[ingliz]

Why not stop complicating things. I mean if you want to get fancy you could introduce a 5% voter threshold for any party to hold seats etc etc

[Gnote]

Yeah, I'm back on ingliz's method.

The fractions thing is going to exist regardless.

3 votes = 1 seat, and an extra seat is added if the total is even.

[Zyx]

That's actually fairly simple, but ok.

I just thought that if there were 3 seats per vote and yet a party had more than a multiple of three--it ought to have the luxury of having another seat {just to maximize participation.}

That certainly does play against party balance--but that's why we were ironing it out.

Ah well.

--

I had a question on this simulation.

Are we making everyone an 'individual' as an MP or an extension of a party as an MP?

It seems like we are doing the latter, but in the U.S. we are accustomed to our "MPs" being individuals who merely consult (if that) and receive funds from the party {and the party leaders can dismiss that person from the party if it so chooses.}

What's the case here?

If it's the former, then I don't see why the party leader as MP would have more votes than the other members.

--

OK, I understand "Gnote."

It is votes and seats for the total election!

Demosthenes (check his post) and I understood it as being for each party.

[ingliz]

Each MP holds one seat, not the party, not the party leader, but the MP. The party compiles a list of approved candidates and works down it. If the party list will not support the vote the party leader can coopt but the seat belongs to the MP. if for any reason the party is unable to coopt the seat is lost. If an MP goes walkabout the seat is lost until he comes back. The seat goes where the MP goes.

[Zyx]

Alright, so everything is settled.

3 TOTAL Votes equal 3 TOTAL seats + 1 if such is an even number.

The votes are apportioned through the fancy European method.

[Gnote]

Yeah, total seats for the parliament, and then seats are allocated based on the percentage of that total vote you receive.



But there is still a problem with this methodology.

A party garnering 9 votes is going to be apportioned the same number of seats as a party garnering 11 votes.

[Okonkwo]

everything is settled.

[GM voice]Nothing is settled thus far. Demo has the last word on these issues.[/GM]

[Zyx]

No, no, Gnote.

That's what I was misunderstanding earlier.

The Total is all that this 3 to 1 is addressing.

The proportions will be doled by another scheme {the earlier scheme}.

This debate, essentially was on whether the seats should be 20, 25 or 35--it had nothing to do with how a party would get seats.

[Gnote]

Okay. So that is settled.

It seems we're coming to terms on the broad strokes.

What about the time lines I proposed earlier.....

This reminds me of one other time span we will have to clarify: the time between the official end of the election, and the day the first confidence legislation must be tabled. I suggest the following:

Election takes place and official results are certified.

This is followed by a 48 hour period that each party leader has to name the members who will take the party's seats in parliament. After these seats are distributed, they cannot be revoked.

After this 48 hour period expired, the party with the most seats has 48 hours to declare whether it will attempt to table a confidence motion, or pass.

After this 48 hour period has expired, the party has 72 hours to table its confidence motion.

[Zyx]

I understand that we are mostly men, Gnote, but I'm sure that the whole lot of us can multi-task.

Naming party members can come concurrently with voting--we don't need two days to do that [or do we?]

After these seats are distributed, they cannot be revoked.

Well, I thought that maybe someone might report to their party that they'd be AFK and someone else would volunteer for their place.

Are you saying that we should have a time limit for a roster sheet that will be sent to the Clerk of the Parliament?

I'd agree.

I see nothing wrong, but then again, I'm no [GM] person. I suppose that I'm not arbitrary enough.

*looks at Okonkwo.*

[ingliz]

Election calculus simulator based on the modified d'Hondt system

7 Parties, 35 seats, 97 votes


3 (20.6%): 8 seats, 20 votes

4 (17.5%): 6 seats, 17 votes

8 (14.4%): 5 seats, 14 votes

6 (13.4%): 5 seats, 13 votes

2 (11.3%): 4 seats, 11 votes

1 (9.3%): 3 seats, 9 votes

5 (7.2%): 2 seats, 7 votes

7 (6.2%): 2 seats, 6 votes


An example of how the seats would be apportioned by the fancy European method.

