Mideast Assembly Thread

[Purple State]

As a private citizen, I'd like to recommend that the Mideast repeal its current electoral system in favor of STV.

Why? This has worked well and fairly for the entirety of its existence thus far.

This is only because there have been very few contested elections. What advantages does the current system have over STV?

As you said a minute ago, why fix a template that isn't broken? Not to mention, the current system is easier than STV. So I am not inclined to implement a more time-consuming, confusing system when the current one works just fine.

What are the advantages of STV over this?

[Хahar 🤔]

Here you are:

The system the Mideast uses is horrible. I can't think of any arguments in favor of it.

Does the fact that you don't like it count in it's favour

No.

But, for real. It is perfectly possible for three candidates to be elected when all are preferenced in the bottom three by a majority. For instance, let's take the example of the 1948 Irish election, under this system (with three candidates to be elected). For the purpose of this example, let's assume that all voters from all parties rank their three candidates in the same order, and that all the other parties rank Fianna Fáil last (not unreasonable, IMO).

The first count:

Fianna Fáil #1: 41.9
Fine Gael #1: 19.8
Clann na Poblachta #1: 13.3
Labour #1: 11.3
Clann na Talmhan #1: 5.5
National Labour #1: 2.6
Others: 0

Fianna Fáil #1 elected.

The second count:

Fianna Fáil #1: n/a
Fianna Fáil #2: 41.9
Fine Gael #1: 39.6
Clann na Poblachta #1: 26.6
Labour #1: 22.6
Fine Gael #2: 19.8
Clann na Poblachta #2: 13.3
Labour #2: 11.3
Clann na Talmhan #1: 11
Clann na Talmhan #2: 5.5
National Labour #1: 5.2
National Labour #2: 2.6
Others: 0

Fianna Fáil #2 elected.

The third count:

Fianna Fáil #1: n/a
Fianna Fáil #2: n/a
Fine Gael #1: 59.4
Fianna Fáil #3: 41.9
Clann na Poblachta #1: 39.9
Fine Gael #2: 39.6
Labour #1: 33.9
Clann na Poblachta #2: 26.6
Labour #2: 22.6
Fine Gael #3: 19.8
Clann na Talmhan #1: 16.5
Clann na Poblachta #3: 13.3
Labour #3: 11.3
Clann na Talmhan #2: 11
National Labour #1: 7.8
Clann na Talmhan #3: 5.5
National Labour #2: 5.2
National Labour #3: 2.6

Fine Gael #1 is elected.

Final Composition: Fianna Fáil 2, Fine Gael 1

Thus, the Opposition, with 58.1% of the vote, gets 33.3% of the seats, and Fianna Fáil, last-preferenced by the majority, gets 66.7% of the seats. Theoretically, a party could win all three seats with any number of votes, provided they had thrice as many as the second-place party.

I rest my case.

The example is somewhat winded, but STV would never do something that horrible.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

There has been no substantive debate in 24 hours. A vote is hereby opened.

Oh I totally missed this due to the STV debating.

  Aye

[Purple State]

Here you are:

<snip>

The example is somewhat winded, but STV would never do something that horrible.

How common would such an occurrence be? It seems as though it becomes incredibly unlikely with smaller numbers of votes.

[Хahar 🤔]

Here you are:

<snip>

The example is somewhat winded, but STV would never do something that horrible.

How common would such an occurrence be? It seems as though it becomes incredibly unlikely with smaller numbers of votes.

It could quite easily be done with a unified slate of three candidates. This has not happened so far, but it's better not to take the chance of system abuse.

[Purple State]

Here you are:

<snip>

The example is somewhat winded, but STV would never do something that horrible.

How common would such an occurrence be? It seems as though it becomes incredibly unlikely with smaller numbers of votes.

It could quite easily be done with a unified slate of three candidates. This has not happened so far, but it's better not to take the chance of system abuse.

It doesn't seem all that likely a situation in a setting so small and candidate, rather than party oriented. It seems like a lot to do to avoid a one in a million scenario.

[Хahar 🤔]

Here you are:

<snip>

The example is somewhat winded, but STV would never do something that horrible.

How common would such an occurrence be? It seems as though it becomes incredibly unlikely with smaller numbers of votes.

It could quite easily be done with a unified slate of three candidates. This has not happened so far, but it's better not to take the chance of system abuse.

It doesn't seem all that likely a situation in a setting so small and candidate, rather than party oriented. It seems like a lot to do to avoid a one in a million scenario.

I don't think it's a one in a million scenario that a party runs a coordinated slate to capture more seats than it is entitled to.

