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: Multiparty Constitutional Changes
Details
Submitted by[?]: Grand Nationalist Fraction
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: March 3730
Description[?]:
| Under the current conditions, a party holding at least 400 seats has a 2/3 majority and can make constitutional law changes without consulting or hearing the other parties in the nation. We would like to prevent one party destroying or mutilating our nation. After passage of this bill, any party having a 2/3 majority will not change any constitutional laws without consent of the other parties. The voting, if no agreement is reached in such a case, is to be postponed untill after the next elections. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:26:15, August 12, 2014 CET | From |  Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Multiparty Constitutional Changes |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that there would be no way to enforce this bill once passed. -- George Huddleson, Justice Minister |
| Date | 21:14:21, August 12, 2014 CET | From | Grand Nationalist Fraction | To | Debating the Multiparty Constitutional Changes |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, you're right. But we would like al of the parties present to acknowledge this peocedure. We do understand it is only a temporary measure, since new parties will appear at a certain moment. Clothilde Dewitte P&A spokeswoman |
| Date | 21:21:03, August 12, 2014 CET | From | Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Multiparty Constitutional Changes |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I believe this should be a resolution or motion, as opposed to an instructive bill. -- George Huddleson, Justice Minister |
| Date | 07:00:34, August 13, 2014 CET | From | Grand Nationalist Fraction | To | Debating the Multiparty Constitutional Changes |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, could we not add some disciplinary measures that can be taken by the other parties in case someone acts in contrast with this bill? Theodore W. Murphy P&A chairman |
| Date | 07:23:19, August 13, 2014 CET | From | People of Freedom (P.F) | To | Debating the Multiparty Constitutional Changes |
| Message | Mr Speaker. We disagree with this current bill. Especially the way this debate is going. We are also shocked at this governments desperate need to want to hold onto power and deny the people. If the people elect an opposition party to a super majority that's the will of the people. Because clearly then they would be unhappy with the current government. We agree that constitutional changes should go through debate but not with this amount of red tape. We hope no one is looking to "mutilate" this nation. However if someone is craze enough and earns a super majority. Its impossible to stop them. We takethis as a desperate/fearful move by the current government to remain in "holding the strings" of power. Phillipa Corazona D.A Representative on Justice |
| Date | 07:29:25, August 13, 2014 CET | From | Grand Nationalist Fraction | To | Debating the Multiparty Constitutional Changes |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, we understand the concern about the democracy. But in the past our economy and financial system was nearly destroyed by a large fraction that didn't seek happiness for all of our citizens. It took some years afterwards to get back on track. Luckily no constitutional changes had been made, but it could have been far worse. We do not want to hold on to power, on the contrary: we have called for early elections to achieve a better balance in the Presidium, since our party has a solid majority at this moment. With this bill, we just want to preserve the nation. Anders Dewitte President of Lodamun |
| Date | 07:39:29, August 13, 2014 CET | From | People of Freedom (P.F) | To | Debating the Multiparty Constitutional Changes |
| Message | Mr President. We see the good intentions behind this move. Still difficult for us to 100 percent support this at the moment. We are concerned about democracy yes. And we find your news alarming about the past. I suppose this "madness" happens from time to rime especially in a democratic state. Phillipa Corazona D.A Representative on Justice |
| Date | 08:44:54, August 13, 2014 CET | From | Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Multiparty Constitutional Changes |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, If a party is elected to hold a supermajority of the Presidium, it wouldn't be the "opposition" anymore. The bill is to apply to all parties, to ensure that no government (including the current one) makes constitutional changes without discussing it with other parties. -- George Huddleson, Justice Minister |
| Date | 19:30:27, September 17, 2014 CET | From | Conservative Monarchist Alliance | To | Debating the Multiparty Constitutional Changes |
| Message | OOC: Can we clear this? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 146 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 309 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 144 |
| Random fact: Selucia is Particracy's modern take on Ancient Rome, located on the continent of Majatra. |
| Random quote: "I swear to the Lord I still can't see Why Democracy means Everybody but me." - Langston Hughes, The Black Man Speaks |