Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: November 5460
Next month in: 00:06:19
Server time: 11:53:40, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): JWBa | 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: Reform IX

Details

Submitted by[?]: Nova Prospekt Party

Status[?]: passed

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: May 2442

Description[?]:

Further Reform.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date21:05:33, August 12, 2007 CET
FromSecular Humanist party
ToDebating the Reform IX
MessageWhat exactly is the point in this bill ?

Date01:41:04, August 13, 2007 CET
FromTelamonese Cultural Alliance
ToDebating the Reform IX
MessageTo limit the number of seats in the Congress to prevent smaller parties from getting as much clout.

Date02:13:26, August 13, 2007 CET
FromNew Telamon Party
ToDebating the Reform IX
MessageMaybe we'll get lucky and this will blow up in his face in the next elections.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 317

no
   

Total Seats: 0

abstain
  

Total Seats: 0


Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play.

Random quote: "Those who are responsible for the national security must be the sole judges of what the national security requires. It would be obviously undesirable that such matters should be made the subject of evidence in a court of law or otherwise discussed in public." - Unattributed member of the the House of Lords on the removal of trade union rights

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 51