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: Absolutum Dominium
Details
Submitted by[?]: CSA Pax et Socialism
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 2510
Description[?]:
| CSA |
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 largest party can propose a cabinet.
Proposed: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:31:15, December 31, 2007 CET | From | League of Iron | To | Debating the Absolutum Dominium |
| Message | Against. The government needs to be strong and unified, which will be far more difficult to achieve if every party has the power to hold the party of government to ransom by proposing its own coalition. |
| Date | 21:07:20, December 31, 2007 CET | From | CSA Pax et Socialism | To | Debating the Absolutum Dominium |
| Message | That is already happening... one group is constantly dictating the country. This bill introduces complete democracy spread evenly to all and gets rid of the dictatorship induced by one presiding party. |
| Date | 01:15:10, January 01, 2008 CET | From | Independence Party | To | Debating the Absolutum Dominium |
| Message | Against - the Head of State's power to call for the formation of a government helps to ensure proposals are fair and that governments are formed quickly. |
| Date | 01:25:02, January 01, 2008 CET | From | CSA Pax et Socialism | To | Debating the Absolutum Dominium |
| Message | Fair proposals? Because all parties in this nation are conservative capitalists and vote for each other, other parties are never allowed in government. A dictatorship by these conservative capitalists has been in place since the rule of the "Emperor." Just because you change the name of the dictator doesn't mean you've created democracy. "Fair" is it that the has never held the executive office, and only once been included in cabinet by a fellow minority part? Of course it's easy for dictators to form their governments quickly, they hate opposition and like to suppress it any way they can. |
| Date | 04:09:48, January 01, 2008 CET | From | Free Liberals Party | To | Debating the Absolutum Dominium |
| Message | If the people wanted a socialist dystopia they would return a majority of socialist Senators wouldn't they? The policies the Liberal parties are providing are popular because they work. The Socialists fool themselves into thinking that they don't work so their arguments will at least be justifiable to themselves. Their minor presence in the polity suggests this is true. |
| Date | 12:05:41, January 01, 2008 CET | From | CSA Pax et Socialism | To | Debating the Absolutum Dominium |
| Message | Do you not see I consistently represent 49% of the population, while all you conservative fools split up the 51% amongs yourselves? And don't bring that ideological crap in with the game system. Those who criticize socialism do it only because they know nothing of it. Uhh... state ownership. Totalitarianism.... uhh... poor people. Stalin and death... That's socialism. |
| Date | 12:07:43, January 01, 2008 CET | From | CSA Pax et Socialism | To | Debating the Absolutum Dominium |
| Message | But you are correct - If the Jews wanted better treatment during the Holocaust, they would have gotten some senators in the Nazi government as well right? But damn them, they were a minority and until they were "corrected," they shall be dictated by the ultra-right. |
| Date | 01:45:25, January 02, 2008 CET | From | Free Liberals Party | To | Debating the Absolutum Dominium |
| Message | ... and those who do not understand the philosophy of Liberty: the Socialists. If 51% of the senators can form a government, then what right do the other 49% of the senators have to deny it? You forget that we have a diverse legislature where no party has ever had a majority of the votes in the last 100 elections and that for each policy proposed before the Senate each party makes up it's own mind. You also forget that the constitutional structure of the IFD maintains a separated executive and legislative function where the President and the government he/she appoints has nominal power. You also forget that in the last Cabinet Proposal you supported a mixed government, but here you're advocating, that without the Presidency, the CSA should be able to propose a Cabinet. This sounds, to me, less a question of fair play and more about the tantrum of a sore loser. To address your crude comparison of this situation to the Holocaust, any people under the thumb of totalitarianism should go to arms to defend their property which is exactly what enclaves of cornered Jews did in some parts of the occupied Poland. To also accuse liberatarian factions, who believe in individual freedom and tolerance of diversity, amongst other principles, of genocidal authoritarianism is wholly warped and uninformed - something of which the Socialists are happy to accuse of everyone else. Is it just me or does everyone see the flawed logic with which the CSA intends to run this country? |
| Date | 02:27:00, January 02, 2008 CET | From | League of Iron | To | Debating the Absolutum Dominium |
| Message | Leaving aside the political posturings of the Liberal Party, we believe that their fundamental argument is correct. It is the way of the socialist left to show no respect for the traditions of their nation. |
| Date | 05:13:32, January 02, 2008 CET | From | Free Liberals Party | To | Debating the Absolutum Dominium |
| Message | While we appreciate the comments in favour of our arguments, the Liberals find that the traditions of this nation are irrelevant. The issue here is whether: * Any party can propose a composition of the executive Cabinet; or * The party of the President only (elected by a majority of votes cast to lead the executive) can propose a composition of the executive Cabinet. The Liberal's problem with the first case is the absence of a mandate for any party NOT elected to the executive to propose the composition of the executive Cabinet. The Liberal's support the second case because the President is elected to the executive; a majority of the people who cast their votes CHOSE the Presidential candidate they wanted most to compose the executive Cabinet. But the opponents of the second case like to think, for the purposes of their argument, that no checks and balances exist. However, this perception is wrong. The Senate, uniquely formed as it is after each election, must then confer and then to agree with a majority to the proposed composition of the executive Cabinet. The necessity to change the system as it is currently is unfounded. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 106 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 350 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 99 |
| Random fact: Make sure your nation casts its nominations in Particracy's very own Security Council elections! For more information, see http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=8453 |
| Random quote: "I am working for the time when unqualified blacks, browns, and women join the unqualified men in running our government." - Cissy Farenthold |