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: Constitutional right to present a government
Details
Submitted by[?]: Royal 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: November 2170
Description[?]:
| In the last weeks weīve seen some of the smaller parties in the nation suggestion their own governments. Parties that are not by all means close to represent a significant amount of the voters. Itīs now time to show that politics is not a playground and that only parties with the largest amount of voters are allowed to give suggestions for government. Hereby we can eliminate the collective thining that this nation seems stuck in: That all parties with some seats should be a part of the government. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The constitutional right and responsibility to propose a cabinet to the legislature.
Old value:: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Current: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Proposed: Only the largest party can propose a cabinet.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:02:08, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Populist Conservative Party | To | Debating the Constitutional right to present a government |
| Message | oppose |
| Date | 21:12:31, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Federalists Party | To | Debating the Constitutional right to present a government |
| Message | We are currently undecided, and are interested in a debate on this issue. It would seem that the American style cabinet, with the President/Prime Minister selecting his cabinet (subject to approval), would be far more efficient than a more Euro type cabinet (with coalitions from opposing parties). Which is the better system? |
| Date | 21:40:53, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Royal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional right to present a government |
| Message | Each system has itīs +/-. A government proposed by a head of state is a stabile one. If a governemnt consists of different parties small parties with only a low % of the votes may get the position to inflew alot more then their vote % should allow them to. all because a/the larger parties yet need them to get absolute majority. On the other hand a governemnt witch consists of several parties does represent the people in a broader aspect. The keyquestion is still; should a party with not even 25% of the votes be able to keep important chairs in the governemnt just because another party with maybe 40% need them in some quotations the get to 50+% votes?. Particracy isnīt reallt based on this principle. In reality all the parties in a government propbably has an agreement on how to vote after discussion, itīs a game of give and take. Sometimes you haft to see thru your finger unless itīs a clear ideological question. And propably only the votes of single memebers of parliament could fail the governemt block. |
| Date | 23:33:40, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Bodhist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional right to present a government |
| Message | We are vehemently opposed. This bill is an assault upon the democracy we live in -- the democratic system is not only meant to grant the will of the majority, but also protect the rights of the minority. Wantuni, and the Conclave, cannot accept such a heinous bill. The Royal Party should take note that its actions of late have become increasingly obstructionist and inflammatory, something that does not bode well for intra-party relations. |
| Date | 23:52:27, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Royal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional right to present a government |
| Message | This question is about culture. Both ways, the european or the more american are democratic in their own way. The point of the democracy, and that the hard part of it, is that the winner takes the largest piece of the cake. The question here is only in what degree "the others" should be apart of the cake. |
| Date | 00:27:26, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Bodhist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional right to present a government |
| Message | Proposing a government is not a threat to the institution. If a fair and proportional government is proposed by a smaller party that takes upon itself the initiative to do so, then that smaller party ought to have the right to do it. We are pleased with the current system. It works, though we are continously trying to push for more passion in government from all parties. Wantuni is dead -- it needs a revival from within, not a restructuring. |
| Date | 15:11:44, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Royal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional right to present a government |
| Message | Saying that only the largest party is allowed to suggest government does bring life to debate. If a party is inactive it will loose votes so only the active parties will be able in the end to propose governement. |
| Date | 17:32:26, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Federalists Party | To | Debating the Constitutional right to present a government |
| Message | We have decided to vote no. Makes the process more interesting if all parties can submit a cabinet proposal. The strongest party still has a significant advantage to any cabinet proposal preceedings, so this bill isn't really necessary in our eyes. Thanks for the debate. |
| Date | 20:29:55, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Monkeygnome Party | To | Debating the Constitutional right to present a government |
| Message | Hrm. I'm wondering what, exactly, is meant by 'the largest parties'. Does it mean any parties with seats? The largest two parties? The largest four parties? Eh? Eh? Eh? But I don't know that it really makes a difference on how I'm gonna vote, anyway. |
| Date | 21:08:22, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Royal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional right to present a government |
| Message | Concering the number of parties this country have I would say that the three largest parties are "the largest". Even if the margin between the third and forth some mandate periods is small. We haft to draw the line somwere. |
| Date | 06:49:53, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Red Party | To | Debating the Constitutional right to present a government |
| Message | Any law that bans political parties from taking initiative and trying to help its people is wrong. The small parties represent voters as well. Why do they not get a chance to be heard through their elected representatives. Why should only the largest parties get to be heard? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 97 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 308 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 95 |
| Random fact: Before choosing a nation, you may wish to research it first. For more information on the cultural backgrounds of the nations, please see the Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6365 |
| Random quote: "The substance of the eminent Socialist gentlemen's speech is that making a profit is a sin. It is my belief that the real sin is taking a loss!" - Winston Churchill |