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: RP Bill: Roles in Congress Act 4185
Details
Submitted by[?]: Patriotic Party of Baltusia
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: May 4186
Description[?]:
Madame Speaker, Members of Congress, The increase in the number of parties, number of factions and non-affiliated parties - means we need to update the Roles in Congress Act 2125 to better clarify who takes on the positions of majority and minority speakers. (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=493016) Under the two-caucus system this was clear cut - now it is not. Currently, there seem to be three formal factions - with some parties in more than one. There are also several "independent" parties too. Our committee therefore proposes the following to replace the existing bill. I suggest if this passes it should come into effect following the next presidential and congressional election currently due to take place in June 4188. Godfrey Jefferson-Thackery Constitutional Affairs Committee Chairman (OOC nation master) Roles in Congress Act 4185. Voting - This is a constitutional amendment and requires a 2/3s majority of Congress to pass into law. Proposal - Article 2 of the Constitution (entitled The Congress) will be amended thus: Article 2.4 - A Majority Speaker of the House will be appointed. This person is nominated by the party with the largest number of seats in the House; HOWEVER, in the likely case of the presence of political factions/coalitions/groupings*, the party with the largest number of seats from the largest co-operating caucus in the House nominates the Majority Speaker. Article 2.5 - A Minority Speaker of the House will be appointed. This person is nominated by the second biggest party in the House; HOWEVER, in the likely case of political factions/coalitions/groupings*, the party with the largest number of seats in the second largest co-operating caucus in the House nominates the Minority Speaker. * In this case a coalition/caucus/grouping is defined as a formal organisation or informal group of political parties either in government or in opposition to the government. They can be temporary or permanent arrangements. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 14:33:14, March 24, 2017 CET | From | Patriotic Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the RP Bill: Roles in Congress Act 4185 |
Message | Working Example: In the current situation (April 4185) - the Patriotic Party, the Republicans, the Foundation Party (the Right Alliance Parties) have joined forces with Popular Consensus to form a majority government coalition so have has the biggest grouping with 352 seats. Therefore, the Majority Speaker would be nominated by the largest party in this coalition i.e the Patriotic Party. The second biggest is the Left Bloc parties consisting of the Moderates, the BDGP, RAC and Socialists with 256 seats. Therefore the minority speaker would be nominated by the largest party in this grouping which is the BDGP. (NOTE, in both cases the eligible party does not necessarily have to nominate their own parties and could nominate a partner party instead as part of political negotiations/'sweetners' etc). Both the National Party (112 seats) and the Baltusia Federalist Party (0 seats) are independent of coalitions/caucuses and groupings within Congress. However, if either the Government Coalition or the Left Bloc Opposition agreed to partner with the National Party then the National Party would become the largest party in that particular grouping and would be entitled to nominate the speaker eligible to that grouping. (Again this may form part of negotiations to encourage a party to join a coalition or, indeed, a large party may be accepted to join on the proviso they defer the speaker nomination to another existing member of the group). Other possibilities: A scenario could occur (and has recently) where the largest party in one faction accepts the opportunity to work with another caucus on a short-term basis. For instance, the BDGP may accept cabinet positions with the government coalition, whilst still remaining a part of the Left Bloc (to provide stability to the country/ war cabinets etc). In this instance, the second largest party in the faction i.e. the RAC Party (62 seats) would be asked to nominate the minority speaker. In the case of a minority government i.e. a president and her/his government coalition in a second terms finds itself with less than 350 seats, there is a possibility that an opposition coalition is the biggest in congress. In this case, the largest party in the largest opposition faction would nominate the Majority Speaker, the government coalition's largest party would nominate the Minority Speaker. Of course, this may not last for a long period as the opposition parties may vote for early election. I will now leave this open to debate/amendments and when satisfied will move it to a vote. Godfrey Jefferson-Thackery Constitutional Affairs Committee Chairman (OOC nation master) |
Date | 17:03:47, March 24, 2017 CET | From | Democratic People's Movement | To | Debating the RP Bill: Roles in Congress Act 4185 |
Message | We absolutely oppose this attempt to gain political power by the governing coalition. We have worked closely with the Patriots in the past and we thought they would respect our right within the constitution to name a Majority Speaker of the House. We are not necessarily entirely opposed to reforming roles in Congress but this entrenchment of factions only serves to divide left and right further. The National Party have chosen not to join a caucus because we want to work with all parties on issues were we share views- we should not be punished for this. With all that said, I submit a counter-proposal. Why not simplify our constitution, rather than making it less accessible? The National Party would like the role of Majority Speaker of the House (which is really built for a two-party system) renamed simply 'Speaker of the House'. It would remain granted to the leader of the party with the highest number of seats in Congress. Instead of the Minority Speaker of the House, we would like to see a 'Deputy Speaker of the House', who would be a member of the second largest party. Overall, we welcome the Patriots willingness to reform but we would prefer it if they did not attempt to do so in a self-serving and political manner. Kathleen Wiley Majority Speaker of the House |
