individuals. The primary vote of each voter shall be considered first. The candidate with the fewest primary votes shall have the primary votes for them transferred to their voters' secondary votes. The candidate, then, with the fewest votes, shall have their primary and secondary votes transferred to their voters' tertiary votes. This shall be in order until one candidate holds 50% of the active votes plus one. Voters who decline to include another vote should their selected candidate fail are considered to abstain, as are voters who decline to vote. Abstentions shall not be counted in the final tally. The candidate winning the greatest number of votes shall be declared the winner of the election. The Minister of Elections shall break any ties.
   3. Voting shall be open for at least 120 hours.
   4. The format of a vote must confirm the voter's intention and District beyond reasonable doubt.
   5. Voters may change their vote any time before the close of the round.
   6. If abstentions have the vote, the momentary Administration will continue control of the government for the next two months. If blanks have the vote, recount because you did it wrong.
8. After the end of voting, the Electoral Committee shall count all votes. The Ministry of Elections can then proclaim the winner of the election.

I'll sponsor - Michael Giuliani - DL

Although, how do we have 210 constituencies? According to the map, we have 119 at most.

[The New World Oceania]

Thoughts/sponsors?

Elections Act

---

Sponsor: Aldbelwamasy Njil (SNP)
Signatories:

---

1. In the case of a vacancy in Office of the President, defined as the inability of the President to serve due to illness, death, or resignation, they shall be replaced as Head of State. Should their replacement be unable to fulfill the duties, they shall be replaced similarly, and so on, in the following line:
   
   • President
     
   • Vice President
   • Speaker of the RIGHT GODDAMN SEIMA YOU HEAR ME RIGHT Parliament
   • Prime Minister
   • Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
   • Minister of Foreign Affairs
   • Minister of Finance
   • Minister of Defense
   • Procurator-General or whatever the hell they're called
   • Minister of Justice
   • Minister of Agriculture
   • Minister of Labor
   • Minister of Health
   • Minister of Transport
   • Minister of Environment
   • Minister of Education
   • Prime Minister
   1. The Prime Minister (or the individual statutorily responsible for appointing a given position) will appoint the replacement for the former position of the new President, but the line of succession will continue until the Prime Minister must be appointed President and the line must restart. If a position is vacant it will be skipped for succession.
2. The Electoral Committee shall be the founded to administer all Calaverdean executive elections. This Committee shall conduct business neutrally.
   
3. The office of the Ministry of Elections shall be enstated like unto other members of the Cabinet, however the Minister of Elections shall serve for terms of six months, though may be dismissed by at any time by the consensus of both the President and the Prime Minister.
   
   1. The Minister of Elections shall not vote unless circumstantially demanded.
4. Presidential elections shall be spaced two months apart from each other.
   
5. The Electoral Committee may register presidential candidates two weeks before the elections begin. Candidates may run as independent or represent a party or a coalition.
   
   1. If a candidate is representing their party, the party must have agreed for that candidate to represent them.
   2. To be officially represented on the ballot, a party must be officially recognized.
      
      1. An exception exists where a party has existed on the ballot in the past: if this is the case, then they secure a position on the ballot for the following four elections.
6. A District system shall be used to organize voting.
   
   1. A District is defined as a collection of constitutencies.
   2. 210 constituencies shall be recognized by the Electoral Committee.
   3. 14 Districts shall exist.
   4. Each District shall have 15 constituencies.
   5. The Electoral Committee may add districts to the country in multiples of 15, OR they may revise the number of constituencies in each District.
   6. An MP must represent a constituencies in order to vote.
   7. The Electoral Committee will redraw Districts every four months.
      
      1. At least 4 of the districts within a given District must be separated from each other.
      2. At least 8 of the districts within a given District must be removed from their former District.
   8. Each District counts for one vote.
      
      1. How a District votes is determined by the majority of votes from constituencies within said District.
         
         • If no one in a District votes, the District is presumed to abstain.
         • If a District ties internally, the majority party in that District will vote on behalf of the District.
           
