SENATE BILL: Make Peebs Happy Again Act (At Final Vote)

[Poirot]

I am strongly opposed to increasing the number of members required for an organized party. You should not make it harder for small parties to be visible to give them a chance to grow. Or only because a few people should have a party they believe in, and respecting political divversity.

Not sure if it's the formating in the census that is causing problems (too many columns). If it's that maybe it would be acceptable to list the smallest parties below the table, just one line by party. Like
SOS party 2-0-1
XYZ party 0-0-3 (numbers are members for the three regions).

Or even if it respects the requirements, just for the smallest parties list only the number of members below the table so the public knows they exist.

SOS party 3
XYZ party 3 

The problem we have is mammoth parties, it's not the tiny parties so maybe try to find ways to accomodate the RG without changing a longstanding rule of our democracy. 

[Poirot]

What is the reason behind the RG wanting fewer parties.

[Poirot]

If the problem is the table presentation, we need to explore an alternative presentation such as include the biggest parties that would fit in the table and the smaller parties outside the table just one line by party. I'm not even asking for party color for small parties if that saves work.

The parties that will disappear first are Montfortian and Liberal and then Progressive Union. IM interim Chair of the Liberal party and I ask that you don't try to kill parties to fit a table, give small partie a chance.