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: On the means to ensure a correct representation in the government.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Utilitarian Party of Solentia
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: September 2953
Description[?]:
| The Utilitarian Party of Solentia acknowledges with regret that its worst predictions have come reality. There is not a foreseeable coalition capable of garnering enough votes for approving a cabinet. Since we recognize that in the recent times not enough inter-partisan cooperation has existed, we require an important reform on the way a cabinet is presented. We support our Supreme President, yet we know he will not risk proposing a new cabinet which recognizes the admirable gains of the Federal Independent Party. His stand is respectable, but new negotiations need to take place. It is shameful that the parties in the opposition do not respect the independent stance each of the parties in the government has on several matters. The value of a coalition is the compromise on common aspects and the tolerance and respect on discerning opinions. If the opposition refuses to acknowledge this evident fact and to show some respect for our party, we will not support any of your cabinet proposals. We are sorry to be perceived right now as an obstacle, but we will do our best to assure the representation crisis is resolved so Solentia may grow from this experience. We will sacrifice the urgent for the important. Solentia is bigger than its problems. Claudius Jacobson, Senate Warden and Head of Government of the Federal Republic of Solentia |
Proposals
Article 1
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: Only the largest party can propose a cabinet.
Proposed: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:16:44, May 23, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the On the means to ensure a correct representation in the government. |
| Message | We expect a reply in no more than 6 months in order to solve this crisis. If no declaration is stated, we will vote on the matter. Claudius Jacobson, Senate Warden and Head of Government of the Federal Republic of Solentia |
| Date | 09:25:29, May 23, 2010 CET | From | Action of Civic Democrats | To | Debating the On the means to ensure a correct representation in the government. |
| Message | We will support it. |
| Date | 15:01:23, May 23, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the On the means to ensure a correct representation in the government. |
| Message | "The UPS childish threats of not supporting cabinets unless they get their way are quite frankly, pathetic. This Party has no intention of supporting a cabinet of being part of a cabinet this term as no workable collection of parties has a majority. It will simply be for the current Government and their puppet-parties to run as a minority Government until they can no longer govern efficiently. At which point, an early election should be called." James Clarke, CUP Leader. |
| Date | 16:54:31, May 23, 2010 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the On the means to ensure a correct representation in the government. |
| Message | As a matter of importance with regards to tradition, our country's system of checks and balances, and necessitated bi-partisanship, we are at this point opposed to any reformation of the current law. The Supreme President should have the right to select his/her own cabinet and govern the nation from an executive stand point efficiently. This current situation in which Supreme President Harding has been reelected, albeit losing his Senate mandate to pass legislation, should be a call for him from the voters to propose a new cabinet consisting of all thoughts. It is perhaps a test of his nature and his party's nature, displaying what they will do to cling onto power when they no longer deserve it. Having said that, we do find it inappropriate and unprofessional to hold the process of the cabinet selection ransom by declaring a lack of support should the UPS fail to be inclusive of it or there be a moratorium on expressing the truth. You cannot force our respect. We would hold more respect for your if this double standard failed to occur with you supporting a new government yet backing the old one by continuing to endorse Supreme President Harding, an untrustworthy and singularly partisan official. Until then it comes off as the UPS still supports the same old politics while refusing to accept that change has come. |
| Date | 17:45:33, May 23, 2010 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the On the means to ensure a correct representation in the government. |
| Message | Although the FIP's judgement of me as untrustworthy and partisan is scathing, I will be proposing a new cabinet in light of the recent election. The CPS will not support this bill, though it hopes that the UPS will accept its seats in the new cabinet as they have filled them admirably in previous terms. Supreme President James Harding |
| Date | 18:49:06, May 23, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the On the means to ensure a correct representation in the government. |
| Message | Well, once again must the Utilitarian Party of Solentia recognize its defeat. Seeing the logical and moral value of the oposition arguments, one can fully understand why we proposed this constitutional amendment. Despite the fact that they were the once winning the most, it is a shame they cannot even appreciate the respect we've shown for them. However, the recent cabinet proposal of Supreme President James Harding clearly proofs, that if all members of politics had the same level of compromise as he does, this amendment would not be possible since all politicians woudl work for the highest benefit. We are happy to see that this term this proposal will not be needed, nevertheless, it is one of our worries what would happen should the slanderous oposition win the office of the Supreme President. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 35 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 62 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Party organizations are eligible for deletion if they are over 50 in-game years old, do not have at least 1 active member or are historically significant and possess historically significant information. |
| Random quote: "Most politicians hold their fingers to the wind, and if we win we'll be showing them a lot of wind." - Ralph Nader |