Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: February 5461
Next month in: 00:17:16
Server time: 23:42:43, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): reformist2024 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.

Bill: Reforming the Legislative Body: II

Details

Submitted by[?]: Liberal Democratic Party

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: November 2358

Description[?]:

The current amount of seats that are set for election is 100. The Liberal Democratic Party proposes to increase this number.

However, we are not able to come to a consensus within party lines, therefore we ask the legislative body to assist in this proposal. The L.D.P. has agreed to a compromise as long as it is between the numerical values of 400 - 475.

Current:

1) 100 Seats

Proposed:

2) Decision Pending: 400 - 475

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date18:05:11, February 05, 2007 CET
From Moderate Republican Party
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageThe M.R.P. supports having a 435 seat legislative body.

Date18:06:35, February 05, 2007 CET
From United Democrats of Jakania
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageNo, I'd preferr 500

Date18:13:37, February 05, 2007 CET
From Liberal Democratic Party
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageThe L.D.P. would desire 435. We most likely will not compromise with 500 at all. Five hundred is too much and is susceptible to tie (250-250) etc. Four hundred and thirty five is not prone to ties.

Date18:23:32, February 05, 2007 CET
From Jakanian Liberal Socialists
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageA tie situation is not neccesarily a bad thing, so our party will not consider an odd number more favourable to an even one.

We do feel though that a well-sized parliament is neccesary to ensure effective representation of the populace, so we are likely to support anything over 250. 500 seems like a nice, round, easy to follow number.

Date15:30:10, February 06, 2007 CET
From Liberal Democratic Party
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageWell, the J.L.S. may believe in what they want, but a tie is definately not ideal. We don't see even how a tie can be considered even somewhat good.

To further our point, our party made clear it will not support 500 seats unless that is absolutely the only number that will get this legislation passed. There is no nation with an even amount of seats, like 200, 300, 400, 500, etc. All nations have 501, 401, etc. because the case of a tie is not plausible nor practical.

Date17:36:45, February 06, 2007 CET
From Jakanian Liberal Socialists
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageIf an election has been close enough to cause a tie between two parties, or groups of parties, then giving one side an absolute say is rediculous. That's a textbook case of tyranny of the majority, one 50% dictating to another.

If elections are to be resolved that closely then neither should have majority, and any legislation should be agreed by consensus. To do otherwise is non-democratic and an abuse of the representative system.

Date18:13:03, February 07, 2007 CET
From Liberal Democratic Party
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageIt's not tyrannical, seeing how there will be debate to change the minds of other parties. When parties work things out they can usually come to a compromise on a certain issue. After all, that's what debate is for. There must always be a victor or nothing will ever be accomplished. If legislation is blocked for time without end then nothing will ever be able to function as it is supposed to. As for the non-democratic part, then I suppose that every other nation in the entire continent of Terra is a tyrannical entity under all legislative circumstances.

For an outerworld real life example, let's take the United States House of Representatives. There are 435 seats in the HoR. There is no chance for a tie, no matter what. This should and has made parties work harder to accumulate votes from the opposition. Through constant debate and compromises they are able to eventually come to a consensus. The HoR never is forced to a tie which would dramatically slow down the process of the nation. If the absence of a tie is tyrannical, how come the United States legislative entities are some of the greatest, most respected, and progressive bodies in the real world?
This is the same situation for the Senate. There are 100 seats in the Senate. However, the chance of a tie is not possible, for there is a tie breaker. In the U.S. Senate, if a tie is to ever occur, then the Vice President breaks the tie with his/her vote, giving the majority to a certain entity. This isn't tyrannical, it is a system that has worked for more than 200 years.

There clearly must be a certain winner or progress will never take shape. That's why there is something called debate so the best may be worked out into a compromise. However, if the J.L.S. would believe otherwise, then that's their own personal preference.

Date21:38:47, February 07, 2007 CET
From United Democrats of Jakania
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
Messagewell ok, but I just wanted a lot of seats in the Supreme Council, say 501 then?

Date22:30:57, February 07, 2007 CET
From Liberal Democratic Party
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageThe L.D.P. will not go with anything above 475 - no exceptions. If the number was 475 seats, then each province would have 95 representatives. This is certainly most adequate. There would be a small factor though, that would give provinces with larger populations more seats. This only makes sense because the more people the more representation needed.

Nothing more than 475.

Date16:47:17, February 08, 2007 CET
From Liberal Democratic Party
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageOn behalf of my party, I will speak.

We have had much difficulty sorting legislation out most recently. This bill in particular has been going through a rather rough time. The L.D.P. receives nothing but hard pressed counter activity. We ask that all parties consider union. We need to get this sorted out.

The opposition fights what we do, but gives merely in defense "i want 500 cuz it sounds good to me we wont settle for anything less but we dont know why cuz we dont."

Give us a break.

This is not how formal debate works. Debate is supposed to settle a problem using sensical facts and ideals. The usual foolishness that has been abundant accomplishes nothing. It aggitates us greatly because we go to great lengths to prove our point and the counter party justifies themself with the usual "well we dont like it cuz it just doesnt sound good cant explain why it just does."

