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: Legislative and Executive Term Act 2485
Details
Submitted by[?]: Royalist Alliance
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: April 2486
Description[?]:
| To increase democracy and use more accepted 4 year term instead of current 6 year term. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The length of a legislative and executive term, in months. Should be between 24 and 72.
Old value:: 72
Current: 72
Proposed: 60
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:28:23, November 13, 2007 CET | From |  Royalist Alliance | To | Debating the Legislative and Executive Term Act 2485 |
| Message | It seems to me that current term is just too long. Its total 12 RL days, unless you want to rewrite practically every law(which current coalition seems not to be interested in), then 8 should be enough. I have put forward 48 months option, although it could maybe be even more shorter. It depends what Fatherland Front is ready to accept, as it can't pass without his agreement. |
| Date | 23:08:06, November 13, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Peoples Party | To | Debating the Legislative and Executive Term Act 2485 |
| Message | I proposed a similar change a few days ago, I don't think anything decent will get passed until the seats are a little more shared or Fatherland Front do the right thing and have EARLY ELECTIONS. |
| Date | 23:21:23, November 13, 2007 CET | From | Rodina | To | Debating the Legislative and Executive Term Act 2485 |
| Message | Before we have any early elections, there are things to sort out, something elections would hinder. I agree that the period should be shortened, 60 months could be a start. You propose 60 months, you will most certainly have our backing. |
| Date | 23:23:08, November 13, 2007 CET | From | Royalist Alliance | To | Debating the Legislative and Executive Term Act 2485 |
| Message | Alright, 60 is still better than 72. |
| Date | 23:31:14, November 13, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Peoples Party | To | Debating the Legislative and Executive Term Act 2485 |
| Message | Surely a wider spread of the seats would not hinder things but make it a more fair democratic environment. No piece of legislation can pass without FF's agreement and that is not healthy for law-making. There is a couple of parties with excellent political views that have not got their fair share of seats. |
| Date | 23:34:14, November 13, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Peoples Party | To | Debating the Legislative and Executive Term Act 2485 |
| Message | Surely a wider spread of the seats would not hinder things but make it a more fair democratic environment. No piece of legislation can pass without FF's agreement and that is not healthy for law-making. There is a couple of parties with excellent political views that have not got their fair share of seats. |
| Date | 23:45:12, November 13, 2007 CET | From | Royalist Alliance | To | Debating the Legislative and Executive Term Act 2485 |
| Message | I think his point is, that he wants to use his current very strong position to get something done, before new elections come and probably even out stuff a bit(as currently many seats are just empty, probably due inactive parties). Rather logical from his viewpoint. |
| Date | 23:59:21, November 13, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Peoples Party | To | Debating the Legislative and Executive Term Act 2485 |
| Message | This is not democracy, this is fascism. Suppression of the opposition. Fatherland Fronts can pass any bill they choose. Perfectly good legislation is being rejected because FF have the majority share. They are also voting on legislation that they voted against a few days ago. The 'Religious Freedom Act 2485', in which FF voted yes, is in complete contradiction to the 'Removal of Religion from Politics Act 2483' in which they voted no. How can they speak for the people when they cannot speak effectively for themselves? |
| Date | 00:06:47, November 14, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Peoples Party | To | Debating the Legislative and Executive Term Act 2485 |
| Message | This is not democracy, this is fascism. Suppression of the opposition. Fatherland Fronts can pass any bill they choose. Perfectly good legislation is being rejected because FF have the majority share. They are also voting on legislation that they voted against a few days ago. The 'Religious Freedom Act 2485', in which FF voted yes, is in complete contradiction to the 'Removal of Religion from Politics Act 2483' in which they voted no. How can they speak for the people when they cannot speak effectively for themselves? |
| Date | 00:09:06, November 14, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Peoples Party | To | Debating the Legislative and Executive Term Act 2485 |
| Message | This is not democracy, this is fascism. Suppression of the opposition. Fatherland Fronts can pass any bill they choose. Perfectly good legislation is being rejected because FF have the majority share. They are also voting on legislation that they voted against a few days ago. The 'Religious Freedom Act 2485', in which FF voted yes, is in complete contradiction to the 'Removal of Religion from Politics Act 2483' in which they voted no. How can they speak for the people when they cannot speak effectively for themselves? |
| Date | 00:09:37, November 14, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Peoples Party | To | Debating the Legislative and Executive Term Act 2485 |
| Message | This is not democracy, this is fascism. Suppression of the opposition. Fatherland Fronts can pass any bill they choose. Perfectly good legislation is being rejected because FF have the majority share. They are also voting on legislation that they voted against a few days ago. The 'Religious Freedom Act 2485', in which FF voted yes, is in complete contradiction to the 'Removal of Religion from Politics Act 2483' in which they voted no. How can they speak for the people when they cannot speak effectively for themselves? |
| Date | 00:16:36, November 14, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Peoples Party | To | Debating the Legislative and Executive Term Act 2485 |
| Message | apologies for my double posting. |
| Date | 00:16:42, November 14, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Peoples Party | To | Debating the Legislative and Executive Term Act 2485 |
| Message | apologies for my double posting. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 377 | |||||||
| no | Total Seats: 52 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where players introduce RP laws to a nation and then leave, Moderation reserves the discretion to declare the RP laws void if they appear to have fallen into disuse. In particular, please bear in mind that a player who is inexperienced with Particracy role-play and has joined a nation as the only party there should not generally be expected to abide by RP laws implemented by previous players who have been and left. |
| Random quote: "When anger rises, think of the consequences." - Confucius |