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: People's Democracy Revolution
Details
Submitted by[?]: National People's Gang
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: July 2061
Description[?]:
| The democratic principles of the constitution of the Independent Republic of Lodamun are under attack. Powermongers stalk the halls of government, with little or nothing to offer in terms of policies or future vision for the people. They seek power for the sake of power, they seek authority beyond their mandate, they seek conflict not consensus. The choices of the people lie not merely neglected but deliberately discarded as cynical leaderships and their craven lapdogs pursue dynasties rather than policies. It is time to return authority to the people, their experiment in trust goverment has failed. A series of measures are required to curb the exploitation of the people's goodwill and to establish true democracy . This bill will ensure the government is composed of the ablest representatives, not yesmen; By removing the power to form government from a single individual it will ensure the people's choice is more properly reflected in the composition of government; By removing the power of the appointment of government from one individual it will reinstate dignity to the position and make it a post of honour, a figurehead representing all the people of Lodamun; It will recognise the strength of local government, organised into a federal community; By instituting more effective government at local level, it will seek to minimise the arithmetic powerplay which results in a single vote in one part of the country being worth more than a single vote in another; It will give greater strength to the voice of the people; And it will minimise abuses of democracy by calling representatitves more often to account for themselves and their actions. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The constitutional right and responsibility to propose a cabinet to the legislature.
Old value:: Only the Head of State can propose a cabinet coalition.
Current: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Proposed: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The formal title of the Head of State.
Old value:: President-Councillor
Current: President of the Commonwealth
Proposed: Citizen
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The official title of subnational entities, also known as regions.
Old value:: Region
Current: State
Proposed: State
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The method used to determine the number of seats each region receives in the national legislature.
Old value:: A pseudo-proportional algorithm that gives considerable advantage to smaller regions.
Current: Equal representation, regardless of region population.
Proposed: A proportional algorithm that gives a very small advantage to larger regions.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The length of a legislative and executive term, in months. Should be between 24 and 72.
Old value:: 48
Current: 60
Proposed: 24
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change The total number of seats in the legislative assembly. Should be between 75 and 750.
Old value:: 450
Current: 365
Proposed: 750
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:07:04, May 31, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the People's Democracy Revolution |
| Message | A ridiculous overreaction to a perceived threat that does not even exist. This is nothing more than the throes of a three year old in a tantrum. While the Council has very little opposition to the proposed adjustment of how the seats of Parliament are divided by region, nor to the renaming of regions to "states", all the rest of the Albert Party's supposed defense of democracy from some imagined attack is ridiculous. Changing the length of term to a mere two years will drop efficiency vastly. The government would have to vote upon bills almost as soon as they are imagined, lest they be dropped to debate in the midst of voting as yet another election rolls around to waste time and money. Given the recent cries of usurpation from the Albert Party, even cabinets would prove difficult to create in such a short time, even if all parties could propose a cabinet under this new bill. It is a duty of the Head of State to create a working cabinet. This cabinet is then presented to Parliament, which then votes upon it. If all parties were to be allowed to propose cabinets, it would increase the time spent on deliberating the cabinet and would be pointless, as the head of state typically tries to work with the Parliament in any case. If the head of state is able to pass a cabinet proposal, then obviously there are parties that understand that the composition of a cabinet does not necessarily have to be reflective of the Parliament in terms of percentages. The Albert Party itself has acknowledged that leaving the NFL out of any cabinet is acceptable, despite the fact that to do so would be "undemocratic" according to the Albert Party's own rhetoric about composition and democracy. The increase in Parliamentary seats will be fought against much as the increase to 450 already was. Changing the title of head of state to citizen should have been done earlier, when the title was up for change, if it really meant anything to the Albert Party. This is nothing but a desperate attempt to garner votes from socialist and communist voters. What the Albert Party fails to realize is that the Amystian Council was ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE to the position of President-Councillor. Its seats were ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. Its stature in the government overall was ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. Where does democracy fall? Not in the policies of the Amystian Council, which holds any power it has only from its election by the people of Lodamun. Democracy falls if this bill is allowed to pass, as the Albert Party's cries for usurpation are brought to bear by its own acts, as the decisions of the people are made meaningless just because one party feels the need to gain more seats in Parliament than were mandated to it by the people of Lodamun. The Amystian Council and the people of Lodamun whom it represents insist that the rest of Parliament accept the decisions of the people, and do not attempt to side with the Albert Party in blatant attempts to derail democracy. |
