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: Accountablility bill.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Oligarchic Unionist 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: June 2517
Description[?]:
| Making the government fluid. Allowing for parties to be accountable to the people so they cannot abuse good election results. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The length of a legislative and executive term, in months. Should be between 24 and 72.
Old value:: 36
Current: 72
Proposed: 24
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:43:30, January 10, 2008 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the Accountablility bill. |
| Message | absolutely not. This is to much government change over for a unicameral legislature. Government will not be more fluid, but will in turn be more erratic. And more frequent elections does not equal accountability. "...so they cannot abuse good election results" Isn't that kind of the point? |
| Date | 22:33:54, January 12, 2008 CET | From | Oligarchic Unionist Party | To | Debating the Accountablility bill. |
| Message | No its not the point. Parties are elected so that the electorate can have what they want presented. They're not elected so they can go crazy and do what they please. More elections means that parties that do so are voted down, hence the accountability. How will the government be erratic? |
| Date | 23:32:29, January 12, 2008 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the Accountablility bill. |
| Message | "How will the government be erratic" Think about that one for a second. There is a fairly good change over rate for governing parties as it is. Now, for a second, imagine a country like the US elects it's entire government every two years, with that same frequency of change over. Imagine laws going from one extreme to the other EVERY two years. Tell me how that isn't erratic? |
| Date | 11:33:54, January 13, 2008 CET | From | Oligarchic Unionist Party | To | Debating the Accountablility bill. |
| Message | It won't thats the point. The US does not have swift changes from one extreme to another. For example, Bush stayed in office for two terms despite being a fuck up just because people were satisfied with the status quo. The same occurs in our nation. If you look at the latest election results, not much has changed, people going up or down by one or two places. Increacing this activity simply means its less likely any party could do an "invasion of Iraq" and get away with it. |
| Date | 06:44:02, January 14, 2008 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the Accountablility bill. |
| Message | The point remains that the possibility of it can happen, and HAS happened. I've been in this nation long enough to see it switch between left and right dominated governments EVERY election. Because of that, the laws of this nation changed every one or two election cycles. If we were all very similar in ideology, only differing on some issues, this might work. But we don't In fact, I don't think there's a single party that can claim to be even the slightest bit centrist in any shape or form. In the absence of moderates, the government changing every two years does nothing but promote instability. You don't seem to be getting the fact that for government to function properly, there needs to be continuity. This is why heads of state/government and the legislature are not elected at the same time, and even different bodies within the legislature the same way. You can't have total change over so often. It doesn't allow time for good laws to remain long enough to see if they work, and also results in bad laws becoming more frequent. As well, simple out-of-character reasons remain. Long election cycles allow the players, who may have something come up, vote on bills as they are more spread out because the election is not so soon, or correct a mistake in voting/not voting if a bill passed in their absence. |
| Date | 09:37:13, January 14, 2008 CET | From | Oligarchic Unionist Party | To | Debating the Accountablility bill. |
| Message | I disagree, we are not in a polarised society such as the US, our parties are quite dissimilar in their own ways, and the people's opinion of them will not chnage drastically within two years, unless they do something to provoke them to. Our parties form blocks of right and left wing (who is in each block I've yet to find) and the voting will not change from one to the other in two years, it simply will not happen. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 215 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 167 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 317 |
| Random fact: Real life-life nationalities, cultures or ethnicities should not be referenced in Particracy (eg. "German"). |
| Random quote: “Their cheap talk of the 'greater good' is a thinly concealed excuse for subordinating the people to the institutionalized violence that is the state.” - Margaret Woodhall, former Dranian politician |