           •If there is no clear majority party in a District, and only in this circumstance, the Electoral Committee shall enter a blank vote on behalf of the District.
7. 1. There shall exist one round of voting, wherein all senators may vote for candidates in numerical order of preference, the first their top preference, the second their second preference, and so on, whom registered between two weeks prior to voting and one day prior to voting. Voters need not rank every candidate. Voting shall last for 96 hours.
   2. At the close of the vote, the votes shall be counted by at least two individuals. The primary vote of each voter shall be considered first. The candidate with the fewest primary votes shall have the primary votes for them transferred to their voters' secondary votes. The candidate, then, with the fewest votes, shall have their primary and secondary votes transferred to their voters' tertiary votes. This shall be in order until one candidate holds 50% of the active votes plus one. Voters who decline to include another vote should their selected candidate fail are considered to abstain, as are voters who decline to vote. Abstentions shall not be counted in the final tally. The candidate winning the greatest number of votes shall be declared the winner of the election. The Minister of Elections shall break any ties.
   3. Voting shall be open for at least 120 hours.
   4. The format of a vote must confirm the voter's intention and District beyond reasonable doubt.
   5. Voters may change their vote any time before the close of the round.
   6. If abstentions have the vote, the momentary Administration will continue control of the government for the next two months. If blanks have the vote, recount because you did it wrong.
8. After the end of voting, the Electoral Committee shall count all votes. The Ministry of Elections can then proclaim the winner of the election.

I'll sponsor - Michael Giuliani - DL

Although, how do we have 210 constituencies? According to the map, we have 119 at most.

Thanks, added.
We should be able to add a few constituencies here or there. The system was made flexible so that the Electoral Committee can change the numbers as they see fit as long as every district is equal to every other.

[Heraklea-]

Thoughts/sponsors?

Elections Act

---

Sponsor: Aldbelwamasy Njil – SNP (NWO)
Signatories: Michael Giuliani – DL (Collatis) |

---

1. In the case of a vacancy in Office of the President, defined as the inability of the President to serve due to illness, death, or resignation, they shall be replaced as Head of State. Should their replacement be unable to fulfill the duties, they shall be replaced similarly, and so on, in the following line:
   
   • President
     
   • Vice President
   • Speaker of the RIGHT GODDAMN SEIMA YOU HEAR ME RIGHT Parliament
   • Prime Minister
   • Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
   • Minister of Foreign Affairs
   • Minister of Finance
   • Minister of Defense
   • Procurator-General or whatever the hell they're called
   • Minister of Justice
   • Minister of Agriculture
   • Minister of Labor
   • Minister of Health
   • Minister of Transport
   • Minister of Environment
   • Minister of Education
   • Prime Minister
   1. The Prime Minister (or the individual statutorily responsible for appointing a given position) will appoint the replacement for the former position of the new President, but the line of succession will continue until the Prime Minister must be appointed President and the line must restart. If a position is vacant it will be skipped for succession.
2. The Electoral Committee shall be the founded to administer all Calaverdean executive elections. This Committee shall conduct business neutrally.
   
3. The office of the Ministry of Elections shall be enstated like unto other members of the Cabinet, however the Minister of Elections shall serve for terms of six months, though may be dismissed by at any time by the consensus of both the President and the Prime Minister.
   
   1. The Minister of Elections shall not vote unless circumstantially demanded.
4. Presidential elections shall be spaced two months apart from each other.
   
5. The Electoral Committee may register presidential candidates two weeks before the elections begin. Candidates may run as independent or represent a party or a coalition.
   
   1. If a candidate is representing their party, the party must have agreed for that candidate to represent them.
   2. To be officially represented on the ballot, a party must be officially recognized.
      
      1. An exception exists where a party has existed on the ballot in the past: if this is the case, then they secure a position on the ballot for the following four elections.
6. A District system shall be used to organize voting.
   
