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 October 2653
Details
Submitted by[?]: Normand Pluralist Party
Status[?]: passed
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: June 2654
Description[?]:
| Proposing a Cabinet, according to election laws: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=183773 http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=198268 (expires 2694) Here's the math (rounding in representation, but not in calculation): *DSP: excluded NPP: 122/357=.34>*13=4.44 > 4 CP: 99/357=.28>*13=3.61 > 4 MSMP: 75/357=.21>*13=2.73 > 3 *SD: excluded AUP: 61/357=.17>*13=2.22 > 2 *SGP: excluded *Asterisked parties have abstained from the second cabinet, and are thus being excluded per law. |
Proposals
Article 1
The responsibilites of Head of Government will be conducted by the Normand Pluralist Party
Article 2
The responsibilites of Science and Technology will be conducted by the Revolutionary State Socialist Party
Article 3
The responsibilites of Food and Agriculture will be conducted by the Normand Pluralist Party
Article 4
The responsibilites of Environment and Tourism will be conducted by the Conservative Party
Article 5
The responsibilites of Trade and Industry will be conducted by the Conservative Party
Article 6
The responsibilites of Foreign Affairs will be conducted by the Conservative Party
Article 7
The responsibilites of Internal Affairs will be conducted by the 
Imperial Pluralism Party
Article 8
The responsibilites of Finance will be conducted by the Normand Pluralist Party
Article 9
The responsibilites of Defence will be conducted by the Revolutionary State Socialist Party
Article 10
The responsibilites of Justice will be conducted by the Imperial Pluralism Party
Article 11
The responsibilites of Infrastructure and Transport will be conducted by the Conservative Party
Article 12
The responsibilites of Health and Social Services will be conducted by the Revolutionary State Socialist Party
Article 13
The responsibilites of Education and Culture will be conducted by the Normand Pluralist Party
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:35:15, October 18, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | Firstly, this violateslaw by excluding the DSP and SGP. The SGP voted in favour fo the last cabinet and we've voted in favour of the second. |
| Date | 16:31:32, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | 0_o. Is something amiss here? |
| Date | 20:18:14, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | DSP abstained from the first cabinet proposition. (http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=223666) SD and SGP abstained from the second one. (http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=223884) |
| Date | 21:06:16, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | And yet DSP was included on the second...? |
| Date | 21:20:18, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | OOC: <shrugs> I don't know. I would have imagined NPP excluding DSP at the first oppurtunity. I guess NPP gave a second chance. I don't know. I'm surprised you are voting against this bill, MSMP, NPP is giving you defence. Although, given what DSP said in a bill (http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=224042), it seems like he's got hired goons. MSMP, are you allowed to confirm anything? I'll understand if you have to remain mum. It's just, based on the cabinet, a puzzling move on your part. |
| Date | 21:58:10, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | Honestly I hadn't made up my mind about what to do untill I saw this mess here. It doesn't look like you are too enthusiastic about it either. |
| Date | 22:08:36, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | Nope. Not at all. See http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=224042. I'm trying to explain what I think happened. |
| Date | 22:19:34, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | Nope. Not at all. See http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=224042. I'm trying to explain what I think happened. |
| Date | 22:25:56, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | Well, let us take the discussion to that bill if you wish, I will post there shortly. |
| Date | 22:31:46, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | OCC: I posted there because I think that's part of the reason why this cabinet is in the process of failing. |
| Date | 22:33:36, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | I never stated why my vote was no. I want NPP to explain why he didn't exclude DSP the first time he abstained. |
| Date | 22:34:49, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | Also if you havn't noticed, you arn't voting yes on this either :p |
| Date | 22:49:41, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | I'm reading the law a few times more. Making sure I will not be excluded myself. From article 2: "... should any party block a proposal in which they have been given proportional representation ..." DSP, SD and SGP were all given a proportional representation. They all block 'a' proposal for forming this cabinet. Which is leading me to believe that this cabinet proposal is in fact valid and I would have to vote in favour to avoid breaking the law. |
| Date | 23:02:27, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | Indeed, but it does not resolve the question I have posed NPP. |
| Date | 23:04:22, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | The DSP has already stated that they will vote against any cabinet which is likely to pass which is formed by anyone other than the largest party; we considered this to be the honest truth. As such, and considering their blatant refusal to vote for the first cabinet which would have otherwise passed, we find it beyond doubt that they voted in favour of the last cabinet simply to try to place themselves in the position of violating this one. If the DSP will promise us that they will, without fail, vote for every single legal and proportional (being, which includes those who have voted for the 2nd cabinet) cabinet proposed by Josu Ahyi which exists any time he is logged on and voting, we shall vote against this cabinet ourselves and propose a new one which includes him. If the DSP is willing to do so, we will consider his vote for the first to have been in good will. If he is not willing to do so, his vote in bad faith will be quite evident. We encourage the MSMP to vote for this legal cabinet unless the DSP agrees to the above. |
| Date | 23:06:36, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | I shall not join any cabinet blocking manuever as long as I recieve Defense. |
| Date | 23:10:35, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | I have said elsewhere, but I will reiterate it here for you: MSMP: The reason we didn' t exclude the DSP the first time (2nd cabinet) is because we were following the law (passed with the approval of only 2 parties: the DSP and yourself) requiring the Tenno to propose two cabinets before excluding anyone. We disagree with that law, but we follow it. |
| Date | 23:13:30, October 18, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | See comment in other bill. |
| Date | 01:11:05, October 19, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | You did not follow the law, you must include all parties in two proposals, only after they've abstained form both can you remove them. |
| Date | 03:29:16, October 19, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | OOC: I finally found the reference to the other bill that requires two identical cabinets before removal: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=210050. This law passed while I was away in Europe. So, I did not even know it existed. Had I been Tenno, I would have missed it. For those who are new to our system who don't know our system, they will not know what is happening during cabinet creation. Can every Tenno proposing a cabinet PLEASE put the list of the bills affecting cabinet creation inside the bill description. Thank you. |
| Date | 03:32:33, October 19, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | DSP, you're actually wrong about your charge against the NPP. All parties who had a seat (everyone) were included in the two cabinets. See for yourself. 2652: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=223666 2653: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=223884 |
| Date | 03:54:39, October 19, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | I'm not saying we were'nt, what I'm saying is that NPP can only remove a party if they abstained both times. SD and SGP voted yes in the first one while I abstained, and in the second one I voted yes and they abastained, no party abstained from both of them. |
| Date | 03:56:18, October 19, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | Oh, and before the acusations start flying, it was'nt planned, the first one I just forgot I had'nt voted on and the second, well none of us are comfortable with the same party haveing both Executive positions. |
| Date | 04:21:48, October 19, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | We re-read the law, and I can see what both sides mean. This is ambiguous. I honestly would not have voted for it because it was worded improperly (no offence meant). But I agree with the idea in principle though (kudos for proposing it), however that law should be heavily revised and reworded. |
| Date | 18:43:02, October 19, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of October 2653 |
| Message | Like I said in the other thread, the loophole needs closed. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 357 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 197 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 46 |
| Random fact: Whilst the use of non-English languages can be appropriate for nation names, party names, constitutional titles and other variables, English is the official language of communication in the game. All descriptive texts and public communications should be in English or at least appear alongside a full English translation. |
| Random quote: "While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State." - Vladimir Lenin |