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: Get Smart Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Paleofederalist Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: January 2958
Description[?]:
| It is vital for education to be handled by the provincial governments. They are more effective at creating proper school boards and they better recognize the educational needs of the people within their boundaries. Educational is a prime example of how federalism benefits the people: First, federalism promotes competition. Each region will try to make their education system more effective, affordable, and competitive. This allows our citizens more choice in the area of education (seeing how our constitution guarantees mobility rights, citizens will also be able to move to the province of their choice based on their educational desires). Secondly, federalism allows each province to learn from the others. Each province will be allowed to enact different policies, good or bad, without forcing it on the others. If it is a successful policy, the other provinces may choose to adopt it (if it suits their situation). If it is a failure, the other provinces will be warned not to go down the same path. This also allows provinces to make laws without directly affecting the rest of the nation. I must also point out that our current budget does not make any provision for a federal department of education. Don't be stupid. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The education system.
Old value:: There is a free public education system alongside private schools.
Current: Education is private, but the government issues vouchers to pay for the schooling of disadvantaged children.
Proposed: Education is a matter of local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:24:06, June 19, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Get Smart Act |
| Message | We will support. |
| Date | 22:28:37, June 19, 2010 CET | From | Communist Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Get Smart Act |
| Message | No no no no no no no. Oh sorry, did I say no? I meant NO |
| Date | 02:33:49, June 20, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Get Smart Act |
| Message | Your humor is gay ... |
| Date | 10:53:09, June 20, 2010 CET | From | Communist Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Get Smart Act |
| Message | grow up |
| Date | 03:58:26, June 21, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Get Smart Act |
| Message | Grow up? Are you telling me to infact grow up when cleary it is you who is who is lacking in intelligence; not me in maturity. You didn't have any response to what I told you so that is all you could muster up, a measly "grow up". |
| Date | 13:56:34, June 21, 2010 CET | From | Christian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Get Smart Act |
| Message | Well, it is sometimes difficult to have a terribly intelligent response to a terribly unintelligent comment. |
| Date | 13:56:53, June 21, 2010 CET | From | Christian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Get Smart Act |
| Message | I will add that we will vote in favour. |
| Date | 17:57:16, June 21, 2010 CET | From | Communist Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Get Smart Act |
| Message | Your humor is "gay" ... It was the "gay" part I was talking about. If you had picked a word that is not used by only children eight-year-old to express their disgust at something, then I would have simply ignored you. |
| Date | 20:50:20, June 21, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Get Smart Act |
| Message | Thanks for the important lesson dad |
| Date | 06:58:57, June 22, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Get Smart Act |
| Message | I might even have a little bit more respect for you if instead of trying to push a communist agenda, you were just pushing a sort of socialist-democracy type agenda. I do not in any way support a social democratic agenda, but I think that there are some arguments atleast for certian aspects of it that depending on someone's premises about humans, can actually have a pretty good logical basis. Communism however, has pretty much in every way been refuted by logic. |
| Date | 22:53:46, June 22, 2010 CET | From | Communist Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Get Smart Act |
| Message | It's a political game. you have to accept diversity. i dont hate you because of your views (which completely contradict mine), yet all you seem to judge otehrs on is their views, rather on other ways. |
| Date | 03:46:05, June 24, 2010 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Get Smart Act |
| Message | Well, seeing as one's "views" is the only thing that separates them from anyone else as far online political games go, what other ways would you suggest I "judge" others? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 135 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 27 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 53 |
| Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
| Random quote: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting that vote." - Unknown |