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 January 2042
Details
Submitted by[?]: First Socialist Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: March 2043
Description[?]:
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | I stongly disagree with this cabinet as it removes the two major parties in number of seats are not even in the government. |
| Date | not recorded |
From |  First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | The idea was to include the parties whose ideology most correctly reflects the wants of the people. Seeing as the parties included in this cabinet both a) all agree on over 90% of issues, and thus are of one mind, and b) together represent more than half the parliament, we believe this is the best position for our government. This is going to vote. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | I believe that the cabinet should truly represent the will of the people, and should be representative thereof. I can't back this when it leaves out the 2 largest parties, thereby ignoring the peoples will. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | Please note that most of the people voted for at least one party in the cabinet proposal. Seeing as we all agree on most of the issues, the vote was effectively split between our parties. You can in fact assume that if we were just one party, then we would have a majority in government. You have ignored that. You have also acted against the best wishes of the coalition. If you do not change your vote, then we feel that this coalition is at an end. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | As there was no discussion on this at all before hand, like there was the previous time a cabinet was proposed, it seems we were left out of the method anyway. As for the "You can in fact assume that if we were just one party, then we would have a majority in government. You have ignored that." No you can't just assume that, although we vote for nearly all things together, it is only NEARLY all things not all. We vote very closely with the LCP too, but they were left out and we vote with the CP oner 65% of the time as well, but they were left out too. I shall not be forced into voting for a cabinet that I think does not represent the peoples best interest. If YOU wish to end the coalition so be it, but I do not want it to end. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | However, we do not vote with the LCP over 90% of the time. 90% is very different from 65%. We think your reasoning is flawed and we will not back a weak cabinet. You can also not deny that you are not working in the best interest of the coalition. And you said above, before I put it to vote, that you would back this proposal, yet you have changed your mind. We are very disappointed, and do not see how we can continue this coalition with this situation. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | Ahem, we vote with the LCP 81% of the time. The Cabinet is not weak. It votes together nearly 75% of the time. And since when is the best interests of the coalition more important than that of the peoples best interest? As for my changing my mind, I made it VERY clear that I "don't believe its represents the countries interests to remove the 2 largest 2 parties from the cabinet altogether." |
| Date | not recorded |
From | First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | Yet you did not say that you would NOT back it. Now, would you PLEASE answer this question: How are you acting in the best interest of the coalition? Do we not represent the best interests of the people? (As a coalition, we have 89 seats. Including the Christian Liberal Party, who votes with us at least 96% of the time, we have a total of 115 seats. Seeing as the 4 parties together vote together at least 95% of the time, we, for all intents and purposes are the same party. The votes for our parties were SPLIT. As for the LCP, we disagree with them approximately FOUR TIMES MORE OFTEN. And you also included both the Communist and Liberal Canuck parties, who are polar opposites - they disagree more often than not!) Your cabinet does not represent the wishes of the people, YOU are no longer representing the wishes of the people. And you are completely disregarding the coalition. The cabinet is WEAK. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | 1. In the election results 6.7 mil people voted for parties from the coalition. 5.9 voted for the LCP and the CP. You wish to ignore 5.9 million people (1/5 of our population, 1/4 of those eligable to vote and 1/3 of those who voted)? Would that be in the best interests of the coalition? No, and don't even pretend it would be. Therefore it won't be in the best interests of the people. I am giving the people the diversity that they display themselves, you merely wish to take on section of society and place it in power. That is wrong. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | The LCP and CP are polar opposites, and yet you include both of them in the cabinet. That is a definition of a weak cabinet. You are also spreading the function of the government around too many parties with too many differing views. That is another definition of a weak cabinet. (OOC: In most governments, only the coaltion in power controls the cabinet! Please remember that.) The best cabinet is one that includes as many parties of SIMILAR views. My cabinet does that. Yours DOES NOT. Now, we are willing to listen to compromises, HOWEVER, if you insist on pushing your cabinet, EVEN THOUGH SANCTA AND WE DID NOT BACK YOURS AND BACKED MINE, then we do not see how we can in good faith call ourselves a coalition.
And please, remember, the people have the diversity they want when we vote for bills. The cabinet is about who is in POWER. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | (OOC: I'm a part politics student remember, i'm just wanting a new way of doing things. As for the game, I want to include as many people as possible so they all get a chance at RPing and doing something) |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | I believe that my cabinet will best represent the best wishes of the people. I will keep believing that. If you wish to keep yours fine, I am merely proposing an alternative. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | I also wish to remind you that in the first ever cabinet the CP graciously gave us seats according to our votes and our seats in government and it worked fine. Why should we change what already works? |
| Date | not recorded |
From | First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | Your proposal will be accepted because you have pandered to the wishes of other parties and ignored the wishes of the coalition. As far as we are concerned, you are no longer a member of the coalition.
(OOC: That is a fairy nuff sentiment, and in principle I agree with it. However, this is a competitive game, and a political simulation, and we will continue to play it this way.) |
| Date | not recorded |
From | First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | CP did that because CP needed to gain our favour. CP had a minority. As we said, we will listen to compromises, but you have decided to throw away all that the coaltion has worked for. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Sanctaphrax Party (Mod) | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2042 | | Message | Excuse me? You kick the Kellarly Party from this coalition without even discussing it with this party? We do not agree with this decision by the Socialist Party, and therefore vote to remove them from the coalition. We have also withdrawn our support for this cabinet. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 56 |
| no | Total Seats: 105 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Any RP law granting extraordinary "emergency powers" or dictator-like powers to a government must be passed by at least a 2/3rds majority, but (like all RP laws) may always be overturned by a simple majority vote of the legislature. |
| Random quote: "The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now." - Louis Proyect |