We offer the opportunity to work out debate like it's supposed to. Even if one side isn't entirely happy, the only way to get things done is to settle for a compromise. If this didn't happen, nothing would ever be accomplished in government. That's why, we'll settle for this. We offer the seat range from 400 - 475. We will invite the opposition to choose what number of seats will be sent to a vote in this legislation from this range we have provided.

A compromise; the best chance we have.

- Sherrod Brown
L.D.P. Senate Speaker

Date20:19:04, February 08, 2007 CET
From Jakanian Liberal Socialists
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageWe find the LDP's response hypocritical and hostile. We will not debate under such circumstances. We gave our stance with reasons why and this demonstrated inability to respect that does not earn the LDP's leadership any good favour.

Date22:06:01, February 08, 2007 CET
From Liberal Democratic Party
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageThe J.L.S. finds our response hypocritical and hostile because we are right? Normally our party would note what we've done. We've admitted that we've gone over the edge, that we have been fighting on the deep offensive, and that we've said some regrettable things, but we're not sorry for this. We are not going to take something back that we have no upset conscience about because we merely proved our point. That is foolishness.

We have argued to full potential and have made our point. If other parties will be foolish and barren in their response we have every right to use criticism for something they've done poorly. Also, we weren't directing this towards the J.L.S., but if that's the reaction your party will take then so be it. Unfortunately, the past cannot be erased, that is why there is the future.

What, you won't debate under circumstances that you lost? The L.D.P. makes a good comeback and the counter party says we won't respect them. If you are going to take part in a DEBATE, then you should understand what a DEBATE is.

And the J.L.S. really respected what the L.D.P. wrote. It seemed though when the L.D.P. didn't take any offense to what the J.L.S. said, it was fine because our party will shrug these things aside because we know that's what debate is about.
~Quoted
"If an election has been close enough to cause a tie between two parties, or groups of parties, then giving one side an absolute say is rediculous. That's a textbook case of tyranny of the majority, one 50% dictating to another.

If elections are to be resolved that closely then neither should have majority, and any legislation should be agreed by consensus. To do otherwise is non-democratic and an abuse of the representative system."
-J.L.S.

Don't you think that our party took offense to that? Your party accused what we proposed, the absence of a tie, to be a "textbook case of tyranny of the majority" and said what our proposal was "is non-democratic and an abuse of the representative system." But, the J.L.S. wins because we made a valid and sensical point.

If the J.L.S. wants to play that game, then they may be our guest.

Date22:33:59, February 08, 2007 CET
From United Democrats of Jakania
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageThe UDA will agree with 475(hesitantly)

Date22:37:11, February 08, 2007 CET
From Liberal Democratic Party
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageThe L.D.P. thanks the U.D.A. for their willingness to compromise with our party. We understand that is not what the U.D.A. wanted and we thank them for their ability to look out into the future for the people, not their own wants.

Thank you once again.

Date05:13:56, February 09, 2007 CET
From Jakanian Liberal Socialists
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageTo the LDS:

No offence was meant. The JLSP apologises for any caused. I have concerns that the system you proposed is not best for the nation, but we did not intend to imply that you purposefully suggest an unfair system. Regardless, we feel the proposed number of seats is unfair and we have stated our reasons for doing so.

However, we expect an apology in return. You assumed mal intent without cause and we will not tolerate such hostility.

Our party has stated our positions. We would prefer an even number of seats and a value as high as possible to ensure adequate representation. We suggested 500 as it was the upper limit originally proposed. We made our views transparent and open but never stamped our foot down and declared we would not move.

To then attack us with accusations that we can not debate is hypocracy. To present a straw man of arguements we never even made is the height of poor debate and logical fallacy. You demonstrated your own lack of will to refute our points. We will not back down from this statement. Your continued hostility is not conductive to our deliberations, and we also expect an apology for this.

When you are ready to actually debate, we will be ready to begin compromising. 500 seats was not our final decision, nor did we ever say it was.


Date18:00:23, February 09, 2007 CET
From Liberal Democratic Party
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
MessageFirst off, the L.D.P. feels regret for some things it said. So for that we are sorry, in a generalized statement.

However, we dare not apologize when the opposition apologizes and then immediately laces their message with offensive and more provokative statements. This was a mistake the L.D.P. made back in the nation of Cildania, where our party and the counter party were on fierce relations. We apologized first, and were the only ones to do so, but laced our messages, until the last few, with provokative and seemingly offensive statements within.

The J.L.S. has pulled an L.D.P. Like the party we did it to in Cildania, we appreciate your attempt to reconcile but will deny it when it is seen as something to provoke our party into a greater fight with offensive remarks lingering about.

We are not going to apologize for a situation we still don't feel much remorse for especially when the counter party half-heartedly mixes apologies with provokative statements in them. It's just not going to happen.

Date03:48:37, February 10, 2007 CET
From Independent party
ToDebating the Reforming the Legislative Body: II
Messagethis is a good idea for spreading power around the nation

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
    

Total Seats: 51

no
 

Total Seats: 49

abstain
 

Total Seats: 0


Random fact: The players in a nation have a collective responsibility to ensure their "Bills under debate" section is kept in good order. Bills which are irrelevant or have become irrelevant should be deleted. Deletion can be requested for bills proposed by inactive parties on the Bill Clearout Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363

Random quote: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." - Thomas Paine

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 75