/go/ - Golden Oaks

>>3079
Seeing how she is going to be teaching some griffons, I’m not to sure.

Just teasing. I definitely would have enjoyed a few glimmer memes to be honest.

>>3080
Glim Glam: shit-tier politics, okay- to good-tier memes.

Hopefully i can turn this from civilised parliament into australian parliament tier shitposts

>>2778
What is your stance on gingers? Do they get gassed too?

>>3082
Just pointing out, I can easily mistaken your party as the Martin Luther King party.

>>3084
/mlk/ is an old /k/ meme from pre GR-15 days after heaps of people started sharing their pone themed paintjobs

>>3085
Huh, the more you know. I'm a newfag.

>>3083
they look h'white to me.

>>3088
But they have no souls

>>3088
Don't listen to him! All male Gingers are secretly demons and all female gingers are secretly Sucubi

>>3090
At least they ain't coons, kikes, or mudslimes.

>>3057
>How to format elections
We need to have a map, perhaps what >>3065 has in mind. We could divide the map into a number of districts, each of which has a number of seats.
Then, in a combination of >>3059 and >>3064, we would hold separate elections for each district. Votes within each district would be tallied up and seats distributed accordingly. However, because each vote is counted across the whole map, i.e., one who votes three times in Las Pegasus cannot vote in Canterlot, there must be voting strategy. Thinning oneself out may net more seats but is inherently riskier, while even a small party could achieve major influence in a particular voting district.

>How many parties are allowed to enter in elections
I believe that the problem solves itself in my proposal. It is very unlikely that all ten (or so) parties would thin themselves out completely across every district.

>How many seats should be in parliament
With my proposal there could definitely be more without Parliament being thrown into chaos every election. We could either have a population-based system, where districts' seats are based on population (either canon or fanon), or we could have a fixed number for each district. We could not have a compromise U.S. Congress-style as it would require an absurd number of districts.

>How people in the parliament vote
This is the trickiest part. Ideally each seat would be controlled by a different anon, or an anon could control only up to 3 seats (because of our voting arrangements), as it could lead to interesting intra-party splits. If the party leadership dictates how every seat votes it's a bit dull. However, I do not see how any sort of direct-representative system could be easily implemented with the above proposal, doubly so as this is an anonymous imageboard and we couldn't have distinct party members without extensive tripcoding.

Speaking of which, how to tripcode?

>>3092
>Speaking of which, how to tripcode?
After your name place ##, followed by a pass phrase.
newfaggot.

>>3059
>This should probably be done on a seat by seat basis
Not sure how that'd work out anon. Having everyone vote for a seat every time would look very similar in the end no? We have no way of dividing the board into voting regions even if we make a map.
>>3092

>Then, in a combination of >>3059 and >>3064
Sorta contradictory no? Unless your proposing a bicameral system in which case how would we determine how the upper house and lower house vote in the process?

>>3064
>Again, why not have a proportional representation voting system?
Sorta what I was going for last time but with negative voting and a end amount to allow anons to have something tanable to reach since I wasn't sure how popular it'd get. I'm sorta against a polling system since it makes things slower I like voting in thread better. But overall guess I'll state my opinion on the matter.
>>3057

>How to format elections
Voting in thread proportional rep unicameral. 3 votes per anon.
>How many parties are allowed to enter in elections?
I'd say if we're going with a percentage system then unlimmited amounts of parties should be able to enter as long as they have over 8% of the vote.
>How many seats should be in parliament
Its obvious that this is getting more popular so I'd say add 4 more and stay at 27.
>How people in the parliament vote.
I'd like more anons to get involved in the party system but I like having strong centralized parties as well. Personally I'm in favor of keeping the centralized party leader system with MPs able to vote in place of the party leader as long as the MP does what the party leader wants.

