Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: August 4318
Next month in: 01:48:03
Server time: 10:11:56, December 16, 2017 CET
Currently online (6): Creed_One | Glamatso | Kast28 | marc6788 | RAKOVINA SIEDLOCZEK | Wohoo Im a commie | Record: 63 on 23:28:53, August 06, 2007 CET

Bill: Three year election bill

Details

Submitted by[?]: Social Democratic Party [SDP]

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: December 3211

Description[?]:

The seventeenth Tea Party proposal (forgot exact name) is going tobe defeated, but we do agree with a 36 month election cycle, and are proposing that individually. We simply disagree with the idea of decreasing the number of seats.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date22:34:27, November 11, 2011 CET
FromTea Party
ToDebating the Three year election bill
MessageThe Tea Party has decided to block this proposal in the same manner the Socialists and the Libservative Conservacrats blocked the Seventeenth Popular Demand Bill. We're not willing to compromise, the size of Parliament needs to be drastically reduced too.

Date23:38:34, November 11, 2011 CET
FromIndependence Party
ToDebating the Three year election bill
MessageWe wholly agree with the Tea Party on this matter

Date02:26:22, November 12, 2011 CET
FromLibservative Conservacrats
ToDebating the Three year election bill
MessageOh how sad, you're not even allowing a bill that you agree with to pass just because *Gaps* "The Socialists" proposed it.

Date11:50:55, November 12, 2011 CET
FromTea Party
ToDebating the Three year election bill
MessageIts not because you proposed it, its because you blocked a similar proposal just because it would reduce the number of seats in Parliament. I don't know why you'd oppose such a measure.. maybe because you'd lose seats but that would only be proportionally.

If the SDP is going to be partisan, then that gives us the right to be partisan too.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 229

no
   

Total Seats: 496

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: Players have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to be accurate when communicating the rules to other players. Any player who manipulatively misleads another player about the rules will be subject to sanction.

    Random quote: "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." Jean Chretien on the level of proof of WMD's Canada required to join the Iraq War

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 52