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: Votes of No Confidence
Details
Submitted by[?]: Parti Démocratique-Socialiste
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: September 4130
Description[?]:
| I propose, that in light of the recent Question Time being proposed, we institute a system of "Votes of No Confidence" that can be leveled against a minister or even the Secretary General if they refuse or usually fail to answer questions and perform their required duties. The rules for such votes of no confidence would be as follows: -If a minister or the Secretary General fails repeatedly to do his duties to the point it hinders other ministers or the Secretary General, then a vote of no confidence could be called by any party. -The vote would simply be introduced as a bill entitled vote of no confidence against (minister/Secretary General's name) and the year. -The vote must be leveled at a specific Minister, not an entire party. -The bill would only need the required majority to pass. -If the vote of of no confidence is passed, the party whose minister/Secretary General was voted out of office would need to propose a new cabinet that only removes that minister/Secretary General within six months. If they fail to do so, any party may introduce a cabinet proposal, and if the party against whom the vote of no confidence was leveled against votes against the cabinet proposal then they will have a temporary purge from government, being removed from any ministries until the next election cycle via another cabinet proposal from the same party who introduced the original cabinet proposal. -This new minister/Secretary General would hold office until the next election cycle and then could be swapped out, but the candidate who was voted out of office may never run for office again. This bill is open to debate and alteration. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Antoine Ganoi, Chairman of the PD-S |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:58:51, December 03, 2016 CET | From | Parti Démocratique-Socialiste | To | Debating the Votes of No Confidence |
| Message | OOC: this bill would open up a lot more RP possibilities and along with the Question Time could lead to much more interesting gameplay as it would force players to do their duties and not just work to advance their own party but cooperate with or at least speak with the other parties. |
| Date | 04:59:10, December 03, 2016 CET | From | Parti des Frères Lourenne | To | Debating the Votes of No Confidence |
| Message | I would suggest changing the proposal after a successful vote of no-confidence to the one making the no-confidence proposal. I could imagine that a no-confidence vote will go hard with the loser of the vote, and asking them to then propose a change will be kind of humiliating, unnecessarily. |
| Date | 05:01:39, December 03, 2016 CET | From | Parti Démocratique-Socialiste | To | Debating the Votes of No Confidence |
| Message | I would consider that but maybe also stating that the person who introduced the bill must also make the replacement of the one being voted out's party, so as to allow that party to continue to hold the position until the next election? |
| Date | 22:16:20, December 03, 2016 CET | From | Parti des Frères Lourenne | To | Debating the Votes of No Confidence |
| Message | I would say that the would be against the actual minister, rather than the Party. But the problem is, I am having trouble understanding how we could compel a Party to supply a different name rather than the name they had in there in the first place... So I could see a vote of no confidence going against a Party, the OOC: Player taking that hard and refusing to name a new minister to that seat. And then what do we do? |
| Date | 01:37:03, December 04, 2016 CET | From | Parti Démocratique-Socialiste | To | Debating the Votes of No Confidence |
| Message | What would you say to giving the player whose minister got removed 6 months to pick a new minister, and then after that point any party may introduce a minister of their choice as long as it is passed as a cabinet proposal? |
| Date | 02:20:57, December 04, 2016 CET | From | Parti des Frères Lourenne | To | Debating the Votes of No Confidence |
| Message | I think that would answer the concern sufficiently. And if the player who lost a seat did not want to supply a different name, and then voted against the second bill, they would just be kicked out of government all together on a third bill by those who voted no confidence. I would as add that the no-confidence resolution had to be directed, explicitly at a Minister by name. |
| Date | 02:43:44, December 04, 2016 CET | From | Parti Démocratique-Socialiste | To | Debating the Votes of No Confidence |
| Message | I have updated the bill appropriately and hope you will vote in favor. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 60 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 40 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar). |
| Random quote: "There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle." - Alexis de Tocqueville |