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: Formative Powers Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Socialist 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: May 2040
Description[?]:
| REMEMBERING the events after the elections of 2034, when the president of the democratic republic proved unable of forming a coalition for the cabinet, and the nation had to go without a cabinet for the entire electional term, let it be RESOLVED that from hereon the largest parties in the parliament have the power to suggest the composition of the cabinet, to prevent such deadlocks from taking place again. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded |
From |  Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Formative Powers Act | | Message | The legislation is open to discussion, should the other parties feel all parties should have the right to make a cabinet proposal, the bill can be amended. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Progressive Pragmatists | To | Debating the Formative Powers Act | | Message | No, the Head of State should remain the one to select the new government as he won the Presidential election! This is just an attempt by the DSP to nullify the results and reduce the influence of the current President! |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Progressive Pragmatists | To | Debating the Formative Powers Act | | Message | If one opposes the Presidents cabinet slection then one can simply vote against it. Let us not reduce the power of our Head of State! |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Formative Powers Act | | Message | What about when the Head of State proved unable to even suggest a new cabinet, like happened during the last electorial term? Should we go completely without a cabinet? |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Formative Powers Act | | Message | as the head of state represents the largest party the point is moot. although I feel the proposal makes sense in terms of communication and cooperation . The IRP votes Aye |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Formative Powers Act | | Message | Largest parties, plural form. [Although I have failed to find what precisely is meant by that from the forums, I'm quite sure it was mentioned there somewhere]. If other parties feel that way, the bill could be changed so that all parties can propose a cabinet. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Progressive Pragmatists | To | Debating the Formative Powers Act | | Message | If the Parliament is unable to come to terms with the President over the formation of a new government, then new elections should be called. We should not weaken the Head of State as it would produce inefficiency and deadlock. Besides Parliament is already quite powerful! |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Progressive Pragmatists | To | Debating the Formative Powers Act | | Message | This bill has been entered entirly due to the DSP's loss in last years presidential elections. The reasons for it have been disproved as President Tarkin has offered to form a colalition government! This bill will simply make this Nation harder to govern. This is sour grapes... |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Formative Powers Act | | Message | I think the bill is a littlle too vague. Perhaps it should become the right of all nations to choose the cabinet? I think the bill should also state that only the largest nation has this right. I know it was mentioned but because it's not in the bill, it could be open to misinterpretation. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Formative Powers Act | | Message | SDP: This bill has been entered to ensure the democratic rule in Ikradon. This change was already in our agenda before the elections, but we decided not to bring it into debate until after the elections, to the new parliament that would be the one to vote on this proposal. We do not wish to see another era when the Democratic Republic is ruled by a cabinet lacking half of it's members, left over from from elections long time ago.
OPLS: [you mean, 'parties', not 'nations']. You should have bought up these concerns while the bill was still in the debate phase. Also, the bill does state that only the largest parties have the right to form the cabinet, in the last sentence after 'RESOLVED'. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Progressive Pragmatists | To | Debating the Formative Powers Act | | Message | If such a situation happens when there is dead-lock concerning the cabinet then Parliament should call early elections, which is the best way to settle all disputes as it discurages deadlock and forces compromise (being unwilling to risk losses at the polls)! |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Formative Powers Act | | Message | Weren't Secular Democrats the ones who asked for lenghtening the legislative terms because 'constant campaigns hurt the economy'? Shouldn't you then, by your own logic, be supporting this bill, instead of advocating extra elections? |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Progressive Pragmatists | To | Debating the Formative Powers Act | | Message | That is different. Early elections are a safty valve that insures a way out of dead-lock. Either there have to be compromises or the Parties are sent back to the displeased voters. Our previous objections were concerning normal elections, not early ones... |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Formative Powers Act | | Message | You speak of compromise, but may we once again remind you that the ITC and president Tarkin didn't even attempt to reach out to the other parties during the last legislative term, let alone try to reach a compromise over this issue. Plus, there is no proof that the people would vote any differently in the early elections. We might easily be left in a limbo of elections. That aside, we feel that under the current legislature the president of the Democratic Republic weilds far too much power. It would be in the spirit of democracy that the duty in question would be transferred to the parliament. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 145 |
| no | Total Seats: 146 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Character names must appear plausible and should consist of at least a first name and a surname. Exceptions to this will only be granted at Moderation's discretion and where a very strong case has been presented |
| Random quote: "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes." - Winston Churchill
|