View Topic

As of this post, we have seven people running. There will be no elections, everyone will get in. As suggested by Stark here, http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=1086.0 , we should reduce the number of seats to five (5), so as to ensure actual elections.


What do you say?


I am considering it. Though we agreed that it would inspire activity, and lots of our newer members are running, there aren't enough to create a (friendly, yet) competitive atmosphere.
We can pass an emergency bill really fast if we can agree quickly.

How about six? This way we at least allow more people into the Underhusen while still allowing elections.

That'd allow for ties, though 

True, however I think we should use a larger number than 5, but something less than 7, the only number is 6.

I do think of five as being a better number, as it lets people to choose those they believe are more fitted towards serving in the legislature, while excluding those they believe aren't. It'll also create more active competition between candidates that'll let them show the people who they are and what they stand for, since there are less seats open.

Still we have used 5 constantly and we have grown and have other active members, which is why I say 6.

Perhaps we should set up a candidate to seat ratio?

Arguments for reducing the seat numbers:

• As it stands now, we'll have 7 winners and 1 loser. That isn't really fair or fun for the person who misses out.
• We've probably been a little over-ambitious with 7 this term, as we don't yet have the activity to merit an increase.
• Despite a recent influx of newer members I don't think we can expect them to take part in the UH immediately.
• With 5 seats there'd be more competition and thus a more interesting election to observe and take part in. This will bring benefits down the line of drawing people into the regional politics and hopefully next time round 7 will be the right number.
• Ceardia and BTR were unfortunately quite inactive this term, and I don't think we can argue for more seats when we've been running with 3 or 4 most of this one.
• Whilst the election will be competitive, it won't really be competitive in a true sense of the word. Once someone gains a lead, they'll most likely be certain of a place.
• It'll be really easy to predict the victors from the public votes, which will discourage people from partaking fully once it becomes clear they might be the one person to lose.

Arguments against reducing seat numbers:

• It makes us look more active to newer members.
• We've already passed the Bill, and to change now would look silly.
• We've got 8 candidates, which means it will be a 'competitive' election.

Personally, I'm in favour of reducing the seat numbers. Whilst Alt is most likely going to argue that it'll make us look good to newcomers, we've no guarantee that what happened this term won't happen next term. Then we'll look even sillier for raising the seat limit when we've had troubles with inactivity this time round and start suffering from it again. Those who arrive will see us with 7, think oh that looks good, then realise we can't actually live up to that expectation immediately.

Safer all round to reduce it for this term and wait til we are 100% positive we've got the activity for more seats.

A rectification Act is no trouble to draft and pass as we seem to have recovered Ceardia and BTR at this point in time.

* Alterra sighs and glares at Weissreich

I hate your logic.
I am in support of Weissreich.