At any rate, it's not a lot to do; changing the law would not be difficult.

[California8429]

Hey guys, decided to move here.

Pacific region is mostly none moving and the Mideast here seems pretty fast and up to date.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Hey guys, decided to move here.

Pacific region is mostly none moving and the Mideast here seems pretty fast and up to date.

Welcome to the region!

[HappyWarrior]

Hey guys, decided to move here.

Pacific region is mostly none moving and the Mideast here seems pretty fast and up to date.

Welcome to the region!

[tmthforu94]

Hey guys, decided to move here.

Pacific region is mostly none moving and the Mideast here seems pretty fast and up to date.

Welcome to the region!

[big bad fab]

Hey guys, decided to move here.

Pacific region is mostly none moving and the Mideast here seems pretty fast and up to date.

Welcome to the region!

This is, indeed, a very lively region, with interesting Assembly debates, experienced executive and legislative leaders and suspenseful elections ().

[Badger]

There has been no substantive debate in 24 hours. A vote is hereby opened.

Oh I totally missed this due to the STV debating.

  Aye

AYE.

[Badger]

(Submitted for que in the Assembly's docket after resolution of Peter's birth control bill currently being voted on.)

The Mideast Dog Breed Equity Under the Law Act

1) All Mideast regional statutes and regulations which currently place additional legal restrictions, duties, penalties, or legal presumptions upon the keeper, owner or harborer of dogs based solely upon the breed of said dog, including but not limited to the breed of dogs known as "American Pit Bull Terriers", "Staffordshire Terriers", or "Pit Bulls", are hereby repealed.

2) Nothing in this act shall be construed to remove legal restrictions, duties, penalties, or legal presumptions upon the keeper, owner or harborer of any dog based on prior misconduct of that particular dog or owner.

The rational behind this law is straightforward: Current legal restrictions or requirements for a dog owner's control of their dog(s) based on the conduct or misbehavior of a dog are legitimate, but imposing such legal duties and restrictions on the owner of a perfectly well-behaved dog solely based on that dog's breed is both irrational and unfair.

In Ohio, by way of brief example, all dog owners are legally required to keep their dog(s) under reasonable control rather than running loose unsupervised throughout the community, and face a fine for a first violation, larger fines and potential (non-mandatory) 30 days jail for repeat convictions. Any dog that has menaced another person while running loose (e.g. chased and snapped at a person on the street without provocation, but did not successfully bite the person) is a "Dangerous Dog" subject to increased legal requirements of restraint and control and the owner may face up to 30 days jail (again, not mandatory) on a first offense. A dog that has killed or injured another person, or killed another dog, is a "Vicious Dog" subject to even more stringent restraint requirements, and owners must carry a liability policy of at least $100,000 on any such dog. A violation of such requirements, even without the dog causing death or serious injury, carries up to 6 months jail on a first offense and subsequent offenses are felonies.

By law, Pit Bulls are legally presumed "Vicious Dogs". Let me repeat that: ANY Pit Bull regardless of however docile and nonthreatening its temperament is presumed "Vicious". One can decide not to carry the liability insurance or adhere to the ultra-stringent restraint requirements, get charged with violating the law, then hope one can produce enough evidence of your pit bull's passive peaceful nature to overcome the legal presumption of viciousness. If not, you're screwed; if you do, you get to enjoy the stress and legal bills of taking your case to trial. And no, proof of a dog being a purebred pit bull is not necessary for conviction; basically if a reasonably qualified witness can testify the dog looks like a pit bull, a judge's or jury's guilty finding will probably be affirmed on appeal.

This law does NOT stand for the proposition that dogs should be allowed to run wild to cause havoc in their neighborhood. Rather it simply requires that ALL breeds of dog and their owners be treated equally under the law based on that particular dog or owner's behavior rather than based upon a dog's breed.

[HappyWarrior]

Thank you Badger.  Exactly the sort of bill I was hoping for.

[Peter]

Mideast Sexual Health Bill
For the purposes of this statute:

   1. Public Medical Facility means any medical or family planning centre under the direct control of the Regional government or a private medical or family planning centre that draws more than one-tenth of its funding from Regional funds.
   2. Non-Public Medical Facility means any medical or family planning centre not included in Clause 1.

