View Topic

Elections are fast approaching, and we need to decide how many seats the (what could be the final) Underhusen will have. I motion five due to the number of inactive members holding seats.

Since we have tried the maximum number of seats (7) and somewhat determined that activity doesn't really increase with the number of Skrifa, why not try the minimum number of seats (4)? I know some may feel that it is likely to lead to a split vote of 2 to 2 more frequently but you never know unless you try.

I'm open to that idea. I had at one point considered six seats before I chose five, but I felt that was more of the same. However, the possibility of a split vote is somewhat more likely with four Skrifa than with six.

I don't agree with increasing the number of seats beyond five at the moment though, there just isn't that much activity to justify such an act.

I agree with Sapph here, but keep in mind that the activity level of Underhusen members doesn't generally correlate with the number of votes that they receive.  I also think that five seats would be a better number, too, because four seats would really increase the probability of a split vote...

I'll tag @taulover, @HannahB, and @Bodobol to see what they think. I'll also add @Laurentus if he ever decides to return for a final Underhusen vote, however unlikely that possibility may be.

If we've found that many Skrifa end up going inactive, wouldn't an increased number of Skrifa be a plus?

That's true, but we shouldn't endorse an Underhusen full of failsafes; Skrifa should be dedicated to the region and remain somewhat active. But then again, we have different candidates this time, so who knows. I am generally in favour of a larger legislature.

I'm with Saph, we treid the maximum number of seats this term and it hasn't helped that much, having less seats would allow the reforms to be passed easier and with the more open approach to law with the conventions, it means that the benefits gained from a large Storting aren't really in effect.
So basically assmuing inactivity will be consistent then the effects should be mitiaged with a smaller group.

That's my opinion on it at least

I was just thinking that, if so many Skrifa go inactive, then it's very possible that a smaller Underhusen would have a larger portion of its members active.

If you have seven seats, and three Skrifa go inactive, you still have four left. But if you start with four, now you only have one left.

Taulover does have a very valid point there... we should have five seats at a minimum. Mostly because that means that there won't be any ties, and that also leaves less of a chance of inactivity...

I don't want to leave the impression that we are increasing the number of seats simply to buffer against inactive Skrifa ... the Underhusen isn't meant to be inactive, not that the seats actually matter should the constitutional amendment to make the Underhusen an open assembly pass.

It seems the general consensus is that the number of Skrifa should be either five or four. Which should it be?

What I meant is that it seemed like we're agreeing on the fact that it should be smaller than last time but not so small so as to worry about inactive members. I hope that's about right.

I'd support 5 seats as well. Seven does seem a bit big, and I'd prefer an odd number.