Well.. I might or might not have map prepared for our world conquer, seeing as we can achieve same thing by politics I can share it with you for a small sum of money

Geography is kinda fucked in some places, but it can be repaired

I was thinking earlier that each voter could select from a random number generator or something which province they belonged to, then what party they want to vote for. The province represent resets each election. This entails two election angles one could go by, win the most geographic locations or win the most votes. Whichever party succeeds in either way can vie for the majority through sheer numbers or coalitions. Something like that. Perhaps there should be a limit to coalitions or an indicator for a majority. There's much to work out, and I rather that our democracy be dysfunctional and fun than practical. The former is what makes politics worth it to some degree.
I also think that the map should not only represent voting, but settlements and landmarks. A society may be built under our rule that could turn in any manner of direction. That direction which derives from our conflict.

We merely wish to improve the health of the citizenry, and make sure they get a good breakfast every morning. Therefore, we wish to coalition with every party that has these similar goals!

Confederacy reporting in. Sorry that I’m late. Any business to go over today?

>>3098
SDWHP member here. Seems to be a slow day. I blame the Valentines Day.

>>3100
*pats back*

>>3099
>I blame the Valentines Day.
I for one have taken my plushy on a date but just got back from it.
The major agenda for the week is election reform still. If you can think up anything that'd be helpful. That or just state where your party lies on it.

At this point I'd say the April First Party's opinions on it are as follows.
>No districts
Keeping /mlpol/ a centralized unitary state with a single lower house that is efficient and effective is what all members of the community want. Adding districts will just make it more confusing and a general headache and overall less fun.
>Make it easier and more clear
The problem with our last system is it was hard even for me once the thread got rolling to keep updating it all. Part of the fun in real elections is seeing the results come in but when its not clear it becomes impossible to have fun with that.
>Better vetting for small parties
Having a system where we can let and unlimited number of parties enter would be the best case scenario since everyone loves entering parties and it seemed to be one of the funnest parts of the election. I'd say the day before the official election should be the day for the parties to organize and or new parties to be created. But there should be a requirement for parties to enter such as multiple anons saying they'd be interested either in joining or voting for it.
>Add more seats
Our current congress is fairly small and should at least have a few more seats. I had no clue it would be as popular as it was so we should add more seats.
>Keep it fun!
Continue to keep it formatted as an in thread vote that is much more formalized based on one ID a certain number of votes. Keeping it like this rather then a strawpoll or some other polling site will allow more interaction and more discussion. It'll also be overall a lot more fun!

I was just wondering something. How far will we take this parliament idea? Will we eventually use it to better organize things like /pol/leagues and other events? What are your thoughts? Should we try and take it further, or stick to more of a role play thing?

>>3102
>no districts
>unitary state
Muh states rights!

>>3103
>Muh states rights!
/mlpol/ is one community no matter how much you try and divide us we will stand together!

>>3104
Are you saying I’m dividing our board with an idea? The idea that a state may separate from the group instead of dragging on endless debate and nagging causing more division and strife internally. A state may always be won back by force and split people of one state is harder.

But that’s just my outlook on things. Oh, I don’t very well appreciate being likened unto the enemy of the board’s existence though good sir. As much as we may disagree, we still fight for the same side here.

Now it hit me that a states rights doesn't make fucking sense in a non-federal government.

>>3106
I know. I told everyone that I was bad at this.

>>3107
I always ignored your party somewhat, so this is new. Your party is starting to sound more secessionist or at least federal.
>>3102
I disagree that we shouldn't have districts. The unitary state is droll and in real life leaves much to be desired. I hold my stance that we should have a change in system (likewise majority holdings or limited coalitions), so that there is conflict; and maintain that there should be a map.
Perhaps some regions can attempt to gain more autonomy, leading the States Rights Party to have a much more unique position besides being a bland pseudo confederate party; but overall the provinces can remain chiefly for aesthetic reasons.

>>3108
>I always ignored your party
Thanks anon. I will try to be more interesting next time.
>bland pseudo confederate party
I really enjoy that sweet sweet constructive criticism. I’m not dead inside at all.

I jest.

>>3109
Well, it's just like my opinion, man.

>>3110
Nah. Your right. Several other anons tried to vote me out, but I’m somehow still here. I’m just trying to learn how to do this sort of thing. I just went with the first political group that came to mind after both traditionalist and ancap were taken.

