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: Estuarty and Forest Protection Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Republics Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: February 2416
Description[?]:
| Preserves Lodamuns natural and ecological wonders |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government devolves park policy to local governments.
Current: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Proposed: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 07:20:08, June 18, 2007 CET | From | The Unified Lodamun Party | To | Debating the Estuarty and Forest Protection Act |
| Message | I can't believe the same guy that wants to ruin our air, and give lung cancer to half the nation, not to mention kill off zillions of young adults with drunk driving, wants to preserve our forests. Obviously, the Unified Lodamun's support such a bill. |
| Date | 14:27:46, June 18, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Estuarty and Forest Protection Act |
| Message | Is this "as well as local park systems?" |
| Date | 16:14:39, June 18, 2007 CET | From | Free Lodamun | To | Debating the Estuarty and Forest Protection Act |
| Message | I think this bill implies that the current local parks would be nationalized. I know it doesn't say that but it goes from "locally maintained" to no mention of local governments. |
| Date | 16:29:27, June 18, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Estuarty and Forest Protection Act |
| Message | We can support a national parks system, but not nationalizing current local parks. It's no one's fault, but this proposal is a bit too vague. |
| Date | 20:43:58, June 18, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Estuarty and Forest Protection Act |
| Message | I think you're all mistaken. There is no option to choose both national and local parks. This bill will not nationalize local parks. |
| Date | 21:23:38, June 18, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Estuarty and Forest Protection Act |
| Message | That would have been a good thing to reach a consensus on during the debate period we didn't get on this proposal. |
| Date | 22:11:12, June 18, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Estuarty and Forest Protection Act |
| Message | LDp can vote against this, but I believe they will pay during the next election. there will be no debate. |
| Date | 23:02:12, June 18, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Estuarty and Forest Protection Act |
| Message | 1. Whether we pay during next elections is immaterial - local governments are what we would support anyway. 2. Of course there are no debates - the URP proposed a bill. |
| Date | 04:37:27, June 19, 2007 CET | From | The Unified Lodamun Party | To | Debating the Estuarty and Forest Protection Act |
| Message | This sucks, I have to vote for this because of how the game works as far as telling my constituents what I believe, and how I will vote, but without bringing up debate, I'd prefer to vote no on every bill proposed wihtout debate. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 234 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 262 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 103 |
| Random fact: Real-life places should not be referenced in Particracy. |
| Random quote: "In an underdeveloped country, don't drink the water; in a developed country, don't breathe the air." - Changing Times magazine |