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: Parliamentary Procedure Act I.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Adam Smith 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: February 2090
Description[?]:
| To ensure the democratic functioning of the parliament in Lodamun it has become apparent that there is a need for an established procedure. This bill is intended to enable the parliament to concentrate on its business rather than continue on the line of petty conflict. The following rules shall apply to all parties and all bills presented to the national parliament. 1. All proposed laws shall have at least 8 months of debate before being put into voting. Any proposed law that is not specifically excluded from this restriction in clause 1.a that is placed into voting without passing through debate shall be unconstitutional. 1.a Exceptions to clause 1. These are: i. Cabinet proposals ii. Calls for Early Elections iii. At such time as it becomes available any declaration of a state of emergency iv. At such time as it becomes available any declaration of war v. Any bill which is a split off item(s) from a bill already in debate only needs to complete the time from when the original bill entered debate. vi. Any bill on which, for technical reasons, more than 50% of the parliament abstained ((Game downtime)) can reissued and placed directly into voting with a link to the previous debate. 2. The time of the bill being proposed shall be taken to be the time of the first comment made on the bill. Thus it is advised to post a comment immediately on presenting a bill. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The formal title of the Head of State.
Old value:: President-Councillor
Current: President of the Commonwealth
Proposed: President Councillor
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:40:44, July 27, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | Opposed, this will merely slow down parliament and force its members to adhere to an unrealistic set of rules. If a bill flood or filibuster occurs every decade or so, it's a small price to pay for the efficiency that the parliament would hold on to. |
| Date | 18:03:05, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | How will this slow anything down? If you would prefer to see a higher number of bills permitted, then suggest a value. Once a decade is too often to try to corrupt the democratic process. It should not be allowed to happen. Would you support the debating clause by itself? |
| Date | 18:09:52, July 27, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | I would support it with a few exceptions - for example, allowing parties to repropose recently failed bills (recently as in two years) that failed because of abstentions, or repeal recently passed bills that passed for the same reason. Also, allowing proposals that have been debated to some extent in other bills would be appropriate. |
| Date | 18:30:58, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | We are not sure about bills failed due to abstensions. All sides here suffer from that (AC damn you). Bills that have recently be debated and passed one way should really only reappear after an intervening election and any change in power balance can provoke renogotiation of the bill terms. The point is that a bill in voting can not be adjusted in any way for errors or oversights. It could be cancelled and represented, but then all the comments and opinions are lost. (I don't understand the last part. - do you mean that if a proposal has been debated in another bill at any time it can be put straight into voting with no new debate? If so I can not see why this should be so.)) |
| Date | 20:23:34, July 27, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | By abstentions, I mean widespread abstentions, like when half the legislature, or a sizeable portion (1/3rd or 3 parties) abstains, it can be voted on without debate. On the second point, for example, Equitista's devolution bill included the capital at first, and we debated on the topic, so he should be able to move the capital proposal to a seperate bill and put it straight to voting. |
| Date | 20:26:25, July 27, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | All OOC, mostly... While I am not sure about some of the terms of this bill, as well as being disappointed that the bill has to exist at all, I do feel that some limit should exist. Thankfully the problem decreased this election a bit, thanks to the sudden change of heart from Kregon... |
| Date | 20:50:05, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | OK I can accept that a bill that has been split into parts as a result of debate does not need further debate on each part. Just that the proposal has to have been available for debate for 24 hours total (RL) before going to vote. I will try and work out a wording for this. Widespread abstensions due to technical failures fine, we can revote without debate. However widespread abstensions due to players not voting is simply a sign that they had no opinion on the matter, surely then the debate phase has to be included the next time to try and persuade them to vote one way or another. . |
| Date | 20:59:17, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | The description has been heavily editied, and the bill limited to the debate requirement. Another bill will be presented concerning the number of proposals that any one party may occupy at any given time. |
| Date | 21:09:07, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | I would prefer a requirement, on the other bill, that limits players to X proposals at a time, in debate or vote(combined). |
| Date | 21:10:57, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | VI: 50+% of parliament abstains for technical reasons? Because I think it would be fine if 34% votes yes, 33% votes not, and 33% abstains. |