>>3108
>The unitary state is droll and in real life leaves much to be desired.
I hear a lot of jargon but no real arguments.
A federalized system would make scene if say we were a large board with a lot of generals coalesced into separate communities. But the edits of pol/equestria under rule 9 ban generals and I will not tolerate us destroying what we stand for. A federalized system doesn't even make scene, the provincial lines would be arbitrary and would not represent other communities or interests and thus if everything is properly and normally distrusted we will only have marginal difference in voting patterns.
So it doesn't make sense and is coming near violating the principles /mlpol/ stands for!

>>3109
My argument is that a unitary system doesn't seed conflict between the parties, so it becomes a "yes man" parliament where none of the parties differ on anything besides superficial leanings. This is what I mean by left to be desired. The Tories for example compromise constantly and don't represent anything besides vague English conservatism. And, you are not much different from them in that you preach "common values" while just appealing to the majority. I admit, my post wasn't really detailed. It's a bit hard to put my thoughts into a theoretical game structure, but I'll sum up that I want a more competitive aspect. Funny though that you say that there isn't already room for division when we have broken rule 9 for the Anonfilly general & the Syria general, have conflicting ideological parties, and there are smaller niches that are like generals such as Esoteric Pinkism and Eponism. Now I'm not suggesting a federal state, my suggestions still fit within the unitary mold, however definition doesn't matter anyways; and different interpretations of what the parliament should be can lead to fun or change.
It must be noted that one of the most pressing debates here so far has been about game rules. Which speaks for itself where my concern lies.

>>3113
You may have pick my number by mistake. That or you just like me that much.

>>3114
Hard to like someone I barely notice;^)

>>3115
You took enough energy to notice me today. So that has to count for something.

>>3116
Well, maybe it does. Like to give up your Christianity for true Pagan roots? I could use an apprentice.

>>3117
Nope. Thanks for playing.

>>3117
So, what are your thoughts on this parliament? Should it stay a game or be involved in organizing things eventually, like /pol/leagues or something along those lines?

>>3119
Stay a game unless Plus gets in it I guess. Even then, I prefer how do things now with the /pol/leagues.

>>3119
I feel like it's a good exercise in coordinating various competing and sometimes opposed white interests.

>>3120
>>3121
Ah, then I won’t feel too bad when I am inevitability defeated in the next election cycle. And I won’t have to feel the burden of shame for failing Stonewall Jackson. May he rest in peace.

>>3122
Don't count yourself out SRP. The PFP proved to be kike loving traitors, making your the most libertarian party still loyal.

Um, still deserve reeducation camps. It's not like I actually like you or anything. Baka!

>>3123
We always remain loyal... except when it’s time to secede. Then it’s pretty much the opposite of that.

>>3102
If I had anything else to add to your own post, I say so. Really, you've said everything I'd say on the matter.

>>3111
How about a National Capitalist party? While such a party might agree with the April First Party and SDWHP on some issues, and the PFP on other issues, we don't really have a party dedicated towards the type of political issues our founding fathers believed in: free market capitalism with sensible regulations to protect consumers, imposed by a strong central government that strives to protect the flow of commerce throughout the nation from outside influence without directly trying to control everything like some despotic tyrant.

Alternatively, you could also create a Minarchist party since the PFP seems to have been kiked out of existence.

>>3124
I.. that's reassuring I guess...

I don't really understand what's going on, but this thread is fun to watch. Keep it coming.

>>3125
If it replaces SRP, yes. But, otherwise it's the same flavour of most parties here. This is why I made the Nazbol for Epona's sake!

>>3125
>founding fathers
Which ones? Hamilton certainly cucked for (((bankers))) harder than pfp. Jefferson, aside from his sexual proclivities was almost volkisch.
I'm not opposed to people making more parties, but there's a reason I stand by reeducation camps for libertarians, far too susceptible to kikery.

>>3125
If my glorious (not really but I wish it was) Confederate party falls, then I may. Until then, this party was actually more in line with what the founding fathers first put together.

>>3126
Just playing with ya.

>>3128
I care about you as well friend.

>>3129
>Hamilton not volkish
“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.

The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.

