/go/ - Golden Oaks

>>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.