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: Call for early elections, June 2042
Details
Submitted by[?]: People's Populist Party - Zogist Mafia
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill requests an early election. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. This bill will pass as soon as the required yes votes are in, or will be defeated if unsufficient votes are reached on the deadline. Elections will be held immediately if the bill passes.
Voting deadline: February 2043
Description[?]:
We, the Peoples Populist party, call for early elections as soon as we can reach a consensus. |
Proposals
Article 1
Arrange early elections as soon as this bill passes.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Call for early elections, June 2042 |
Message | It is no surprise who will oppose this bill! We tentatively offer our support for early elections, to better represent the up to date views of the people. |
Date | not recorded | From | Social Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Call for early elections, June 2042 |
Message | You want early elections? To better represent the views of the people? And you can't wait an extra five months for elections to take place as normally scheduled? |
Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Call for early elections, June 2042 |
Message | Please note our use of the term, up to date. The current government is representative of the Beluzia of yesterday, not today, and early elections - more democracy - can only reflect that. Is that what the SLP is afraid of? |
Date | not recorded | From | Social Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Call for early elections, June 2042 |
Message | We have no reason to be afraid of anything, and we're only confused as to why your party has not taken any intiative in scheduling elections earlier if you felt it necessary. This measure was started by the Populists, who are traditionally against any government headed by the LCP. We would not have minded earlier elections in retrospect seeing as how no new cabinet was formed during this term, but that does not meant that early elections are necessary now. This is simply a political ploy by the PPP in an attempt to make it look more democratic. Also, we are against the idea of having consistently early elections because elected officials cannot do their jobs properly in terms any less than four years, as they would feel compelled to cater to popular sentiment more than what is actually necessary for the nation. We do not fear democracy, we only wish to make it effective and ensure that the government is not paralyzed. |
Date | not recorded | From | Libertarian Communist Party | To | Debating the Call for early elections, June 2042 |
Message | We simply didn't feel a new cabinet was necessary... |
Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Call for early elections, June 2042 |
Message | Our party is small and has grown immensely, and this is an unusual situation for us. This is why we had not taken the initiative in this instance, and why we support these early elections. If it stands to reason, however, that elected officials need a minimum time to govern effectively, perhaps it stands to reason that the government will be more effective overall, with fewer - or none at all - elections? If for example, it takes a minimum of four years to 'do their jobs properly,' would that be a legitimate way of saying that the government officials will be ineffective until four years have passed and they are up for re-election? This is a dangerous line of thought that can be used against any democratic action. Efficiency is of course a concern, but it should not come at the cost of representation! As to the LCP's comment, this isn't a new cabinet proposal. This is different. |
Date | not recorded | From | Social Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Call for early elections, June 2042 |
Message | We're saying four years is necessary for elected officials to do their jobs properly because that is what history has shown. The ideal term, as we see it, is actually five years, as it is the greatest balance between effective government and representative government. And no, we do not support anything beyond five years simply because elections that infrequent would not benefit society as much. We're not trying to make some blanket argument that the longer the time between elections the more effective the government, we're just trying to point out that when the term is any shorter than four years, the greatest characteristic of the government is that its members are always scrambling for reelection. And the LCP was speaking in response to us. We wanted a new cabinet to better represent the distribution of seats, but one was never proposed. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes | Total Seats: 36 | ||||
no |
Total Seats: 183 | ||||
abstain | Total Seats: 32 |
Random fact: "Treaty-locking", or ratifiying treaties that completely or nearly completely forbid any proposals to change laws, is not allowed. Amongst other possible sanctions, Moderation reserves the discretion to delete treaties and/or subject parties to a seat reset if this is necessary in order to reverse a treaty-lock situation. |
Random quote: "You can only progress when you think big, you can only move forward when you look further." - Arria Ivmarus, former Selucian politician |