/go/ - Golden Oaks

Thread Repository


Welcome to the new code.
If you want to see the latest posts from all boards in a convenient way please check out /overboard/
Note: JS is required to be able to post, but I am working on a system where that won't be needed.


mlpol parlment with seats.png
/mlpol/ Parlement
Anonymous
MAQaR
?
No.2738
2739 2743 2745 2748 2768 2778 2822 2835 2979 3061 3183
Let’s play a game /mlpol/. We create a parliament and create board rules and make other things regarding the board.

>How does it work.
Step one, we need some political parties. For a party to exist you need to write up a party manifesto make a logo and chose a color. The manifesto must also state where you lie on political issues, this can be super broad or very specific, but the more people that understand what you stand for the easier it'll be to get anons to vote for your party. It also might be helpful to name/tripfag if you create a party. Here an example:
Party Party Not a real party as of now
Manifesto:
1. /mlpol/ is a fun board.
2. /mlpol/ is a nice board.
3. Being no fun will not be allowed. If you are not fun, you'll be BANNED!
4. If you’re a commie you’re not fun.
5. On Sunday you need to post horse pussy at least once or you’re not being fun.
Stance on issues is conservative center left. Distributism is good if effective. But destroying traditions is no fun!
Ect

As soon as we get two parties up and running the two parties will get one seat each seat and all parties that join will also get two seats. There is a 10-party cap so that we don't have a terribly large amount of anons making parties that are very similar.

After the parties are formed we can get to the meat of it which is anons voting. The votes here will work differently. Say which party you want to join and the party will be given an extra seat. Your vote can also be used to remove a seat from a political party. Everyone including party founders get three votes with their ID for max chaos. The game will continue till we reach 23, and as soon as its hit voting is over.

Once voting is over we can go full LARP and each party leader, or the person who made the party and wrote the manifesto, will chose anons who loyally voted for him to become members of parliament. Here we will draft legislation and make arbitrary rules based on the manifesto. All which will be non-binding unless, say the mods for whatever reason don't veto it when it leaves the lower house of parliament.

SO LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

441 replies and 122 files omitted.
States Rights Party
!CDhbRlFpIc
DAw+0
?
No.3180
>>3178
I would have normally agreed with you should this political system actually have power. But this is simply a game where a single unified state simply limits the potential of interesting debates and situations for the parties do deal with. I support districts.

Now if the districts agree to merge at a later date there is nothing to stop them from doing so. That can be a major campaigning platform, showing how the districts are failing and need to converge, should that be the case.
TSDWHP
!!xkNBCnfiY2
q9s//
?
No.3181
3182
>>3178
Here Here!
>>3176
The Stern Disappointment With Hitler Party intends to vote against this proposal, assuming it is ever seconded, in favor of proportionate representation.
Anonymous
s70p1
?
No.3182
>>3181
I stand with you, great Party Leader.
April First Party
!DZdi0rA1dg
1x6VQ
?
No.3183
3184 3185 3188 3224
1508215494379.png
>>2738
I present to /mlpol/ the April First Party's election reform rule change bill.

1. Voting will take place in a new thread every Sunday.
2. In order for your vote to be counted you need to type V in the subject line.
3. Every anon will have 2 votes he can use to vote separately for a party and 1 against.
4. When an anon votes he must cast all his ballets at once or forfeit his ability to cast it for others latter.
5. Unlimited amounts of parties can enter into the election but they must have 3 separate anons other then the party founder state that the party should be allowed into the general election.
6. Make the total number of seats in the parliament at 27 instead of 23.
7. Make the parliament a percentage proportional representation system.
TSDWHP
!!xkNBCnfiY2
q9s//
?
No.3184
3197
>>3183
There's parts of this I dislike, the reduction and limitation on votes and the difficulty of starting new parties for instance, but that's the price paid for not making my own proposal. Hopefully this can be further amended someday to adress those issues, but seeing as we are on the eve of the weekend and we need a solution now;

The Stern Disappointment With Hitler Party seconds this proposal.
spoon party
!lHlgiwKT9g
6Zvan
?
No.3185
3186 3187 3197
destroy this mad brute.jpg
>>3183

i have a question by saying "they must have 3 separate anons other than the parties founder state the party should be allowed into the general election" dose this mean they need at least 3 votes from other anons? if so this will effectively destroy small parties other than this i support it
April First Party
!DZdi0rA1dg
1x6VQ
?
No.3186
>>3185
No it means that you must have a unique platform that'll make others want to allow your party to exist.
In all of our cases we'd only need to have 3 separate anons respond to our restated manifestos and claim they'd be interested in voting for our parties. It does not mean they'd have to, but only that they'd like to see your party participate in the election.
TSDWHP
!!xkNBCnfiY2
q9s//
?
No.3187
>>3185
It's worded to imply the creation of new parties anon. You're weird monarchy thing should be fine, unless you're voted out of existence like those NazBols.
Anonymous
x/on7
?
No.3188
3189
>>3183
>>3183
I reject the bill.
April First Party
!evMH48q5pk
5/9Ez
?
No.3189
3190 3191
IMG_1171.PNG
>>3188
I had a feeling you Epona LARPers were just sudo federalists. But what else would I expect from someone who rejects the one true God.
Cult of Epona
!!cNtiy2GFsE
x/on7
?
No.3190
33954.jpg
>>3189
Name calling will get you nowhere, only make you lose the dwindling allies you have. Federalist-baiting is a rather shitty move on your part, so I lose respect for you.
States Rights Party
!CDhbRlFpIc
3pMsD
?
No.3191
>>3189
>tfw the States Rights Party, which has listed as its first part to their manifesto that they follow Christian values, agrees with the group that rejects the one true God.
Anonymous
WFIgx
?
No.3192
3193
Well, this seems interesting. Instead of this parliament being left vs right, it's authoritarian/unitary vs libertarian/federalist. And it's already caused each side to have two different parties supporting its cause.
Cult of Epona
!!cNtiy2GFsE
x/on7
?
No.3193
3194 3195
>>3192
That would be pathetic though since the federalist parties aren't actually fighting at all. My final call ia that we have a majority threshold with the minimum being 17 seats.
Cult of Epona
!!cNtiy2GFsE
x/on7
?
No.3194
>>3193
is*
Anonymous
WFIgx
?
No.3195
3196
>>3193
If your party is in favor of a federalist reform bill, then propose one.
Cult of Epona
!!cNtiy2GFsE
x/on7
?
No.3196
3197
>>3195
I have never been a federalist, however I will draft legislation if I need to. Now is this is the time. Expect a proposal soon.
April First Party
!DZdi0rA1dg
5/9Ez
?
No.3197
3198
Spoilered
>>3196
If it is to include a federalist system then the April First Party will never accept it.
>>3185
>>3184
If it is that important I will amend the bill to only needing two additional anon to second one's party platform for it to enter in elections. This way it'll allow many parties to enter in elections but will also keep (((bad parties))) out of the electoral system if (((they))) pop up again.
spoon party
!lHlgiwKT9g
6Zvan
?
No.3198
>>3197
OK with that amendment i support the system
Anonymous
IhTet
?
No.3199
>>3170
I get what Schlomo here says. It's role playing and everyone being a right wing party will make it boring.