| Date | 21:19:52, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | The limitation on the number of proposals wil be a separate act that we will propose soon. Re vi. This simply means that if we have a bill that only one or two parties have voted on, then the game goes down, it can be represented and placed directly into voting. You may be misunderstanding the verb 'obtain'. This simply means "have voted on either for or against" so in your example the bill obtained votes from 67% of the parliament. I will reword it to make it clearer. |
| Date | 21:35:05, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | I made the last comment above, mainly because the last bills to be instantly reproposed did so (according to equitista)because more people abstained than voted yes. In my opinion, 40% abstain, 35% yes, 25% against should stand, even if the abstaining parties would have voted against. This differs from 51% abstain, 25% yes, 24% no. |
| Date | 22:53:29, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | This, being a constitutional act will have to wait the return of Rohan. |
| Date | 23:57:56, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | Nice name btw, Rohan that is. Good pick CNT |
| Date | 06:13:18, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | ((has rohan returned yet? I see them listed as being online...)) |
| Date | 15:55:57, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | ((As rohan has returned this is being put to vote, as promised)) |
| Date | 16:58:30, August 02, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | In game terms if you vote yes on this you will be giving the ASP enormous credit for a constitutional amendment which is the removal of a hyphen. This is nothing more than gamesmanship. Vote against. |
| Date | 17:18:53, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | ((Keep it IC Equitista, as you are so fond of saying)) If you vote against this you are suppoorting an undemocratic process of clogging up parliament with undebated matters. It is no suprise that Equitista is campaigning against this though as they are the culprits that have made this kind of procedural regulation necessary. |
| Date | 20:50:06, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | If the proposal is removed, we can vote for this. this is what was done with the "impeachment" bill. I removed the word impeach to allow ASP and otehrs to vote in favour. re-submit without the proposal,. and you have our vote. |
| Date | 21:12:30, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | The proposal only exists to make this into a constitutional amendment... |
| Date | 21:13:23, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | you can add back the hyphen later, if it bothers you... |
| Date | 21:16:44, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | the hyphen is not relevant. this is not a constitutional proposal, it can be passed by simple majority without a proposal. While it carries an irrelevant proposal, the Greens will not vote for it. No irrelevant proposals are added to our bills like tax shifting. furthermore, the expense of printing His Excellency's stationary, with and without hyphens, over and over again, is far too high. Show some fiscal responsibility! |
| Date | 21:54:38, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | GA -Would you care to go back over our history, from before your arrival here and see the fuss that Equitista made about the Inclusive Consensus Act being constitutional, when all it did was change the title of the Head of State. We are simply taking a leaf out of their own book. If they don't like it when it is done to them, they should not have started the practice. The ICA was proposed by AC, but constructed by Equitista. |
| Date | 21:57:35, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | If you care to check the facts, as were clearly presented in the recent joke bill by equitista, the Head of State does not use printed stationary. We have a fully digital office, as this eliminates 95% of the costs involved in changing the Head of State, all costs involved in changing the title, etc. We have shown a great deal of fiscal and environmental responsibility. We do not use more paper than is absolutely necessary. |
| Date | 00:26:23, August 03, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | The whole of the Inclusive Consensus Act was written by the Amystian Council, with no assistance from us. It included a constitutional amendment which renamed the Regions as States, which was relevant at the time. The suggestion to include an amendment was made, we believe, by the CCF, it wasn't made by us. The ASP actually started the practice of adding wholly irrelevant amendments to bills with the Anti-Corruption Bill reproposal. When it changed the national anthem from "None" to "Probably None" http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=11111 We warned at the time that it was deceiving parties into giving unanimous support for a nonsensical amendment. Perhaps most amusing is that the ASPs don't actually believe in abiding by the constitution anyway, check out some of the rather mouth-foaming moments here: http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=9289 and again here: http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=8559 which relate to the ASPs view of the constitution. Adding this nonsensical amendment to this bill isn't about showing a firm commitment to the principles of the bill, it's about showboating for - and deliberately misleading - the voters. So probably the ASPs ought to go back through history a little more thoroughly. Or is it party policy to lie? |
