Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: April 5461
Next month in: 01:35:27
Server time: 06:24:32, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): 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: Discretionary Elections

Details

Submitted by[?]: Tuesday Is Coming

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: November 2120

Description[?]:

1) The automatic schedule for elections shall be increased
2) The Head of Governmnet shall present a request for early elections no longer than 2 years after the last early election bill was proposed.
3) The Head of Government shall be forbidden from voting no on early election bills proposed by Prime Minister.
4) Any party may request early elections, however all parties shall be permitted to vote on this bill in any manner they choose.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date22:33:22, August 31, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageThis will allow us to schedule the elections as we see fit.

Date23:12:08, August 31, 2005 CET
From National People's Gang
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageThe Head of Government is the Prime Minister

Date11:19:36, September 01, 2005 CET
FromLodamun Centre-Left Coalition
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageIsn't it so obvious, TiC? What a mistake to make :rolleyes:

Opposed.

Date17:06:38, September 01, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageSix years, under any circumstances, is too long. If this is a real commitment to a more parliamentary and free-form electoral schedule, it's worth exploring -- but the maximum in most parliamentary systems is five years.

Date18:29:45, September 01, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageOpposed, how will this be informed?

Also, clause 3 is crooked, an abstention in an early elections vote is as good as a no vote.

Date18:30:42, September 01, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
Message*How will this be enforced.

((Those trans fats must really be getting to me.))

Date18:35:44, September 01, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
Message"Six years, under any circumstances, is too long. If this is a real commitment to a more parliamentary and free-form electoral schedule, it's worth exploring -- but the maximum in most parliamentary systems is five years."
60 months=five years
That is what I proposed. The maximum allowed value is six years, but I would prefer mandatory elections every five years.

"Opposed, how will this be informed?

Also, clause 3 is crooked, an abstention in an early elections vote is as good as a no vote."
Good point. If yes votes outnumber no votes, the HoG party must vote yes. If no votes outnumber yes votes, They may abstain.

"The Head of Government is the Prime Minister"
Yes, I am aware of that...

Date03:55:50, September 02, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageWhat do you mean by clause 2?

Do you mean that the HoG MUST request an early election no more than 24 months after the last proposal. If so why?

Date04:33:48, September 02, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
Messageoops, too much decimal crunching earlier.

The proposal seems to rest on trust among the parties. Does that exist?

Date09:35:00, September 02, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageI believe it exists between enough of them. Only one party is really immature enough to create a problem, and I doubt they will become Head of Government.

The Head of Governmnet must submit an early election bill no more than 24 months after the prior bill. Other parties may present a bill, which would start this count again. Otherwise the HoG must present the bill and may not vote no. They may vote yes or abstain. If their abstension would cause the bill to fail, they must change it to a yes.

Date13:52:27, September 02, 2005 CET
From National People's Gang
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageWhat's the aim of the bill other than making elections every 60 months?

Date16:20:23, September 02, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageHow, if the HoG must present the bill, are the elections discretionary? As the HoG would normally be the largest party, if they have to support the early election call, this would result in elections every 24 months. This is not a reasonable way to run a country as it leads to vote buying policies.

Date18:35:07, September 02, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageThe Head of Government may abstain. However, the vote shall be determined by whether there are more no votes or yes votes. Therefore if the abstension causes the bill not to pass, they must vote yes.

100 members vote no
90 vote yes
60 seat HoG may vote yes, doesnt have to

90 vote no
100 vote yes
60 seat HoG must vote yes

Another party proposes the early election bill, all parties may vote however they like and the HoG doesnt have to propose another one until 24 months later.

Date02:28:16, September 03, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
Message((dunno TIC, it seems fraught with potential mechanical issues. If five parties have voted and the others look like they've been offline for a day or 2, does the head of govt vote then? If the head of govt neds to go to bed or to school or to work, and voting deadline is before they can log on, what do they do? it might work, but i can see accusations of bad faith flying over these votes, and we may as well confine the ill-will to in-character debates. If you want to try it, then let's try it with the four-year limit intact, and if it works then we can consider making it 5 years.))

Date08:00:21, September 06, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageVery well, this will be moved to a vote, with no adjustment to the months. If this passes, there shall be a bill proposed in 10 years to change the months to 60.

Date08:03:08, September 06, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageCorrection, there will be an increase of one month. This will give the bill the weight of a constitutional amendment, but not change anything by a noticeable amount.

Also note that this proposal is no longer linked to any opinion bars. This has no weight to the voters in any way whatsoever. It will be ignored by the voters, same as bills without proposals, cabinet bills, early elections, national animal, etc.

Are there any objections before a vote?

Date11:28:22, September 06, 2005 CET
From National People's Gang
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageYes, it's far too convoluted and it's not clear what the bill aims to do, or why it wants to do it.

Date18:13:13, September 06, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageOther than the POATN? Any objection from parties who actually have something worthwhile to say?

Date23:44:51, September 06, 2005 CET
From National People's Gang
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageSo answer the question - apart from moving elections to 60 months, what is the aim?

Date02:02:03, September 07, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageAllow the government to keep a given seat-allotment, if there is a consensus of enough parties. or else have more frequent elections, if there isnt. Basically put the election frequency into the discretion of the parliament. Also to do this without the input of what will probably be the largest part of the majority, so that there is balance. This will prevent bills from being pushed to a vote just prior to the election, and also reduce the time spent waiting for the next election(the 8 months before an election). If most elections are triggered by early election bills, this will cause there to be no wait, as these bills pass as soon as there is a majority in favor.

Date02:06:16, September 07, 2005 CET
From National People's Gang
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageThank you

Date00:56:06, September 08, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageThis is an unnecessary complication that benefits nothing to no one. The election freequency is already at the discretion of the pareliament as there is always an option to cal an early election. We can not see what benefit there is in this, what we see is the potential for people to forget, to miss the vote, to forget when the madatory election call is due, and as a result a climate of complete and total mistrust to be reinstated. We oppose for these reasons.

Date18:43:16, October 03, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Discretionary Elections
MessageI expect this to fail. However, there is no reason to keep in in debate any longer.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
 

Total Seats: 55

no
      

Total Seats: 223

abstain
 

Total Seats: 0


Random fact: In general, role-play requires the consent of all players.

Random quote: "The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected." - Will Rogers

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 86