FT 12-09: Fixed Membership Parliament Amendment (Debating)

[YE]

AN AMENDMENT
to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Frémont

Section 1 (Title)
i. The title of this Amendment shall be, the "Fixed Membership Parliament Amendment." It may be alternatively cited as the "Seventh Amendment" or as "Amendment VII."

Section 2 (Amendment)
i. Article I§3 of the Second Constitution of the Commonwealth of Frémont shall be amended to read as follows,

Every Parliament shall continue for three months from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the First Minister, pursuant to certain provisions as established in this Constitution. The number of seats for election shall be five exclusive of the First Minister; but Parliament shall by law provide for the election of No Member to one or more of the seats, in cases where the number of candidates is fewer than six.

Section 3 (Implementation)
i. This Amendment shall take effect immediately; but its provisions shall not effect the composition of the parliament sitting at the time of its ratification.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Truman
24 hours to advocate.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Strongly opposed to this. We must have at least some slack in the system to account for changes in activity and population.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The intent of this amendment is to stem the insane inflation of regional legislatures and eliminate the various ways parties have manipulated the candidate index to elect "placeholder" MFPs. Instead, voters would chose five MFPs in addition to the first minister at every election, ensuring transparency and an even playing field for all parties heading into the election. In the event of an insufficient number of candidates to fill all five seats, the amendment also allows for the election of "No Member" to one or more seats—as I envision, through a "NOTA" option—so there is still some flexibility in the system where it was needed.

Essentially, in the present day I see no reason why there should be more than five MFPs, and only very unusual circumstances where that number should be fewer than four. The stampede for more offices everywhere is a vice propagated mainly by people who didn't live through the dark days of Bloody July and the 2017 Succession Crisis and who therefore fail to appreciate the dangers of legislative inflation in their misguided belief that more offices leads to more activity.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This has my support.

[YE]

I'd prefer to see a flexible cap on size akin to what Adam proposed during his first presidential run. So I kind of agree with ASV here actually.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

On the face of it, an index such as that which Adam proposed as the ConCon back in 2015 would be a good thing, and would potentially help to counteract the kind of extreme vote-packing we've seen of late in Lincoln. My objection in this particular instance, is that such a policy would need to be adopted nationally in order to work: I don't think there's much point at all in Frémont adopting that policy if Lincoln and the South aren't on board.

[Former President tack50]

I will say that even if fixed membership ends up not happening, Fremont should probably consider getting rid of the "everyone elected minus 1" rule, which is what leads to placeholder candidates in the first place.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I will say that even if fixed membership ends up not happening, Fremont should probably consider getting rid of the "everyone elected minus 1" rule, which is what leads to placeholder candidates in the first place.

The [CANDIDATES - 1] rule was introduced in 2017, when the regional government was collapsing and the top priority of the reform initiative was to get as many people involved as possible. Back then, it was unthinkable that we would have a surplus of candidates for parliament, and since I was doing 90% of the recruiting for both parties, "placeholder candidates" weren't really an issue. Times have changed: we no longer have an activity crisis in this region, and our new priority should therefore be to make elections as transparent and representative as possible. From a recruiting standpoint, not knowing how many candidates you need until a few days before the election makes involving new players more difficult and incentivizes parties to rely on established players in their inner-circle to win a majority. In a contested election, it becomes where the real contest for control of parliament is fought and won before the polls ever open, on Discord and in the inboxes of potential recruits.

That's not idle speculation, by the way: I'm saying this as someone who has recruited more candidates for parliament than probably any other individual and who has been involved in some capacity as a party organizer in every general election since January 2017. Back then, these were acceptable trade-offs, especially as the right wing was basically non-existent for the duration of my premiership (people joke that Frémont is a left-wing utopia now, but you should have seen it when the only right-wing MFP voted for all my bills and ran for re-election because I asked him to). These days, I'm more concerned that we're putting parties and voters at a disadvantage by keeping the number of seats in the next parliament a secret until a few days before the election.