The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromit the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader. ….

To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.” (Hamilton 1851: 775–776).
Also, Jefferson fucking negros was slander that still persists to this day.
>>3130
Someone has to step on toes, (((friend))).

>>3119
>Should it stay a game or be involved in organizing things eventually, like /pol/leagues or something along those lines?
I have no idea what you'd really get involved with in the /pol/eague tbqh. The roster maybe but I think even that'd be hard to mess with in a similar way to how this is all formatted.

>>3131
Pretty words, but actions speak louder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States

>>3129
Hamilton deserved to be burned at the stake, yeah. Basically any founding father that didn't later become a Federalist once the Revolutionary War was over. The Federalists were nothing but cucks to bankers and the British crown. And look where that got us later in 1812.

>>3127
Check'd. We've formed our own /mlpol/ parliment and various different parties to go along with it. Cult of Epona is good for people who care mostly about ponies or paganism. SDWHP will gas the Jews. April First is basically the /mlpol/ traditionalist party. SRP is the most non-cucked libertarian party right now, and is good if you're into the Confederacy. PFP is cucked to Jews, but is otherwise the local anarchist party. The National Bolsheviks are pretty much dead, but if you want to be a Nazi/Commie hybrid, go ahead. I think there's a cereal-based party somewhere. And that's all the parties worth talking about! Yup! No more! Definately it!

We don't talk about (((their))) party.

>>3131
The issue is that Hamilton was one of the first proponents of a privatized national bank: one of the least volkish things imaginable. Take that away and he's alright, but his obsession with the Federal Reserve and making as much national debt as possible is why we don't think of him as being volkish.

>>3134
I already voted, but I'm still lurking.

>>3134
/mlk/ and spoon also exist anon...
But you should support SDWHP because we're the most dedicated to bettering the world. Through pest control.

>>3137
oh and the former zogbot party, forgot about them. Poor bastards.

>>3110
Can we still make a party that wants to obtain a seat in a future election?

>>3137
>>3138
Oh, right, forgot about them. /mlk/ and Spoon are alright parties, too.

>>3139
If you have an idea for one, and can get some support behind you, then all you need to do is make up a party manifest, make/choose a party flag, and choose a party color.

>>3140
I think we decided on proportionate representation as well so there should be no problem with additional parties.

>>3131
Friends don’t call each other jewish, friend. You should know better. More friendships are lost to jewery this way, I swear.
>>3045
>>3046
>>3047

>>3142
Joking.
>>3135
The First Bank of the US was used in order to stabilise the nations credit post-war, albeit I don't agree with the privatised aspect, but it didn't necessarily function as a national bank does today. The debt issued couldn't exceed capitalisation and was funded by tax to a degree. Checking the stockholder's; which would be the problem; but it turns out foreign stockholders had no vote for the private company. I suppose there can be scrutiny towards whoever held stock as a citizen of the US, however this had to be documented as malevolent for me to call it evil. In the end, after expiring the bank's stocks were sold and there was no debt incurred by it. As for conspiracy, I'm not a believer. Hamilton's proposal did some good as a stepping stone like a national mint. I believe the old opposition was mostly derived from the role of the federal state, unlike the reasons why it is scrutinised today.

>>3143
I know. Just wanted to play along with you.

>>3143
Regardless, people view Hamilton as the origin of the US debt crisis and the origin for the idea of the Federal Reserve, and some hate him on the same level as Wilson for giving the Federal Reserve the power to order the mint to print money.

Personally, I'm against any and all privatization of the financial services, and I view said privatization as the reason for many of our financial ills because the bankers and stockbrokers only hold loyalty to money: not to the nation, its people, or the world at large, and that their deviancy has led to several generations of Americans who believe that money comes out of thin air and that it's fine to take out ungodly amounts of loans that banks honestly don't have the actual money to pay out.

Sorry if this post is loaded with ranting. I just really, really hate private banks.

>>3145
What is your view on currency in general? Is it controlled by billionaires and the stock market and we should move to something else? Or is it ok but these banks are a problem. It’s a bit off topic, but I’m curious.