Date | 17:36:15, March 24, 2017 CET | From | Patriotic Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the RP Bill: Roles in Congress Act 4185 |
Message | Members of Congress, We respect that Majority Speaker Wiley's party has the plurality in the House but she will also agree she has far from a majority. In fact in my living history and looking through the record books it has been many, many decades since any one party did have an outright majority of the seats. It seem to me, therefore, that the party that should be most eligible to hold the majority speaker's role is not necessarily the biggest party in Congress, per se, but the one that represents the majority of the politically aligned views - i.e. a party from the biggest caucus or coalition. With the greatest respect, and given recent debates, can the current Majority Speaker really say she represents the views of a majority in Congress? In answer to the question of it creating entrenchment and division, I would actually say this proposal encourages co-operation, compromise and political expedience, keeps a check on extremism and helps smaller parties pass bills that individually they may not be able to. I would also point out that the Constitutional Affairs Chairman stated that he believed this law should not come into effect until after the next election, so the current Majority Speaker would, in fact, continue in a role until at least that time. I welcome further debate on this. Alexandra Flanders Patriotic Party Leader in the House |
Date | 17:45:37, March 24, 2017 CET | From | Democratic People's Movement | To | Debating the RP Bill: Roles in Congress Act 4185 |
Message | It is one thing to disagree but another to outright lie. The National Party does have a relative majority: you cannot simply decide that is not the case. This legislation is an attempt to divide the nation into left and right and encourages a bizarre and convoluted factional system. Not only is that not practical (what is to prevent the National Party simply joining the Left Bloc in order to received the position?), it discourages cooperation. If the Baltusian voters return my party as the nation's largest, they expect that decision to be respected. Sooner or later, the elite career politicians that run this nation will realise that they cannot continue to ignore the views of our voters. Kathleen Wiley Majority Speaker of the House |
Date | 18:31:56, March 24, 2017 CET | From | Patriotic Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the RP Bill: Roles in Congress Act 4185 |
Message | Members of Congress, I would like to point out that we were referring to an outright majority in Congress - 351 seats out of 700 - rather than a relative majority compared to other parties. The National Party currently have 112 out of 700 seats, or were voted for by 10.5 million people our of the 66 million who cast their votes. Our system lends itself to co-operation and allows parties to work together to represent the overall majority of people in this country. Alexandra Flanders Patriotic Party Leader in the House |
Date | 21:14:48, March 24, 2017 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the RP Bill: Roles in Congress Act 4185 |
Message | The Republican Party would support this constitutional change. Xi Xiang Education and Culture |
Date | 21:36:12, March 24, 2017 CET | From | Patriotic Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the RP Bill: Roles in Congress Act 4185 |
Message | Thank you Minister Xiang. I shall leave this bill in debate until September 4185 to try to attract comments/suggested amendments from other parties. At that point I will put it to vote. Godfrey Jefferson-Thackery Constitutional Affairs Committee Chairman |
Date | 23:12:41, March 24, 2017 CET | From | Baltusian Democratic Green Party (BDGP) | To | Debating the RP Bill: Roles in Congress Act 4185 |
Message | The BDGP sees this change as needed and important. We will fully support putting this into law. BDGP Chairwoman Valentine Perkins Minority Speaker of the House |
Date | 01:01:16, March 25, 2017 CET | From | Democratic People's Movement | To | Debating the RP Bill: Roles in Congress Act 4185 |
Message | What a surprise! We always knew the BDGP was in bed with the Right Wing Alliance! Further proof that left and right caucuses have rigged the system to benefit themselves. Kathleen Wiley Majority Speaker of the House |
Date | 08:59:21, March 25, 2017 CET | From | Patriotic Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the RP Bill: Roles in Congress Act 4185 |
Message | I now move this to vote. I thank all parties for their comments. Godfrey Jefferson-Thackery Constitutional Affairs Committee Chairman |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||||||
yes |
Total Seats: 526 | |||||||
no | Total Seats: 112 | |||||||
abstain | Total Seats: 62 |
Random fact: The majority of nations in Particracy are "Culturally Protected" with an established cultural background. Only the "Culturally Open" nations are not bound by the rules surrounding culture. The Cultural Protocols Index should be consulted for more information about the cultural situation of each nation. |
Random quote: We are in politics not because we hate our fellow man, but because we love him. ~ Anton Weinreich, General Secretary of the Dorvish Communist Part |