Setting a size for the RA

[Patroklus Murakami]

In the current Representative Assembly we have 11 representatives. Previously there have been 12, 5, 7, 9 .... The number depends on how many citizens are registered when the polls open. Personally, I think this is insane And I'd like to propose that we fix the size of the RA at a suitable number. I think it should be 7.

Why do we have this wacky system? Well, when the founders developed the Constitution they provided that seats on the RA would be an odd number equivalent to 10% of the population (rounded down). They also set the maximum number at 40 representatives. They set an odd number for obvious reasons - so that votes would be less likely to end in a tie. The specified a maximum of 40 because that was the maximum number of avatars you could fit on one sim at a time in those days. I don't know why they set 10% as a proportion.

The problems this causes are that we never know exactly how many reps there will be until the polls open and we know how many citizens are registered. It also means that, as the CDS has expanded, the size of the RA has expanded. I think this has had a number of negative effects. With more RA members the meetings have to become more 'formal' in order to get business done. Recent meetings have been a roll-call of procedural votes - do people want to change the agenda? It needs a vote. Do people want to cut the discussion short? It needs a vote. This makes meetings slow down so less is accomplished. It also means that fewer citizens get to speak as time has to be prioritised for RA members who want to participate in the meeting. Furthermore, getting more than a few people to agree about anything is a nightmare! This problem expands exponentially the more people are added to the RA.

It was all a lot easier when the RA was smaller. Sure, we had our problems then too but my recollection is that meetings had less formality and it was easier for citizens to participate to a fuller extent.

I suggest we fix the number of RA members at 7. It's a number big enough to represent different points of view but permit good discussion. It would allow more non-RA members to take part. And it would reduce the number of politicians in the CDS - that has to be a major selling-point!

What do others think?

[Pip Torok]

Code: Select all

In the current Representative Assembly we have 11 representatives. Previously there have been 12, 5, 7, 9 .... The number depends on how many citizens are registered when the polls open. Personally, I think this is insane  And I'd like to propose that we fix the size of the RA at a suitable number. I think it should be 7.

Well personally, I think that any number that depends, however approximately, upon the number of registered citizens has alot going for it. For a start, the representation is not vitiated, as it would certainly be if we had 7 per 150 (or 7 per 500, or 7 per 1500!)

I think the size for the RA should be 7 when the registration is from 1 to 99, but 9 for 100 to 149, 11 for 150 to 199 and so on upwards.

I agree on the rationale behind having odd numbers.

Readers will notice that, in practice, there's not much difference between Pat's figure and mine for our current size of citizenry.

Code: Select all

Why do we have this wacky system? Well, when the founders developed the Constitution they provided that seats on the RA would be an odd number equivalent to 10% of the population (rounded down). They also set the maximum number at 40 representatives. They set an odd number for obvious reasons - so that votes would be less likely to end in a tie. The specified a maximum of 40 because that was the maximum number of avatars you could fit on one sim at a time in those days. I don't know why they set 10% as a proportion.

The problems this causes are that we never know exactly how many reps there will be until the polls open and we know how many citizens are registered.

This may be the case at present. However, this can be put right when (a) we have a definition of "citizen" in place ( b) we have the means of totalling the numbers easily, speedily, and _transparently_ so that (c) we clearly see in good time just how many representatives there will be.

Code: Select all

With more RA members the meetings have to become more 'formal' in order to get business done. Recent meetings have been a roll-call of procedural votes - do people want to change the agenda? It needs a vote. Do people want to cut the discussion short? It needs a vote. This makes meetings slow down so less is accomplished. It also means that fewer citizens get to speak as time has to be prioritised for RA members who want to participate in the meeting. Furthermore, getting more than a few people to agree about anything is a nightmare! This problem expands exponentially the more people are added to the RA.

I disagree. With Single Transferable Voting, voters will learn, after a term or two, just which representatives pare their points to save time, and which representatives drag their feet. The tools Cindy provided last term would be invaluable. And "getting more than a few people to agree about anything"? Well, Parliamentary practice in the UK from 1721 to 2010 will give some pointers there, at least!

