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 Discussion
Details
Submitted by[?]: Surprise 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: July 2674
Description[?]:
| This isn't a bill (but we'll send it to a "vote" to clear it out once a government is formed), just a discussion on what we should do with the current Parliamentary split |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:20:25, November 30, 2008 CET | From | Surprise Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Discussion |
| Message | The SP fell exactly one vote short of an outright majority in the House of Delegates this election, which is a slightly odd result. The options facing us as a result would be: 1) A "Pan-Left" coalition, between the PCU, DLLP, and SDPD. That coalition would hold exactly 300 seats. 2) A SP-PCU simple coalition. 3) An SP-PCU-DLLP "Grand" coalition (so-called because it would have more parties than needed technically speaking) 4) A National Unity government (possibly excluding the DFP since it is currently seatless) 5) An SP "minority" government (status quo ante) I actually have little preference as to between the choices, except that the status quo ante would require "tacit" support, and is relatively unstable, unlike the other options. The only option that renders SP as an opposition party would be the Pan-Left coalition. I can't speak to what precisely that option would look like, but it would leave the SP in the Presidency. As for the other options, I would like to hear what ministries would be demanded. I would expect any of Choices 2, 3, and 4 would place the PCU in the Head of Government spot, at minimum, as it is the second largest party, and the largest already controls the Presidency. |
| Date | 22:32:30, November 30, 2008 CET | From | Peoples Choise Union | To | Debating the Cabinet Discussion |
| Message | A pan-left coalitions is to unstable, it requires 3 parties and it has only one vote more than the opposition; Option 2 is the option preferred by PCU, this combination existed during 2 consecutive legislations and it worked quite well. Adding the DLLP is possible, though not required and I doubt if there is marginal value by adding this extra party. A National Unity government is even worse, 4 parties in government, such a government can only be useful when Darnussia is under attack. The minority government is not stable as the other parties can simply vote to replace it. |
| Date | 22:36:02, November 30, 2008 CET | From | Peoples Choise Union | To | Debating the Cabinet Discussion |
| Message | Regarding the ministeries: PCU would like the prime minister and defence and internal affairs. Other ministeries can be divided in such a way that reflects the strength of the coalition parties. 2/3 of ministeries for SP, 1/3 for PCU |
| Date | 02:11:53, December 01, 2008 CET | From | Surprise Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Discussion |
| Message | Sent to a vote just to clear this out - it's a non-binding resolution so it doesn't matter if you vote or not. |
| Date | 09:18:22, December 01, 2008 CET | From | Communist Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Cabinet Discussion |
| Message | A Pan-Left coalition would not be sutible, as the SP and the SDP's views are at the oppoite ends of the political spectrum. |
| Date | 09:32:31, December 01, 2008 CET | From | Surprise Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Discussion |
| Message | Pan-left would have been everyone other than SP. |
| Date | 18:25:31, December 01, 2008 CET | From | Communist Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Cabinet Discussion |
| Message | Oh yes. :) |
| Date | 23:25:11, December 01, 2008 CET | From | Darnussian Justice Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Discussion |
| Message | pcu and sp have a monopoly over the government. The PCU will no doubt cave in to the SP demands and become another right wing party. While myself and SCPD are left in the minority. My parties power is slowly diminishing, I may have less than 100 seats next election unless something amazing happens. |
| Date | 02:39:47, December 02, 2008 CET | From | Surprise Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Discussion |
| Message | Well, the biggest reason I'm so big is because I'm a right-wing party in a right-wing nation, facing only left-wing opposition. PCU and DPJ are roughly equal because they're ideologically so similar, so far. Nothing wrong with that. There are quite a few main ways to play Particracy. 1) Tactically (find the unexploited ideological hole and plug it - that's me right now, sitting on the right when I'm center-left IRL) 2) Semi-Agressively (if there's a party you dislike, intentionally move to the same spot on the spectrum as them, and form coalitions with any party other than the targeted party - that's effectively what I did to the OOP in many ways) 3) Personally (vote the positions you believe IRL - doesn't always get you electoral success, but it's easiest to RP) 4) Variations (A Semi-Aggressive stance, for example, that doesn't include dislike, is more like a Tactical stance, but may involve occupying a position close to or on top of an existing party because they have the highest share - that might be what PCU is doing, and if it is, I don't mind - it's their tactical decision, and it leaves me then to make a new tactical decision of my own) 5) Lunatic (RP an insane party/party leadership. Largely the OOP tended to do this, and I intended at first to play a harmless eccentric rather than an arch-right wing party.) Lunatic tends to be the target of type 2 tactics, however, if done too harshly. The two major parts of tactics are Positioning and Diplomacy. Positioning is manipulating the game mechanics - like when I sent a huge religious bill forward while you and PCU had the coalition majority, knowing my bill would fail but it would convert my game position back to religious instead of secular. Diplomacy is consensus building and alliance forming - like when I formed coalitions with left-wing parties to block out the OOP. Now that there is no "great enemy" to combat in Darnussia itself, I don't have a tactical reason to play mainly friendly, but at the same time when I want to make changes, even when I had the majority, I've made efforts to discuss them with you guys first and find more stable consensus when it was reasonable to do so. Sometimes (like my old religion bill) you're actually better off losing a vote, so that you win elections in the long run. Don't be afraid to propose things you know will fail - everyone needs to build visibility, and/or modify their spot on the ideological spectrum. I seldom speak harshly of proposals, unless I consider them actually harmful. Nor do I think less of anyone sending forward a proposal for either deeply held convictions, or for tactical reasons - I can respect both, even as I disagree, either for conviction or tactical purposes myself. In the end, I'd rather lose every vote but have a strong understanding, so that when we need to unify we can, than win every vote but have everyone in the country hate my guts and be at my or each other's throats. |
| Date | 16:27:42, December 02, 2008 CET | From | Peoples Choise Union | To | Debating the Cabinet Discussion |
| Message | The newly elected chairman of the PCU, Axel Haelterman wishes to state that PCU is not a right-wing party and has never been one. The combination PCU-SP does not have a monopoly on the government (in 2663, we even didn't have a majority of the vote). PCU actually formed a government with DPJ two terms ago when we pursued a very progressive policy, among othter abolishing the death penalty. PCU and SP do not agree on all the issues and in some cases do vote in a different way (e.g. The murder act). It is however true that since the fall of the 'democracy and socialism' government (opposed heavily by PCU) one of these two parties was in government, but is just coincidence. We want to work together with any party, we only opposed the OOP because they were way to radical (This happens in my country in IRL to, because of the 'cordon sanitaire' one party (Vlaams Belang) has never been able to get to party, not even at regional or town level although they reached 42% of votes in some towns and were by far the largest party. Since 2 years, there votes are in decline.) governments since 'democracy and socialism' government: 1. SP - PCU 2. PCU - SP 3. PCU - DPJ 4. SP 5. PCU - SP |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 130 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 126 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 343 |
| Random fact: Head to the "Language assistance" thread to receive and offer help with translations: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6368 |
| Random quote: "The difference between a republic and a people's republic is a lot like the difference between a jacket and a straightjacket." - Ronald Reagan |