| Date | 01:27:55, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | It is nice to know that Equitista knows our intentions better than we do ourselves. Having a precognitive psychic party in the parliament should be very useful in times of war. EWe ourselves only entered the nation at the time at which the ICA had been concluded. We appologize if we have wrongly attributed it to negotiations with the Equitista party. However, the fact remains that the equitista party clearly used the constitutional nature of the ICA when the bill description had nothing to do with the constitutional ammendment made The Bill was: As it seems that all compromises offered by the Council are rejected with name-calling and continued murder of Lodamunian citizens, and seeing that the Council values the life of Lodamun's people more than it values any given law, President-Councillor Aleksander Burke has seen fit to propose the Inclusive Consensus Act. 1. The Head of State shall retain the sole right to propose the Cabinet. 2. The Cabinet shall be composed of a near-proportional mix of parties. 2a. The party of the President-Councillor shall always retain the portfolio of Head of Government. 2b. The Cabinet shall be made up of those officially recognized parties of Lodamun that are pledged to democratic principles, regardless of economic model. 2c. Pledge to demoratic principles shall be determined by review of past acts and obtained by consensus of parties other than the one under review; or in the case of new parties that have yet to make determining acts, by evaluation of the party charter or description and by consensus of the parties other than that under review. 2d. Any party may opt out of inclusion in the cabinet even if found eligible for portfolios. 2e. Percentage of seats in Parliament shall be the basis of determining the composition of the Cabinet. Percentages will shift to reflect a whole made only of those parties deemed eligible through democratic principles and, of those parties, only those who have not elected to opt out of their seats. 2f. If there are not enough portfolios to be divided nicely amongst those parties eligible, the parties with the fewest Parliament seats shall lose their claims in Cabinet first. 2g. The President-Councillor reserves the right to assign portfolios in the original proposal of each Cabinet, but portfolio assignments other than Head of Government may be shifted by consensus request. 2h. Upon acceptance of this bill into legislation, the President-Councillor shall propose a new cabinet to reflect the requirements of this bill. 3. The title of the Head of State shall remain President-Councillor. 4. The name of national subentities shall be changed to "State" as has been requested by nearly every party. Proposals Article 1 Proposal[?] to change The official title of subnational entities, also known as regions. Current: State Proposed: State. Now if anyone can show what connection points 3 and 4 havew to do with the rest of the bill we would be grateful. It was accepted at the time as a device to pass the demands of parts 1 nad 2 into the constitution. But apparently what is good for some bills is not for others from the point of view of the Equitista distortion noise gang. |
| Date | 02:41:45, August 03, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | Is it laziness, stupidity or a commitment to misrepresenting the truth? Here's the link: http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=5570 Now do try to get your members to do their homework before shooting their mouths off. |
| Date | 16:10:49, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | Th ebill being referred to Equitista is the one you tried to use to say we were breaking the constitution when we proposed a cabinet that did not include you. This bill is quoted above. The bill you are referring to and have linked to has absolutely nothing to do with your action and in case you had not noticed is not called the Inclusive Consensus Act. |
| Date | 17:32:11, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | This, however, is the last time that we will make any adjustments to our proposals at the behest of CNT. To ask for ammendments and changes, have these made, make no further comment, and vote against is just bad faith. |
| Date | 17:46:49, August 03, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | As is passing another parliamentary procedure that we were totally opposed to in our absence. |
| Date | 18:10:59, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | Your absence was your problem. Being absent is something that we all have to tolerate from time to time. It may not have struck you yet, but the Part II bill will only have any effect on anyone trying to flood the parliament. It was set at a level that the number of proposals have only been exceeded once in the history of our parliament. i.e. it does absolutely nothing unless you try to distort or disrupt the parliamentary process. If you don't like it though, repeal it. The issue here is that we changed our bill to compromise in line with yourselves, and then you oppose. |
| Date | 18:59:49, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act I. |
| Message | CNT/AFL objects to the Procedure Act II? They plan to submit 12 proposals at the same time? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 189 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 215 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 46 |
| Random fact: In Particracy players are only allowed to play as one party at a time. Want to swap nations? Inactivate your current party and make a new one! Want to return? Request Moderation to reactivate your party on the forum! |
| Random quote: "To the youth of America, I say, beware of being trivialized by the commercial culture that tempts you daily. I hear you saying often that you're not turned on by politics. The lessons of history are clear and portentous. If you do not turn onto politics, politics will turn on you." - Ralph Nader |