Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: September 5474
Next month in: 02:55:26
Server time: 01:04:33, April 25, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): 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: Simplicity, for those who need it

Details

Submitted by[?]: Likaton Coalition of the Willing

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: February 2373

Description[?]:

In order that the Likaton people, and the parties of the Convocation, can easily understand majorities and support for Bills, we propose reducing the Convocation to an exact 100 members.

In order to better legislate, we also propose increasing the number of proposals available per party annually by 50%, and the number that a party can 'store up' by 25%

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date12:07:39, March 11, 2007 CET
FromDemocratic National Party
ToDebating the Simplicity, for those who need it
MessageWe only agree with article 3 so on balance we will vote against this bill. However we do appreciate the Eastern Likaton Independence Party's position change on article 3.

Date12:12:35, March 11, 2007 CET
From Likaton Coalition of the Willing
ToDebating the Simplicity, for those who need it
MessageWe felt that it was the will of the people, so we adapted.

We would like the Clibs to re-consider the benefits of being able to propose more of those fantastic Clib economic policies, which we often support, even as we frown upon the excesses of their social legistlation.

Date13:01:52, March 11, 2007 CET
FromCommonwealth Workers Army
ToDebating the Simplicity, for those who need it
MessageWe are willing to support.

We are not entirely convinced that calculations are really made any easier by only having 100 seats... and it also seems to us that the fewer representatives, the less actually 'representative' each elected official becomes.

Date14:31:49, March 11, 2007 CET
FromAM Populist Social Democrats
ToDebating the Simplicity, for those who need it
MessageWe oppose, as we were actually considering reducing the amount that could be stored, as there really isn't a problem with not having enough proposals to vote on, a tribute to how active parties currently are, and we think that the size of bills is generally too big right now.

Date14:35:48, March 11, 2007 CET
From Likaton Coalition of the Willing
ToDebating the Simplicity, for those who need it
MessageWEll, as this Bill is seemingly destined to fall, perhaps the AMPSD might wish to propose such a Bill. We would support redcutions in storage, if there was an increase in monthly allocation.

Date14:53:16, March 11, 2007 CET
FromAM Populist Social Democrats
ToDebating the Simplicity, for those who need it
MessageWe will propose something that does exactly that, we suppose, plus a 399 seat Convocation, as the "Convocation hugeness proposal" appears destined to pass.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 50

no
      

Total Seats: 149

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: In your Message Centre there is a really useful feature which allows you to subscribe to all of the bill debates in your nation. If you use that, then the "Watched Discussions" section will show you every time a new message has been posted on a bill. You can also subscribe to other pages you want to follow, such as your nation message-board, party organisations or bills outside your nation which you are interested in.

    Random quote: "The free market is ugly and stupid, like going to the mall; the unfree market is just as ugly and just as stupid, except there is nothing in the mall, and if you don't go there, they shoot you." - P. J. O'Rourke

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 63