Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: November 5573
Next month in: 02:15:21
Server time: 01:44:38, November 25, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): itsjustgav | wstodden2 | 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: 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:

Date16:16:09, November 10, 2007 CET
FromFlemish Liberation Front
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
Messagewe support so you may finaly stop trying to change this ^^

Date16:20:49, November 10, 2007 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageWe oppose this. It was stupid last time, and it failed. It is still stupid.

Date17:05:27, November 10, 2007 CET
FromRightist Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageSo 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?

Date00:13:49, November 11, 2007 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageA 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.

Date04:26:34, November 11, 2007 CET
FromRightist Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageAnd yet punishes new parties at the sametime! Why punish the innocent for the crime of 1.

Date04:34:07, November 11, 2007 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageNew parties are not punished. They must simply be active.

Date05:31:34, November 11, 2007 CET
FromRightist Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageBut 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.

Date06:07:54, November 11, 2007 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageWe 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.


Date20:52:30, November 11, 2007 CET
FromRightist Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageThis 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.

Date21:49:43, November 11, 2007 CET
FromGreenish Liberal Democratic Socialists
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageIsn't any compromise possible?

Date23:30:28, November 11, 2007 CET
FromRightist Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageWe are hoping for compromise and am willing to compromise.

Date09:39:50, November 12, 2007 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageWe are not willing to compromise on this matter. We strongly oppose any change to this law.

Date15:12:46, November 12, 2007 CET
FromRightist Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageAnd thus the impasse. All JUP cares about is punishing the innocent. Something he tries to accuse us on.

Date07:35:49, November 13, 2007 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageIt's not punishing anyone. We prefer the law as it is.

Date15:31:55, November 13, 2007 CET
FromRightist Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageWhy 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.

Date19:13:47, November 13, 2007 CET
FromOne Nation Socialist Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
Messagewe support the rightist party on this one

Date19:54:22, November 13, 2007 CET
FromRightist Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageWe thank thee ONSP!

Date12:27:18, November 14, 2007 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageNo party is being punished. Until you understand this, we will not compromise.

Date17:02:51, November 14, 2007 CET
FromRightist Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageBy 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.

Date19:02:02, November 14, 2007 CET
FromGreenish Liberal Democratic Socialists
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageI don't think the JUP will suddenly change his mind.. We're calling the question.

Date21:04:18, November 14, 2007 CET
FromRightist Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageThe question has been called and will submit to vote.

Date20:48:27, November 15, 2007 CET
FromRightist Party
ToDebating the Proposal Amendment
MessageWe will continue to try and try and try.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

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

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 80