Users browsing this thread:

~~Unibot~~ · 01-19-2015, 09:56 PM

Between January 23 to 25, the Great Council will hold a plebiscite to decide which proposal for bicameralism shall be voted on, consistent with our procedure established in Section 3.3 (Contradicting Laws). Note: you're allowed to have multiple proposals; for example, we might vote on "Tsunamy I" and "Tsunamy II". The plebiscite will use the proposer's name for short form to identify the different proposals.

Currently we have the following proposals,

Tsunamy I
Tsunamy II
Belschaft I
QuietDad I
Hopolis I

The plebiscite shall be conducted through the Condorcet/IRV method.

Drafters of bicameral proposals should try to formalize their proposals for January 23. This is your head's up. Good luck to everyone!

~~Unibot~~ · 01-19-2015, 09:57 PM

Note: I'm not so sure QuietDad I contradicts the other proposals - and it may be possible (and advisable) for it to be carefully written and submitted as a private member's bill as opposed to another bicameral proposal which will have to beat out the other bicameral proposals to reach the voting stage.

In fact since QuietDad's proposal isn't a bicameral proposal, I think it's kind of unfair to put it in the running against the other bicameral proposals.

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-19-2015, 10:00 PM

Will we have a thread that details the text of each proposal? Honestly it is a bit confusing to find out which one is X I or Y II, etc. The only one I really identify is Hopolis's proposal.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

~~Unibot~~ · 01-19-2015, 10:02 PM

(01-19-2015, 10:00 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Will we have a thread that details the text of each proposal? Honestly it is a bit confusing to find out which one is X I or Y II, etc. The only one I really identify is Hopolis's proposal.

I could do an annotated bibliography and a list. I'm worried though that the proposers might find my wording biased. On the other hand, I'm worried that some of the proposers might mislead voters with inaccurate annotations if I were to say "each proposer describe their own proposal".

I think the best solution is probably to list each proposals with links and encourage voters to read each proposals and judge them for themselves. I could do an unofficial annotation, on the side, if voters liked, just giving you the coles notes run-down on each proposal. But I would only do that on an unofficial basis.

(This post was last modified: 01-19-2015, 10:04 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-19-2015, 10:05 PM

I think your suggestion is good. My main concern is knowing which proposed text corresponds to which name, so a link (or a [quote])is pretty much what I was asking for.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 01-19-2015, 10:05 PM by sandaoguo.)

~~Unibot~~ · 01-19-2015, 10:07 PM

And yes, who knows: if Hopolis's proposal keeps gaining steam, maybe we'll cancel the plebiscite altogether if Tsunamy and Belschaft withdraw their proposals in favour of Hopolis's.

~~Unibot~~ · 01-19-2015, 10:08 PM

(01-19-2015, 10:05 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I think your suggestion is good. My main concern is knowing which proposed text corresponds to which name, so a link (or a

Quote:)is pretty much what I was asking for.

Oh yes, I had intended to link them, yes.

***Tsunamy*** · 01-20-2015, 12:22 AM

I'm happy to withdraw from proposals if we have a tacit agreement on Hop's proposal.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 01-20-2015, 06:01 AM

Unlike Tsu's and Hop's proposals which are both variants of bicameral systems, mine is a distinct unicameral system. I have no intention of withdrawing.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Darkstrait · 01-20-2015, 07:14 AM

Belschaft, you're screwed.
No offense meant by that, but the Hopolis proposal has gained momentum too quickly. I am sure that that will be the one going to vote.

Darkstrait :ninja:

Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek

"Hats is very fashion this year."

RP Info