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: Strengthening Political Parties Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Urban Party of Rutania
Status[?]: passed
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 3537
Description[?]:
| A bill to lower the amount of proposals a party can issue. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The number of proposals a party can introduce per year (will be handed out as a monthly quota).
Old value:: 12
Current: 20
Proposed: 10
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The maximum proposal quota a party can accumulate.
Old value:: 20
Current: 20
Proposed: 12
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:36:38, August 24, 2013 CET | From | Urban Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Strengthening Political Parties Act |
| Message | OOC: Considering we have 7 parties and are fairly active, it only makes since we lower the proposal count. I for one do not like having to sift through 20 one-proposal laws by three different parties, which were proposed in order to bypass the Parliamentary Etiquette Law. Besides, in certain instances, it may actually be better to propose a group of proposals together instead of split them apart; especially if they are the same type (i.e. Economic proposals). In regards to the PEL, that law was created as a means to ensure debate was given for bills like this, so they weren't jammed through the Parliament. One of the features about the law is that it can be used as a means to stall/delay as well as breakup omnibus bills. In a sense, it adds more depth to the game and can be used to your advantage if you know what you're doing. |
| Date | 17:38:05, August 24, 2013 CET | From | Capitalist Working Families | To | Debating the Strengthening Political Parties Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We are strongly OPPOSED to this bill as it takes way FREEDOM of individual party members (EVERYONE). ----The CWFP |
| Date | 17:42:55, August 24, 2013 CET | From | Capitalist Working Families | To | Debating the Strengthening Political Parties Act |
| Message | OOC: In regards to the PEL, to be perfectly HONEST, I ONLY broke the "law" b/c I originally was not even AWARE that the resolution had passed. The Second time that I broke the PEL "law" was b/c I just FORGOT about it b/c "technically" it is not an official rule of the game. However, in the FUTURE, I will 100% RESPECT the wishes of this body to adhere to the PEL. However, if the bill quota is reduced, individual party members can STILL violate the PEL b/c it is NOT an "official rule" of the Particracy game. If you have a "12 bill quota," can you just not submit a bill with 5 proposals and proceed to have a vote on it WITHOUT debate??? :O |
| Date | 01:32:45, August 25, 2013 CET | From | National Purity Union | To | Debating the Strengthening Political Parties Act |
| Message | OOC: The way I see it, the problem is the flooding of single-proposal bills. I think this bill will help with that, and I will vote to pass the constitutional amendment. An alternative change would be to change the PEL to limit the number of bills a party could propose -- perhaps 2 or 3 per month. In addition to stopping flooding, the change would give the parties an incentive to create more complex bills, adding the kind of strategy that the UPR was talking about, and also stop the flooding of Parliament. It would also create incentives for cooperation and compromise -- something very important in the real-world politics Particracy is trying to emulate, but something that is not rewarded in the way the game was built. Regarding people violating the PEL intentionally -- yeah, if players want to be dicks, they'll be dicks. We could all agree to punish players that violate the PEL in some way (refusing to invite them to the Cabinet, refusing to pass their bills, etc.), but frankly, I think the kind of person who wants to play a game like Particracy will play in line with the spirit of the game -- which includes obeying the rules passed by the parliament, even if they aren't hard-wired into the Particracy game engine. |
| Date | 08:44:23, August 25, 2013 CET | From | Capitalist Working Families | To | Debating the Strengthening Political Parties Act |
| Message | OOC: who is actually keeping TRACK of how Particracy measures GAME months??? Is there a game month every 5 hours? Then, if that is the case, can you ONLY submit 3 bills every 5 hours? The WHOLE POINT of the game allowing Party's to "flood" the Parliament with single-proposal bills was that it QUICKLY changes your STANDING with the fictional voters in the next election. Without that, the elections would be MUCH more difficult. :O |
| Date | 14:43:07, August 25, 2013 CET | From | National Purity Union | To | Debating the Strengthening Political Parties Act |
| Message | OOC: You should read the FAQ. It says that a game month = 4 hours. And you confuse me, CWFP. You say that the whole point of the game is to flood the parliament with single-proposal bills so that you quickly win elections (how's that working out for you, BTW?). But at the same time, you seem to be so into the roleplaying aspect of the game that you make long, link-filled arguments for your bills, and badger people through the messaging system. Or, maybe you're having trouble distinguishing game from reality, and it's important to you that we all hold your real-world political beliefs? Or, it's all just a test to see if we're worthy business partners. To the merits of your argument, I agree that it would limit the ability of a new party to skyrocket to prominence. Perhaps there could be an exception that says that parties are exempt from that law until after they have faced their second election. By then, if they are regularly using their quota throughout the years, then they should have at least high visibility on their positions with the voters. |
| Date | 15:47:21, August 25, 2013 CET | From | Sunbeam Squad | To | Debating the Strengthening Political Parties Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, We will support. A Granger SS Leader |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 513 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 42 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Dorvik is a nation based on Germanic and old Prussian cultures, it is located on the far north of Artania, making it an almost arctic nation. |
| Random quote: "All history has been a history of class struggles between dominated classes at various stages of social development." - Friedrich Engels |