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: Presidential Cabinet Proposal of May 2042
Details
Submitted by[?]: Kellarly 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: May 2043
Description[?]:
| Proposing a hopefully balanced Cabinet. |
Proposals
Article 1
The responsibilites of Head of Government will be conducted by the Kellarly Party
Article 2
The responsibilites of Science and Technology will be conducted by the Christian Liberal Party
Article 3
The responsibilites of Foreign Affairs will be conducted by the 
First Socialist Party
Article 4
The responsibilites of Internal Affairs will be conducted by the Communist Party
Article 5
The responsibilites of Finance will be conducted by the
Article 6
The responsibilites of Defence will be conducted by the Kellarly Party
Article 7
The responsibilites of Justice will be conducted by the Communist Party
Article 8
The responsibilites of Infrastructure and Transport will be conducted by the
Article 9
The responsibilites of Health and Social Services will be conducted by the Sanctaphrax Party (Mod)
Article 10
The responsibilites of Education and Culture will be conducted by the Sanctaphrax Party (Mod)
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Presidential Cabinet Proposal of May 2042 | | Message | Ok, I have tried to get this as close as possible to a fair cabinet that still has most of the same people in the same seats, whilst reflecting the views of the voting public put across in the last election |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Presidential Cabinet Proposal of May 2042 | | Message | NO IT ISN'T! Did you not read the Bill at all? It clearly states that "Bills should remain under debate until at least 3 parties have commented upon them, therefore allowing the vast majority of active parties to see the Bills and have their own say in the debate." I wrote that Bill myself, do NOT try and claim that this move was in anyway illegal. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Presidential Cabinet Proposal of May 2042 | | Message | Why do you feel this coalition is at an end? We still vote together on policy, we just have differing opinions on how the cabinet should be formed. See my comment in your cabinet proposal. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Presidential Cabinet Proposal of May 2042 | | Message | Fairy nuff. The vote may be legal. However, it does not remove the fact that, the Communist and Sancta parties have not commented, and that both we and the Christian Liberal party both said that we would not back it. And yet you put it to vote. AND FINALLY, how are you acting in the best interest of the coalition? Please note that both Sancta and we have both not approved this cabinet, yet both approved the other. We feel that this is very much against the spirit of the coalition to go against the other coalition members like this. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Presidential Cabinet Proposal of May 2042 | | Message | 1. I made it very clear in the other Bill that I had reservations about it.
2. The peoples best interests over ride that of the coalitions, especially since the coalition does NOT represent the majority of the government.
3. In a Bill I proposed before this one, the CP commented and said it would back an ammended Bill. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Presidential Cabinet Proposal of May 2042 | | Message | 1. Reservations yes. Would not back it no.
2. Together with the Christian Liberal party, who might as well be a member of the coalition with the way they vote, we DO represent the majority of the government. In fact, we agree with the CLP more than we do you!
3. And what about Sancta? |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Presidential Cabinet Proposal of May 2042 | | Message | 1. I still said it later, before it went to vote.
2. But the CLP isn't a member of the coalition. So as per definition the coalition doesn't, unless you wish to bring the CLP into the coalition.
3. I played by the rules, it was up for the 3 comments by other parties. I was hoping Sancta would agree with me, that a diverse cabinet, although not the best for the coalition, would be the best for the country. (ooc: have you seen sanct about by the way? i never seem to be online when he is) |
| Date | not recorded |
From | First Socialist Party | To | Debating the Presidential Cabinet Proposal of May 2042 | | Message | 1. No, you did not actually say you would not back it until after it was put to vote.
2. In the way they vote, they are effectively part of the coalition, if not by name.
3. You went against the coalition. You did not discuss it further until the coalition could come to an agreement. Please note that 2/3 of the coalition disagree with your cabinet, and agree with mine. (OOC: Dunno, I'm at uni, so don't have MSN right now. I've seen him around though) |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Presidential Cabinet Proposal of May 2042 | | Message | You never gave us a heads up like last time on the cabinet. Point being?
Please note I gave the coalition all the seats with any real power, so in this cabinet I still acted in the best interest of the coalition. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Sanctaphrax Party (Mod) | To | Debating the Presidential Cabinet Proposal of May 2042 | | Message | This petty argument will end HERE! Socialists, you have no right to kick the Kellarly Party from the Coalition without the other member, i.e my, approval. If all parties agree on it, then it is official. For now, if you do not agree to be in a coalition with Kellarly, then feel free to leave it yourself. That said, we do not support this cabinet either. Therefore we vote no. Which ever cabinet gets through, gets through. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kellarly Party | To | Debating the Presidential Cabinet Proposal of May 2042 | | Message | I must also add my apologies, I was really only trying to do what I thought was best, but in hindsight I should have talked it through with my allies more, hence I will keep my vote a yes and lose some influence which I appear not to deserve. |
| Date | 04:09:57, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | Communist Party | To | Debating the Presidential Cabinet Proposal of May 2042 | | Message | The Sanctaphrax Party is withholding comment on our alternative cabinet proposal, in apparent hopes of blackmailing its coalition partners. We will vote for this proposal, as our 2nd-choice option, so that it will not fail because of the upcoming voting deadline. However, we will continue to seek reform of the cabinet in the upcoming months. |
| Date | 07:29:02, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | Communist Party | To | Debating the Presidential Cabinet Proposal of May 2042 | | Message | SP, do you prefer our earlier proposal (SP/Kellarly 3 seats each, Sancts 2 seats, Zasha/CP 1 seat each), and would you vote for it without the concurrence of the Sanctaphrax Party? |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 74 |
| no | Total Seats: 87 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If you are likely to be logging in to Particracy with the same IP address as another player with an active account, please inform Moderation on the forum. Otherwise your account could be inactivated on suspicion of multi-accounting. |
| Random quote: "Law is mind without reason." - Aristotle |