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: Coalitions Resolution 2170
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Liberal Party
Status[?]: passed
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 2172
Description[?]:
| That Parliament considers the current system of Coalitions in Alorian Politics undemocratic and calls on all coalitions currently in existence to dispand. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:29:02, January 13, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | Against. Without coalitions it will be whatever parties can in the fewest number get 301 seats or a little over. It will lead to less democracy. As for representing everyone proportionally, that is impossible in the 10-party system (OOC: and against in game mechanics). |
| Date | 19:31:07, January 13, 2006 CET |
From | Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | Let us examine the Aloria Coalition. It consists of parties occuping various points on the political spectrum and so many positions on so many issues. Someone who votes for Liberal Democratic party such as thw SRP ends up being governed by a right wing party such as the ICP.
The AC currently holds a dictatorial grip on power. This must be brought to an end for the sake of democracy in Aloria.
The DLP, therefore, calls on Parliament to reject this system and vote for this resolution. |
| Date | 19:50:31, January 13, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | Lies. First off, the Independent Capitalist Party was originally centrist but now is libertarian. It is not right wing, it wants minimal government regulations. It is by no means right wing. That is a narrowminded political spectrum and not the more accurate political compass. Second off, the Aloria Coalition originally had 2 socialists, 2 centrists, and a capitalist. One centrist went capitalist, the other centrist left, and a socialist left.
Also, it is not a dictorial grip on power. The people vote for the head of state candidate they choose and vote for the parties they choose. Aloria is run by whichever coalition has more than 300 seats and thus can pass a cabinet. If they have 301 or 600, it is still more representative than having a pact of two or three parties that manage to get more than 300 seats. There are two challengers (PAC and JC) that are out of power because the voters like their parties less.
Additionally, the repeal of the coalitional system that has held Aloria for so long will simply replace it with a system of less representativeness. Do you want dictatorship? You'd see it soon enough.
OOC: In addition, the game engine is not designed to have all parties, especially 10, be able to share seats in the cabinet proportionally. That is illogical and against the game engine. Just ask wouter. |
| Date | 20:01:56, January 13, 2006 CET |
From | Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | "Lies. First off, the Independent Capitalist Party was originally centrist but now is libertarian. It is not right wing, it wants minimal government regulations. It is by no means right wing. That is a narrowminded political spectrum and not the more accurate political compass. Second off, the Aloria Coalition originally had 2 socialists, 2 centrists, and a capitalist. One centrist went capitalist, the other centrist left, and a socialist left."
The fact remains - the ideology of AC parties are poles apart.
"Also, it is not a dictorial grip on power. The people vote for the head of state candidate they choose and vote for the parties they choose. Aloria is run by whichever coalition has more than 300 seats and thus can pass a cabinet. If they have 301 or 600, it is still more representative than having a pact of two or three parties that manage to get more than 300 seats. There are two challengers (PAC and JC) that are out of power because the voters like their parties less."
I don't accept this, voters are STILL voting for one party and getting another. Is the SRP, for example, representing its voters by belonging to a government which is primarily led by the ICP?
"Additionally, the repeal of the coalitional system that has held Aloria for so long will simply replace it with a system of less representativeness. Do you want dictatorship? You'd see it soon enough."
I would be grateful if the ICP could explain why parties of different ideologies working independently would create a dictatorship. |
| Date | 20:19:06, January 13, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | "The fact remains - the ideology of AC parties are poles apart."
That's the point of the Aloria Coalition. To overcome political boundaries to get a working government.
"I don't accept this, voters are STILL voting for one party and getting another. Is the SRP, for example, representing its voters by belonging to a government which is primarily led by the ICP?"
Lies. Check the cabinet. The head of state is symbolic. The true power is in the cabinet, in which the ICP only has 3 positions and rather unimportant ones (except defense). For instance, the gov't is headed by the SOCIAL REFORM PARTY, not the HoS led by the ICP.
"I would be grateful if the ICP could explain why parties of different ideologies working independently would create a dictatorship."
