Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: May 5461
Next month in: 03:31:11
Server time: 08:28:48, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): Moderation | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: OOC: Debate on RP Reforms, Institutional Mechanics, Negative Parliamentarism, The President, the Parties

Details

Submitted by[?]: Alleanza Radicale - NCD

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: November 4133

Description[?]:

Given the debate in the forum on the future about the Global RP and its background, why do not talk also of our internal RP?

In the last days we saw some little lacunas in the RP system. So, I'm start a debate that I think will like to the Populars and proposed also by PSD: electoral cohalition.
In effect with many parties, make post electoral alliance take too many time and there is the risk of a stall situation as the current. So, give your proposal on how organize pre electoral alliance and what to do before and after the elections. I think Populars have already some experience and proposals.
Negative Parliamentarism or almost: PSD proposed a "confirmation" bill (without present a new cabinet bill) in case the previous government maintain the majority in the parliament. What do you think? Negative Parliamentarism provides that only with the prosal of a new government, and if passed, the government change.
I think that we have to improve the "RP Parliamentary Rules", adding something about "Constitutional RP bill" and other "behaviour" rules, etc...
For example: the recent RP bill about the Senate Reform, this bill didn't reach the 2/3 of the parliament and is a RP bill to reform the Senate, is a matter that obviously needs of a RP Constitutional bill" (it must work as the in-game constitutional bill).

Last, another proposal that will like to the Populars: the role of the President of the Republic. I thought at two proposal:
1. More Real Parliament system: HoS cerimonial and simbol of the Nation: only HoS propose a cabinet (the victory coalition or the HoS search the possibility to form a majority), if the HoS launch an early election bill (it will be delineate the cases) because dissolved the Chamber all the players have to vote yes.
2. Semi-Presidential: HoS also with policy-making prerogatives: only the HoS propose a cabinet (its coalition if it gain the majority of parliament, or the opposition, in the first case he will act more as HoG, in the last case HoS will act only as Cerimonial HoS).

I do not want opt for a Presidenzial form because the political fragmentation risk to cripple the President. A presidential system calls a strong president and if comes a post electoral coalition? Or the majority in the parliament is not the same of the presidency winner (I would like remember you the two Neloni's mandate with no governments, for the newly search in the electoral history the president "Neloni")?

Give your opinions! :D

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date23:28:51, December 06, 2016 CET
FromPopolari per l'Istalia - U.o.L.
ToDebating the OOC: Debate on RP Reforms, Institutional Mechanics, Negative Parliamentarism, The President, the Parties
MessageOk, ora il PSLI scende a patti perché ha preso una batosta elettorale. Meglio tardi che mai.

Rispondo alle due questioni:

1 - L'obbligo delle alleanze pre-elettorali è un nostro cavallo di battaglia, quindi siamo estremamente favorevoli. Sarà un grande vantaggio porre l'obbligo politico di creare delle coalizioni che esprimano pubblicamente un programma e un candidato HoG (Il Parlamento del 3383 ha già votato a favore di una proposta di questo tipo:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=363034).

2 - Il ruolo del Presidente della Repubblica: non crediamo alle nostre orecchie! Il PSLI si è accorto che per colpa della loro riforma istituzionale del 4090 (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=484624) il HoS non ha alcun peso nel gioco. Noi l'abbiamo detto fin da subito (http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4118&p=104388#p104388).
Siamo quindi favorevoli alla proposta semi-presidenziale di dare solo al HoS la possibilità di proporre un esecutivo.

TRANSLATION:

Ok, now the PSLI come to terms because he took an electoral drubbing. Better late than never.

I answer the two questions:

1 - The obligation of pre-electoral alliances is our forte, so we are extremely favorable. It will be a great advantage to put the political duty to form coalitions that express publicly a program and a candidate HoG (Parliament of 3383 has already voted in favor of a proposal like this: http: //classic.particracy.net/viewbill .php? billid = 363034).

2 - The role of the President of the Republic: we do not believe our ears! The PSLI he realized that because of their institutional reform of 4090 (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=484624) the HoS has no weight in the game. We we said right away (http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4118&p=104388#p104388).
We are therefore in favor of semi-presidential proposal to only give the HoS the possibility of proposing an executive.