Only issue I have is that some people take role playing really fucking seriously. I know from experience, especially with dealing with fucking niggers (yes, actual niggers), jews, thots, and sjws on xat wanting to be white anime characters taking their rping seriously and being edgelords or just going around trying to cyber with anyone. Obviously I highly doubt things will become that messed up, but there always is potential for community fallout over policies/taking some parts of the rping seriously. Especially if they disagree on board issues.

That's where it becomes a bit slippery.
Block Logical Mentalities
!WucExM5M5.
TmZX2
?
No.3200
3201 3207
sheeeit.png
blm flag after a day.jpg
ntte.jpg
the "Block Logical Mentalities" movement DEMANDS representation in Parliament, for too long illogical mentalities have been oppressed. We demand reparations for our logic OR full representation to make decisions in government to put ourselves first. After all we wuz kangs.

allow us in or we riot!

- we wuz representatives 'n sheeit
- we dindu nuffin to nobody
- our feelings matter!
- we got dem jordans
- whytes are race-es
- Jews are a-OK as long as we get food stamps
- nigga be takin our shit like dey chicken wangz

Anonymous
K2Mwi
?
No.3201
3202
>>3200
You forgot one thing
- free kool-aid
Block Logical Mentalities
!WucExM5M5.
TmZX2
?
No.3202
>>3201
whyte-y has a good point.

- free cool-aid and grape drank


Cult of Epona
!!cNtiy2GFsE
x/on7
?
No.3203
3204 3224 3229
1078448.png
The Diet Proposal - Election and Parliament Reform

Further detailed is a reform of the current system, so that it fosters a competitive, formal post-election government.
Details:
-A party or coalition must have a minimum of nine seats to form a majority and can only have a maximum of fourteen seats in a ruling government.
-The government will be divided into two houses. The Upper House (comprising of the majority) and the Lower House (comprising of the non-majority parties.) Each ruling party member of the Upper House will hold one vote per proposal whereas those of the Lower House votes are counted as a half vote.
-Any party may join the Lower House, or they may choose to stand as an opposition outside the current government.
-As a possible suggestion, the Lower House may only allow two members into the Lower House. The Upper House will not be under this restriction.
-The Lower House may not draft legislation.
-Elections can be called on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.
-In order for proposals/bills to be passed, they must have a seventy percent approval after five votes or when the Upper House has ended voting on it. Tie breakers can be solved by flipping a coin.
-During any moment may the majority of the Upper House vote to dissolve a government. Elections can be immediately called from there.
-A representative must be present for each party in order for it to be eligible for vote on election day. A voter may take up leadership if there is none.
-One vote goes to your party and the rest of the two for others.
-In order for a vote to be counted, a voter must use their three votes before the election ends.
-Following post-election, one may only stand as a representative for a single party. They must identify themselves with their allegiance clearly, and cannot vote for others, or else be dismissed.
-There will be a map with landmarks and no districts which the government may decide to shape. Certain parts of the map may be voted to become more autonomous, but only with a eighty percent voting approval.
-A 27 seat parliament.
Anonymous
WFIgx
?
No.3204
3205
>>3203
While I may not support your proposal, I must give my appreciation to your representation of Epona.
Anonymous
x/on7
?
No.3205
3206
>>3204
What is it that you don't support?
Anonymous
WFIgx
?
No.3206
3207
>>3205
Splitting the parliament into two houses, 70% approval needed for bills to be passed, and how the map works into the voting process. I would like to hear your arguments on these.
Anonymous
x/on7
?
No.3207
3208
>>3206
Splitting the parliament into houses creates meaning to winning the election, unlike now which it is basically free-for-all with one louder voice. All parties can vote, however parties like these >>3200 have less considerable power with their vote if they are in the Lower House. Otherwise their vote counts just the same as everyone else's. Not that they should be oppressed or any other losing party, but losing should feel like losing. Bad ideas can shunned electorally and other such things. I'm proposing some dynamic order without devolving into federalism.
The percentage of approval needed I considered a bit. I felt that the number needed to be both lenient, but definitive. At first, I had considered 60%, but I felt that could lead to less desirable bills. Although I wouldn't mind adjustment. Anyways, I think the approval percentage could just get proposals passed no matter the opposition of some descent instead of it being scrapped with one vote.
The map will not affect elections at all, but be more like a world building simulation. The government perhaps could vote to build a new landmark or something. New variables could be added on.