This leads to whoever HoS candidate having ONE endorsement winning, whoever works together at the cabinet to get a minimal 300 seats cutting everyone else out. I fail to see how that is more democratic than an inter-ideological, inter-party coalition system. |
| Date | 16:17:50, January 14, 2006 CET |
From | Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | If the ICP actually bothered to read the resolution they'd see that it does not ban coalitions. It calls on coalitions to disband though they would not have to do so. |
| Date | 16:20:14, January 14, 2006 CET |
From |  Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | OOC: I belive the game engine can quite adequately handle 10 parties. Remember when that was the limit? No? Well it was.
What coalition do you speak of?
|
| Date | 16:22:59, January 14, 2006 CET |
From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | Also, your arguments contradict each other. With more spread out power, more parties willl be required to have a majority cabinet, thus reducing dictatorships. |
| Date | 16:56:40, January 14, 2006 CET |
From |  Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry' | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | "This leads to whoever HoS candidate having ONE endorsement winning, whoever works together at the cabinet to get a minimal 300 seats cutting everyone else out. I fail to see how that is more democratic than an inter-ideological, inter-party coalition system."
=> The 2168 Election in Pontesi. Proof Positive. THEM endorsed the Phalanx Party candidate, now in office at time of writing.
There are no coalitions in Pontesi. |
| Date | 19:07:08, January 14, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | Lies. If the AC disbands, it's whatever parties can make a cabinet in the fewest seats. If the AC remains out of power after next election, some of you will start to be cut out. In which case, the AC will welcome the first two to apply. |
| Date | 22:12:06, January 14, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | No, the coalition system is the way to avoid undemocratically unrepresentative cabinets. The point of a coalition is that your coalition gets cabinet spots whether it has 301 seats or 600. Otherwise, parties get eliminated from the cabinet to get down to the fewest seats possible to pass giving everyone involved more and more easts. Plus, coalitions are not *supposed* to be representative.
OOC: No coalitions ruins the game. The game is designed for small groups in the cabinet. |
| Date | 15:46:20, January 16, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | AGSP, just because I'm the most active and the spokesparty for the AC, doesn't mean that I am the puppetmaster nor one who forces his opinions on others. However, this bill is illegitimate as it would fail if HCP would vote and HCP is currently inactive. Also, this bill would require a supermajority as it has major effects on Alorian history. In addition, I could probably make a repeal and seeing as the current voting records plus HCP probably voting for it again, it would repeal this bill in the same legislative session. |
| Date | 16:53:18, January 16, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | The ICP smells a scandal. We believe that their representatives were held from voting this session to prevent this bill from failing. We will propose a repeal when they reach parliament. However, the Aloria Coalition will not disband in light of this scandal. We demand a full investigation! |
| Date | 17:30:23, January 16, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | HCP abstained... But look... they've abstained on all bills for a while! I smell a conspiracy. I will propose a repeal when their representatives return. Besides, this is by no means 2/3 and the party that has abstained is the one party abstaining and they would have voted no if they weren't. This bill will be repealed when they return. |
| Date | 17:49:47, January 16, 2006 CET |
From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | AGSP, abstaining is not a conscious descision most of the time. It is the default for when they do not show up. This is an unacceptable practice. I demand an investigation! |
| Date | 21:43:46, January 16, 2006 CET |
From | Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Coalitions Resolution 2170 | | Message | What? Are you making an accusation at me? What's the HCP's voting habits got to do with me? You think I kidnapped him so he can't vote on anything? |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 274 |
| no | Total Seats: 204 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 122 |
| Random fact: Any RP law granting extraordinary "emergency powers" or dictator-like powers to a government must be passed by at least a 2/3rds majority, but (like all RP laws) may always be overturned by a simple majority vote of the legislature. |
| Random quote: "The man who prefers his country before any other duty shows the same spirit as the man who surrenders every right to the state. They both deny that right is superior to authority." - John Dalberg-Acton |