Date23:56:42, December 06, 2016 CET
FromPartito Giustizialista
ToDebating the OOC: Debate on RP Reforms, Institutional Mechanics, Negative Parliamentarism, The President, the Parties
MessagePSD will absolutely support the encouragement of pre-election coalitions. After all, it was our own proposal. However, we feel an "obligation" would be too harsh, and that we should rather, again, just encourage coalition building and bipolarization. Having 2 big coalitions, center-left and center-right, would effectivize coalition building greatly.

When it comes to the strength of the presidency, the PSD would normally prefer a strong parliamentary system over anything else. However, the 4130 election showed that a stronger presidency could be a solution.

How about this:

The winner of the presidency is automatically allowed to form a government, whether or not they and their allies have the majority in parliament. Prior to elections, the different parties rally around 2-3 candidates, and the parties that endorse the winning candidate, are entitled to serve in the cabinet. If these parties did not win a majority of seats (for example if there are more than 2 coalitions), then the losing parties can still vote in favor of their cabinet proposal, to allow for a president-led minority government. This would give us a balanced, stable system, but it would of course require maturity from both center-left and center-right coalitions, and that they accept defeat if they lose the presidency. This would *both* secure a coalition-based system -- which would even be incorporated into game mechanics through the endorsement system -- as well as a stronger presidency.

I think this would be a good solution!

Date00:09:07, December 07, 2016 CET
FromAlleanza Radicale - NCD
ToDebating the OOC: Debate on RP Reforms, Institutional Mechanics, Negative Parliamentarism, The President, the Parties
MessageKarim Al-Nasser, Whip of PSLI:

"Mr. Figni, as specified, we was sure that this proposals would have liked to Populars and we are happy to see you participate in debates.

So, the HoS will be:
the holder of executive power,
the head of the istalian armed forces,
the highest office in the judiciary.

And he will can dissolve the parliament (if the HoS call early elections for a reasoned decision all the parties have to vote YES).

*********
About the elections, the PSLI prefer not to introduce an obligation to join in coalition. We think that if a party want run alone because it does not identify itself with any of the coalitions, it have the right to do it. The coalitions could always ask its support. I know, this introduce a risk, but oblige someone to support someone that adverse is a little antidemocratic.

*******
About the Negative Parliamentarism? What do you think? PSLI is open to the proposal of PSD.
*******
Finally, a RP law to amend the RP Parliamentary Rules to add a detailed specification about RP legislation:
- RP ordinary bill: works like the in-game ordinary bill = simple majority to be approved.
- RP constitutional bill: works like the in-game constitutional bill = 2/3 of the parliament to be approved.
I would add another request: an RP constitutional bill to be changed or repealed will need of 2/3 of the parliament vote in favor.


Date00:19:07, December 07, 2016 CET
FromAlleanza Radicale - NCD
ToDebating the OOC: Debate on RP Reforms, Institutional Mechanics, Negative Parliamentarism, The President, the Parties
MessageAnother thing about the elections:

the PSLI propose to organize "electoral campaigns" within the last 6 months of the legislature that will consist in presenting extensive bill about own program and ideologies or, if in coalition, a bill for each member of the coalition with the point of the program or ideologies in common, bills to which the allied parties have to vote in favor together.

In fact if the vote to the bills starts within 6 months to the elections we are sure that the elections will cancel the vote.

Date08:19:40, December 07, 2016 CET
FromPopolari per l'Istalia - U.o.L.
ToDebating the OOC: Debate on RP Reforms, Institutional Mechanics, Negative Parliamentarism, The President, the Parties
MessageNon sono d'accordo sul parlamentarismo negativo. Penso che in una nuova legislatura sia necessario un nuovo voto sul mandato del governo. Se la coalizione non ottenesse la maggioranza dei seggi la palla asserente al HoS che dovrà nominare un nuovo HoG per cercare una nuova maggioranza in Parlamento.

