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: Administrative Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2137
Description[?]:
| This is a bill designed to increase the number of proposals a party can make. This means you can do more in a single year, benefitting your own party and hopefully boosting activity as there will be more to vote upon each year. Article 3 however is the most important. Currently only the Head of State can propose a cabinet, but what if they fail to do that and we are stuck with an out of date cabinet for the rest of the Head of states term. We propose all parties can sugest a cabinet, this means that we would get a cabinet that has popular support guarenteed, plus several cabinet could be proposed after an election, meaning more activity for all and the creation of alliances as in a real political system. This bill needs two/thirds to pass, so please support it/. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The number of proposals a party can introduce per year (will be handed out as a monthly quota).
Old value:: 8
Current: 20
Proposed: 20
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The maximum proposal quota a party can accumulate.
Old value:: 15
Current: 50
Proposed: 50
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The constitutional right and responsibility to propose a cabinet to the legislature.
Old value:: Only the Head of State can propose a cabinet coalition.
Current: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Proposed: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:41:44, November 06, 2005 CET | From |  Hatter's Tea Party | To | Debating the Administrative Reform |
| Message | The Cabinet Reform Bill as presented by the Kalinaz Party already covers Article 3 and carries with it no additional proposals. For Article 1, I request 10 may be a more reasonable number, though i feel no increase is necessary A party that gains the majority support, by either honest or dishonest methods, would naturally gain a majority of the legislative body. With the ability to make too many proposals in one year could effectively make sweeping changes at a rate faster than the ability of the duped public to react. |
| Date | 13:50:34, November 06, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Administrative Reform |
| Message | Sorry about article 3, I hadn't read your bill yet. As for Article one and two I think that they are necessary, as they reward players who put more effort and time into creating bills, as they are allowed to create more. Having more bills proposed gives parties more to do, they have more to vote upon, thus interest is retained and activity is kept high. Limiting the number is unfair on those parties who are willing to do more. 20 the maximum is the best IMO, as it means we will not have to alter this bill again in the future, and it can be left as it is. No restrictions are provided on parties, which can only be a good thing, not a bad thing. As for duping the public, well we can hardly see that as an issue, as long as parties vote on bills and do not just alow them to pass. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 57 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 15 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 28 |
| Random fact: Bill descriptions must be in English, or at least include a full English translation. Bill titles may appear in a language that is appropriate to the nation and are not required to be translated into English. |
| Random quote: "The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles." - Ayn Rand |