Also, there should be a wall of legislation passed that way we remember what has been done. Maybe somethings could repealed as well later on, and that could lead to debate.
Anonymous
WFIgx
?
No.3208
3209
>>3207
I suggested earlier that the majority party (or parties if the majority is held by a coalition) could simply just be the only party (or parties) to propose legislation. I'm not sure why this couldn't work in one House.

I fear also that 70% would be too high for any bill to get through, but with multiple small parties, this might not be an issue.

Though that version of the map sounds neat, I must admit.
Anonymous
x/on7
?
No.3209
>>3208
I stand by my suggestion. Losing parties could stand to become more fierce in opposition with less power. Taking things into account, we don't radically oppose. I've considered the numbers that won the last election, and The Diet can accomadate multiple parties without a coalition (as long as a party is willing to lose seats to get in.)
60% then.
Cult of Epona
!!cNtiy2GFsE
x/on7
?
No.3210
3211 3212 3214 3222
Elections?
States Rights Party
!CDhbRlFpIc
3pMsD
?
No.3211
>>3210
I thought so, but we will see.
Anonymous
s70p1
?
No.3212
3213 3215
>>3210
If we're going be how inactive certain parties are, how many parties are currently ded?
Anonymous
x/on7
?
No.3213
3215
>>3212
About 4, 5, or 6.
spoon party
!lHlgiwKT9g
6Zvan
?
No.3214
3217
>>3210
are we still holding them today because i am about to go tho sleep and i cant get on tomorrow
Block Logical Mentalities
!ju2TEf0tbU
TmZX2
?
No.3215
3216
>>3212
>>3213
dey only ded cuz whytey be slayen um for doin nuttin wong
Block Logical Mentalities
!ju2TEf0tbU
TmZX2
?
No.3216
421566_110052819134743_1827862103_n.jpg
>>3215
>not the correct trip
Sheeeeeeeeeit
Anonymous
s70p1
?
No.3217
3218
>>3214
I'm not even sure if we decided what voting system to use.
Anonymous
x/on7
?
No.3218
3219
>>3217
Alright, let's make a grand referendum for which system to use. First, let's list the main proposals.
Anonymous
s70p1
?
No.3219
3220
>>3218
Property and Freedom Party's Proposal:
- Electorate split into districts
- Weekly/Biweekly elections, with each district's elections being independent from the others
- All seats have a voice
- Standing coalitions
- A Head of Parliment

April First Party's Proposal:
- Weekly elections on Sunday in new threads
- V is required in the subject line for your votes to count
- All Anons get two votes for and one vote against any parties they choose
- All votes must be cast at one time
- Unlimited parties, with all parties requiring at least two other Anons supporting it
- 27 parliamentary seats
- Proportional representation voting system

Cult of Epona's Proposal:
- Parties or coalitions need at least nine seats to form a majority, and the majority is capped at fourteen seats
- Two houses: an Upper House made up of the majority party or coalition whose votes are worth one vote, and a Lower House made up of every other party whose votes are worth half
- Unlimited parties
- The Lower House only allows two reps per party, and cannot draft legislation
- Weekly elections on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday
- At least 70% of the parliament must vote in favor of a bill for it to pass
- The Upper House can vote to dissolve the government, after which new elections can be called
- All parties must have at least one rep present for it to be eligible for voting
- Three votes per Anon, with one vote going to your party, and two going to any others, and all must be used before the end of the election
- All reps may only serve a single party
- No districts, but there is a map that landmarks can be added to through proposals
- 27 seat parliament

I think I got all that right. Let me know if anything's off.
Anonymous
x/on7
?
No.3220
3221
>>3219
Change the approval percent to 60% please.
Anonymous
s70p1
?
No.3221
>>3220
I'll just leave this note here, then.

Cult of Epona's Proposal:
- At least 60% of the parliament must vote in favor of a bill for it to pass
April First Party
!DZdi0rA1dg
MAQaR
?
No.3222
3223
K09RXRL.png
>>3210
Sorry anons someone I knew got sick and I had to take care of them yesterday. I'm reading the Cult's proposal then I hope we can get this parliamentary reform legislation through and then have a formal vote and elections soon™.
Anonymous
s70p1
?
No.3223
>>3222
Shit. Sorry to hear that.
Electoral Reform Bill Proposal
Property and Freedom Party
!!IgxE6likhE
x86j4
?
No.3224
3225 3229
MLPOLEquestrianDistrictsWithMarkers.png
MLPOLEquestrianDistrictsWithMarkersAndSeats.jpg
>>3203
My main objection with a bicameral parliament of this nature is, firstly, that no party is likely to attain a majority and, secondly, it gives too much power to this ruling power with the others having substantially less representation.

>>3183
I appreciate your ideas but they are too simplistic. I hope you recover soon.

Distinguished Ministers of Parliament:

As the founder of the Property and Freedom Party I hereby retake the reigns as its President. The position of Vice President is open for an active and loyal member, preferably with a timezone in the Americas or Europe.

After extensive private deliberation and refinement the PFP proposes two different modifications to its original proposal for election reform:

1) The /mlpol/ Parliament adopts picture #1 as its electoral map, with one seat representing one district on the map. By coincidence when drafting the map there arose twenty-four districts; therefore, a simple modification by merging two districts would match it with our current house. Of course, this means that we must maintain merely 23 seats. Alternatively, we could adopt the U.S. Senate structure and let one district maintain two seats each. Geography would be rendered less relevant due to this comparatively centralized system.

In the form of voting, the electoral process would be proportional as votes would be tallied up and allocated according to percentage. All members would have only one vote and voting would take place on Sunday. As actual seats could not be well-allocated, the President and Vice-President of each party would represent voters directly and allocate their seats in support or opposition of each proposed bill. A majority of votes is needed to pass a bill.

