View Topic

Title
1. This shall be titled the Seating Act of The Twelfth Session of The Underhusen.

Seats
2. The Twelfth session of the Underhusen shall be composed of five (5) seats.

With the term nearing it's end, this needs to obviously be discussed and decided upon.  As our default is 5 seats, that is what the number here will be unless others decide we need more/less seats for the upcoming term.

I say we wait for the nominations to end, and adjust accordingly.

If we decide five is enough, let's just use the default.

In the discussion on the citizens platform, the point was raised of possibly raising the number of Skrifa, so I would like to consider having 7 or possibly 6 seats next term. I realise this is sort of an experiment, so I would understand if you are hesitant, but I think if we don't try stuff like this we won't ever know what effect it will have...

Believe me, we've had that discussion often, and it always comes down to how many people are actually interested in running.

I understand that there... but I still think we should try to get as many seats as possible in here from the get-go, if more than 8 people run then I would say we should have 7 seats; if we have 8 runners, 6 seats; only if there are 7 or 6 candidates should we default to 5 seats... Basically trying to get as large an Underhusen as possible, while still keeping the election slightly competitive. Of course it might mean we need to react quickly to pass this during the nominations, but it seems like we have been doing an OK job at that recently.

So it could still end up with 5 Skrifa, but I'd like to try to take the chance and have more next term, if the possibility presents itself, even if it means a slightly less competitive election... That's my idea anyways.

I've supported the idea of more seats for awhile now, but it does come with its own problems that could outweigh the benefits.

My reply for now is that I'd personally wait to see what transpires.

I have to agree with Laurentus on this one in that it should be dictated on interest in elections.  I'd be afraid to raise the seats to 7 and have only 5 interested candidates.  What do we do with the empty seats?

We usually have at least 5 people that run, so our default is a good fallback, and I believe we've had elections that had strictly just 5 people that ran.

Waiting until nominations at least are part of the way through is a good idea, because if we get a good list of candidates, we can always bump up the seats to 6,7 or even experiment with a little higher.  Whereas doing it too early could end up biting us in the butt if we get a really low candidate count.

I'd like to remind everyone that a motion needs to be made to either vote/table this bill or extend debate as the deadline for it has passed.

I motion to extend debate. This can be better decided when the new election comes.

Agreed, I just wanted to get this out of the way before I forgot, but I agree that we need to see how election turnout is for this upcoming term.  Did you want to motion for the regular period, or longer?  Remember that you can request up to a week at most.

I motion to extend debate for a week.

The motion to extend debate for the full week has been made.  Do we have a second?

Is a week going to take us into nominations?

If passed, it would end on the 26th, so we'd be 3 days into nominations.

In that case, I second.