Therefore,

   1. All Public medical facilities are hereby required to provide a reasonable amount of barrier contraception free of charge to any person who requests it.
   2. Any private facility covered under clause one that fails to comply shall have its Regional funding reduced to a point where it comprises exactly 10% of the facility's funding.
   3. Any non-Public medical facilities, and private facilities covered under clause one, that provide barrier contraception free of charge to persons may reclaim their costs subject to such rules and regulations as the Mideast Department of the Treasury shall deem necessary.
   4.  Each person who receives barrier contraception under the terms of this statute will be provided with a leaflet produced by the Mideast Department of Health explaining how to use the contraception, the dangers of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, the potential problems associated with unwanted pregnancies and any other facts that the Department of Health finds relevant.

Aye. The bill is transmitted to the Governor for his signature or veto.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I urge Governor Inks to veto the bill.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Thank you Badger, very well said. I am completely behind this bill.

As the son of a dog breeder, who has spent my entire life surrounded by big packs of dogs (My parents, and sister currently own seven together) I am very much aware that most breeds are bred just for the reason to create certain characteristics that the owner find useful. Some dogs are natural hunters, others have basic instics telling them to herde sheep, some will be prone to guarding, and quite a few are suppose be cute and cuddly. This is true.

However the fact that certain breeds have certain talants, does not mean all dogs of that breed will have the same temper or personality. Because just like with humans, it is not our genes who makes us who we are, but the way we were raised and under which circumstances.

Therefore, a dog's behaviour, and wether it turns out to be aggressive or not, has much more to do with its owner than its breed.

I have seen supposebly cute and lovely cocker spaniels turn into horrefying monsters due to bad owners, and I have seen Pitbulls calm and sweet as sheep with the right owner.

Now the reason that some breeds seem to be more agressive has to do with traits. Some breeds have indeed been bred as potential attack dogs in war and battle. Others are meant to be dominating. That is the reason many unexperienced owners who are not well schooled in how to raise a dog, might have more trouble with a pitbull than a dachshund for say. That is however no just cause to punish the owners who very well know what they're doing, and who raise wonderful dogs of the brand pitbull, staffordshire terrier, and American pit bull terrier.

I don't think the goverment should get to decide which kinds of dogs get to live and which get to die. As Big Bad Fab said only a few pages ago:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

Thank you Badger.  Exactly the sort of bill I was hoping for.

[Peter]

The Mideast Dog Breed Equity Under the Law Act

1) All Mideast regional statutes and regulations which currently place additional legal restrictions, duties, penalties, or legal presumptions upon the keeper, owner or harborer of dogs based solely upon the breed of said dog, including but not limited to the breed of dogs known as "American Pit Bull Terriers", "Staffordshire Terriers", or "Pit Bulls", are hereby repealed.

2) Nothing in this act shall be construed to remove legal restrictions, duties, penalties, or legal presumptions upon the keeper, owner or harborer of any dog based on prior misconduct of that particular dog or owner.

Given that the Governor has not yet taken action on the Sexual Health Bill, this bill is brought to the floor for consideration, and if necessary debate will be suspended to take further action on the Sexual Health Bill.

I am undecided on the bill having no strong feelings either way. I will consider the debate and vote accordingly.

[Badger]

I have little to add beyond what I and Swedish Cheese have already stated.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Mideast Dog Breed Equity Under the Law Act

1) All Mideast regional statutes and regulations which currently place additional legal restrictions, duties, penalties, or legal presumptions upon the keeper, owner or harborer of dogs based solely upon the breed of said dog, including but not limited to the breed of dogs known as "American Pit Bull Terriers", "Staffordshire Terriers", or "Pit Bulls", are hereby repealed.

2) Nothing in this act shall be construed to remove legal restrictions, duties, penalties, or legal presumptions upon the keeper, owner or harborer of any dog based on prior misconduct of that particular dog or owner.

Given that the Governor has not yet taken action on the Sexual Health Bill, this bill is brought to the floor for consideration, and if necessary debate will be suspended to take further action on the Sexual Health Bill.

I am undecided on the bill having no strong feelings either way. I will consider the debate and vote accordingly.

Sorry - I'm still trying to decide what I want to do with the Sexual Health Bill.

[Badger]

I'll end by reiterating, think of the owner who has to post a $100k liability insurance policy for ANY Pit Bull Terrier, right down to a well-behaved and gentle pup, even if that dog may have some pit bull in it somewhere, because the alternative is prosecution and potential jail. It's not a minor inconvenience "feel good" issue by any means.

Mr. Speaker, as the bill has been posted for over 72 hours without negative comment, and the members of the Assembly have given their opinions, may we move for a vote on the bill?

[Peter]

Indeed, a vote on the bill in my last post is hereby opened.

[Badger]

Indeed, a vote on the bill in my last post is hereby opened.

AYE.