Standing coalitions would be permitted.

2) The /mlpol/ Parliament adopts picture #2 as its electoral map, with each district containing a different number of seats (signified by number of hakenkreuz). According to the proposed map, which roughly distributes seats according to population distribution, the Parliament would grow to 57 seats. Each province, containing three to five districts, would have a limited amount of autonomy.

The voting process would be as such: on Saturday, preceding the voting on Sunday, an anon would announce candidacy in a province and/or assign up to three votes in one or more provinces (the three votes are cumulative across the whole map). Candidacy means simply managing for one’s party whatever seats it has in a particular province and is exclusive to one member of that party; if necessary, the party President has the authority to remove that Anon (who must name himself as the province candidate) and invest another in his place. After voting, the votes for each party in that particular province are tallied and distributed proportionally. Each party gets a number of seats within the province according to the closest ratio to the original. The candidate now has authority over these seats to use within Parliament. District geography within the region is irrelevant (though, one should be able to request specific districts; I imagine the National Bolsheviks may want Stalliongrad for themselves).

Let’s have a practical example: suppose the founder of the April First Party is running within the Canterlot (or Capital) Region and the founder of the Epona Cult is doing the same. It is a tough race for both, as while other members of these parties are running in other provinces, they also send votes to help their presidents. By the end of voting, the AFP has 10 votes, the EC has 7, and the Veterans’ Party (which was diverting its resources elsewhere) has 1. The President of Parliament, according to the percentages, gives the AFP 6 seats, EC 4 seats, and the Veterans’ Party none. On the map, this may show as Canterlot having two black swastikas, Ponyville having one, Cloudsdale having two, and Crystal Empire having one; the rest are brown. The AFP president now can use six seats directly in Parliament and has de jure control over the Capital Region, with the EC leader the minority leader. Other results pan out across each province and the various seats would be controlled by different party members.

We would have a President of Parliament to convene and adjourn sessions, keep proceedings in order, distribute seats after voting, and ensure fair and honest elections. If he is considered unsatisfactory, any party president can challenge him and an impeachment vote will commence; if two thirds of seats vote (YAY) he will be removed and another will be voted in. In regular sessions, a majority of votes is required to pass a bill.

Standing coalitions would be permitted.

Discussion, criticism, and counter-proposals are welcome and encouraged. We desire a compromise solution that will benefit /mlpol/ as a whole, but our Parliament must remain federalized, unicameral, and with some measure of checks and balances that reward strategy while giving small parties a chance.
Anonymous
x/on7
?
No.3225
3226 3227
>>3224
>no party is likely to attain a majority
Simply form a coalition. There's room for three parties with three seats to gain the majority; or in the case of the last election, a party with 5 seats and another with 4 or one smaller party added with one seat. Or, a party can simply gain 9 seats if it can. Which 5 more seats can be open to negotiation. By default, the Upper House can be comprised of 9 seats, or any number up to 14.
The design is to ensure that the democratically favoured party/parties forms a government without conflicting interests while the unitary nature of the parliament is maintained. Rejecting this principle is rejecting the proposal.
My criticism of your proposal is something I thought I would never say to any libertarian, but your reform is far too complex to understand and needs to codified to be simpler. That's excusing that your bill is republican, how scattered legislation can be imagined to be (especially when considering multiple ruling parties), and the sheer burden on the parliament president to maintain order. The president aspect being the most questionable. All of his roles are easily done by an entire parliament. And, the weight of his power is understated in your words when he can distribute seats after elections. He has too much power because of that. On the other end of the spectrum, any autonomy will prove unwieldy. Overall, I reject on two main aspects. It's federal which isn't a unitary government isn't. And, its checks and balances, which is a quality of a republic. I do however commend your interpretation of a federal parliament. It's a sophisticated design, but it's not for us.
Anonymous
x/on7
?
No.3226
>>3225
Also, the issues with simplification strikes at how vague in some parts the Electoral Reform Bill can be.
Property and Freedom Party
!!IgxE6likhE
70NxT
?
No.3227
3228
>>3225
>unitary
This is where we're going to have to disagree, I'm afraid. The PFP opposes centralizing power, as does the States' Rights Party and (to a lesser extent) the Epona Cult. Also, the ruling-coalition-hunting reminds me of the contemporary German style. I'd like to avoid getting a Merkel, thank you.

>too complicated and difficult to understand
Proposal #1 is far more simplistic and unitary. I prefer #2 more obviously, but I would be willing to compromise to some extent.

>multiple ruling parties
Having the majority in a province is almost purely aesthetic and for prestige reasons; it allows for greater role-play as a party member hails from a specific spot on the map.

>sheer burden on the parliament president to maintain order
Yet one is clearly needed. Otherwise, we tend to digress into unrelated discussions. A collective parliament could not announce commencement or adjournment, maintain relevance, or adjust maps/parliament seats. OP already de facto has these duties; these just codify them.