My point? Voters will be able to, and will, appoint those who represent them by getting business done more briskly than others.

Code: Select all

It was all a lot easier when the RA was smaller. Sure, we had our problems then too but my recollection is that meetings had less formality and it was easier for citizens to participate to a fuller extent.

I suggest we fix the number of RA members at 7. It's a number big enough to represent different points of view but permit good discussion. It would allow more non-RA members to take part. And it would reduce the number of politicians in the CDS - that has to be a major selling-point!

"Politician" ... hmmm well I hope the word was kindly meant. Not as "I am a concerned citizen, you are a politician, he is ... etc."

Pip Torok

[Jamie Palisades]

Interesting chat indeed. The constitution has for a long time provided for the RA to scale up or down with the size of the population.

I like what Pip said: with more direct voting methods, voters will be able to can exercise some choice, and "appoint those who represent them by getting business done more briskly than others."

I'm not sure I agree with Pat that a 7-member body, of which 5 usually attend, is better than a 15-member body, where 11 usually attend. It's certainly easier to run meetings :) But it's more elitist too.

Certainly the RA could not operate the way it does now with 15, 17 or 31 members. But the way it operates now is full of long speeches, social side remarks, long digressions, and other indulgences that work in a small group, but not a big one. In a modern legislature .. like the EU Parliament or US Senate .. members use different rules, use more committees, and bring things to vote more briskly, because it's arithmetically obvious that everyone in a 100-member body can't give a ten minute floor speech on every topic.

So the right questions may be;
(a) Today, do we want the RA to be a scalable national legislature, or a small clan of village aldermen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alderman)?
(b) Do we expect to grow significantly, and does that change the answer?

regards JP

[Soro Dagostino]

I like your math. Long complex comments do not serve the body well. I do not agree that the body's size should be reduced. It should be scalable to to number of citizens, and follow a set of rules to make sure that discussion is on point.

Soro.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Thank you to everyone who has responded to give some feedback on this idea. I think there is a consensus that the RA should scale as our population does and not much agreement with my original idea to set the RAs size at a smaller number (like 7).

I've put together a proposed constitutional amendment which implements the kind of size and proportion Pip was talking about. This would set the RA at 5 when the population is 1-49, 7 from 50-99, 9 from 100-149 and 11 from 150-199. I think this is an improvement over the current rules where the RA is set at 10% of the population. Under the reformed rules, the RA would remain at pretty much the same size for the current size of our citizenry but it would grow more slowly as our population grows. It means, for example, that if our population doubles from approximately 170 citizens to 340 citizens the RA would have 17 members instead of 33. I think that would still be representative but less unwieldy.

Another related question is determining the size of the RA in advance of the polls opening, instead of working it out afterwards. I'll publish this related proposal shortly.

I hope we can discuss both reforms at the next formal RA meeting on 25 April.

• Proposed Constitutional Amendment Setting the Size of the RA

  In Article I, Section 2, replace:
  "The number of representative seats in the RA is equal to the odd whole number nearest to 10% of the population, rounded down, with a minimum of five seats and a maximum of forty seats."

  with

  "The number of representative seats in the RA is five (plus two seats for every 50 citizens) with a minimum of five seats and a maximum of forty seats."

[Patroklus Murakami]

Claude has helpfully pointed out in another thread that the bit of legislation which says when the size of the RA is set is NL 5-17 Census Scheduling Act. I think it's mad that we don't know how many seats there will be in the RA ahead of time so here is my alternative proposal: the size of the RA will be set when the census is held 28 days before an election is due (as per article V of the Constitution).

• NL 12-1 Census Scheduling Act (Revised)

  NL 5-17 is revised to read: "The number of seats in the RA shall be based upon the number of citizens as of the deadline for voting in the election that will elect that RA (per Article V)."

As our next elections are in mid-May this means that the census should be taking place now. Once the SC has worked out how many citizens we have, if we pass this law, we will know how many seats there will be in the RA. Simples!

