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: Reform of the United Assembly
Details
Submitted by[?]: Partidul Social Democrat
Status[?]: passed
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: December 4112
Description[?]:
| The PSD has attempted to increase the number of seats in the United Assembly in the past, to provide better and more diverse representation for the citizens of the Confederation. More representatives means more chance of the population being able to communicate with a member of the United Assembly. Concerns were, rightly, raised about the cost of the tax payer of this operation and in the end the bill did not pass. Consequently, we are proposing this expansion again and this time it is accompanied by a reduction of the salary of representatives, meaning there should be no concerns surrounding the cost. Nic Stefan Președinte al Confederației Partidul Social Democrat |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The salaries of members of parliament and/or government.
Old value:: Members of parliament and/or government are entitled to a comparatively large salary.
Current: Members of parliament and/or government are entitled to a comparatively average salary.
Proposed: Members of parliament and/or government are entitled to a comparatively average salary.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The total number of seats in the legislative assembly. Should be between 75 and 750.
Old value:: 451
Current: 75
Proposed: 601
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:07:44, October 28, 2016 CET | From |  Partidul Poporului Noului Endralon | To | Debating the Reform of the United Assembly |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We see no reason why we should increase the number of seats and why we should earn less. Henrik Hunyad Nepp |
| Date | 14:57:48, October 28, 2016 CET | From | Partidul Social Democrat | To | Debating the Reform of the United Assembly |
| Message | Mr Speaker, I believe the reasons have been clearly explained in the description of the bill. There are two primary reasons: that more seats means a more representative legislature and that more representatives means it is easier for citizens to contact and meet with a member of the United Assembly. Having said that, it should be obvious by now that the NEPP prioritise their own pay packet over the good of the Confederation. On one bill they tell us that we need to cut the budget and then minutes later we hear that we shouldn't be cutting their wages. If the NEPP Assembly Members were really in this role for the reason that we are (to stand up for or constituents), taking a pay cut would be no huge matter. Something tells me that the NEPP see politics as a profession like any other though, for which the ultimate goal is to maximise their own income. Nic Stefan Președinte al Confederației Partidul Social Democrat |
| Date | 16:53:49, October 28, 2016 CET | From | Partidul Național Conservativ | To | Debating the Reform of the United Assembly |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, No. Flavius Mironescu Leader of the PNC |
| Date | 17:27:50, October 28, 2016 CET | From | Partidul Social Democrat | To | Debating the Reform of the United Assembly |
| Message | Mr Speaker, A welcome contribution, Mr Mironescu. Nic Stefan Președinte al Confederației Partidul Social Democrat |
| Date | 20:04:52, October 28, 2016 CET | From | Uniunea Hosia Democrată | To | Debating the Reform of the United Assembly |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We are not keen on increasing the size of the legislature, but we understand this is important to the President, so we will support him on this. We also support the reduction in salary for legislators. It will be no bad thing for us all to gain a closer understanding of what life is like for the average citizen. Lucian Petrescu Chairman of the Hosian Democratic Union Minister of Justice OOC: Do you suppose we could have a nice round number for the size of legislature, like 500, 600 or 700? Makes life easier for those like me who aren't good at quick mental arithmetic :). |
| Date | 20:30:51, October 28, 2016 CET | From | Partidul Social Democrat | To | Debating the Reform of the United Assembly |
| Message | OOC: Yeah, 600 is probably best because then you've got a round 300 for a majority and 400 for 2/3rds. |
| Date | 00:46:47, October 29, 2016 CET | From | Partidul Poporului Noului Endralon | To | Debating the Reform of the United Assembly |