>too much power
If elections are transparently conducted on this board then any anon could call him out if he abuses his power. After all, the number of votes in each province is readily calculated.
Anonymous
x/on7
?
No.3228
3231
>>3227
>1
I don't know how the Epona Cult is opposed to centralising power. I suppose one could point to tribal paganism, but even tribal structures showed hierarchy such as the Germanic tribes which had a pseudo aristocracy based on physical traits. The Romans too were very authoritarian. The Cult of Epona as a party is a religious organisation, and ironically the decisions of this party does not reflect on doctrine.
>This is where we're going to have to disagree
The parliament has always been unitary. Despite my antagonism towards the April 1st Party, our views on the parliament more closely align and even bicameralism has been hinted at since the beginning:
>Here we will draft legislation and make arbitrary rules based on the manifesto. All which will be non-binding unless, say the mods for whatever reason don't veto it when it leaves the lower house of parliament.
>ruling-coalition-hunting reminds me of the contemporary German style
My proposal is based on the English model, but takes the most inspiration from the Japanese. The current English parliament by the way has a decentralised body of practice (look it up) without any of federal qualities of the US which you seem to take the greatest inspiration from. I see from your characterisation of the German that you unitary states for being too centralised, however from my experience of the UK's parliament, the government appeases too much to all parties.
>Proposal #1 is far more simplistic and unitary. I prefer #2 more obviously, but I would be willing to compromise to some extent.
>Having the majority in a province is almost purely aesthetic and for prestige reasons; it allows for greater role-play as a party member hails from a specific spot on the map.
I will have to have a further explanation of what you mean by how the "electoral process would be proportional as votes would be tallied up and allocated according to percentage". I otherwise don't see the use of districts if the districts are just aesthetic beyond senate (which doesn't seem to need them.)
>Yet one is clearly needed.
On the contrary, unless we didn't digress into unrelated discussions, we wouldn't be here discussing electoral form. In spite of OP, the collective house has shifted to a topic without his rallying. Although he may be leader at one point, I could be the next and any other and others have as well; it's natural leadership that occurs in which all standing speakers are equals. There's no need to take this away and codify it into a single role. Whose position may serve to bring more debate who should fill it than it fostering naturally. I think the appointment is frivolous with or without impeachment rights.
April First Party
!DZdi0rA1dg
MAQaR
?
No.3229
3230 3231 3233
1493584731616-3.png
Sorry for taking so long its been a crazy week, a family member I was visiting had a heart attack while I was visiting and I was the only one around so I've been trying to balance that all with everyday life. I'd say most of the chaos has calmed down at this point so hopefully I can get back to LARPing in a Nazi pony election.

>>3203
>1 through 5
I'm not too sure about codifying a bicameral system into it rather then it just being an unwritten rule. I see your taking inspiration from the British system however I think your getting a bit head of yourself with trying to institute new rules for the parliament when we need election reform first. I'd mainly agree with your ideas in practice but codifying them as such would seem a bit arbitrary would it not?
Guess you could argue we won't do it unless its written down specifically but I think I've also made my point, the British don't have it written down and they still practice it.
>6 and 8
I like this idea a bit more but for simplicity's sake it should be narrowed down to 2 or 3 days instead. I'd say Friday and Sunday personally but I'd be open to other options.
>7
This is a bit more arbitrary since we are broadly representing our parties. We likely won't have individuals straying from the group and so it would be pretty pointless.
>9, 12, and 14
We have a total of 25+ anons that visit here on a good day. If we boost the number up to 27 reps and require one to represent each seat we'd need to decrease the total. I'd say I'd much prefer it but given the choices between decreasing parliament's size for reps that will likely behave in the same way their party leaders ask or form parties that have the same platform and divide the vote or a simpler party leader and additional rep system I'd say the latter is better for the sake of practicality.
>10-11
As the one who counted the votes last time going with this again is hard for the audience to view. I'd suggest my rules over this mostly because its more clear and so it'd be better overall.
>13
I am willing to compromise on this, with the exception that we can also take back the regions autonomy.
So overall I'd agree with the practices of coalition but don't think they need to be written down. I think calling elections at will is good and I am willing to compromise on making a map that can be given autonomy to regions that ask, but the parliament must also be able to take it away. Lastly I dislike the idea of one rep = one anon since it'll make the game much more difficult to work.

>>3224
I was sorta hoping we could make a map like /mlp/'s as a separate project but lets get to the meat of this.
>proposal 1
>electoral map, with one seat representing one district
>district
You know my answer on this. N O
>proposal 2
>picture #2 as its electoral map, with each district containing a different number of seats
>district
Same as above.

So a compromise
I'm willing to accept parts of cult's proposal such as regions being able to gain or have autonomy taken away on a vote, have the majority coalition call for re-election after a point, and have coalitions form. PFP's view on districts is just a no go for my party.

So tl;dr
April First Party revised Election reform
1. Voting can be called on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday by the governing coalition or plurality party.
2. In order for your vote to be counted you need to type V in the subject line.
3. Every anon will have 3 votes he can use to vote separately for a party and 1 against.
4. When an anon votes he must cast all his ballets at once or forfeit his ability to cast it for others later.
5. Unlimited amounts of parties can enter into the election but they must have 2 separate anons other then the party founder state that the party should be allowed into the general election.
6. Make the total number of seats in the parliament at 27 instead of 23.
7. Make the parliament a percentage proportional representation system.
8. Regions can vote for more autonomy and be given special status elections of their choice if parliament passes a law allowing such. But this can also be taken away. Parliament needs at least 2/3 of the legislature to give a region autonomy and 2/3 to have it taken away.

States Rights Party
!CDhbRlFpIc
3pMsD
?
No.3230
3232
526FF2B7-2B05-47C4-95F9-FFAA01512FCE.jpeg
>>3229
>family member had heart attack
Is everything ok now? You said the chaos is settling down, but forgot to mention if the person is ok now. I hope the recovery is going smoothly.

I feel like a jerk now that I have to disagree with you on these points. Just don’t take it personally.

>two separate anons must vote to allow into general election
I might be the only anon interested in my party and thus will be kept from the voting. Of course I can’t support this, my party would be signing itself to irrelevance!

>parliament can give autonomy and take it away
Nice try! If the Confederacy has statehood, it can’t be recalled without bloodshed. Our right to be a conscience supporter of this endeavor with the ability to withdraw should certain (((corruption))) come to power shall not be limited, let alone removed!
Property and Freedom Party
!!IgxE6likhE
s16/b
?
No.3231
3232
NotanArgumentLeslieFaire.png
>>3228
>further explanation
Each of the six provinces would have semi-separate elections conducted simultaneously. Once concluded each province would have votes tallied for each candidate. The percentage would then be calculated by dividing the total: V/n. This proportion of seats then goes to the candidate from the region's total. Each party can have up to six candidates and with ten parties there can therefore be almost sixty anons directly involved in the election process (but twenty would be the ideal number for efficiency.

