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: Electoral Cycle - Debate
Details
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: January 3244
Description[?]:
| Ok, we realise that when it comes to constitutional changes it would be more appropriate to debate them. Therefore we would like to discuss the possibility of a change to the electoral cycle. Currently it stands at every 48 months (eight days), and we would, ideally like to see that cut to as little as 24 months (four days). We feel that this would be of immense benefit to democracy in this nation, allowing the people a say on their governance as often as possible, the more elections the better. It would also allow for the easy rectification of the moral dilemma caused by the creation or dissolution of political parties, or the existance of parties who do not get their Congressmen to turn up regularly. The latter would suffer from the effects of reduced visibility more rapidly, and the former would be ensure that the minimal possible delay occur once a party has collapsed, without having to rely on calling early elections. Furthermore we feel that a rapid and regular chnage in the seat distribution is vital to ensure that legislation is regularly put forward. Already this legislative period has seen more proposals put forward than the previous three terms, demontsrating the momentum created by parties that have gained new representation in the legislature, and we feel that this would be guarenteed with more frequent elections. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The length of a legislative and executive term, in months. Should be between 24 and 72.
Old value:: 48
Current: 60
Proposed: 36
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:18:50, January 12, 2012 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Electoral Cycle - Debate |
| Message | OOC: 24 is too short for 2 reasons. First, legislation has 6 months from introduction until voting ends so this means there would only be 3 days when new legislation could be introduced. Secondly, sometimes cabinets fail because someone proposes a broad coalition and someone flakes out on it. More time to gt a cabinet in place could be useful.3 years sounds good to me bc a big part of this is elections. Isn't it more fun to have more frequent elections? |
| Date | 21:05:06, January 13, 2012 CET | From | Democrats | To | Debating the Electoral Cycle - Debate |
| Message | None of the other parties have an opinion? |
| Date | 00:21:10, January 14, 2012 CET | From | FSD Party | To | Debating the Electoral Cycle - Debate |
| Message | OOC: 24 is far too short. The URP has already explained ( most apt terms) exactly why the electoral term has to be at minimum 36 months, and I feel that 36 months would be a very good compromise between the currently too long term of 48 months and the far too short term of 24 months. |
| Date | 22:05:47, January 14, 2012 CET | From | Democrats | To | Debating the Electoral Cycle - Debate |
| Message | Mr Speaker, with the comments noted, we once again push forward with a proposal to create three year legislative terms. Although currently we realise there are not enough votes in favour in such a constitutional change, we shall put this to vote again in the hope that either the BPP or the VNP choose to vote with the majority and secure passage for this proposal. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 58 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 42 |
| Random fact: Players who deliberately attempt to present a misleading picture of the nation's current RP laws will be subject to sanction. |
| Random quote: "The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution." - Hannah Arendt |