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: Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Party
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: November 2658
Description[?]:
| This bill has formally being replaced by Gov.0029.2657 (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=225528) Therefore this bill (Gov.0028.2656) has no legal tender. The bill is being put to vote for the sole purpose of storing it in Sekowan historical records. ------------------------------ Resolution 1: ----------------- Reverse (supersede) all effects of bill: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=210050 Resolution 2: ----------------- Append to _The Fair Apportionment Act (2556.IC.001)_ (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=183773): Article 2, Section 1: A block is defined as at least one (1) _No_ vote or at least two (2) _Abstain_ votes by the same party against any valid cabinet proposal during a legislative cycle, regardless of reason. Resolution 3: ----------------- Append to _The Fair Apportionment Act (2556.IC.001)_ (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=183773): Article 2, Section 2: The effects of exclusion from a cabinet last a legislative cycle. Resolution 4: ----------------- These changes take effect commencing with the legislative cycle of December 2659 |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:18:12, October 27, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | We dislike part 1. |
| Date | 23:14:45, October 27, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | Support all. |
| Date | 23:18:18, October 27, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | Though we do think 2 abstains is somewhat excessive. |
| Date | 23:35:31, October 27, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | We\'re opposed to Res. 1. |
| Date | 01:54:57, October 28, 2008 CET | From |  Imperial Pluralism Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | support |
| Date | 02:39:56, October 28, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | This bill is to REPLACE resolution 1 because DSP\'s language in the bill is unclear. I can understand DSP opposing because he dislikes being wrong. But MSMP, you were said in an earlier cabinet bill that you wanted the law revised. How is this not satisfactory? |
| Date | 02:43:06, October 28, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | I should clarify, this bill is to replace the bill mentioned in resolution 1 so that we have clearly language on what the Tenno is permitted/not permitted to do. |
| Date | 02:43:53, October 28, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | ... clearer ... |
| Date | 03:11:13, October 28, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | I wanted more specific language, which part 2 brings, parts 3 and 4 being trivial paperwork. |
| Date | 03:12:20, October 28, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | Okay. So, what else is missing in your opinion? |
| Date | 03:19:10, October 28, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | Seems fine, though after further review, we notice that part 2 effectivly erases the bill mentioned in part 1. Perhaps we can consolidate the wording then for clarification. |
| Date | 04:04:44, October 28, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | I think I understand. Let me formula another part to #2. |
| Date | 04:16:43, October 28, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | Nope. I tried and it didn\'t work out. You want the \'formal\' and \'informal\' cabinets introduced into this bill? Is that all that you want to consolidate? I\'d really like to avoid another bill like we have now where things start becoming vague with a big paragraph of words. Specific language is precise limitations (e.g. one \'no\' vote instead of calling it \'inactivity\'). |
| Date | 05:00:44, October 28, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | OOC: It does\'nt have anything to do with whether I\'m right or wrong.. I just want the basics behind the law to stay in place, IE you have to make two cabinets before you can remove someone for abstaining. |
| Date | 05:16:52, October 28, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | OOC: I\'m sorry for misunderstanding, but check the bill again. It is there, DSP. Article 2 has the \'shall be excluded from the cabinet\' Article 2, Section 1 has the \'two (2) _Abstain_ votes\' |
| Date | 05:19:33, October 28, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | I would also like to add unofficial resolution: that the cabinet proposer please include this bill as part of the cabinet proposal description so that anyone looking at the cabinet will know how the cabinet is formed. |
| Date | 22:06:18, October 28, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | OOC: What I\'m saying is part 2 reverses that old bill anyway, we don\'t need a seperate reversal. |
| Date | 22:18:53, October 28, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | OOC: I think the formatting of the bill is a little confusing. |
| Date | 00:07:53, October 29, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | OOC: We have to reverse the old bill because otherwise there are two laws governing the same thing. So, there is a conflict and a Tenno could choose whichever he/she wished because both are valid. I think Sekowo has enough internal conflict as is and we don\'t need people exploiting laws. It might be a bit confusing because you have to read IC\'s original law and add two sections (Reso 2 and Reso 3) to the original proportional representation bill. I did that so we are not modifying a modification. Would you prefer if I copied and pasted the entire original bill here? I can do it, just not sure if it will add anything or create more confusion. |
| Date | 00:28:07, October 29, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | OOC: All I\'m saying is add a footnote to part 2 saying that bill has been superseeded. All this controversy over something so little. I blame the lack of emotion in texting. |
| Date | 00:34:04, October 29, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | OOC: That\'s what Resolution 1 is doing. |
| Date | 00:38:30, October 29, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | OOC: I added the word \"supersede\" there in brackets because it\'s the incorrect word for taking back a bill. |
| Date | 02:47:01, October 29, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | OOC: Whatever, I just don\'t like your wording x.x |
| Date | 04:21:06, October 29, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | OOC: How would you like it worded. Just type it here. |
| Date | 05:36:34, October 29, 2008 CET | From | Imperial Pluralism Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | On further thought, we think that the best course would be to rewrite all of the extant legislation in one comprehensive bill rather than referencing back to older ones. We want to streamline this process of cabinet selection further. |
| Date | 05:47:15, October 29, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | That\'s a good idea. |
| Date | 06:55:32, October 29, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | I third that, would make things much simpler and less confusing for new parties. |
| Date | 02:38:29, October 30, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | DSP pointed out another thing needing amending: the bill needs to apply to all parties, not simply those who have agreed to it. |
| Date | 06:54:41, October 30, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | I\'ve made those changes and put it in a new bill. I will be tabling this bill shortly for historical purposes. http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=225528 |
| Date | 00:33:53, October 31, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Gov.0028.2656 Amendment to Party Representation |
| Message | Also links in olds bills arn\'t working sence the server switch. I noticed it in one of the directory bills yesterday but I think DSP updated the links, but there will still be some out there that are broken. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 559 | |||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 41 |
| Random fact: After 3 days (72 hours) your account will be inactivated by Moderation. If you want to be reactivated you can request reactivation located here: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4360 |
| Random quote: "The people who vote decide nothing. The people who count the vote decide everything." - Joseph Stalin |