The idea of splitting party power among "candidates" across regions who each hold seats is to balance power. If the party president does something execrable then his affiliates can vote against him if they think it necessary. It is also less chaotic than simply assigning a vote to every anon.

Districts are aesthetic but provinces are less so. By splitting power concentration a party, rather than trying to win through sheer number of votes, could attempt to skim as many votes as possible across the map or seek dominance in a particular region. This system enabling strategy has more F.U.N. levels than a pure popularity contest.

>Single leadership not necessary
Someone still needs to keep the seat count accurate and update the pictures. We can debate on the official powers that are necessary; I consider the "call into order" necessary only when the Parliament cannot agree on what to debate (as does happen). Also, it is more convenient for everyone to have a handy list of proposals to vote for rather than respond to individual posts.

>>3229
>family member had heart attack
I hope your relative has a speedy recovery. I don't know if its worse to have sole responsibility over the person having a heart attack or to find out after the fact through correspondence with another family member.

>Revised platform
I agree only with self-designating one's post as a vote. Everything else is a solid NAY.
April First Party
!DZdi0rA1dg
1yRN/
?
No.3232
1496497678551.png
>>3230
>Is everything ok now?
Yep its everything is going well now.
>Of course I can’t support this, my party would be signing itself to irrelevance!
I doubt that two other anons wouldn't show interest in voting for a neo-confederacy party. This is moreover a safeguard against too many political parties or bad political parties entering into government.
>Confederacy has statehood, it can’t be recalled without bloodshed.
Unitary systems allow regions to have more autonomy including in legislatures but also must be given the ability to take it away if they so chose, otherwise its a federalized system which I'm 100% against and will not vote for. I also will not vote for any proposal that Starts with parliament having pre-planned districts or autonomous regions. If a region wants to become autonomous 1 they need to prove to us all that they are different enough from /mlpol/ in general that they deserve it, and 2 that it can somehow have its own elections separate from ours. But we must have the option to re-integrate them when they're culture begins to reflect that of our own again. This is where I'm willing to compromise if you wish to take a hardline stance on it then we'll have to wait on others to agree instead.
>>3231
>I agree only with self-designating one's post as a vote.
I'd honestly like having a seat filled by someone else if it seemed possible but at the moment it does not.
>Everything else is a solid NAY
Understandable.
Cult of Epona
!!cNtiy2GFsE
x/on7
?
No.3233
3234
>>3229
>I'd mainly agree with your ideas in practice but codifying them as such would seem a bit arbitrary would it not?
I don't think so since we don't practice them in reality, nor is the structure present. Nonetheless, you have shown interest, so I will back down and save the revised proposal for later. My concern is for 3 anon rule, and I suggest shortening it into 2. Otherwise, with leniency, I am giving your reform an AYE.
April First Party
!DZdi0rA1dg
1x6VQ
?
No.3234
>>3233
Done! Revised bill.

1. Voting can be called on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday by the governing coalition or plurality party.
2. In order for your vote to be counted you need to type V in the subject line.
3. Every anon will have 2 votes he can use to vote separately for a party and 1 against.
4. When an anon votes he must cast all his ballets at once or forfeit his ability to cast it for others later.
5. Unlimited amounts of parties can enter into the election but they must have 2 separate anons other then the party founder state that the party should be allowed into the general election.
6. Make the total number of seats in the parliament at 27 instead of 23.
7. Make the parliament a percentage proportional representation system.
8. Regions can vote for more autonomy and be given special status elections of their choice if parliament passes a law allowing such. But this can also be taken away. Parliament needs at least 2/3 of the legislature to give a region autonomy and 2/3 to have it taken away.
Property and Freedom Party
!!IgxE6likhE
+qGLF
?
No.3235
3236 3240
It has been over a week since Parliament has last been called into session. We still have two or three highly disparate electoral reform bills.

What are the opinions of the minor parties?
Anonymous
UAatD
?
No.3236
>>3235
Gas the kikes.
Anonymous
OX/NB
?
No.3237
3238 3240 3246
Gleaming Shield Gift wrapped whore3.png
Sunset Horsefucker11.png
Poprocks - Scootaloo.png
I've been skimming over this thread, and I'm seeing a lot of good autism going on, but...

Where's my Horse Pucci Party?

>1. Ponies not infringed
>2. Suffer not the (((Shills))) to live.
>3. Defense budget spent on R&D for Horse Pucci grenades.

Who here best supports my values? I am a concerned citizen that glows in the dark.

Also:
>Clarify stances on race mixing. Are zebras a good fuck that should be sterilized, or do they get reproductive rights?
Cult of Epona
!!cNtiy2GFsE
x/on7
?
No.3238
3239 3240
>>3237
>horse pucci party
>no horse pussy posted in sight
>only anthro
Fake party.

I now claim de facto dictatorship.
Anonymous
OX/NB
?
No.3239
3241 3245
Alles Guter.jpg
Bouncing Booty.gif
Annoyed dick boop anon filly.png
Cocoa panties2.png
Flick.png
>>3238
>No Horse Pucci
There's no need to drop McNukes when an assassination is fine.