[Zyx]

Well, before we hold an election, we should probably ask if each party can fulfill their seat requirements.

If they can then I don't really see much of a reason for an election.

I do realize, though, that a person who is not an MP should not be involved in the interparty negotiations {such as legislation.} Still, the advantage of intraparty involvement is here and strong.

So, what's the next move while Demo is gone?

Should we see if party 3 has eight active members?

Should we see if party 7 has two?

Weren't a few of these parties disbanded?

[Demosthenes]

Thank you Okonkwo.

Yet, at this point, I see no real issue in going with the system being discussed.

However, as seems to be standard for the sim, we have a group of a couple people, arguably from similar factions hammering out an agreement that may or may not be liked by those of another faction, who are simply away right now, and unable to comment.

Barring that, I see no real issue in ultimately going with what is being proposed.

[ingliz]

Zyx:

Those were numbers off the top of my head; they do not relate to any of the parties taking part in this sim. It was just to show how fractions of the vote are transformed into seats using a modified d'Hondt calculus.

[Zyx]

Were the duties of the MPs and Ministries discuss?

How many Ministers will there be?

Will all the Ministers belong with the ruling party?

My understanding of the European system was that compromises involved negotiating Ministry positions with other parties. We don't seem to be doing that.

Further, what's the role of the Ministries or the PM?

[Subversive Rob]

Also, will ministers also have to be MPs?

Compromises on ministers and non-ruling party ministers only really happen when there are coalitions, so far as I'm aware.

[Zyx]

That's what I understood of the European system.

They formed ruling coalitions compromised not on platforms but on ministry positions.

We seem to be forming coalitions on platforms and neglecting ministry powers and positions all together.

[Subversive Rob]

It's a contextual thing, sometimes the more minor parties will be given ministries in without there being a common (or at least commonish) platform. But there aren't really any tiny parties here. Moreover, the example of coalitions based on ministerial positions has almost always destroyed those small (often radical left) parties who join them, since their distinctive identity and political platform is subsumed beneath the work of governing on the programme of a different party.

[Gnote]

However, as seems to be standard for the sim, we have a group of a couple people, arguably from similar factions hammering out an agreement that may or may not be liked by those of another faction, who are simply away right now, and unable to comment.

This is the role of the GM, Demo. At least as I see it. It will be absolutely impossible to come to a consensus. You and your council will have to pick a method and go with it.

Keep in mind. This constitution is extremely minimalistic. Basically all it spells out is: how elections happen and how often; how seats are alloted; and how government is formed.

Those are very administrative topics, and aren't overly political.

Were the duties of the MPs and Ministries discuss?

How many Ministers will there be?

Will all the Ministers belong with the ruling party?

My understanding of the European system was that compromises involved negotiating Ministry positions with other parties. We don't seem to be doing that.

Further, what's the role of the Ministries or the PM?

All of this should be arrived at organically. There should be no set ministries, or numbers of ministers, or way of selecting MPs and cabinet positions. That should all be left up to the government.

It's a contextual thing, sometimes the more minor parties will be given ministries in without there being a common (or at least commonish) platform. But there aren't really any tiny parties here. Moreover, the example of coalitions based on ministerial positions has almost always destroyed those small (often radical left) parties who join them, since their distinctive identity and political platform is subsumed beneath the work of governing on the programme of a different party.

All of this should also sort itself out throughout the funciton of the game.

For instance, if the largest party is seeking support from a smaller party on their confidence motion, one of the 'concessions' of that smaller party might be that they are delegated some cabinet positions.

That is all a part of the game (and the fun).

[Zyx]

Ok, Gnote, this confidence vote has just become more clear.

I see now: the initial policy has a lot of politics and compromises in the background.

This seems pretty American all of a sudden.