[Tor Karlsvalt]

I guess I don't have a strong opinion on this. However I don't think a change here is in the forefront of our concerns. I seriously doubt, given the history of CDS growth, the distinct possibility that AA will leave CDS, what I hear is generally bad real estate market, that CDS will have a large, unwieldy RA. I don't think 12 RA members was too large a number, especially considering that the full RA was probably never present for meetings.

That said, I do think that the number of seat should be known in advance of the elections. I don't know how this is done in the past, but suspect that Sudane would be able to report on the number of citizens who are current in their tier payments and thus permitted to vote.

I did a search for Census and found only the Act mentioned in the prior post. Based on this it seems there must be two censuses, one at 28 days prior to the election and another at the date the polls open to finally determine the size of the RA. No wonder people get upset when the size of the RA changes at midnight.

• NL 5-17 Census Scheduling Act

  The number of seats in the RA shall be based upon the number of citizens as of the deadline for voting in the election that will elect that RA (per Article V) or the number of citizens as of the date the polls open in the aforementioned election, whichever is greater.

[Rose Springvale]

i of course, disagree with Pat. The more people we have in the CDS, the more we need broader representation, not less. I think the 10% rule makes sense and it is the challenge of the RA to govern itself in a manner so as to stay organized. Having representatives present and prepared at meetings and not trying to push too many changed into single meetings, as well as strong fair leadership that makes sure all voices are heard can do this. Let's not compromise representative democracy by shutting down voices.

I think many of these last minute acts proposed for this sunday are too big for one meeting, with no real discussion in world. I think the RA has a responsibility to hold commissions, especially when the things legislated affect their own operations.

Finally, since citizens are already certified for the next election, and in being part of this community have at least implicitly relied on the rules as they stand now, ANY changes to who votes, when they vote and for how many they vote for, should NOT be implemented for the election we are currently in the midst of.

[solomon mosely]

hi, it's the undereducated one again. i get all the discussion about too many chefs... but i dont think that is at all the problem with the RA, at least not at this point. how it operates and executes would be my target for briskly accomplishing anything in it.

i dont see the problem with the previously determined 10% rule. i imagine there were similar talks about the future, scalability, efficiency, etc... when it was chosen. i say leave it alone and focus on the current issues, not making a new one.

[Kaseido_Quandry]

i say leave it alone and focus on the current issues, not making a new one.

Woot, Sol!

"OMG we've got too much democracy and too many active participants!" hardly seems to be either a *current* problem or a current *problem.*

[Tor Karlsvalt]

I agree sol,

It seems there are plenty of issues to deal with without bringing this up too. I think there are already the issues of finances and the mechanics of the next election at hand. Perhaps the LRA should just be able to table things and not bring them to the RA unless there is a vote in the RA to do so. Just a thought.

Tor Karlsvalt

[Patroklus Murakami]

I think the more important issue is setting the date for the census as the date when the size of the next RA is determined. This was one of my other proposals. So, I'm happy to withdraw this proposal for consideration at a future RA meeting.

[Patroklus Murakami]

It's good to see that 15 people have put their names forward to be candidates for the next RA. But, I wonder how much of a choice the voters are really getting given there are 13 seats to be filled? It may be that 13 out of the 15 get elected, in which case the electorate will have removed two from the list. It may be, because of the way that Single Transferable Vote works, that some seats are left vacant because more than two candidates fail to get enough votes to get elected. In which case, we will need to hold special elections to fill them.

I think this provides further evidence that our rules for setting the size of the RA need reform. A smaller RA would still represent a sufficient range of views and would give the voters real choice. (It would also make it much easier to get rid of me, for those who care about such things. It's much harder to get elected to a 9-seat RA than a 13-seat RA. You might want to think about that!)

• Proposed Constitutional Amendment Setting the Size of the RA

  In Article I, Section 2, replace:
  "The number of representative seats in the RA is equal to the odd whole number nearest to 10% of the population, rounded down, with a minimum of five seats and a maximum of forty seats."

  with

  "The number of representative seats in the RA is five (plus two seats for every 50 citizens) with a minimum of five seats and a maximum of forty seats."

