Having read through the thread, and with all due respect to Sonja, my good friend and a leader (along with the SC Dean) of the DPU, the Simplicity Party's roster is longer than she estimated ... and, as of 26 December which *appears* to be the relevant date, qualifies to stand candidates for election.
More on SP will be found at our own faction's Forum board: http://forums.slcds.info/viewforum.php?f=17
Our main reason, I think, for the minimum-faction-size change was that our bizarre poll arithmetic system -- which sounds more like an ersatz ice cream brand than a social technology --- favored by our FIC and enshrined in our law, makes it *very* easy for a small faction to elect one RA member. So much so that if the roughly 80 voters of CDS were distributed as follows:
50 - DPU
5 - CSDF
5 - Simplicitly
5 - NuCare
5 - Social NonDemocrats *
5 - NonSocial Democrats *
5 - Return Ulrika To The Throne *
... there's a fairly good chance that, if there were no minimum faction size, the resulting RA would be really absurdly skewed in favor of the minorities, something like maybe 2 DPU and 1 from 5 of the other 6. How silly.
>> * No, these parties do not exist. Their names are a spoof on the OTHER rumor running around
>> last year, that CSDF was going to split into a bunch of little parties, and do exactly that, which
>> may also have explained the faction size increase bill. In fairness to CSDF, the people who started
>> that rumor were their opponents, and have left CDS.
Why the current RA perpetuates and defends the HaagenDasz system evades me. It seems to embrace the worst of parliamentary complexity, in its love of minority parties and thwarting of any majority.
If RA members actually voted along faction lines, I suppose I'd be concerned about it.
In fact, the policy differences between factions seem, in CDS, to be so little reflected in action that it matters little.
Regards Jamie