TL;DR–I agree with Tack, basically.

[YE]

While Adam has noted many times the interest in the game does not correlate with the number of people on the rolls, fluctuations in the size of the regions, as well as time of year, often can result in changes to the candidate pool, so I'd be in favor of maintaining some flexibility; the minimum of 4 and maximum of 6 which are the current rules represent this.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Of the present membership, two have spoken in favor, one against, and two are absent. Any further thoughts, or are we ready to vote?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I am ready for a vote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Disappointed as I am by the dearth of debate, seeing no further discussion, I move for a final vote. Members have 24 hours to object.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Objection

[Adam Griffin]

I really would have liked to see a system that has some variance based on the number of candidates (for example, if there are fewer than 6 candidates, a 3-member chamber; 6 candidates or more, a 5-member chamber) along the lines of what we managed to do in Lincoln.

It is true that expansion/contraction of region population is unlikely to impact overall candidate availability in all but the most extreme circumstances, which is why I believe pegging size (within sustainable parameters for the game as a whole) to level of interest should be the metric, thereby ensuring elections are as competitive as possible regardless of candidate interest being high or low.

Now, if I was doing this federally, I'd be using a different metric, but alas...

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I really would have liked to see a system that has some variance based on the number of candidates (for example, if there are fewer than 6 candidates, a 3-member chamber; 6 candidates or more, a 5-member chamber) along the lines of what we managed to do in Lincoln.

It is true that expansion/contraction of region population is unlikely to impact overall candidate availability in all but the most extreme circumstances, which is why I believe pegging size (within sustainable parameters for the game as a whole) to level of interest should be the metric, thereby ensuring elections are as competitive as possible regardless of candidate interest being high or low.

Now, if I was doing this federally, I'd be using a different metric, but alas...

Section 3. Every Parliament shall continue for three months from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the First Minister, pursuant to certain provisions as established in this Constitution. The number of members to be chosen shall be no fewer than four, not counting the First Minister. If seven or eight candidates declare, five will be elected. If nine or more candidates declare, six shall be elected. If, however, fewer than four candidates declare for House of Commons before a snap or general election, the election shall be postponed until at least four candidates have declared.

This is the current seat allocation formula from a recent amendment. I'd personally say that the new system we very recently enacted is more than sufficient, and that this attempted reform is short-sighted and counter productive.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If, however, fewer than four candidates declare for House of Commons before a snap or general election, the election shall be postponed until at least four candidates have declared.

God, how did I miss this the first time? That's maybe the most disastrous invention in the entire history of the Second Constitution.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Right, I'm going to move for a final vote tomorrow if nobody has anything further to add. I would appreciate it if, this time, members would restrain themselves from objection unless they actually wish to continue debate.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I really would have liked to see a system that has some variance based on the number of candidates (for example, if there are fewer than 6 candidates, a 3-member chamber; 6 candidates or more, a 5-member chamber) along the lines of what we managed to do in Lincoln.

It is true that expansion/contraction of region population is unlikely to impact overall candidate availability in all but the most extreme circumstances, which is why I believe pegging size (within sustainable parameters for the game as a whole) to level of interest should be the metric, thereby ensuring elections are as competitive as possible regardless of candidate interest being high or low.

Now, if I was doing this federally, I'd be using a different metric, but alas...

I'd be open to this as a compromise (such closely resembles the original model I proposed back in 2017), if that would make a difference to our members on the fence —though it's hard to tell when half the chamber is absent. The reason I introduced this bill in the first place was to have a serious discussion as to the ideal apportionment strategy after the last amendment was rammed through without debate, which has sadly not transpired.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Okay, then.

I move for a final vote. Members have 24 hours to object.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seeing no objection, we will proceed to a vote. Members will vote Aye, Nay, or abstain. Voting will last 48 hours or until all members have voted.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Aye.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Nay

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With two votes in favor, one opposed, and two members not voting, the resolution fails in lieu of a four-fifths majority.