   1. A District is defined as a collection of constitutencies.
   2. 210 constituencies shall be recognized by the Electoral Committee.
   3. 14 Districts shall exist.
   4. Each District shall have 15 constituencies.
   5. The Electoral Committee may add districts to the country in multiples of 15, OR they may revise the number of constituencies in each District.
   6. An MP must represent a constituencies in order to vote.
   7. The Electoral Committee will redraw Districts every four months.
      
      1. At least 4 of the districts within a given District must be separated from each other.
      2. At least 8 of the districts within a given District must be removed from their former District.
   8. Each District counts for one vote.
      
      1. How a District votes is determined by the majority of votes from constituencies within said District.
         
         • If no one in a District votes, the District is presumed to abstain.
         • If a District ties internally, the majority party in that District will vote on behalf of the District.
           
           •If there is no clear majority party in a District, and only in this circumstance, the Electoral Committee shall enter a blank vote on behalf of the District.
7. 1. There shall exist one round of voting, wherein all senators may vote for candidates in numerical order of preference, the first their top preference, the second their second preference, and so on, whom registered between two weeks prior to voting and one day prior to voting. Voters need not rank every candidate. Voting shall last for 96 hours.
   2. At the close of the vote, the votes shall be counted by at least two individuals. The primary vote of each voter shall be considered first. The candidate with the fewest primary votes shall have the primary votes for them transferred to their voters' secondary votes. The candidate, then, with the fewest votes, shall have their primary and secondary votes transferred to their voters' tertiary votes. This shall be in order until one candidate holds 50% of the active votes plus one. Voters who decline to include another vote should their selected candidate fail are considered to abstain, as are voters who decline to vote. Abstentions shall not be counted in the final tally. The candidate winning the greatest number of votes shall be declared the winner of the election. The Minister of Elections shall break any ties.
   3. Voting shall be open for at least 120 hours.
   4. The format of a vote must confirm the voter's intention and District beyond reasonable doubt.
   5. Voters may change their vote any time before the close of the round.
   6. If abstentions have the vote, the momentary Administration will continue control of the government for the next two months. If blanks have the vote, recount because you did it wrong.
8. After the end of voting, the Electoral Committee shall count all votes. The Ministry of Elections can then proclaim the winner of the election.

That district system seems pretty electoral college-ish. Which, you know, sucks.

[The New World Oceania]

Thoughts/sponsors?

Elections Act

---

Sponsor: Aldbelwamasy Njil – SNP (NWO)
Signatories: Michael Giuliani – DL (Collatis) |

---

1. In the case of a vacancy in Office of the President, defined as the inability of the President to serve due to illness, death, or resignation, they shall be replaced as Head of State. Should their replacement be unable to fulfill the duties, they shall be replaced similarly, and so on, in the following line:
   
   • President
     
   • Vice President
   • Speaker of the RIGHT GODDAMN SEIMA YOU HEAR ME RIGHT Parliament
   • Prime Minister
   • Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
   • Minister of Foreign Affairs
   • Minister of Finance
   • Minister of Defense
   • Procurator-General or whatever the hell they're called
   • Minister of Justice
   • Minister of Agriculture
   • Minister of Labor
   • Minister of Health
   • Minister of Transport
   • Minister of Environment
   • Minister of Education
   • Prime Minister
   1. The Prime Minister (or the individual statutorily responsible for appointing a given position) will appoint the replacement for the former position of the new President, but the line of succession will continue until the Prime Minister must be appointed President and the line must restart. If a position is vacant it will be skipped for succession.
2. The Electoral Committee shall be the founded to administer all Calaverdean executive elections. This Committee shall conduct business neutrally.
   
3. The office of the Ministry of Elections shall be enstated like unto other members of the Cabinet, however the Minister of Elections shall serve for terms of six months, though may be dismissed by at any time by the consensus of both the President and the Prime Minister.
   
   1. The Minister of Elections shall not vote unless circumstantially demanded.
4. Presidential elections shall be spaced two months apart from each other.
   
