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: Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132
Details
Submitted by[?]: Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition
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: June 2133
Description[?]:
| Proposing a Cabinet |
Proposals
Article 1
As per the Constitution, the President of the Commonwealth chairs the cabinet.
Article 2
The responsibilites of Science and Technology will be conducted by the CNT/AFL
Article 3
The responsibilites of Food and Agriculture will be conducted by the 
National People's Gang
Article 4
The responsibilites of Environment and Tourism will be conducted by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
Article 5
The responsibilites of Trade and Industry will be conducted by the Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition
Article 6
The responsibilites of Foreign Affairs will be conducted by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
Article 7
The responsibilites of Internal Affairs will be conducted by the National People's Gang
Article 8
The responsibilites of Finance will be conducted by the CNT/AFL
Article 9
The responsibilites of Defence will be conducted by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
Article 10
The responsibilites of Justice will be conducted by the Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition
Article 11
The responsibilites of Infrastructure and Transport will be conducted by the Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun
Article 12
The responsibilites of Health and Social Services will be conducted by the National People's Gang
Article 13
The responsibilites of Education and Culture will be conducted by the CNT/AFL
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:36:39, October 28, 2005 CET | From | Slaytanic Wehrmacht | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | yeah. whatever. |
| Date | 18:54:25, October 28, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | fine by us! |
| Date | 19:26:46, October 28, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | We can't, it's unconstitutional. |
| Date | 22:36:44, October 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | I dont believe it is, actually. Was the Inclusive Consensus Act officially re-instated? |
| Date | 05:11:18, October 29, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | No, it wasn't. |
| Date | 05:18:39, October 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | That's what I thought. Either way, there is nothing(game mechanics wise) to stop this, except for DSP's inactivity. |
| Date | 05:40:19, October 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | Or not, it seems the DSP is back after a 3 day inactivity. |
| Date | 05:49:54, October 29, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | True. If the Inclusive Consensus Act had been reinstated then only the largest party could propose a cabinet - and it would be the duty of that party to propose a mid-term reshuffle adhering to the wishes of the parties who wanted to resign. However, the most recent inclusive Cabinets have been proposed in the spirit of a national unity government without the need for a specific law. We regard this spirit of national unity as a far more resilient model than detailed constitutional legislation (which, as you point out, is impossible to police). In these circumstances, a unity Cabinet is in the process of dissolving, due to an unsustainable level of dissent within it. It is right, proper and common sense that the following options should be considered by the elected members: 1. the formation of a Cabinet without the dissenters 2. the formation of a Cabinet composed of the dissenters 3. a decision from the electorate through new elections All of these are options are now on the table. |
| Date | 05:56:53, October 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | We agree with the last post, however, we refuse to vote on such cabinet bills until such time as things actually make sense regarding the reason for the dissent. Considering that it was due to a bug that *I* have reported to the forums, the mantis, and wouter, and that I am doing what I can to fix it, such as voting on the Gay Rights Treaty currently at vote--There really is no point for any of this. You have far more reason to be upset over the Medical Reformation bill, currently on it's way to passing, than you do over a bug that I am doing my best to rectify. |
| Date | 05:59:59, October 29, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | Furthermore, as far as the difficulties in policing laws governing parliamentary conventions are concerned, a number of parties have breached the articles of the Spam Tastes Bad Act, (http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=10236) a number of times. We believe the Act has been disregarded on sufficient numbers of occasions - without significant objection - for it to be considered defunct by custom and practice. It would benefit the clarity of parliamentary convention if the DSP would propose a bill formally repealing the Spam Tastes Bad Act. |
| Date | 06:09:27, October 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | We agree with that post as well, however we feel that leaving the law on the books, unenforced, has merit as a guide of etiquette. The main reason that objection hasn't been issued when it was violated has been that the spirit of the law, respecting the wishes of others to be coherent, has always been followed. |
| Date | 06:24:45, October 29, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | ((This is where we disagree, I think the ability to damage the coherency of other parties is one of the major strategic elements of the game - and of party politics. I think the cleverness in playing shouldn't be about exploiting the game mechanics but in exploiting the game dynamics - presenting legislation which forces other parties to decide the lesser of two evils when voting for or against)) |
| Date | 06:41:45, October 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | OOC: Hm...I think such tactics are "impolite" at the least. To the extent that I dont like them being used against me, I try not to use them against others. Maybe it's a libertarian thing, I dont know. However, I have become more ruthless lately and am considering using such methods. It's easier to act when others are disregarded. |
| Date | 13:13:04, October 29, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | OOC: You see, this is where we differ immensely and where most of the friction has been - I see Particracy as a game, one of the strategies within the game is to put forward bills which make other parties less coherent to the electorate. If successful, over a period of time and with a great deal of care and planning, the political environment should become favourable to the party which negotiates these political rapids most effectively. I see the interpretation of this as a "politeness" issue as seriously undermining the game so that it becomes an endless round of the parties just trying to force through the same old bills for the same old reasons. What I consider inappropriate play (and this is not making accusations, merely trying to clarify a position which has been, at best, misinterpreted) is non-game interference. Although the game is still evolving and so some elements have been lumpy or quirky, I think there's been far too much contact with moderators. Just one example is that a lot of new issues have been introduced (throughout the whole game) with incomplete options, the full range of options hasn't been properly considered because the issue has been pushed forward by a player acting solely to promote their party agenda. |
| Date | 23:58:38, October 29, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Left of Centre Cabinet Proposal of March 2132 |
| Message | I'm still wanting a defense position, but I will support it anyways. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 234 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 66 |
| Random fact: Unless otherwise stated, monarchs and their royal houses will be presumed to be owned by the player who introduced the bill appointing them to their position. |
| Random quote: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." - John Adams |