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: Cabinet Proposal of July 2549
Details
Submitted by[?]: Solentian Populist Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill presents the formation of a cabinet. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. Traditionally, parties in the proposal vote yes, others (the opposition) vote no. This bill will pass as soon as the required yes votes are in and all parties in the proposal have voted yes, or will be defeated if unsufficient votes are reached on the deadline.
Voting deadline: March 2550
Description[?]:
| Proposing a Cabinet |
Proposals
Article 1
As per the Constitution, the President chairs the cabinet.
Article 2
The responsibilites of Science and Technology will be conducted by the Federal Independent Party
Article 3
The responsibilites of Food and Agriculture will be conducted by the Solentian People Party
Article 4
The responsibilites of Environment and Tourism will be conducted by the Federal Independent Party
Article 5
The responsibilites of Trade and Industry will be conducted by the National Zeus Party
Article 6
The responsibilites of Foreign Affairs will be conducted by the Federal Republican Party
Article 7
The responsibilites of Internal Affairs will be conducted by the National Zeus Party
Article 8
The responsibilites of Finance will be conducted by the Federal Republican Party
Article 9
The responsibilites of Defence will be conducted by the Federal Republican Party
Article 10
The responsibilites of Justice will be conducted by the Meritocratic Alliance
Article 11
The responsibilites of Infrastructure and Transport will be conducted by the National Zeus Party
Article 12
The responsibilites of Health and Social Services will be conducted by the Solentian People Party
Article 13
The responsibilites of Education and Culture will be conducted by the National Zeus Party
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:22:10, March 23, 2008 CET | From | Federal Republican Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2549 |
| Message | OOC: How in the world did this fail? |
| Date | 17:06:18, March 23, 2008 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2549 |
| Message | must have been a bug |
| Date | 22:17:49, March 23, 2008 CET | From | National Zeus Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2549 |
| Message | all the parties in the proposed cabinet didnt vote yes for it , so it failed. |
| Date | 22:41:23, March 23, 2008 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2549 |
| Message | ah |
| Date | 01:16:27, March 24, 2008 CET | From | Federal Republican Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2549 |
| Message | Dossier from the Office of Party Chairman Ulrich Naveed; This is an outrage! The citizens of Solentia have been betrayed by the Federal Independent Party and their whipping-post The Independent Party as well as the defunct Liberal Party of Solentia. Perhaps when the next proposal comes along, this will not be an issue if these parties desire to intentionally fillibuster the measure. I would personally like to thank all other respectable members of the House for voting to in favor of this measure. I urge President Rodham to push forward another as soon as possible and all parties to vote as soon as possible to facilitate a new dawn for Solentia and to see real progress. Signed, Ulrich Naveed |
| Date | 03:48:03, March 24, 2008 CET | From | Solentian Populist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2549 |
| Message | From the Office of President Rodham: Words cannot express how deeply disappointed I am in the Federal Independent Party. For as long as the United Democratic Party has excisted, the Federal Independent Party has furiously voted against us in hopes of stifling the hope that our party has brought to Solentia. We are all aware that the leaders of the F.I.P have been present on multiple occasions before the voting deadline, and yet they have cleverly abstained from voting and killed the proposal. I clearly do not support such childish, selfish behavior, and yet I made room in my cabinet proposal for someone from their party. I tried to be the bigger person and let bygones be bygones in hopes of a better relationship between our parties... and my attempt was a complete and utter failure. I must confess, I had never imagined just how undiplomatic the Federal Independent Party could be. Well, I assure you this, my fellow Solentians: I am no longer willing to turn the other cheek and disregard the shady, insolent behavior of a has-been party out to prevent this country from entering a new age of bipartisanship and prosperity. I WILL NOT STAND FOR IT. In ligh of this astonishingly ridiculous situation, I will immediately propose a new cabinet. The cabinet will be virtually identical to the one proposed before, except this time, I will make no efforts to include washed-up, has-been parties of the past who have no interest in working together for the common good. The responsibilities of science and technology will go to someone who plays fair, respects the other parties in this country, and who wants to be a part of the better future that the rest of us are going to bring about. I apologize for the massive inconvenience this has caused all of you... and I would like to personally thank the National Zeus Party, the Federal Republican Party, the Solentian Radical Nationalist Party, the People Party, and our newcomer the Autocratic Nationalist Front for supporting this cabinet proposal. I look forward to working with you all in the future. President Hillary Rodham |
