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: The Common Sense Energy Proposal
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive Social Liberty Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: March 2144
Description[?]:
| This would likely increase the efficiency and raise the standard of service as no one company will be able to monopolize more than one region. This will also give more power to the regional governments, which will always be a good thing as surely those who live in a certain region would understand its energy needs better. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on the nation's power grid.
Old value:: Multiple private companies each own and maintain sections of the national power grid.
Current: The national grid is fully owned by the state.
Proposed: Each region owns and maintains its own power grid.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:10:23, November 20, 2005 CET | From |  Jacobites | To | Debating the The Common Sense Energy Proposal |
| Message | This doesn't increase efficiency. Economies of scale would mean that a single state power source would be the most efficient. Five regional power grids means five HQ's, five top level managers, five sets of bureacracy, five sets of stations (perhaps each with their own measurements, fuel type etc). If we had but one national company doing fuel, then we could save a lot of money as we are not simply replicating the central structure of that company five times. In the name of common sense and efficiency, you should be voting no. |
| Date | 12:35:35, November 20, 2005 CET | From | Market Socialist Party | To | Debating the The Common Sense Energy Proposal |
| Message | We also disagree, but for different reasons. We believe that the private sector can run the power grid the most efficiently and cost effectively. |
| Date | 13:09:18, November 20, 2005 CET | From | Jacobites | To | Debating the The Common Sense Energy Proposal |
| Message | ah, fair enough, but even then one company, as long as the government makes sure, would be far more efficient than multiple companies, each controlling a small part of the grid (as the option is I believe) |
| Date | 02:22:45, November 21, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the The Common Sense Energy Proposal |
| Message | It's always better than what we have now... |
| Date | 06:45:54, November 21, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Front | To | Debating the The Common Sense Energy Proposal |
| Message | Private or Public, what drives most here is competition. So it really makes no difference. no one company could take control as it strictly states "multiple" though one could become very powerful, or a conglomerate formed. We want nationalised energy, even if along side private ones, so we'll support this as it seems to be a step in the right direciton. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 148 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 161 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 92 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not accept Cultural Protocol updates which introduce, on a significant scale, cultures which are likely to be insufficiently accessible to players. In particular, for all significant cultures in Particracy, it should be easy for players to access and use online resources to assist with language translation and the generation of character names. Moderation reserves the right to amend Cultural Protocols which are deemed to have introduced significant cultures that are not sufficiently accessible and which are not being actively role-played with. |
| 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 |