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: Proposal Amendment
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rightist 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: October 2486
Description[?]:
Article 1: Title
Section 1 This shall be known as the Proposal Amendment
Article 2: Number
Section 1: This will hike up the number of proposals a person can make and make it equal to the number of proposals per year at 12. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 17:05:27, November 10, 2007 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Proposal Amendment | Message | So tell me why it is stupid? As the bill description indicates, it is to match up the number of proposals per year with the number of proposals one can accumulate. So tell me, what is stupid about that? |
Date | 00:13:49, November 11, 2007 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Proposal Amendment | Message | A party should not be able to spam the legislature many proposals all at once. The current law rewards active parties, and punishes inactive ones. This is a good thing. |
Date | 04:26:34, November 11, 2007 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Proposal Amendment | Message | And yet punishes new parties at the sametime! Why punish the innocent for the crime of 1. |
Date | 05:31:34, November 11, 2007 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Proposal Amendment | Message | But by the way the law is...they are being punished. Look at me. I've been active and yet, I only have 20+ seats in the legislature. Voting on bills and only allowed to propose 5 bills at a time with a 12 bill limit per year? Why not make it 12 bills at a time with a 12 bill limit? If they blow it all in one shot, we have 52 hours till they can do anymore proposing. |
Date | 06:07:54, November 11, 2007 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Proposal Amendment | Message | We think it is more likely that the people dislike your policies rather than any other reason for your lack of seats. Your visibility is higher than the FLF's, and they're having no problems with seats. All that matters, in terms of visibility, is the number of bills able to be proposed in a year. This bill will not change that.
As it is, our legislature is overrun with bill after bill. You cannot suggest that we need more of that. It is better for the efficient running of the legislature that bills be staggered across a year.
|
Date | 20:52:30, November 11, 2007 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Proposal Amendment | Message | This will equal out the number one is able to do per month to per year. If someone wants to blow all of that on one bill, that is their perogative. One should not stifle that. |
Date | 09:39:50, November 12, 2007 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Proposal Amendment | Message | We are not willing to compromise on this matter. We strongly oppose any change to this law. |
Date | 15:12:46, November 12, 2007 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Proposal Amendment | Message | And thus the impasse. All JUP cares about is punishing the innocent. Something he tries to accuse us on. |
Date | 15:31:55, November 13, 2007 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Proposal Amendment | Message | Why don't we compromise then. I"m willing to compromise. And yes you are punishing the innocent. By supporting the current law you are indeed punishing them. |
Date | 17:02:51, November 14, 2007 CET |
From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Proposal Amendment | Message | By supporting the 5 quota rule that we are trying to change, you are 100% most assuredly punishing people for it was passed because of one nitwit. You are punishing the many for the sake of 1. I cannot believe you do not understand this. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
Vote |
Seats |
yes | Total Seats: 243 |
no | Total Seats: 256 |
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar). |
Random quote: "The opportunity to serve our country, that is all we ask." - John Smith
|