>>3145
>1
I wouldn't necessarily contribute those issues to him at all. His presidency didn't significantly cause expansive debt (kind of opposite), US national debts incurred after were repaid, the US has had time since to solve the "debt crisis", the first real surplus was during Clinton's era, and so the US is tackling the issue all wrong. Austerity hasn't done anything, but actually run budget deficits, so it leads me to believe its only goal is market fundamentalism.
The Federal Reserve has made many mistakes, and I would suggest a better national bank not headed by Wall Street Tycoons. Also, the Federal Reserve doesn't order the mint to make money. Banks create money:
www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf
"Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money."
I agree with the second point, besides how money is created out of thin air. It is, so the issue is reigning in banks. My hopeful solution to this is cutting out the middle men with Central Bank Digital Currency:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_Digital_Currency
Which allows complete and efficient monetary control unlike today.

>>3146
>What is your view on currency in general?
Sparta was right, gold and silver currency should be banned, if you must do business do it in Iron obols, or it's equivalent in this day and age, guns and ammo.

>>3148
Sounds good to me. Good old barter. It’s hard for the government and billionaires to mess with exchange of goods on such a simple level. Plus it’s hard to tax.

>>3146
I believe the idea behind currency is overall a good thing. However:

1. I believe the issuing of currency is one of the basic rights of all sovereign nations, and that no private organization has the right to create legal tender on behalf of a nation, whether it was given permission or not. The central government should control the national bank and the ordering of new currency only.

2. Using oil to back the dollar is one of the most self-destructive things that we have ever done. Same goes for silver and gold, and the double standard. We need to back our currencies behind something that is both universally held as being valuable, and isn't prone to rarity, localization, or simply just running out.

>>3147
Forgive me for my ignorance. Economics has never been my strong suit.

This digital currency sounds good on paper, but I'm a bit concerned that, in our digital age, where the people in charge are so technologically inept that they still think that "password" is a good password, that it will remain secure for long.

Now that I think on it, though, money isn't secure as it is, so It might be a moot point.

>>3150
I don't expect it to fully replace paper fiat, however it should transcend all the barriers of money exchange digitally, make money more accessible (so it's destroyed less), and importantly make banking accessible to all without the fears of fractional reserve banking. Which it will compete against. Each person will be entitled a national banking account. If someone literally can't remember a password, they shouldn't have a banking account in the first place (maybe they're mentally retarded.)

>>3150
Although our economy is backed by oil, the dollar is technically put in place by the power of the government. It prints it and says it’s money, but it’s just paper. The reason it has worth is because we agree we can use it. The economy used to judge the overall worth of the paper is based in oil exchange now though. So that is a major problem.

And yeah, I don’t trust digital currency from both a logical stance and religiously. You want to go from being able to physically hold your money to institutions promising you got it in their system. Just be a good goy or we will not only shut you down, but your money too.

Then there is Revelation 13:17
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Now, how can people be denied any trade if there was still a physical currency of some sort? Seems like digital currency may be the future, but not necessarily the best one.
>>3151
And you just proved my point. Available to all (that obey) and are entitled to it for being a good goy. Be careful Epona worshipper, you may fall into a jewish trap with centralized digital currency.

>>3152
I don't understand. Either the US or Canadian government is already in full sovereign control of its currency. How is making its control more efficient Jewry? In fact, debt jubilees can efficiently be carried out this way to save governments of their private debt crises.

>>3152

Those dubs on that post, though.

>>3154
I think he just really doesn't want any Jews to have any control over the banks in a digital system, which is understandable.

>>3155
Except its the government tho

>>3154
Is the government being usurped by jews? If yes, then more control over who gets access to the only way to exchange goods is more than enough cause for concern. If not, then one day the jew will work his way into the system. It’s just a matter of time.

>>3157
If only there was a way to solve our Jewish problem...

>>3157
That's why you expel the Jews. Supposedly the Jews already control everything, states and markets. It's hard to pick out good ideas if everything is foiled by Jews, so I will set to remove them and then implementation comes.