Anonymous
1yRN/
?
No.3240
3242 3245 3248
>>3235
Yeah sorta just been waiting on the smaller parties. As soon as the motion passes by everyone approving the new measure or one of the ones currently up then we'll continue.
>>3238
>I now claim de facto dictatorship.
No!
>>3237
I'd vote for that.
Anonymous
K2Mwi
?
No.3241
>>3239
Did someone say McNukes?
spoon party
!lHlgiwKT9g
6Zvan
?
No.3242
3243 3248
>>3240
who hasn't voted
Anonymous
1yRN/
?
No.3243
3244
>>3242
Well I revised the old one so (you)
spoon party
!lHlgiwKT9g
6Zvan
?
No.3244
>>3243
if that is the case then i vote for property and freedoms party's reforms
Cult of Epona
!!cNtiy2GFsE
x/on7
?
No.3245
3247 3249
unknown.png
>>3240
The first step in obtaining rule is stamping out dissidents.
>>3239
That's three nukes for you every picture you post that doesn't show a proper horse pussy.
Anonymous
WFIgx
?
No.3246
3247
1513698917230-0.gif
>>3237
>no horsepussy
>anthro
>pic #1 is a foursome (degenerate and gay)
>pic #2 features an asshole as big around as your fist (just disgusting-looking)
>pic #3 is zebra domination of a minor (degenerate as all hell)

Alright, turn in your Horsefucker badge, now. You don't deserve to savor the horsepussy.
Anonymous
OX/NB
?
No.3247
3275 3276
Lemming facts with Rockwell too.png
Actual love before I browse all this heathen shit.png
Aryanne for the emperor.jpg
Baking Cream Pies.jpg
Buzzing while you twerk.gif
>>3246
>Ignoring my second post
I save the good stuff for myself. The masses are generally degenerate lemmings. You won't be able to change their minds with Horse Pucci Propaganda.

Only the truly righteous can appreciate the real thing - a loving, caring relationship, and a life with purpose.

Besides
>>3245
>>3246
>Purity spirals
There's no need to kill degenerates until they harm society by trying to make the world like themselves. They will be purged when they start doing the whole "gay pride parade" thing.
Anonymous
OX/NB
?
No.3248
Cock worship2.png
>>3240
Thank you for your support, citizen!

>>3242
I have not voted, however it appears the current seats have been filled. The Horse Pucci Party (HPP) will wait till the next election cycle to present its modest proposals for the advancement of the values we all hold dear:

1. Horse Pucci will not be infringed.
2. (((Shills))) get the rope/rake.
3. Studying better ways to expose people to our country, and identify the best immigrants possible (fishing R&D).
Anonymous
XL51w
?
No.3249
>>3245
>that pic
Hnnnnnnnnnng
Anonymous
NpVGo
?
No.3250
3251 3271
GET LOST YOU LYING FAG!!
I ALREADY WARNED YOU PIECE OF SHIT MOD!

YOU CANNOT BAN ME YOU LYING FAGGOT!!

I AM GOING TO KEEP YOU TIED-UP ALL NIGHT REGRETTING YOUR LIES YOU PIECE OF SHIT!!

ha ha ha ha ha I win again!

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST
Anonymous
OX/NB
?
No.3251
3252 3258 3271
Castration fetish ow.png
>>3250
Oh look, an internet badass over here...

Wrong thread to boot!
Anonymous
mqqRE
?
No.3252
3253 3255
5DD1D090-3C32-4780-99F3-5C352499B0DE.gif
>>3251
Do you know where to find the pic I need to see it ?
Anonymous
OX/NB
?
No.3253
3255
Screaming in traumatized.png
>>3252
That's the only evidence I have of its existence. I was not in the thread. The most terrifying part...

>3/5
Anonymous
OX/NB
?
No.3254
3271
A Job Well Done.png
>>124626
Get fucked outsider. You're payment has been deposited in the usual way.
Anonymous
uj04M
?
No.3255
3256 3257 3259 3271
Spoilered
>>3252
>>3253
Found The image. It is as bad, if not worse than your wildest imaginings.
Anonymous
XL51w
?
No.3256
3258 3259
>>3255
Translation?
Anonymous
wm+C4
?
No.3257
>>3255
Meh, not as bad as that screencap hyped up.
There's not even blood in the pic.
3/10.
Anonymous
uj04M
?
No.3258
3260
>>3256
See >>3251

Anonymous
OX/NB
?
No.3259
Gouging out my eyes.png
>>3255
You are a stronger anon than I.
>>3256
"Sweetie, be patient a little longer. I am almost finished."

At least, that's from the other picture.
Anonymous
XL51w
?
No.3260
3261
>>3258
Poor shining armor. i bet a kike drew that.
Anonymous
wm+C4
?
No.3261
3262 3263 3264
>>3260
He didn't do a good job with the pic.
Now, if the hook was going through the balls, and there was blood spurting everywhere, it would be a good gore image.
Anonymous
OX/NB
?
No.3262
3264
>>3261
Again...

>3/5
There are more pictures out there.
Anonymous
XL51w
?
No.3263
>>3261
Yea but shining is a white horse though. And yea the gore could be better.
Anonymous
uj04M
?
No.3264
3265 3266 3271
1433261956316.jpg
1448855582088.png
1448855781474.png
1448523090662.jpg
>>3261
>>3262
The thread is less gore and more cringe. Here are the rest of his images the anon posted.
Anonymous
OX/NB
?
No.3265
>>3264
Ah. Considering the material, I was expecting White Kitten.
Anonymous
wm+C4
?
No.3266
3267 3268 3269 3270 3271
Spoilered
>>3264
That anon did not know what true cringe is.
Anonymous
OX/NB
?
No.3267
A sign to stop.png
>>3266
Stop. We are getting off topic. This is parliament thread.
Anonymous
uj04M
?
No.3268
I Cringed.gif
>>3266
I felt that in my eye when I saw that. Holy shit.
Anonymous
XL51w
?
No.3269
>>3266
Damn that looks like it hurts.
TSDWHP
!!xkNBCnfiY2
q9s//
?
No.3270
3271
>>3266
*checks scout manual
"In case of a person being pierced by a fishing hook, push the hook through the skin, snip off the barb, then retract the remainder of the hook through the entrance wound"
Yer fucked mate.
Property and Freedom Party
!!IgxE6likhE
20iMw
?
No.3271
3272 3273
NervousSweatyTwilight.png
>>3250
>>3251
>>3254
>>3255
>>3264
>>3266
As much as I love anarchy this is the wrong thread for that. If you're going to have such pictures please have a parliament building as the setting or background.

