Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5461
Next month in: 03:07:52
Server time: 12:52:07, 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: Procedural Agreement Between FFL and ProCoa

Details

Submitted by[?]: Alorian Public Union

Status[?]: passed

Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: July 2570

Description[?]:

We in the APU believe that with the emergence of a system in Aloria where power is distributed between two dominant multi-party factions, there should be some procedural rules of how we co-run the government. Nothing having to do with ideaology, just procedure.

For example, APU's proposal would be that if one coalition wins the executive (presidency), the other one should be given the head of government seat (the Prime Ministership)

We would like any other ideas about procedural agreements brought up in debate.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date00:43:32, May 02, 2008 CET
FromConservative Union
ToDebating the Procedural Agreement Between FFL and ProCoa
MessageAlright, but I'm assuming that the endorsement party gets the PM?

Date00:56:18, May 02, 2008 CET
FromFree Democratic Party
ToDebating the Procedural Agreement Between FFL and ProCoa
MessageWhy not let the voters decide instead?

Date01:10:25, May 02, 2008 CET
FromConservative Union
ToDebating the Procedural Agreement Between FFL and ProCoa
MessageCause they can't...it's up to Parliament

Date01:31:59, May 02, 2008 CET
FromDemocratic Rationalists (PrCoa)
ToDebating the Procedural Agreement Between FFL and ProCoa
MessageWe vote no 1st because we're not sure what this resolution agrees to. But 2nd because we're not sure we agree with the purpose what it's attempting to agree to.

We believe the voters decide the office of the Presidency directly, and the office of the Prime Minister indirectly through the combinations of parties they decide to send to government. If voters want a new Prime Minister, they can vote for parties likely to elect a new Prime Minister.

We would vote yes on this resolution only if it were interpreted to resolve that we should agree to discuss in principle the sort of structural arrangement you're talking about, without necessarily agreeing to it. Otherwise, we're not ready to vote on anything like this.

Date01:48:14, May 02, 2008 CET
FromDemocratic Rationalists (PrCoa)
ToDebating the Procedural Agreement Between FFL and ProCoa
MessageWe should add that though it's been awhile, we understand what it's like to be out of power. It took 3 decades for the Democratic Rationalists to achieve any meaningful electoral success--and that was only a fleeting 10 years from 2459-2469. In the past 5 decades, we've been successful only as a member of a larger coalition. Out of 140 years in Alorian politics, we've been out of power for 80 of them.

As the most recent election demonstrated, voters are perfectly capable even of splitting power if that's their goal. In '68 the voters elected an FFL President, but returned the PrCoa to power.


Date02:25:27, May 02, 2008 CET
FromAlorian Public Union
ToDebating the Procedural Agreement Between FFL and ProCoa
MessageIt looks like the next elections in the forseeable future will all be bewteen parties from thee FFL and PrCoa. If one side wins, the other side deserves represnetation as well, in a leadership posisition. Ergo, my suggestion.
Even if this does not get the needed support, I will continue to push for in individual cabinet proposals.

I would like other suggestions on procedures we could agree. As of right now, consider the bill as voting for the idea of having agreed upon procedures on how to run the government between the two blocs.

Date02:31:37, May 02, 2008 CET
FromDemocratic Rationalists (PrCoa)
ToDebating the Procedural Agreement Between FFL and ProCoa
Message1st, not all Alorian Parties are members of a coalition. To our knowledge, MLP is not a member of a coalition. MLP remains one of Aloria's consistently strong parties. They're struggling now, but they've long been competitive in elections without being a member of a coalition.

BTW: they're "struggling"--with 30 more seats than *we've* had in decades.

2nd, parties not in the Cabinet are represented. They're represented in the Parliament. They can make speeches, broker deals, hold rallies, etc., to influence policy. Just because they don't hold Cabinet posts doesn't mean they're not represented.

I'd support the latter proposal over the former. An informal system in which the coalitions offer a Cabinet post to the opposition coalition will foster a spirit of goodwill, I think.

Date02:33:20, May 02, 2008 CET
FromDemocratic Rationalists (PrCoa)
ToDebating the Procedural Agreement Between FFL and ProCoa
MessageI'd prefer this bill be taken as "agreeing to discuss the idea of procedures" only. On interpretation, we'll vote for it.

Date02:36:59, May 02, 2008 CET
FromDemocratic Rationalists (PrCoa)
ToDebating the Procedural Agreement Between FFL and ProCoa
MessageJust to put this in context: the coalition system has developed *because* an effective opposition to MLP couldn't be mounted without it. That coalition has dominated for some time now--but recently, our control has been weakening. We only held 345 seats last election cycle. A lot of conservative policy choices were enacted, and we only held the Cabinet because even though we didn't have a majority, a unified opposition wasn't built. Now, with PC in our coalition, we have 391 seats. Not an insurmountable majority where 376 is required. We only need to lose 15 seats to be out of power.

I'm just not sure this sort of power sharing arrangement is necessary.

Date02:40:51, May 02, 2008 CET
FromDemocratic Rationalists (PrCoa)
ToDebating the Procedural Agreement Between FFL and ProCoa
MessageTo top that off, our coalition is hardly monolithic. We vote together on certain key issues. But we vote apart as often as we vote together.

Date02:45:57, May 02, 2008 CET
FromAlorian Public Union
ToDebating the Procedural Agreement Between FFL and ProCoa
MessageOh, I do I know that!

Date22:57:18, May 02, 2008 CET
FromLiberal Party
ToDebating the Procedural Agreement Between FFL and ProCoa
MessageI think we must not decide wich parties get wich parts of the electoral succes. If, for instance, the PrCoa wins the presidential elections AND the parties in this coalition got the most votes (so the PrCoa has a majority in parliament), then it's the voters decession they want the PrCoa to rule the country. (and we choose the example with the PrCoa, so don't think we want this only in favor of the FFL).

We still believe this is the most democratic way. If PrCoa gets the majority, so it will be! If FFL gets a majority, so it will be! Thats what the voters want then. Which president they want, is also up to the voters...

Date23:47:55, May 02, 2008 CET
FromAlorian Public Union
ToDebating the Procedural Agreement Between FFL and ProCoa
MessageWow. Its amazing how this came down to a partisan vote (with the exception of MLP voting in favor). Well, while the bill will pass, since it has no bipartisan support, I guess it is to be considered dead (None from FFL has yet voted for this agreement with them). I will strive for this in my own cabinet voting, at least so long as both sides remain formidable coalitions.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
     

Total Seats: 388

no
  

Total Seats: 131

abstain
   

Total Seats: 231


Random fact: It is the collective responsibility of the players in a nation to ensure all currently binding RP laws are clearly outlined in an OOC reference bill in the "Bills under debate" section of the nation page. Confusion should not be created by displaying only some of the current RP laws or displaying RP laws which are no longer current.

Random quote: "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 69