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: Senate Resolution 177: Supreme Presidential Empowerment Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Federal Independent Party
Status[?]: passed
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: April 2938
Description[?]:
| SR 177: SPEA Putting power back into the hands of the Supreme President, where it belongs. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The constitutional right and responsibility to propose a cabinet to the legislature.
Old value:: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Current: Only the largest party can propose a cabinet.
Proposed: Only the Head of State can propose a cabinet coalition.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:07:29, May 13, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 177: Supreme Presidential Empowerment Act |
| Message | The Utilitarian Party of Solentia is strongly against this measure. If we only allow the Supreme President to propose a cabinet coalition, we are risking stagnating once more Solentian politics. A cohabitation in which a Supreme President cannot garner enough support from the Senate to approve a new cabinet enables the party of the former Supreme President to stay in power for as long as he cannot snatch a majority. We wonder what would happen if next election no party wins over 40% of the legislature; since there hasn't been enough collaboration among party lines, we fear that the current cabinet will stay in place for more than this term. The UPS currently holds important positions in the cabinet, but it would be against our values to stay in power if the Senate is adverse to us. An important element of democracy is political accountability; for as long as the parties have no saying in the government, one may not demand from them a true compromise. A party which was favored in the previous election but now lost all support, should not maintain its political positions if the people have already voted against its policies, and the only reason for that party staying in the government is that no constructive vote of confidence can be consented. The present system allows for parties to regroup constantly looking for coincidences in their ideologies. If we allow this constitutional amendment to be approved, we are risking the stability. All the parties not represented in the previous cabinet will only unite against the previous dominant force. Politics should not be ignited by hatred towards another party and the wish of seeing them out of the cabinet, but by the desire to improve the situation of our fellows Solentians. How can a party demand more political power and be accountable to the people, if it has no way of submitting its cabinet? The Utilitarian Party of Solentia regards Solentian history as a true example of development and respect for civil liberties. Withholding the right of the opposition to submit their own cabinet breaks its right and brings Solentia one step closer to a liberal autocracy: A government with no responsibility nor respect to the diversity of opinions represented in the Senate or the people. The Utilitarian Party of Solentia strongly opposes this bill. |
| Date | 13:31:56, May 13, 2010 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 177: Supreme Presidential Empowerment Act |
| Message | The CPS will support this measure and feels it necessary to explain its reasoning. If, as in your hypothetical example, no party were able to achieve any sort of majority in the next election, then a new cabinet would not be prohibited, it would merely need to be crafted carefully and with deliberate cooperation by the Supreme President in order to please enough parties in the Senate to be approved. If no new cabinet were possible at all, and a party such as the UPS were left with a number of significant seats when they felt that they truly did not deserve them, they might vacate their seats and put significant pressure on the Supreme President to create a coalition cabinet which suits the needs of the nation. |
| Date | 18:43:50, May 13, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Senate Resolution 177: Supreme Presidential Empowerment Act |
| Message | I rise in support of this motion on behalf of the Conservative and Unionist Party. It is the belief of this party that a Supreme President is elected with a majority of the voting public in favour for the purpose of forming an administration. That Supreme Presidential majority is something that members of this Senate rarely enjoy. It is highly unusual for a party in the House to be elected with over 50% of the popular vote whereas the Supreme President always is. For this reason, we support empowering the Supreme President and giving him or her full control over what is their democratically elected privilege. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 88 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 12 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The use of proxy servers makes it impossible to detect multiing and is therefore forbidden. Players who access Particracy through a proxy will have their accounts inactivated. |
| Random quote: "The man who prefers his country before any other duty shows the same spirit as the man who surrenders every right to the state. They both deny that right is superior to authority." - John Dalberg-Acton |