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: Constitution Bill 2194D2
Details
Submitted by[?]: Black Magic
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: January 2195
Description[?]:
| Suggestion: Though it would be by polite agreement only because the option does not exist, that after the initial cabinet is established there be no further cabinet proposals for the first 12 months of the mandate. The aim is to promote stable government while still allowing for change. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:58:32, March 03, 2006 CET |
From |  Black Magic | To | Debating the Constitution Bill 2194D2 | | Message | That would be approximately one representative for every 424 000 people. Is this enough? |
| Date | 18:49:29, March 03, 2006 CET |
From | Black Magic | To | Debating the Constitution Bill 2194D2 | | Message | Well, let's discuss the number of seats and the length of the term elsewhere. Article 2 removed. |
| Date | 23:56:20, March 03, 2006 CET |
From | Radikale Folkeparti | To | Debating the Constitution Bill 2194D2 | | Message | Hahahahahahahahaha, you don't round 50.3333 up, you would round that DOWN, otherwise two thirds would be 101, and a third would be, according to you 51, so 152 MP's? |
| Date | 23:57:21, March 03, 2006 CET |
From | Radikale Folkeparti | To | Debating the Constitution Bill 2194D2 | | Message | DP, because otherwise we have the situation that occured when the Northern Light was HoS, and they couldn't pass a cabinet proposal, the same could happen with just the largest party maintaining the privilidge of cabinet proposal. |
| Date | 11:34:59, March 04, 2006 CET |
From | Black Magic | To | Debating the Constitution Bill 2194D2 | | Message | @RF - - - I do not believe the proposal above has been tried, correct me if I'm wrong - it says only the largest parties (plural) could propose a cabinet. I do not know what the game means by that, but evidently more than one party would still be able to propose a cabinet. |
| Date | 14:44:03, March 04, 2006 CET |
From | Konservativ Monarkistpartiet | To | Debating the Constitution Bill 2194D2 | | Message | Yeah, OP, largest party proposing a cabinet surely means the largest party, in the same way the HoS means the party controlling HoS, and all parties means al parties. |
| Date | 05:29:20, March 05, 2006 CET |
From | Black Magic | To | Debating the Constitution Bill 2194D2 | | Message | Proposed: Only the largest PARTIES can propose a cabinet. KLP you have experience that only the largest is able to do it? That makes the proposal misleading, should mention to management perhaps? |
| Date | 12:45:59, March 05, 2006 CET |
From | Klassiskt Liberala Partiet | To | Debating the Constitution Bill 2194D2 | | Message | It is a bit misleading indeed. The plural is used for the case that there are two or more largest parties with the same amount of seats. Usually, there is only one largest party, and only this party can propose cabinets. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 32 |
| no | Total Seats: 67 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: You can inactivate yourself on your User Page. You will then lose all your seats but your party account won't be deleted, and your party's Visibility ratings will not diminish. Reactivation can be requested in the "Reactivation Requests" thread in the Game Moderation section of the Particracy Forum. |
| Random quote: "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. "
- P. J. O Rourke |