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 Reform Package
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tuesday Is Coming
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: April 2188
Description[?]:
| Some things that could do with changing... I welcome suggestions for a flag. I realize that, as this current one sucks, it wasnt voted in so much as the old one(my party logo) was voted out. Article 3, I hope you realize, is tied to article 2, it wouldnt make sense to call the same person two different titles, or to have an elected Jarl. Article 4 is just because I really dont like the current motto. I dont like the current flag either, but have no alternatives that Id prefer that would pass. Article 1 is just because having a ceremonial, player controlled head of state is pointless. Either have a head of state with some balls or dont have one at all. Alternatively, I would support a bill to change our hereditary head of state's name and title to "There is no head of state" |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Structure of the executive branch.
Old value:: The Head of State is hereditary and symbolic; the Head of Government chairs the cabinet.
Current: The Head of State is also Head of Government.
Proposed: The Head of State is also Head of Government.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The national motto.
Old value:: Don't tread on me.
Current: No Foe I Fear, No Friend I Force
Proposed: All proofs inevitably lead to propositions that have no proof. All things are known because we want to believe in them.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:06:04, January 20, 2006 CET | From | Reform Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | This is a unilateral attempt to take control of the government by the Brotherhood of Mankind, which has had a large number seats in the Senate. It will give more power to them and take the power from the king and smaller but equally important parties. |
| Date | 23:13:01, January 20, 2006 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | Actually, we want to remove the current monarchy for quite different reasons. OOC: If you review the election history, you can see that when I ran the Faithful Remnants party, or even before that, I rarely ran for head of state. I have also rejected cabinets that included me and favored some that didnt. Id like to repair some of the decisions we've made in the past, at this point. A hereditary head of state has several disadvantages over an elected one. Furthermore, I dont like a powerless head of state, and I dont like the current motto. The proposed one is open for suggestions, but I chose a non-partisan Frank Herbert quote to start with. I feel a little like my powermongering has screwed up Lodamun. I would like to fix some of the decisions. When I came, in 2068, articles 1 and 2 were at the values proposed here. Ive had a hand in changing them, I would like to change them back. This bill is still open to suggestions though, and can be considered under construction. |
| Date | 23:15:48, January 20, 2006 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | election history: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewelectionhistory.php?nationid=19 |
| Date | 23:16:24, January 20, 2006 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | To be clear, I dont plan to run for head of state for the next few elections, beyond that, I havent decided yet. |
| Date | 05:21:49, January 21, 2006 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | When you first joined, article one was a hated law that was only kept around because it suited the interests of the Amystian Council and one that was changed as soon as it became viable. Article two has never been in place, prior to instating the monarchy, we had an elected head of state separated from the head of government. Anyway, support 2 as a half-measure and that's about it. |
| Date | 23:44:22, January 22, 2006 CET | From | Libertarian League | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | i think I support this... although the fact that B of M said he was king-maker before doesn't sit well for me... |
| Date | 01:24:57, January 23, 2006 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | I used to be. Basically, any party with %30 of the vote carries a whopping endorsement. If you all like, I can sit out of the Head of State elections completely for a few terms, or more. No candidate, no endorsement. I'll let the other %70 decide. |
| Date | 01:26:09, January 23, 2006 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | Btw, CNT/AFL, Article 1 was changed because Alien Born found it useful to do so as an exchange, and I supported him. Without us, it would not have been changeable. |
| Date | 03:56:52, January 23, 2006 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | Funny, because I seem to remember that one election where the left had 301 out of 450 seats and we passed a few constitutional amendments, including the People's Federation name change and the Citizens' Assembly thing. |
| Date | 22:31:53, January 23, 2006 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | But that wasnt changed at that time. You changed those things after the 2092 election, which gave each party nearly the same number of seats. Thus, as your parties outnumbered us 2 to 1, you had 2/3 without the largest and 3rd largest parties(myself and ASP). Article 1 was changed in alien born's "Political Freedom" act, proposed and passed with our support. |
| Date | 02:16:42, January 26, 2006 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | Supported only on the basis that "DEATH TO THE MONARCHY!!". |
| Date | 05:23:49, January 26, 2006 CET | From | Libertarian League | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | drop 4 for now, and I support the rest... then put it to vote and it will pass with the 3 of us |
| Date | 08:39:02, January 26, 2006 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | Figure out a new motto then. The current one is stupid, as is the old one. |
| Date | 17:38:52, January 29, 2006 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | Fine, drop 1 and we'll support. |
| Date | 12:54:13, February 05, 2006 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Constitutional Reform Package |
| Message | fine, but we'll work on that later |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 30 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 70 |
| Random fact: "Game mechanics comes first." For example, if a currently-enforced bill sets out one law, then a player cannot claim the government has set out a contradictory law. |
| Random quote: "[In the West] unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without any need for an official ban." - George Orwell |