>>3270
You'd better hope his mate is capable at eye surgery in the field.
TSDWHP
!!xkNBCnfiY2
q9s//
?
No.3272
>>3271
honestly that's the sort of injury that warrants exfiltration, the eye is a very sensitive and valuable organ.
Anonymous
wm+C4
?
No.3273
3274
Spoilered
>>3271
>If you're going to have such pictures please have a parliament building as the setting or background.

Anonymous
WFIgx
?
No.3274
>>3273
Somehow, that still doesn't make it any better.
Anonymous
x/on7
?
No.3275
3277
1474424236242.png
>>3247
>this entire post
What? Not only is the logic circular, it's downright contradictory.
Anonymous
s70p1
?
No.3276
3277
>>3247
>creates a Horse Pucci Party
>doesn't post horsepussy
>"I save the good stuff for myself."

Anon, your second post does nothing to refute what you posted.
Anonymous
OX/NB
?
No.3277
3278
Like what you see.png
>>3275
>>3276

Horse Pucci is meant to:
1. Drive away shills
2. Attract the attention of mods, like T-cells for White blood cells

>Doesn't post horsepucci
I corrected that in the second post to show that I do in fact have it. It's kind of a given for this board.

I guess in the future I'll just post pure stuff to keep you happy. I apologize if somehow the message got lost because you weren't face deep in ass pie.

>Circular logic
How so? Degeneracy doesn't really matter until it metestasizes. Until that point it is benign. Benign tumors are still good to remove, but unless they become aggressive, there is no real threat, and it's just cosmetic surgery.

In other words, leave the anthro alone. It's not that big of a deal.
Anonymous
x/on7
?
No.3278
3279
Spoilered
>>3277
>Benign tumors are still good to remove, but unless they become aggressive, there is no real threat, and it's just cosmetic surgery.
Fuck you. My father had benign tumours near his spine, and had crippling back pain until surgery, then some more a year plus a half after that. Your comparison not only falls out of your favour, but strengthens my position because of first hand experience with that shit. You think that bullshit can save you?
I find it funny that you would paint the "masses {as} generally degenerate lemmings", yet post anthro, upload zebra cuck porn, even pose the question if zebras should get reproductive rights (they shouldn't be allowed in the country!), and even defend degeneracy to an extent as long as it didn't cause harm. Actually, I never even see this type of degeneracy even in the porn thread! Almost as though you are the degenerate. No everyone else, nor a significantly broad portion. Anyways, at the time of my response to the initial post, you had continued to deny any wrongdoing posting anthro. Until now you dismissed it with sly remarks, which I still hold you to fault even if you did later do right on your part.
Also, you fail to understand my criticism. It's simple:
>you posted anthro under the horsepucci name
>false advertising
>deflection
Go ahead and like bad porn all you like, you can have shit taste. It's not an issue to me, but using the defence of degeneracy gets you into a sticky situation. The mention itself is irrelevant. You tried to pull it off though by circular reasoning by; calling the masses degenerate as an insult, defending degeneracy, then saying that anthro is okay because degeneracy is okay more or less. Degeneracy by definition is harmful; as degeneration of order. Like a slippery slope (gays for example being the causation of gay pride parades.) This line of thinking contradicts itself as I said.
Anonymous
OX/NB
?
No.3279
Aces for Ponytown.png
>>3278
Well, first off:
>Definition of benign: (of a disease) not harmful in effect.
>Benign tumors are still good to remove

Clearly, if a tumor is being harmful, it is not benign, and should be removed. I'm not advocating keeping around aggressive or abrasive cultures. By and large, most are - being an asshole tends to keep you alive when surrounded by assholes. That is just how survival works. However, hunting down every last degenerate faggot is pointless. Being able to state the goals, aims, and ideals of the society is far more important - this way, society at large can identify 'bad' behavior and self-police.

>Reproductive rights =/= race mixing
There's a difference between allowing a people to exist and have their own children vs. sterilizing them and genociding them. Sure, if that's the way you want to go, that's fine, just don't be surprised when you run into resistance. Even if you just want to kick people out into a different country, have fun trying to explain that to the poor country you are pushing them into. They just might arm those 'refugees,' and you'll create a bigger fucking problem. Better to think of something that suppresses a people without killing them...like porn.

>Lemmings
>Defending degeneracy
Most people ARE lemmings/normies/whatever you want to call them. They do degenerate things. Killing them all pulls you into a purity spiral, wherein there is no society left to protect. You will have killed them all. If you want fascism to work, you can't do that - you have to treat those degenerates like family. Would you kill your brother for being a fag? No. You would talk him out of it, knock any ideas of cutting his dick off out of his head, and in general just try to teach and show true compassion for his well being. If your brother just can't knock it off with the faggotry then you get him to do that shit on the down low, and not as a flaming disgrace to the family.

Allowing degeneracy to exist =/= Defending degeneracy. Degenerate things exist. Society should be against those degenerate things. That doesn't mean you burn everyone at the stake for it. America tried that with prohibition, and it didn't work.

>Slippery slope
Sure. Degeneracy IS harmful. You going to kill everyone at the top of the cliff? You will not only kill everyone around you, chances are good you will have to kill yourself eventually. No one is perfect.

Not even God prevented degeneracy completely - He just lets people live with the consequences of their actions (diseases, suffering, relationship problems, etc.).

>Go ahead and like bad porn all you like, you can have shit taste
That's basically the attitude you have to have towards degeneracy, or you're going to go to some very, very dark places.