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: Parliamentary Democracy Act II
Details
Submitted by[?]: Lyika ati Isọdọtun
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: March 2104
Description[?]:
| Upon reconsidering its vote on the previous bill of the same title, the FFP has chosen to reintroduce the proposal. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The constitutional right and responsibility to propose a cabinet to the legislature.
Old value:: Only the Head of State can propose a cabinet coalition.
Current: Only the Head of State can propose a cabinet coalition.
Proposed: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:35:49, August 29, 2005 CET | From |  Underappreciated Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | Yet again, we will support. |
| Date | 21:29:42, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | Yet again, we will oppose, and would oppose even if we were left out of the proposed cabinet coalition-- although, if left out, we would vote against the coalition itself. The voters make their choice as to whom they would like to form the government when they vote for Head of State. In order to pass a cabinet coalition, they need to include parties chosen, as a group, by a majority of the electorate. The passage of this act would turn the Head of State into a figurehead with zero power. If it does happen to pass, we will propose that the Head of Government become Head of State, as there is no point in a separate Head of State if he or she is just a figurehead. We would prefer, however, to keep the current system and let the voters choose whom they would like to form the government. |
| Date | 22:38:46, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Neoretropostmodernist Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | I would actually prefer that the HoS and HoG be the same position given how little power each one has. But I'd wait to put that to vote until this bill is passed. |
| Date | 22:41:11, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | I agree with the NP - merging the HoS and HoG would be best, followed by this. I will vote yes to both. |
| Date | 22:42:06, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | Oh, and to the PLP: if only you knew how random the result of the presidential election is when only 2-3% separate the winners of the first round from the rest ;-) |
| Date | 22:53:05, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | The last comment was OOC, so we'll respond in kind: I'm sure there is, as in real life, a significant random factor in the HoS election. However, in theory it is the voters who are choosing, and what's referred to as the random factor is actually more designed to represent people voting partially on the basis of personality. Random factors in games are often truly random, but they represent a real force that is not practical to figure in to the game engine. While I will support merging HoS and HoG *if* this passes (I intend to vote against, and along with a likely opposing vote by the NDP, it's uncertain that this bill will pass). However, if it does pass, I will see the only reasonable option as to merge HoS and HoG. |
| Date | 23:16:31, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Neoretropostmodernist Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | Even though a particular party is able to secure the HoS, it doesn't mean it has majority support, as votes in the second round are more for the lesser of two evils than who they often support. We are dealing with this issue as we clearly have a majority in opposition. |
| Date | 23:21:27, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | In fact, the HoS election tends to favor most a party that best represents the people of Ikradon. The farthest-left active party won it; but if one looks at the opinions of Ikradon's voters, the NDP would be seen my them as representing their views quite well. |
| Date | 23:21:36, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | In fact, the HoS election tends to favor most a party that best represents the people of Ikradon. The farthest-left active party won it; but if one looks at the opinions of Ikradon's voters, the NDP would be seen by them as representing their views quite well. |
| Date | 23:21:56, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | Apologies for the double post. |
| Date | 23:30:58, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | The part about the HoS election being largely random is not so much due to the algo than a logical consequence of having a two-round system in a pluralist democracy. Unless we start seeing real coalitions emerging before the elections presenting a common candidate (as the NP and me did this time BTW, though it wasn't enough), they will remain random, and we will continue to see coalitions built around a party who has no other specific claim to power than the HoS title. |
| Date | 23:55:55, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | The HoS title, though, in earned by being a party that fits in best with the will of the voters. It is not by any means an unearned position. The two round system actually makes it more fair in that regard and less of a requirement for coalitions to build before the election. OOC example: The 2000 elections in which Nader's voters, my and large, would have preferred Gore to Bush. Had there been a second round, Gore would have won convincingly. However, due to there being no second round, a less-preferred candidate won. We have our differences with the NDP on such issues as the military and crime, and our economic views are less exteme, yet it is clear to us that at this moment the NDP best represents the will of the voters of Ikradon. |
| Date | 10:31:39, August 31, 2005 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | By a difference of 7 seats, we are the second-largest party at present. That the FSA rejects the result of a direct vote which saw our candidate elected Chancellor by a 52-48 margin, which amounted to a victory by about half a million votes, and also considers us to have "no other specific claim to power" is somewhat puzzling. |
| Date | 18:41:05, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | The FSA does not reject the NDP's claim to the Chancellorship, but the excessive power associated with it. In a multi-party democracy like ours, power should rest with whatever coalition manages to control the national assembly, not with the individual success of a single party in an election random by nature. We remind the NDP that the UPI reached the second round by only 200,000 votes; nobody can say that the NDP's candidate would have won against the PLP, for exemple. |
| Date | 19:43:20, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Lyika ati Isọdọtun | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | The 61 members of the FFP will continue to vote against any future cabinet proposals until this amendment is passed. |
| Date | 19:53:27, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | The FSA applauds the FFP's stance and stands by it in this struggle for true democracy in Ikradon. |
