SENATE BILL: Party Hard Amendment (Failed)

[bore]

I thought we had gotten rid of the 3 person standard? I think we should if we haven't.

Either way, I think this is confusing and a little bit counter productive. (wasn't this Gass's earlier?)

It failed in the northeast and the pacific I think.

I think it's fairly obvious to almost everyone here that the we need more political parties amendment was a bad idea, and 3 people are not a party and shouldn't be included on the registrar general's thread. But I do agree with Maxwell that this amendment seems a bit cumbersome. Perhaps if being an organized political party entailed anything special with regard to elections I would support the 2nd and 3rd clauses, but at the moment they seem kind of pointless.

[bore]

5 is, I think, a little too low. Would 7 be a reasonable compromise?

[bore]

Aye

[bore]

Nay

[bore]

Just to remind people, I introduced an amendment repealing the we need more political parties amendment, which was exactly the same as this bill now will be, and it scraped by in the IDS the MW and the ME got destroyed in the  NE (with only me and matt voting for it) and failed the pacific council. I think people are forgetting just how hard passing any change has become.

Oh and Napoleon criticizing anyone is pretty rich.

[bore]

Aye