| Date | 22:36:26, May 31, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the People's Democracy Revolution |
| Message | Without accepting the validity of the rhetoric in the pre-amble, the CCF position on the proposals is as follows: - we continue to support the right for any party to propose a cabinet. - there is no objection to th title Citizen, although we wonder why this was not brought up during the debates of past years on this topic. - we support renaming regions as states, in line with our policy to rename regions in keeping with their dignity. - we would support a change of election frequency to once every three years, but feel every two years will not allow sufficient time for debate. - to protect the smaller regions from domination by the larger ones, we support the current form of allocating seats among regions. We would support a shift to equal representaiton for each region, or the current middle path, but not the "power to large regions" model. After all, the largest regions have more seats even under the present model. - why 750 seats? We see two possible models for the numer of seats in parliament. One is the rough approximation of one seat for 100,000 people as was recently passed. The other, if we wish a more grassroots model, is to slash parliamentary salaries so that al legislators are part-time (working citizens, not politicians), and greatly expand the number of seats. It seems to us that 750 is a number offering the worst of both worlds: representativeness will not be greatly increased, but the cost of parlaiment will double with no real benefit. We recently raised the numerb from 100 to 450. This seems like quite enough full-time politicians. |
| Date | 22:46:54, May 31, 2005 CET | From |  National People's Gang | To | Debating the People's Democracy Revolution |
| Message | Firstly, there is no "efficiency" which will drop "vastly" - as the Council states later in its response, more than two years has passed since the election and there is still no cabinet. This efficiently keeps the previous cabinet in office. And the Council has proposed no other legislation. That isn't efficiency, it's inaction. Secondly, the government does not vote on bills, Parliament does. Time is taken up by ill-prepared proposals which require significant re-working. Further time is taken up during debates not to achieve consensus but to avoid the possibility of what is termed "defeat" but what is actually the votes of the representatives of the electorate. Cabinets would be appointed very quickly if they were representative. It is the yearning for unmandated degrees of authority which eats up time. It is currently up to the head of state to proposed a Cabinet - why? The failure of the president to achieve a cabinet twice in the past six years is, at best, inefficient. Make it fair, make it representative and it wins all-party agreement instantly. Why shouldn't the cabinet reflect the composition of the Parliament? Why? For what purpose would it not reflect it? Why would anyone put forward a Cabinet which allocates disproportionate power? Defend this in detail please. Far from "garnering votes", changing the title, given the other changes is essential. If anyone can suggest a cabinet, what else does the "head of state" do? He/she becomes the ultimate celebration of Lodamun's people. And what could be more honourable than being a Citizen of Lodamun? What the Amystian Council fails to admit is that less than a third of the electorate chose the current "President-Councillor". That is not a mandate to choose government. It is an abuse of 70 per cent of the electorate. The power wielded by the Amystian Council is not only far beyond that which is in accord with the support it has from voters, but that power is abused specifically to exclude representatives from cabinet. Why? The NFL's entire existence, its agenda, its raison d'etre, is to destroy democracy. That is a unique position and demands a unique response. What the AmystIan Council continues to fail to recognise is that the Albert Party has little interest in more seats in Parliament - we have brought to this Parliament a range of bills of which we are justly proud - as we are justly proud to have seen them passed by this Parliament, not through the wielding of disproportionate power but through consensus. The Council's closing remarks are a clear indication of its powerlust. The Council, which represents less than a quarter of the people, "insists" that the parties who represent the other 76% of the people do as they are told. And, finally, explain in detail, precisely and succinctly why the Council is opposed to any section of this bill. Not political flim-flam as in this first response, but genuine reasons: 1. Why cannot any elected person suggest a Cabinet? 2. Why should any party wield power beyond its mandate? 3. Why is not more people elected more often more representative? 4. Why is the Council in fear of inclusive government? 5. Will the Amystian Council cease its abuse of power and begin to respect the will of all the citizens of Lodamun? |
| Date | 00:00:14, June 01, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the People's Democracy Revolution |