>>3159
That would definitely be nice. I see a problem though. Moving toward this goal prematurely, aka: before the (((problem))) is removed, then we will see the prophecy fulfilled. And seeing how the pieces are in place for such a system, the jews won’t be removed before they try and set the system up.

Not to mention the other parts of the prophecy about how the Antichrist comes to save the jew from the nations of the world, then controls them and all... but that is for another thread I believe.

>>3158
You'll be pleased to know that the SDWHP has a final solution...

>>3161
Why do you think I joined?

>>3160
Alright, alright. It's been interesting. I often don't get to talk about heterodox economic thinking.

>>3163
I like it too. Anytime you want to continue, I would be glad to, but I just think we shouldn’t spam this thread. We kind of got off track from parliament.

>>3150
>We need to back our currencies behind something that is both universally held as being valuable, and isn't prone to rarity, localization, or simply just running out.
Violence. Violence is the best backing for any currency.

>>3165
Hi. Welcome to McDonald’s. You want a burger with fries and a soft drink? Ok. Come inside. That will be 2 broken bones, a concussion, and a black eye. Thank you and have a nice trip to the hospital today.

>>3166
and of course a gold backed currency requires actually handing over bricks of shiny yellow metal.

>>3167
‘‘Twas a joke anon. Just having some fun.

>>3168
alright then. You have a good night.

Few overall points from your best allies.

>It's just a game.
We won't probably have any impact on the whole site, if you want somethign to change you don't need to go through that whole parliment thing, just make your own thread, contact mods etc. so instead let's focus on having some fun with our LARP.

>Add some (((diversity))) *rubs hands*
I understand that everyone wants to be in party that aligns with their views, it's great and all, but then we end with 10 vaguely right-wing parties and threads full of people arguing that their right-wing brand is better than other right-wing brands.
We don't need any parliment or elections for that, we can do it in any other thread.
It would be better to focus on having fun, LARPing as politicians and shit like that.

If all parties have just some minor differences but in the end are pretty close and agree on many issues then where's some conflict? If all parties can be in one coalition then there is really no point in having so many of them.
This whole idea has big potentiall, you can have soiboi party, feminist party, anarchists, gommies, niggnogs, or caricatural /nu/pol party with wehraboos, skinheads and being triggered at everything. We just need some people other than me willing to do it.
I also warn you, if you kill my joos, they will rise 10 times stronger.

>>3170
I see your point, but no one wants the wrath of the community to destroy their party in one fell swoop by setting up a leftist party. It’s that survival instinct at work, I suppose, that keeps people from making a party that’s people here will hate.

The Honey Nut Cheerios Party is very pro business, only intervening in cases where the health and safety of the nation is at risk. There will be little regulation aside from that for the greater health of the nation.

We are also pro military, as we wish to protect ourselves from threats at home and abroad, and to make sure the rest of the world gets a good breakfast!

Education will be well funded, after all, a well informed citizen is a healthy citizen!

The rights of the people will be kept dear, as we don't want to restrict their freedoms, as long as it's not hurting anyone.

Aside from that, our only policies are those that achieve our stated goals!

>>3172
>only intervening where health and safety are at risk
How do you handle the JQ?

>>3173
Jews are a threat to the health of everyone. They will compromise both the health and safety of everyone by having any power in the government and business, and therefore, will not be allowed to be a citizen or live in our nation.

>>3174
I can sense a promising coalition between our two parties in the future.

>>3123
>>3125
>>3134
I don't appreciate this slander. One non-leading member stepped out of line and agreed with (((them))) and you accuse us of being corrupted. We're in full support of physical removal by private activism.

Anyway, this is going off topic. We need to establish election reform. Rather than debate endlessly about details we ought to establish a set of general principles and work from there.

I propose:
1) Electorate based on districts set within a map of Equestria;
2) Weekly or fortnightly voting with votes cast in one district not applicable to another;
3) Seats that allow every party member a voice (despite the harm it has caused me), yet is more flexible than a pure headcount;
4) Standing coalitions
5) A Head of Parliament whose primary purpose is to convene and adjourn sessions and to update the map.

The last is most important. Without even such a ceremonial role we have already been reduced to bickering about unrelated topics.