Date08:29:59, December 07, 2016 CET
FromAlleanza Radicale - NCD
ToDebating the OOC: Debate on RP Reforms, Institutional Mechanics, Negative Parliamentarism, The President, the Parties
MessageTo the PSD:

"If we accept the ipothesis of the "coabitation"? If the coalition that support the president have te majority the president will present its government and he will lead the govern (HoS will act as HoG, with the president of the council as a right hand, a coordinator of the ministries).
If the majority coalition in parliament is not the one that support the elected president, well, the president will present a cabinet proposal in behalf of the opposite majority, than he will act for the rest of the legislature as an HoS while the HoG will be really the HoG.

I think that the possibility of a minoritarian government have to be consider only if there are not a clear majority, only if a coalition do not reach the majority, for example, if no all the party are in a coalition: in this case it will be apply the proposal of PSD of a minority government that try to gain the support of the party or the parties not in coalition.

Date11:15:11, December 07, 2016 CET
FromPopolari per l'Istalia - U.o.L.
ToDebating the OOC: Debate on RP Reforms, Institutional Mechanics, Negative Parliamentarism, The President, the Parties
Messageok da parte nostra a quanto scritto qui sopra dal PSLI.
Appena avremo l'opinione di DI, Patriota e degli altri potremo nominare un governo costituente che raggiunga almeno i 2/3 dei seggi per votare la riforma costituzionale. Il PPI si candida, come maggior partito, a guidare questo nuovo esecutivo.

* * *

ok by us to what is written above by the PSLI.
As soon as we get the opinion of DI, Patriot and others we can appoint a constituent government that reaches at least 2/3 of the seats to vote the constitutional reform. The PPI is a candidate, as the largest party, to lead the new government.

Date12:17:44, December 07, 2016 CET
FromAlleanza Radicale - NCD
ToDebating the OOC: Debate on RP Reforms, Institutional Mechanics, Negative Parliamentarism, The President, the Parties
MessagePlease, all the public messages in english, thank you

Date19:05:39, December 07, 2016 CET
FromPartito dei Democratici Istaliani
ToDebating the OOC: Debate on RP Reforms, Institutional Mechanics, Negative Parliamentarism, The President, the Parties
MessageI think that coalitions and renew the government is good but I don't think that only the HoS must make a cabinet proposal, because it can slow down cabinet formation, though it is more realistic. Anyway if you want to do this I can vote Yes

Date20:17:24, December 07, 2016 CET
FromNuova Socialdemocrazia
ToDebating the OOC: Debate on RP Reforms, Institutional Mechanics, Negative Parliamentarism, The President, the Parties
MessageOn our part we can agree with any from, even negative parliamentarism, but we do not see semi presidential as a good resolve.

Date21:05:44, December 07, 2016 CET
FromPopolari per l'Istalia - U.o.L.
ToDebating the OOC: Debate on RP Reforms, Institutional Mechanics, Negative Parliamentarism, The President, the Parties
MessageOk, so we wait the response of the Patriota and then we will procede

Date01:28:18, December 10, 2016 CET
FromAlleanza Radicale - NCD
ToDebating the OOC: Debate on RP Reforms, Institutional Mechanics, Negative Parliamentarism, The President, the Parties
MessageSo, this debate reached accords about:
-Semi-Presidential System
-Pre-electoral coalitions

About the RP Parliamentary Rules, the game rules already provides qualified majority for constitutional law.

Negative Parliamentary?
Populars Against
PSDI in Favor
PSD too I think in Favor
PSLI vote against
DI not said nothing about
PI not said nothing about

Date17:28:46, December 10, 2016 CET
FromPartito dei Democratici Istaliani
ToDebating the OOC: Debate on RP Reforms, Institutional Mechanics, Negative Parliamentarism, The President, the Parties
MessageOk for negative parlamentary, but I think we will never use that

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
      

Total Seats: 560

no

    Total Seats: 0

    abstain
      

    Total Seats: 75


    Random fact: You can view helpful ideological statistics about the regions in your nation on the region pages. You can also view detailed political opinions and the importance of them there as well.

    Random quote: "The fate of the living planet is the most important issue facing mankind". - Gaylord Nelson

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 69