Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: February 5461
Next month in: 03:59:48
Server time: 20:00:11, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (6): ADM Drax | Caoimhean | JWBa | R Drax | SocDemDundorfian | wstodden2 | 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: Strong Government Majority Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: United Reform 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: December 2580

Description[?]:

An Act to make Government Majorities stronger and more easily formed.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date15:56:39, May 22, 2008 CET
From United Reform Party
ToDebating the Strong Government Majority Act
MessagePretty self-explanatory. I noticed that you had an even number of Members and thought it would be easier for majority making if it was an odd number.

Date16:32:39, May 22, 2008 CET
From United Reform Party
ToDebating the Strong Government Majority Act
MessageAs an extra aside, I moved the number from 399 to 499 because 399 was divisible by three, while 499 is more of a prime number (I think) and 250 is a nice round number for a majority.

Date17:28:13, May 22, 2008 CET
From Party for a Federal Meritocracy
ToDebating the Strong Government Majority Act
MessageWe've never had a tie, so we don't see this as a problem.

Also, we would prefer a (much) lower number than the current 350.

Date17:34:47, May 22, 2008 CET
From United Reform Party
ToDebating the Strong Government Majority Act
MessageAh right. I'm sorry for moving this to vote so soon, it was a mistake of mine. This could have been an interesting debate on the actual number. Damn, sorry.

Date20:40:33, May 22, 2008 CET
From Birleşik Demokrat Parti
ToDebating the Strong Government Majority Act
MessageI'll support it - the more politicians the better.

Date21:12:55, May 22, 2008 CET
From United Reform Party
ToDebating the Strong Government Majority Act
MessageI guess that means it is up to the SLP to decide.

Date23:40:14, May 22, 2008 CET
From Birleşik Demokrat Parti
ToDebating the Strong Government Majority Act
MessageAnd the SLP will vote 'No' I'd bet a thousand jaks on it.

Date02:10:00, May 23, 2008 CET
From Scientific Libertarian Party
ToDebating the Strong Government Majority Act
MessageUJDP is totally correct.

The fewer politicians, the better. More politicians means more salaries and staffs to be paid, and thus more extortio- I mean, tax money goes to waste. There's more to it than that, but that's the gist of my opposition.

For the record, we don't have much opinion on the even-number-versus-odd-number debate. The even number looks nicer and is easier to calculate with, while the odd number reduces the probability of a tie. But we've never had a tie anyway.

Date03:19:53, May 23, 2008 CET
From Party for a Federal Meritocracy
ToDebating the Strong Government Majority Act
MessageSo introduce again. For 75. Gives you the odd number and lowers the number of members (and thus cost) which we would support and which we suspect the SLP would also support.

Date11:32:35, May 23, 2008 CET
From United Reform Party
ToDebating the Strong Government Majority Act
MessageI'm sorry but 75 is far too low. I'd like to see a compromise however. To be honest, I think the problems stated are very minor things. Sure it would cost more in salaries, but it provides better representation for the people and stronger Governments.

I thought 499 was actually quite low (considering the population of 120m).

Date11:32:35, May 23, 2008 CET
From United Reform Party
ToDebating the Strong Government Majority Act
MessageI'm sorry but 75 is far too low. I'd like to see a compromise however. To be honest, I think the problems stated are very minor things. Sure it would cost more in salaries, but it provides better representation for the people and stronger Governments.

I thought 499 was actually quite low (considering the population of 120m).

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 102

no
   

Total Seats: 248

abstain
 

Total Seats: 0


Random fact: Use a valid e-mail address for your Particracy account. If the e-mail address you entered does not exist, your account may be suspected of multi-accounting and inactivated.

Random quote: "An extremely credible source has called my office and told me that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud." - Donald Trump

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 64