>>3176
Also, a formal PFP announcement.

If Ancap-anon's inactivity if he does not reply to this message in 24 hours I shall reassume direct control as Party President.

>>3176
Oh look another one that's pro federalism. Not surprised though. I will not support any plan that divides the board. Your other proposals are made with good intent but I cannot support any system that'll decentralize our vote into arbitrary districts that mean nothing to the members of /mlpol/. As soon as this proposal inevitably fails I will create my own bill for election reform that'll truly fix /mlpol/'s election problems.

>>3178
I've seen your views on the electoral reform, and as a member of the SDWHP I would throw my support behind you.

>>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.

>>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.

>>3181
I stand with you, great Party Leader.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>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.

>>3183
>>3183
I reject the bill.

>>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.

>>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.

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.

>>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.

>>3193
is*

>>3193
If your party is in favor of a federalist reform bill, then propose one.

>>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.

>>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.

>>3197
OK with that amendment i support the system

>>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.

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

>>3200
You forgot one thing
- free kool-aid

>>3201
whyte-y has a good point.

- free cool-aid and grape drank

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.

>>3203
While I may not support your proposal, I must give my appreciation to your representation of Epona.

>>3204
What is it that you don't support?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

Elections?

>>3210
I thought so, but we will see.

>>3210
If we're going be how inactive certain parties are, how many parties are currently ded?

>>3212
About 4, 5, or 6.

>>3210
are we still holding them today because i am about to go tho sleep and i cant get on tomorrow

>>3212
>>3213
dey only ded cuz whytey be slayen um for doin nuttin wong

>>3215
>not the correct trip
Sheeeeeeeeeit

>>3214
I'm not even sure if we decided what voting system to use.

>>3217
Alright, let's make a grand referendum for which system to use. First, let's list the main proposals.

>>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.

>>3219
Change the approval percent to 60% please.

>>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

>>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™.

>>3222
Shit. Sorry to hear that.

>>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.

>>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.

>>3225
Also, the issues with simplification strikes at how vague in some parts the Electoral Reform Bill can be.

>>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.

>>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.

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.

>>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!

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

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?

>>3235
Gas the kikes.

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?

>>3237
>horse pucci party
>no horse pussy posted in sight
>only anthro
Fake party.

I now claim de facto dictatorship.

>>3238
>No Horse Pucci
There's no need to drop McNukes when an assassination is fine.

>>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.

>>3239
Did someone say McNukes?

>>3240
who hasn't voted

>>3242
Well I revised the old one so (you)

>>3243
if that is the case then i vote for property and freedoms party's reforms

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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).

>>3245
>that pic
Hnnnnnnnnnng

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

>>3250
Oh look, an internet badass over here...

Wrong thread to boot!

>>3251
Do you know where to find the pic I need to see it ?

>>3252
That's the only evidence I have of its existence. I was not in the thread. The most terrifying part...

>3/5

>>124626
Get fucked outsider. You're payment has been deposited in the usual way.

>>3252
>>3253
Found The image. It is as bad, if not worse than your wildest imaginings.

>>3255
Translation?

>>3255
Meh, not as bad as that screencap hyped up.
There's not even blood in the pic.
3/10.

>>3256
See >>3251

>>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.

>>3258
Poor shining armor. i bet a kike drew that.

>>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.

>>3261
Again...

>3/5
There are more pictures out there.

>>3261
Yea but shining is a white horse though. And yea the gore could be better.

>>3261
>>3262
The thread is less gore and more cringe. Here are the rest of his images the anon posted.

>>3264
Ah. Considering the material, I was expecting White Kitten.

>>3264
That anon did not know what true cringe is.

>>3266
Stop. We are getting off topic. This is parliament thread.

>>3266
I felt that in my eye when I saw that. Holy shit.

>>3266
Damn that looks like it hurts.

>>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.

>>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.

>>3271
honestly that's the sort of injury that warrants exfiltration, the eye is a very sensitive and valuable organ.

>>3273
Somehow, that still doesn't make it any better.

>>3247
>this entire post
What? Not only is the logic circular, it's downright contradictory.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.