by McPenguins » Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:56 pm
by Christian Democrats » Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:00 pm
McPenguins wrote:So, here goes, my first proposal.
Fair Voting (Proportional Representation) Act
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
RECOGNIZING the good work of R#130 (Elections and Assistance Act) in defining good electoral practice,
CONCERNED that plurality (or first-past-the-post) voting systems are fundamentally flawed because:
• Large political parties are often over-represented, while smaller parties are often under-representented or not represented at all
• Voters are encouraged to vote tactically, voting for whom they think is electable rather than whom that actually want to win office
• That many votes have no effect on the outcome of elections
• Results can be gerrymandered by changing the boundaries of constituencies for the benefit of larger political parties
THEREFORE REALISES that plurality voting systems are therefore undemocratic and unfit for purpose,
DECIDES:
• All single winner elections shall be decided using alternative vote (AV) rules,
• In all legislative elections for member states, the single transferable vote method of voting shall be used,
• In order to ensure proportionality, for parliamentary or legislative assembly elections in member states, constituencies shall elect 3 members or more,
• That the Robson Rotation be used to avoid donkey voting,
• In the event of a vacancy in a consistency, a single winner shall be elected using AV rules
MANDATES the OEA (Office for Electoral Assistance) to assist member states in implementation of electoral reform, including training of counting officers, and public information programs to explain electoral change,
AFFIRMS that this Act in no way dictates how many members any legislative assembly may need to represent the people, or affects member states that have a non-democratic system of government.
So what do people think? Comments, questions, and suggestions would be appreciated before I put it to the floor.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Cowardly Pacifists » Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:00 pm
by Moronist Decisions » Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:18 pm
RECOGNIZING the good work of R#130 (Elections and Assistance Act) in defining good electoral practice,
by Mahaj » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm
Moronist Decisions wrote:RECOGNIZING the good work of R#130 (Elections and Assistance Act) in defining good electoral practice,
Illegal, house of cards.
Recognizing that previous legislation has defined good electoral practices,
<Koth> I'm still going by the assumption that Mahaj is Unibot's kid brother or something
Kandarin(Naivetry): You're going to have a great NS career ahead of you if you want it, Mahaj. :)
<@Eluvatar> Why is SkyDip such a purist raiderist
<+frattastan> Because his region was never raided.
<+maxbarry> EarthAway: I guess I might dabble in raiding just to experience it better, but I would not like to raid regions of natives, so I'd probably be more interested in defense and liberations
by Damanucus » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:40 pm
by Dukopolious » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:48 pm
by Grays Harbor » Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:27 pm
by The Republic of Lanos » Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:30 pm
by Libraria and Ausitoria » Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:05 am
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Aside from all of the stated issues, doesn't this practically force democracy in nations that don't want it?
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]
by Syrkania » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:46 am
by Moronist Decisions » Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:00 am
by Bears Armed » Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:22 am
Syrkania wrote:Well, if this requires that all WA members use some form of democratic representation, this it's illegal as an ideological ban. If it only requires it of those members that already use some form of democratic representation, then it's in all likelihood illegal for optionality.
So, I am unsure why this is being discussed?
by Flibbleites » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:05 am
Moronist Decisions wrote:RECOGNIZING the good work of R#130 (Elections and Assistance Act) in defining good electoral practice,
Illegal, house of cards.
by McPenguins » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:33 am
• Large political parties are often over-represented, while smaller parties are often under-representented or not represented at all
• Voters are encouraged to vote tactically, voting for whom they think is electable rather than whom that actually want to win office
• That many votes have no effect on the outcome of elections
• Results can be gerrymandered by changing the boundaries of constituencies for the benefit of larger political parties
by Glen-Rhodes » Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:30 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Powiec
Advertisement