| Date | 20:56:33, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | True democracy in Ikradon means that the will of the people is respected, and the will of the people is that the NDP be the ones to form a cabinet this election. The UPI came close, and if the UPI were to move a bit more in the direction of the bigger government that Ikradoni people desire they could very possibly win the Chancellor's office next time around. The two-round Chancellor voting system does effectively shut out rightist or libertarian parties from the office, which is what democracy demands, given the views of the people of Ikradon. A less-leftist but still left-leaning party such as the UPI could still win, but rightists couldn't, and that is the truly democratic method, as that is what best represents the will of the people of Ikradon. |
| Date | 21:26:54, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | That the NDP cannot form a cabinet since the centre-left to centre-right UPI/FFP/NP/FSA group refuses to join yet an other variation of a socialist government should be indication enough of the will of the people. Ultimately, the representative elections are the legislative ones, and the defeat of the socialist PLP+NDP group in those is clear. OOC: the situation in Ikradon looks like what we call in France (where we have the same electoral system as Ikradon basically) a cohabitation: the government (which relies on a parliamentary majority) and the president are of different parties. The result is partial deadlock. |
| Date | 21:42:48, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | The PLP is not a socialist party, but rather a left-capitalist or mixed-economy party on economics. On two occasions, we've voted against nationalizing industries (one of which was our own legislation to privatize sports clubs), and on a thirs, we pushed for, and received, a compromise from the UPI, when the UPI was going to nationalize the defense industry, and thus voted to have a mixture of private and public defense companies rather than the entire nationalization of the industry. The NDP (or anyone else) hasn't tried to push truly Socialist legislation, such that it's hard to see the economic differences between the PLP and the NDP-- but unless the NDP is not truly socialist either, the differences are there. We believe that the NDP made an error in leaving the UPI out of its government proposal. Had the UPI been granted some posts of substance, we believe that the cabinet proposal would have passed. However, even if this is wrong, we are more comfortable with gridlocking in the NDP/PEP left/center-left cabinet from the previous session than with any rightist-libertarian cabinet that might otherwise form. |
| Date | 21:44:04, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | Typo: "on a thirs" should read "on a third." |
| Date | 21:48:36, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | > However, even if this is wrong, we are more comfortable with gridlocking in the NDP/PEP left/center-left cabinet from the previous session than with any rightist-libertarian cabinet that might otherwise form. The FSA would like to remind the PLP that the only party that could be described as "rightist-libertarian" in Ikradon is us, and that we control 19% of the seats. There's a big difference between a coalition going from centre-left to centre-right, which easily covers more than half the Ikradonian population, and a purely right-wing government somehow installing itself in power despite not having the voters' support. |
| Date | 22:40:25, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | We believe that the FFP and NP also qualify as right-leaning or libertarian-leaning. The UPI is left-leaning, as we see it, as is the PEP. We in the PLP lean slightly farther to the left overall, but given that we and the UPI are the only pro-military parties in Ikradon and we are definitely not Socialist, not all that far to the left. The PEP is also left of center, and of course the NDP is the farthest left party in Ikradon, but then also the party chosen by the voters. Had the UPI candidate won for Chancellor, the PLP would have been happy to join their cabinet. The PLP would even join an NP cabinet if offered under the current system. Had the PLP won the office of Chancellor, we would have included the UPI prominently in the government, along with the NDP and the PEP, and would have considered also including the NP. This would have created overall a center-left government. We did not, and thus the NDP Chancellor chose to form a government more consistent with his beliefs, and we believe that was his right. We do believe that there is something special about the Chancellor elections, especially due to the two round voting. The Ikradon public is pretty far left, and thus will not elect a Chancellor not left of center. The FSA did not run a candidate, and we feel this was due to their realization that they might have made it to a runoff, but that the NDP (or UPI or PLP) would have destroyed them in the runoff, as most Ikradon citizens oppose their views. If you want to call upon the NDP to broaden its coalition, the PLP will support that. We will even go so far as to state that a coalition must include significant power for the UPI and one position, at least, for their choice of a party among the FSA, FFP, or NP, for the PLP to support it, if that will end the calls to exclude all left-leaning parties besides the UPI from power. We will not support taking away the special importance of the Chancellor elections, however; as we believe that the coalition you propose is well to the right of the Ikradoni citizens, including only the four farthest right parties (even if one of the four leans to the left) and excluding the four truly left of center parties. |
| Date | 22:50:04, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | The FFP and the NP can hardly be qualified of being "right-leaning" - both of them are regulation-leaning. Considering that 40% of Ikradon's population is right-wing, a coalition including one right-wing party, two centrist one and one centre-left is hardly unrepresentative. What is the current NDP lock on power despite its disavowal in the legislative elections. Anyway, the plan of the Middle Front now is simple: we won't accept a government not formed by us, and if the NDP and the PLP continue to refuse it, we will have no choice but to call for early elections until the matter is resolved one way or an other. |
| Date | 23:09:54, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Democracy Act II |
| Message | The NDP was not disavowed in the legislative elections. Its vote was split with the SPI, the PEP, the PLP, and the UPI. The party finishing ahead of them was the FSA, which did so because of its uniquely libertarian stance-- but, which again, Ikradon's voters do not wish to see lead the nation, as will be shown in a second round of voting for Chancellor, if the FSA fields a candidate. Looking back, we would have preferred that the UPI had won the run-off, as the center-left government that would have been likely to result would have been highly satisfactory to us but also satisfactory to many parties who dislike the NDP. We will do all we can to prevent the formation of a center-right government-- and those who ally with the FSA should look at how often they vote against the FSA before supporting giving the FSA significant executive power. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 322 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 188 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 89 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to be accurate when communicating the rules to other players. Any player who manipulatively misleads another player about the rules will be subject to sanction. |
| Random quote: "We can only protect liberty by making it relevant to the modern world." - Tony Blair |