| Date | 04:50:05, March 24, 2008 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2549 |
| Message | Indeed, it would seem there is quite a bit of controversy regarding this party's vote. I wonder to myself if it is to much use to argue against a bloc of parties that are so viciously partisan towards my party for little reason known to me, but this is the purpose of debate. However futile a cause may be, there is hope that democratic process will solve lingering errors. It is looked down upon that my party has voted to abstain from supporting this cabinet. Fellow party leadership has been reprimanded for choosing to make a decision regarding the politics before us. We have been scolded for voting in a fashion that was in our view, preferable. It has been a while since we have been told by another party that our vote was terribly wrong and errant. I see little purpose in listening to anyone who would tell us so, as they opted not to do the sensible thing: simply ask why. Anyone who would react as irrationally and in the spur of the moment as the opposition is not deserving of a credible lecture. To appease these parties, who very much have the right to know why we abstained, I shall answer why. This could have been much simpler, but we're already started down this path. First of all, my opponents claim that we have done nothing but oppose their legislation which they feel is for the benefit of the nation. In politics, the term "benefit of the nation" is not only extremely subjective and opinionated, but lacks true meaning unless it has facts supporting it. The United Democratic Party's legislation may been seen by its supporters and authors as integral reform, but that does not mean that all of us believe in that. Quite clearly, if we have opposed you as often as you state, then that is exemplary of difference in ideology. Secondly, moving on, what is wrong with my party having a difference in opinion? Is this not a democratic state where all are given the liberty to uphold their own ideals and beliefs? If it is, then we should be applauded for providing citizens with a rivalry viewpoint which allows for diversity in government. In a tyrannical dictatorship, however, a difference in opinion would be frowned upon and persecuted. While you have not endorsed the persecution of our beliefs, you have most certainly condemned them off the basis that they are different. Regarding the United Democratic Party's accusations that we wrongly utilize our right to abstain, I would ask them why this is to their belief. As members of this legislature, we are presented with three democratic forms of implementing our views. One is to show clear support, the other to oppose, and the last to demonstrate an unwillingness to agree to either side of the issue and to take a stance of neutrality. However, it would seem that having a position of neutrality is "childish, selfish behavior" according to my colleagues. We have the right to use our options, and if we choose to abstain, we should not be belittled for our decision. Obviously, it was our belief that the cabinet failed to meet the standards we wished it to. For a successful government coalition, all members should be in accordance to the presentation. That leads me to my next topic. We have received much scorn for abstaining from this cabinet. Let me explain why. In a cabinet, as long as I can remember, any parties included in a proposal should be informed of their inclusion. It is wrong to assume a party will automatically throw its support behind another's proposal simply because they are included within the new coalition. It would be a rather un-democratic thing to do. This, however, would be the case scenario presented to us. We were at random, given this to either support or to cast down. If we had supported, we would be giving permission to begin a new coalition that we disagreed with. If we had voted this down, we would have received even more attacks for our views and decisions. We chose the best of the three. We very much are happy that we were included in Ms. Rodham's proposal, but none-the-less, we disagreed with how it was constructed and its reasoning, mostly its reasoning. First of all, did you ever contact us and discuss the potential role our party was to be given in this new structured government? Did you ever bother to find out if we agreed to the seats divided amongst the other parties? Did you ever consider the roles each party was to play, and if this was the case, did you consider the strengths of the Federal Independent Party? Apparently not, for if you had, you would have asked us what our party has mainly specialized in while serving this nation. Unless you have done a comprehensive historical research centered on this party and its service to this great country, I doubt that you know what the Federal Independent Party's 160 year history is like. The opinion of other parties and their word do not count as credible material to us, as that is their biased view on us, whether it be negative or positive. If you truly did desire to work a bi-partisan cabinet and usher in a new era of politics, then you would have made a perfect example out of this opportune situation. You clearly did not do this. The Federal Independent Party has long served this nation. We are the founders of the Federal Republic and have worked to build