| Message | OOC Please dont make it a round number. Its an odd number to prevent the possibility of having exactly 50/50. Thats why I prefer 601 or 501 or 651. Mr. Speaker, We do not support the decrease of our wages as we do an important job, let it be clear that we can earn FAR more in the private sector. Were not here for the money if the President thinks that. Lets not kid our selves the President knows he could earn double his wage in the private sector. But we do have an important job here and its reasonable to gain good compensation for it. And there is a difference in the state finances and the few millions that go to the United Assembly, we are nothing on the state finances compared to all the other expendetures so thats an usual populaist remark made by socialist nihilists of the Social Democratic party. Still the question remains, what goal does the Social Democrats have with lowering the wages of us? Secondly we see no good awnser in the increase of seats. And the arbitrary number does us no good aswel. But we can support the President on this. Can he make it an odd number, like 601 so that no side can ever have 50% of the seats, it makes sure we always have the possibility of a majority. Henrik Hunyad Leader of the NEPP |
| Date | 01:01:42, October 29, 2016 CET | From | Partidul Social Democrat | To | Debating the Reform of the United Assembly |
| Message | OOC: Point taken, 601 it is. Although I'm not sure the game will ever generate a 50/50, better to be safe than sorry. Mr Speaker, It is clear that the NEPP is split on this matter. We included the reduction in salary in this bill because when we initially proposed a seats increase, the rebuttal was that the cost was too much. That is why we thought, the easy solution would be to reduce pay to cover this cost. If you are comfortable voting in favour of a larger legislature without the reduction in pay, we could tolerate removing that proposal for now. Nic Stefan Președinte al Confederației Partidul Social Democrat I'm not sure I could earn much more in the private sector. Personally, I have very little background in business or law, unlike the majority of my colleagues. I don't think I should be ashamed of that, I spent most of my life in a factory before I created the Workers Party. Nonetheless, I take the point being made. Should I, then, remove the wage reduction or could the NEPP stomach slightly fewer cocktails in the evening? |
| Date | 12:13:23, October 29, 2016 CET | From | Partidul Poporului Noului Endralon | To | Debating the Reform of the United Assembly |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We will support the bill. We'll manage. As long as the government pays for those cocktails and whiskey's and dont forget our diner we have after work here. Haha. Henrik Hunyad Leader NEPP |
| Date | 14:05:12, October 29, 2016 CET | From | Demokratikus Liberális Párt | To | Debating the Reform of the United Assembly |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, This is a very silly, not to mention dangerous proposal. The president states that "More representatives means more chance of the population being able to communicate with a member of the United Assembly." This is a silly statement. Increasing the numbers of MA:s in this way would increase representational accuracy by 0.06%. It serves no purpose but to increase the number of useless professional button pressers. A small United Assembly is a good thing by itself since we need less professional politicians. If we reduced the number of MA:s to 99 as we propose each would represent 1.1% of the electorate. That's more representative than enough. No party would lose its representation even with such a drastic decrease. Most members of Assembly are - effectively - useless, and just a burden on society. Regina Tóth Vice Coordinator & Parliamentary group leader Freedom Front |
| Date | 15:15:47, October 30, 2016 CET | From | Partidul Social Democrat | To | Debating the Reform of the United Assembly |
| Message | Mr Speaker, If the DLP believes that one person representing the views/interests/beliefs of over 1 million others is 'more representative than enough', they are frankly deluded. Nic Stefan Președinte al Confederației Partidul Social Democrat |
| Date | 23:47:24, October 30, 2016 CET | From | Uniunea Hosia Democrată | To | Debating the Reform of the United Assembly |
| Message | OOC A little ironic, given Nic Stefan is theoretically meant to be a President representing over 74 million citizens :) |
| Date | 23:55:05, October 30, 2016 CET | From | Partidul Social Democrat | To | Debating the Reform of the United Assembly |
| Message | OOC: Point taken. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 316 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 86 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real life-life nationalities, cultures or ethnicities should not be referenced in Particracy (eg. "German"). |
| Random quote: "I've been against the death penalty since I was in law school in 1950. It's horrible, discriminatory, and undermines the credibility of the criminal justice system." - Ralph Nader |