Friday, January 25, 2013

Proposal: Political Influence

Fails 1-7. — Quirck

Adminned at 26 Jan 2013 22:30:30 UTC

Add a new rule to the ruleset entitled, “Political Influence”:

Each Honourable Member has a score called Influence, which is tracked in the GNDT, can be any whole number between 1 and 3, and defaults to 3.

Amend the rule, “Parties” to read:

Each Honourable Member may belong to a Party; this is tracked as a word in the GNDT in the column “Party”, or “-” if the Honorable Member belongs to no Party. A Party’s Size is equal to the number of Honourable Members who belong to that Party, and a Party is “larger” than another if it has a greater Size. A Party’s Influence is equal to the total amount of Influence of all of the Honourable members in that party.

At any given time, one or more Parties may be “in Power”, as follows:-

If one Party has more Influence than all other Parties, and an Influence greater than (0.5T+1) where T = Total Influence of all parties, then it alone is in Power.
Otherwise, if two Parties have more Influence than all other Parties, and their combined Influence is greater than (0.5T+1) where T = Total Influence of all parties, then both of those Parties is in Power.
Otherwise, no Party is in Power.
As a weekly action, an Honourable Member may change the Party they belong to to either “Communist”, “Socialist”, “Green”, “Liberal”, “Religious”, “Conservative” or “Extremist”.

I thought influence might be a good idea once we start voting on things, those with more influence would get more votes, this means that a party with small number of members could be just as effective as a party with a larger number of members.

Comments

nqeron:

25-01-2013 05:24:41 UTC

And if “Party Time” does not pass?  It would probably be better to write this as:
“If a rule Parties does not exist, enact it, otherwise amend it to read ... “.

I’m still unsure as to whether I like this.  I know it’s similar to the concept of Voting Power that I was suggesting earlier, but the way it has an affect on ‘in power’ I’m not so sure I like - especially as this would already be a natural artifact with a group of people in the same party.

imperial

RaichuKFM: she/her

25-01-2013 11:58:13 UTC

against

Cpt_Koen:

25-01-2013 13:39:10 UTC

“Each Honourable Member may belong to a Party; this is tracked as a word in the GNDT in the column “Party”, or “-” if the Honorable Member belongs to no Party.”
Funnily enough you might have to create a column titled “-”!

scshunt:

25-01-2013 14:13:49 UTC

against I don’t think another integer variable is a good idea.

Josh: Observer he/they

25-01-2013 18:49:16 UTC

against

quirck: he/him

25-01-2013 19:54:52 UTC

imperial

Larrytheturtle:

25-01-2013 21:13:23 UTC

against

Skju:

26-01-2013 20:00:43 UTC

against
Determining power from the number of members in a party is simpler and not much less effective.