| Message | Here are the CNT/AFL's positions: Article 1. We throw all our support behind this. Article 2. Definately. We would support a government without a head of state ideally, but this is the next best thing. Article 3. Supported, Regions sounds so lifeless. Article 4. We are not supportive of this. The small advantage given to smaller regions is what keeps the larger regions from drowning them out. Ideally, we'd like equal representation for all regions, but the current system is the next best. Article 5. (In the real world, this would be great, but in a game where bills take 8 months to go through the voting process, 2 years is just too little.) Article 6. We are undecided, there are good and bad ramifications, we can't see which will be greater. Despite the CNT/AFL's reservations regarding some of the proposals, we laud the Albert Party for their staunch defence of democracy and their preservation of the freedoms that make up the basis of this country. |
| Date | 01:01:46, June 01, 2005 CET | From | MLTP (The Resistance) | To | Debating the People's Democracy Revolution |
| Message | The MLTP's stance (for now): First of all, we fully support the spirit of this bill, and wish to offer our encouragement, as well as our gratitude, to our comrades in the Albert Party. Articles 1-3 have our full support. Article 4 we are unsure on whether or not to support. Article 5 - see what the CNT/AFL has to say about this. Perhaps 3 years? Article 6 - While we appreciate the spirit of this, we tend to think it a bad Idea (see the CCF's comments). |
| Date | 09:26:03, June 01, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the People's Democracy Revolution |
| Message | 750 representatives is the most that is allowed currently. 24 months is the shortest period between elections allowed currently. If we believe in federalism, then it is appropriate that larger regions, representing more people, should have more representation. These measures are designed to give more control to the people and ensure more cooperation between representatives with an agenda set by the people themselves. If the president no longer has sole authority to select a cabinet, then the post becomes redundant. When this is the case it is necessary to retitle the position. |
| Date | 09:39:03, June 01, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the People's Democracy Revolution |
| Message | This collective package of proposals aims to undermine long-standing powerbases which have only served the purpose of achieving power. We are aware that this bill requires two thirds of the legislature to pass. We ask democrats to forgive individual details about which they have concerns but to vote in support of the principles of democracy which we believe these measures promote. We are aware of the difficulties of achieving sufficient votes and that powerplays, pedantry and procrastination are hurdles we have to leap. We say only this: vote with your hearts, vote with faith and belief in the people. Reach for the stars. |
| Date | 12:05:19, June 01, 2005 CET | From | Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition | To | Debating the People's Democracy Revolution |
| Message | Articles 1, 3, 4, and 5 have our full support. We agree with the Council on the Citizen head of state title, and there is no need for 750 seats. |
| Date | 19:19:29, June 01, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the People's Democracy Revolution |
| Message | "We ask democrats to forgive individual details about which they have concerns but to vote in support of the principles of democracy which we believe these measures promote," the speaker for the Albert Party says. If only the party had been willing to take the comments of other parties into account, then parts of the bill could have been passed. Its unwillingness to do so does not speak well to its commitment to democratic compromise. We urge the Albert Party to resubmit a bill containing articles 1-3, which could command wide support. |
| Date | 21:44:40, June 01, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the People's Democracy Revolution |
| Message | And where is evidence of the CCF's "commitment to democratic compromise"? This from a party which has helped to prop up, promulgate and a ruling dynasty which has brought no change but maintained an iron grip, virtually uninterrupted in more than 30 years. This from a party which has shied away from losing a vote, which has regularly run bleating from its principles, which has, upon its election, felt no qualms in abandoning its agenda for fear of recrimination. We did not, nor do we, expect any support from such moral cowards, betrayers of its constituents, seekers of authority beyond mandate and hand-fed malingerers on the breadcrumbs of power. Let the CCF bring articles 1-3. Or is there too much risk? |
| Date | 22:00:57, June 01, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the People's Democracy Revolution |
| Message | We have voted for the bill in its spirit, despite our concern. |
| Date | 00:07:06, June 02, 2005 CET | From | MLTP (The Resistance) | To | Debating the People's Democracy Revolution |
| Message | Likewise |
| Date | 00:27:21, June 02, 2005 CET | From | MLTP (The Resistance) | To | Debating the People's Democracy Revolution |
| Message | The MLTP would also like to urge that the Albert Party resubmit this bill, minus articles 4-6. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 124 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 267 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Any RP law granting extraordinary "emergency powers" or dictator-like powers to a government must be passed by at least a 2/3rds majority, but (like all RP laws) may always be overturned by a simple majority vote of the legislature. |
| Random quote: On 7th February 4281 a group of renowned Metzist experts from all across Terra met in Haldor to form the International Committee for the Estimation of the End Date of Capitalism (ICEEDC). With the assistance of a powerful computer, they calculated that capitalism will terminate Terra-wide on 6th November 4320, and in Dorvik on April 17th 4310. We have no reason whatsoever to believe these very eminent and learned scholars are wrong. They have never been wrong about anything before. ~ Friedrich Pfeiffer, General Secretary of the Dorvish Communist Party |