[solomon mosely]

i understand how this makes things simpler, and i see how it creates more choice for voters to decide who they don't want, but it removes their ability to have everyone they may want, to represent them.

I'm not sure I agree with Pat that a 7-member body, of which 5 usually attend, is better than a 15-member body, where 11 usually attend. It's certainly easier to run meetings But it's more elitist too.

since cds has grown so much with the merger with aa, i dont see how shrinking the size of the representative body serves the people better. yes, it creates less voices in the ra, less debate, and less opportunities for more minorities to challenge a majority in voting, but that seems to be counter to expanding the voices to represent the larger community.

i'm reminded of a bush quote that michael moore had in one of his movies. it was along the lines of "heck" chuckling... "this would be a lot easier if it was a dictatorship"
i know you guys have talked about this, but i still have to say, this seems bad. it's limiting to the democracy. it inhibits representation.

i appreciate your tenacity by just republishing your proposed amendment,which still goes against everything people have been saying in this thread, but it still does nothing to actually address the concerns raised. i mean, it does in the sense that you seem to be telling them you are going to completely ignore them and proceed anyway, completely against the grain, which is very "mavericky" of you.
i know the pressure is on before the election, but could you please address some of the comments that have been posted here? if this is a forum or open debate, it would be easier if you would debate rather than just copy/paste your proposal.

would you address:1) how does proposal strengthen the democracy in cds?
2) how does your proposal empower more people?
3) how does your proposal enhance the RA's ability to serve the needs of community?

with the merger with AA, i think we will need some extra voices in RA and hands on deck for committees and work groups.

how about this:

Proposed Constitutional Amendment Setting the Size of the RA

In Article I, Section 2, replace:
"The number of representative seats in the RA is equal to the odd whole number nearest to 10% of the population, rounded down, with a minimum of five seats and a maximum of forty seats."

with

"The number of representative seats in the RA is five (plus 1 seat for every 12 citizens) with a minimum of five seats and a maximum of forty seats."

[Patroklus Murakami]

Solomon

I'll try to reply to your questions.

• 1) how does proposal strengthen the democracy in cds?
  Let me answer your question with a question - how does the size of the RA affect democracy in the CDS? Does a larger RA mean more democracy, just because there are more people on it? Does a smaller one mean less democracy because there are fewer? I don't think there is an obvious correlation between the size of a representative assembly/legislature and the strength of democracy. The Conservative candidate in the UK General Election is promising to cut the number of Members of Parliament by about 10%. I doubt this would weaken or strengthen UK democracy if carried through (but it would cut the costs of maintaining their second homes, moats and duck houses).

  In our case an optimum size of the type I prefer would mean we would still have a diverse group of citizens on the RA but voters would be able to exercise real choice, vote for the best of the best and vote the 'rascals' out if there are representatives who don't do a good job. As it is, virtually everybody who volunteers to be on the RA ends up on it. How does that strengthen democracy?

  2) how does your proposal empower more people?
  It empowers the voters to be able to exercise real choice as I describe above. With the larger body we have, we just get 'who turns up'. Now, a lot of the candidates for the next RA are great but how is it right that virtually all of them get a seat, just for expressing an interest in serving on the RA? (Some won't if they fail to get enough votes to get elected so voters get to exercise *some* choice).

  3) how does your proposal enhance the RA's ability to serve the needs of community?
  If you look back over the history of the RA - and I've been participating in meetings for about five years now - it was most effective with 5 or 7 members. We still had debate, different points of view, disagreements etc but it was a more effective body. It was easier to make sure that all RA members were up to speed on the issues and had time to speak in meetings and get contributions from citizens in the meetings.

There's a real confusion around the CDS about what the RA is for. It is not 'the only game in town' or the government (on its own) or the leadership. It's a legislature and it's role is to pass laws and constitutional amendments and to perform long-term planning for the community. The real leadership is the Executive Branch (which the RA selects). The Chancellor has far more powers to make things happen on a day to day basis.