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: Executive Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Beluzian Syndicalist Party
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: May 3639
Description[?]:
| To amend the structure of the Executive branch of our government. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Structure of the executive branch.
Old value:: The Head of State is also Head of Government.
Current: The Head of State and Head of Government are two separate officials.
Proposed: The Head of State and Head of Government are two separate officials.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The title of the head of government, who chairs the cabinet.
Old value:: President
Current: Prime Minister
Proposed: First Minister
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:36:58, March 19, 2014 CET | From | Beluzian Syndicalist Party | To | Debating the Executive Reform |
| Message | (OOC: Refering to the "no maximum proposal cap" suggestion made by Stanton House in the First Electoral Reform Bill debate, 50 appears to be the maximum proposal cap allowed by the game engine.) |
| Date | 21:30:11, March 19, 2014 CET | From | Stanton House | To | Debating the Executive Reform |
| Message | as i see on the 1 bill i will vote no on this bill as you have put up the maximum proposal quota a party can accumulate if you put up the amount the maximum proposal quota a party can accumulate to 20 i will vote yes on the bill |
| Date | 22:15:44, March 19, 2014 CET | From | Beluzian Syndicalist Party | To | Debating the Executive Reform |
| Message | We must have misread your earlier objections. Would you be in favour of reducing the maximum proposal cap to 20? |
| Date | 22:28:37, March 19, 2014 CET | From | Left Coalition | To | Debating the Executive Reform |
| Message | We would vote yes to this bill as it stands. However we would vote against a cut in the proposal quota cap as Stanton House asks for. |
| Date | 00:17:38, March 20, 2014 CET | From | Stanton House | To | Debating the Executive Reform |
| Message | i will vote yes if you take out the maximum proposal quota a party can accumulate to stay at 36 |
| Date | 16:42:14, March 20, 2014 CET | From | Beluzia First Coalition | To | Debating the Executive Reform |
| Message | What do we need two positions for when they can be filled by one man or woman? |
| Date | 17:20:18, March 20, 2014 CET | From | Beluzian Syndicalist Party | To | Debating the Executive Reform |
| Message | @Beluzia First Coalition - Because as it currently stands the HoS is the HoG - that means that every cabinet automatically proposal includes the HoS's party, even if every other cabinet position is given to (an) other party(s). That means that the Liberal Socialists (at present) have to approve any coalition proposal - even if the proposing parties have an Assembly majority. Splitting the offices of HoS and HoG would open up cabinet formation to any party alliance with a majority (>375 seats). Say, for instance of the largest opposiion parties (us plus you plus Stanton House (=391)) - or hypothetically a future coalition between yourselves and other closer ideological allies, even if the HoS was a Syndicalist. In effect, it removes the HoS's party's effective veto over cabinet formation, making cabinet formation easier and more flexible with the only requirement being an Assembly majority. Political power would be more proportionately distributed among parties. The proposed system isn't inherantly better or worse than our current one - it just depends ultimately on whether we want a more presidential (status quo) or more parliamentary (this reform) system. Incidently, your support would just about tip this bill over the required 2/3rds majority needed for it to pass. Also congratulations of your recent phenomenal electoral success. |
| Date | 17:25:21, March 20, 2014 CET | From | Beluzian Syndicalist Party | To | Debating the Executive Reform |
| Message | Note the fate of this pre-election cabinet proposal which failed, despite passing the Assembly by 392 votes to 358. http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=404430 |
| Date | 22:57:36, March 20, 2014 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Executive Reform |
| Message | Beluzia needs strong leadership. The Grand Consul must be unitary. He must be decisive. And he must be an inspiration and driver for our glorious nation. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 351 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 155 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 244 |
| Random fact: Never use the same password as a friend. If two or more active accounts use the same password, they will be inactivated. |
| Random quote: "There is no other definition of communism valid for us than that of the abolition of the exploitation of man by man." - Che Guevara |