[Attica]

Even if he only got 1 vote, less people voted than seats. I have no problem with every percentage including and above .5 to be counted up as a vote and every percentage including and below .4 to be counted down.

[Nets]

Attica, such a system does not guarantee that the final number of mandates will be 100, for example 3 parties splitting the vote equally results in 99 mandates allocated, 8 parties splitting equally results in 104 mandates allocated, so on.

D'Hondt is tried and true and is used in many real world parliaments.

[Attica]

Fair enough. I've never even heard of this system :P

[Falx]

# Parliament will constitute 100 seats in a single house apportioned by the D'Hondt method according to the results certified by the Clerk of the Parliament.

That is extremely stupid, there aren't 100 active people on pofo ever let alone in the parliament thread.

What I propose is that we give the smallest party 1 seat for actual discussions and then use that to decide which parties get how many votes based on multiples of the smallest parties votes rounded up or down. Use the D'Hondt system to figure out how much actual voting power the different parties have.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

delete

[Clausewitz]

What I propose is that we give the smallest party 1 seat for actual discussions and then use that to decide which parties get how many votes based on multiples of the smallest parties votes rounded up or down. Use the D'Hondt system to figure out how much actual voting power the different parties have.

If we used this rule now, the smallest party is POP with 4 seats. 86 total votes have been cast; if we divide by four, we get 21.5 seats. We'll call that 22 seats for Falxstitutional purposes.

And just out of curiosity, because the answer amuses me: what would happen if we had at some point just two party lists, and, say, 50 voters for each? How many MPs are there? But you'd probably have a minimum # of seats or something...

Now, it's remarkable how much you and Kumatto have in common - Kumatto complained about the 100 seat thing [in this thread] already and suggested we have a 25 seat Parliament, and the suggestion proved unpopular for reasons laid out there.

The Falxstitution seems flawed since it encourages people to form vanity parties - if Kumatto breaks off of SN and forms a party of one, and becomes the smallest party, well...he gets a seat in Parliament immediately. So I see no reason that we wouldn't have an 86 seat Parliament immediately with this rule. The current D'Hondt method with a fixed Parliament size - tried and true in many actual countries - has a very effective way of discouraging small parties and I think that this has been constructive.

[Falx]

Easily remedied by having a bar that of say 3-4% that a party must have. What you are proposing is not workable since there are only 87 people that have voted. Meaning in a parliament we'd need 13 more people from somewhere to pop up into existence and start posting for their parties, the discussions will spiral to 4 pages when every MP only posts once and logistically votes would have to be open for at least as long as the election has to make sure everyone has had a chance to vote. A smaller parliament that posts regularly but uses the D'Hondt system for counting votes from within the party would actually work in theory for the limitations of pofo. As opposed to what you propose which isn't possible even in theory, let alone practice.

[Fasces]

Why not calculate as if for a 100 seat Parliament, and simply cut allotted seats in half? Those who receive a non-integer amount of seats get rounded up. We'd end up with a 50-some seat parliament, which means some parties may need to pick and choose who to represent them, adding another interesting angle.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

It's called proportions, Falx. I thought everyone learned them in school. Guess not.

[Falx]

Thank you cheese, like usual your contribution to the discussion is astonishingly concise in defining you as a person.

Why not calculate as if for a 100 seat Parliament, and simply cut allotted seats in half? Those who receive a non-integer amount of seats get rounded up. We'd end up with a 50-some seat parliament, which means some parties may need to pick and choose who to represent them, adding another interesting angle.

Essentially that's what I'm proposing, but 50 would still be too much, as said a parliament of around 25 would actually make sense given the number of people we actually have active here. And I also don't get the fetishism that people have for whole numbers, we have spread sheets for gods sake, it's not that hard to add non-integers in this day and age.

[Fasces]

A party cannot be given six eights of a seat.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Thank you cheese, like usual your contribution to the discussion is astonishingly concise in defining you as a person.

I'm glad you think so, but you're still wrong and no one cares that you don't like the current system. Your concerns were already brought up by Zyx before you arrived, and everyone disagree with Zyx so I doubt you'll have any luck. Even if you think I'm an idiot it doesn't matter because majority rules, [cut].

EDIT: Note for administrator, I didn't mean "[cut]" in any kind of hostile way... it's an American expression...

[Falx]

Don't see why not, but that's not what I'm talking about. We can easily have a number of seats which partake in discussion that is convenient for the current parties and it doesn't have to be a nice number like 100, or 50, we can take it to be 27 or whatever and with the aid of modern gadgetary make calculation who won as easy as in the cases with nice numbers.

[Fasces]

True. With the rounding up for non-integer seat results, under the 50 seat system, we'd probably end up with something like 53 seats.

I'd argue an odd number of seats to be optimal, actually.

[dilpill]

Meaning in a parliament we'd need 13 more people from somewhere to pop up into existence and start posting for their parties

Parties can allocate multiple seats to single users.

the discussions will spiral to 4 pages when every MP only posts once

Not if each Party Leader's vote is considered the default vote for all of the seats in their entire party. MPs would only need to vote if they disagreed with their party leader.

[Clausewitz]

Easily remedied by having a bar that of say 3-4% that a party must have. What you are proposing is not workable since there are only 87 people that have voted. Meaning in a parliament we'd need 13 more people from somewhere to pop up into existence and start posting for their parties,

No, because party leaders are able to assign multiple seats, and party leaders are able to represent multiple seats, as stated in the Provisional Constitution:

# Each Party Leader after that point will have the option of assigning its apportioned seats to Party members. Party members may be assigned multiple seats. Whether and how such seats are distributed is left to the determination of individual parties.

the discussions will spiral to 4 pages when every MP only posts once and logistically votes would have to be open for at least as long as the election has to make sure everyone has had a chance to vote.

No, as the Provisional Constitution states:

# Party leaders may declare the vote of their party on a piece of legislation. Seats assigned to the party leader and seats assigned to members of his party that did not report their position in the thread will be presumed to vote with the party leader.

Which means that, in order for all 100 seats to be spoken for, only the nine party leaders in Parliament need post in the thread.

edit: dilpill beat me to it.

[Falx]

Yes, but what you propose is optional, a smaller party could easily fill out all its seats with members and then be able to shout down the larger parties by simple volume of posts. This is a recipe for anarchy in parliament, all you'd have to do is swamp the discussion/voting thread and the thing essentially becomes meaningless. And if rules aren't put in place to prevent that I as a small party would be an idiot not to abuse it.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Easy solution: one representative per viewpoint per party.

[Fasces]

The only anarchy that exists is the kind that exists between leaders. We might as well accept that.

[Falx]

Easy solution: one representative per viewpoint per party.

Really, so that's an easy solution? Well see, my party actually doesn't have a view point on anything so it means we will fill out our seats every time.