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: Congress Stimulus Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Aldegar Progressive Movement
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: October 2979
Description[?]:
Increase number of seats in congress. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The total number of seats in the legislative assembly. Should be between 75 and 750.
Old value:: 199
Current: 700
Proposed: 349
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 22:54:09, July 29, 2010 CET | From | People's Party - Republican Democrats | To | Debating the Congress Stimulus Bill |
Message | And why? |
Date | 05:10:01, August 04, 2010 CET | From | Aldegar Defense Party | To | Debating the Congress Stimulus Bill |
Message | why not do you have an reason for why we shouldn't increase the seats when the population increases in parties and in virtual people. |
Date | 06:41:10, August 04, 2010 CET | From | People's Party - Republican Democrats | To | Debating the Congress Stimulus Bill |
Message | As we have made no proposal we don't see why we would have to give a reason. However, we have so far not seen any convincing argument5 for increasing the size of our parliament. As we have mentioned before, the number of parties standing for election is no relaevant criterion, as the number of seats available has no effect on the relative strength of the parties. A party getting 20 per cent of the vote would still have about 20 per cent of the seats, no matter if 20 per cent means about 40 seats or about 70 seats. |
Date | 20:57:10, August 04, 2010 CET | From | United Aldegar Progressive Movement | To | Debating the Congress Stimulus Bill |
Message | So basically you have no reason and are saying no just for the sake of arguing |
Date | 22:34:24, August 04, 2010 CET | From | People's Party - Republican Democrats | To | Debating the Congress Stimulus Bill |
Message | Our reasons for saying no are completely transparent. As we said before, here and elsewhere, we are opposed to this proposal because we have not been given any valid reason for increasing the size of parliament, and we are unlikely to change our position as long as no one makes the effort of presenting us with a good reason for supporting any similar proposal. |
Date | 04:57:39, August 05, 2010 CET | From | United Aldegar Progressive Movement | To | Debating the Congress Stimulus Bill |
Message | So even if the bulk of the country is in acceptance of this you are saying no just because you can |
Date | 08:34:36, August 05, 2010 CET | From | People's Party - Republican Democrats | To | Debating the Congress Stimulus Bill |
Message | We are saying no because we haven't been given a reason to say yes, and as this measure requires a 2/3 majority, the UAPM would be well advised to make an effort to convince instead of ttrying to shift the responsibility for providing a reason on us and claiming a non-existent majority. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||
yes |
Total Seats: 50 | |||
no | Total Seats: 112 | |||
abstain | Total Seats: 37 |
Random fact: Particracy allows you to establish an unelected head of state like a monarch or a president-for-life, but doing this is a bit of a process. First elect a candidate with the name "." to the Head of State position. Then change your law on the "Structure of the executive branch" to "The head of state is hereditary and symbolic; the head of government chairs the cabinet" and change the "formal title of the head of state" to how you want the new head of state's title and name to appear (eg. King Percy XVI). |
Random quote: "You don't have to buy from anyone. You don't have to work at any particular job. You don't have to participate in any given relationship. You can choose." - Harry Browne |