5. The Electoral Committee may register presidential candidates two weeks before the elections begin. Candidates may run as independent or represent a party or a coalition.
   
   1. If a candidate is representing their party, the party must have agreed for that candidate to represent them.
   2. To be officially represented on the ballot, a party must be officially recognized.
      
      1. An exception exists where a party has existed on the ballot in the past: if this is the case, then they secure a position on the ballot for the following four elections.
6. A District system shall be used to organize voting.
   
   1. A District is defined as a collection of constitutencies.
   2. 210 constituencies shall be recognized by the Electoral Committee.
   3. 14 Districts shall exist.
   4. Each District shall have 15 constituencies.
   5. The Electoral Committee may add districts to the country in multiples of 15, OR they may revise the number of constituencies in each District.
   6. An MP must represent a constituencies in order to vote.
   7. The Electoral Committee will redraw Districts every four months.
      
      1. At least 4 of the districts within a given District must be separated from each other.
      2. At least 8 of the districts within a given District must be removed from their former District.
   8. Each District counts for one vote.
      
      1. How a District votes is determined by the majority of votes from constituencies within said District.
         
         • If no one in a District votes, the District is presumed to abstain.
         • If a District ties internally, the majority party in that District will vote on behalf of the District.
           
           •If there is no clear majority party in a District, and only in this circumstance, the Electoral Committee shall enter a blank vote on behalf of the District.
7. 1. There shall exist one round of voting, wherein all senators may vote for candidates in numerical order of preference, the first their top preference, the second their second preference, and so on, whom registered between two weeks prior to voting and one day prior to voting. Voters need not rank every candidate. Voting shall last for 96 hours.
   2. At the close of the vote, the votes shall be counted by at least two individuals. The primary vote of each voter shall be considered first. The candidate with the fewest primary votes shall have the primary votes for them transferred to their voters' secondary votes. The candidate, then, with the fewest votes, shall have their primary and secondary votes transferred to their voters' tertiary votes. This shall be in order until one candidate holds 50% of the active votes plus one. Voters who decline to include another vote should their selected candidate fail are considered to abstain, as are voters who decline to vote. Abstentions shall not be counted in the final tally. The candidate winning the greatest number of votes shall be declared the winner of the election. The Minister of Elections shall break any ties.
   3. Voting shall be open for at least 120 hours.
   4. The format of a vote must confirm the voter's intention and District beyond reasonable doubt.
   5. Voters may change their vote any time before the close of the round.
   6. If abstentions have the vote, the momentary Administration will continue control of the government for the next two months. If blanks have the vote, recount because you did it wrong.
8. After the end of voting, the Electoral Committee shall count all votes. The Ministry of Elections can then proclaim the winner of the election.

That district system seems pretty electoral college-ish. Which, you know, sucks.

While this might at first seem to be the case, there are a few major differences.

– While the Electoral College has an unequal amount of votes in each state, the district system has an equivalent number of constituencies within each District.
– Rather than using a complex system of electorates, the district system is merely an organizational method of administrating elections.
– The potential threats of swing states and gerrymandering are eliminated by the shifting and reorganization of Districts each month, at that by an independent committee.

[Heraklea-]

That district system seems pretty electoral college-ish. Which, you know, sucks.

While this might at first seem to be the case, there are a few major differences.

– While the Electoral College has an unequal amount of votes in each state, the district system has an equivalent number of constituencies within each District.
– Rather than using a complex system of electorates, the district system is merely an organizational method of administrating elections.
– The potential threats of swing states and gerrymandering are eliminated by the shifting and reorganization of Districts each month, at that by an independent committee.

I'm still not a fan. A national ranked system would be better.

[The Nihilistic view]

TBH the writing of the budget in a Westminster system is none of the oppositions business. The government write what they think they can pass in parliament so they don't lose supply and thus a budget is effectively a no confidence vote and then they introduce it to parliament. The opposition's job is to scrutinise the budget for the public not write it.

[Ikania]

Why do we have to do all this district stuff when we can just have a popular vote? It makes much more sense.