SB 106-20: Proportional Party Majorness Agreeable Gateway Act (Failed)

[Dr. MB]

Aye

[Former President tack50]

Abstain

[S019]

Nay

[Pericles]

Nay

[Dr. MB]

I’ll point out here that this creates a major opportunity for shady shenanigans to occur.

Example: 200 registered voters so a 5% threshold equals 10 to qualify as a major party. One of the privileged afforded to a major party is the ability to appoint replacements for vacant at large senators.

The New Party has 11 voters which puts it right over the threshold. One New Party senator has just resigned and left the game, dropping the number down to 10. All it takes is one more party switch or deregistration and the senate seat goes to a special election. Either side could benefit from these shady tactics if they feel a special election is in their best interest more than a new senator from the New Party - and all it takes is one defection for that to happen and all the rights and privileges of a major party to be taken away for what exactly?

Similarly, parties around the brink could fluctuate between major and minor. 10 members would make a major party in a 200-person game, but if there’s a recruitment surge before an election and the number of voters goes up to 220? Sorry, minor status for you. The next week after people fall off the census and there are only 195 voters left, back to major. 6 more voters join the game and you’re minor again. So on and so forth.

All I’m saying is percentage is a very ill advised way of looking at this. Even if you believe the threshold should be at 5 members instead of 3, let’s kill this percentage thing once and for all before it has the chance to take a toll on us.

[FrancoAgo]

What purpose does this definition for "major party" actually achieve?

[If my soul was made of stone]

PRESENT

[Continential]

Aye

[Senator-elect Spark]

Nay

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Changing my vote to abstain

[FrancoAgo]

i've a propose for solve the Peebs works
no more count of registration
a party is major if get, put, 5% to the elections

[Kuumo]

Aye. I’d prefer that the threshold were more like 5 or 6 members, but I agree that percentages are not the way to go.

[FrancoAgo]

Aye. I’d prefer that the threshold were more like 5 or 6 members, but I agree that percentages are not the way to go.

my solution has not trouble with change the number of atlasia player or the number of the party registration.

the absolute number of party registration as same trouble of % of atlasia player but based on the party registration, people move in and out from the party very quickly

[Saint Milei]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

While I don't think Peeb's intent here is malicious, I am very much swayed by MB's reasoning, at least as far as considering negative aspects of this approach.

Abstain for now

[Joseph Cao]

On principle I will vote Nay on the amendment, since the bill restores language that already exists, but personally I'd vote Aye on the final bill as it stands if and only if Peebs confirms that she is completely comfortable with it.

[West_Midlander]

While I don't think Peeb's intent here is malicious, I am very much swayed by MB's reasoning, at least as far as considering negative aspects of this approach.

I agree with what Yankee said 100% and I vote Aye on the Amendment.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I understand MB's point about a percentage as opposed to a raw number, though if we do increase by raw number, I'll probably increase by one member a week for seven weeks (assuming we do ten members, since that's what 5% of 182 rounds up to).

[Joseph Cao]

The amendment is adopted by a vote of 6-5-3-4. Debate resumes.

[S019]

Well given this amendment just undermined the whole bill, I introduce this:

A BILL FOR AN ACT
Establishing a legal threshold for federal party status

BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE RESOLVED.

Section 1, TITLE.
i. The title of this Act shall be, the “Proportional Party Majorness Agreeable Gateway Act.”
ii. This Act shall not be referred to using the title's acronym.

Section 2, THRESHOLD.
i. A federal political party shall be considered a "major party" when the party in question obtains a membership that consists of at least 3 15 registered members.
Section 3, ENACTMENT.
i. This bill shall take effect starting with the first census held after either signature by the President or a veto override.

[Dr. MB]

Objecting to the new amendment

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

As the RG, me too. I'd rather the threshold be 10 than 15.

[WD]

A BILL FOR AN ACT
Establishing a legal threshold for federal party status

BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE RESOLVED.

Section 1, TITLE.
i. The title of this Act shall be, the “Proportional Party Majorness Agreeable Gateway Act.”
ii. This Act shall not be referred to using the title's acronym.

Section 2, THRESHOLD.
i. A federal political party shall be considered a "major party" when the party in question obtains a membership that consists of at least 3 15 registered members.
Section 3, ENACTMENT.
i. This bill shall take effect starting with the first census held after either signature by the President or a veto override.

A vote is now open on S019’s amendment. Senators, please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain

[Continential]

Nay

[Kuumo]

Nay