an effective, bi-partisan relationship between the past and the new. We have done this quite well and have proven our ability to provide a veteran point of view to Solentian politics. If you are in disagreement with us over this statement, then please, simply say so. I would be happy to personally ask surviving party leaders that have worked with the Federal Independent Party to come and testify before this legislature and say for themselves our level of professionalism. We have solid reasoning for our decisions and most of the time are willing to compromise on every issue to suit the needs of this nation. The seats we were offered were almost offensive. I do not know how much you have learned about us, but we have been servicing this nation for a while. As the oldest party in the nation, we have seen every political tactic used and know what is the norm and what is not. The offers we received were anything but the norm and were spectacularly dismal. Depressing, if not that, worse. Environment and Tourism? As much as we have pro-ecologically friendly laws and value the department's worth, we find it sad that Ms. Rodham finds us only capable of handling tourists and the regulation of lumberjacks. In all the experience we hold, is it honestly true that you find us fit to work for these departments instead of the seats requiring great knowledge? We have served the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Finance each for over sixty years. Over this span of time, we dealt with a terrorist attack upon Solentian soil, rebuilt Solentia's foreign relations among the international community, ended several cold wars, created a lubricated budget, implemented new and fair taxes, and have worked to see the soldiers in the Solentian Military thrive. We have served every seat in the cabinet at least once and have served a series of departments over the course of at least 50 years. We are the most experienced candidates and have proven our ability to govern this country effectively and peacefully. And while we very much respect Ms. Rodham's decision to instate in a new cabinet, we believe that this new cabinet will not suit the nation as well as another one could. We believe that our work in Finance, with the recent overhaul of the ruined budget and income tax bracket from the Conservative & Morality Party era, has proven itself useful. We created a running new budget which allocated funds to each department that needed it and foresaw the necessity for education, health care, and industrial funding. The nation has reverted from an anarchist budget to a lubricated, successful source of funding. These improvements have led to much needed reform, the same reform the United Democratic Party claims they wish to implement in Solentia's politics. We would be very much interested in debating and working to create a new cabinet to replace this older, more outdate one. However, that must be accompanied by reasoning, a willingness to work together with compromise, and discussion. We are opposed to immediately confirming a cabinet without any discussion. Also, we would appreciate actually being contacted to diplomatically negotiate a new government coalition. It is depressing that you claim our party is undiplomatic if you have never actually confronted us verbally until now. You have never spoken to us, but claim you have attempted to work with us again and again. This simply has not been the case, and you cannot lie and squirm your way out of this one. I never really realized that the Federal Independent Party is undiplomatic until now you mention it. However, instead of seeing what you speak of, I instead see a party that is willing to work democratically. We have not submitted to your demands and are now being punished by our colleagues, including the Federal Republican Party which we would have thought would have the knowledge to differentiate one unlikable vote from ending an entire political relationship. For standing for our values, we are seen to be one-sided. If that is true, then I would assume being one-sided is for the betterment of this nation. It is your decision to exclude us from the cabinet off of the reasoning you have provided us with. That is your choice Ms. Rodham and fellow United Democratic Party leadership, along with the Federal Republican Party's backing. However, I have presented what I feel is a reasonable outlook from our view and have decided not to use offensive terminology or baiting such as both of the oppositionists have. Instead, I will continue to advocated our belief and decision and will not crumble to the wishes of the opposition, who would clearly be much happier if only their side of the argument was presented and agreed to. If an incovenience has been incurred, then we apologize. However, democracy and democratic ideals of the allowance of differentiating opinions and acts has been stood for on this day. Thank you for your time and understanding. FIP President Jack Thyrenvall |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 348 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 77 |
| Random fact: Particracy isn't just a game, it also has a forum, where players meet up to discuss role-playing, talk about in-game stuff, run their own newspaper or organisation and even discuss non-game and real-life issues! Check it out: http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "The honest politician is one who, when he is bought, stays bought." - Simon Cameron |