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: PACF Democratic Principles Bill
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: June 2063
Description[?]:
| Unification of the PACFprinciples of democracy and a true measure of honest support from the CCF. |
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
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:50:19, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | Rejected for reasons earlier stated. |
| Date | 00:51:58, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | Voted in favour before, and doing so again. |
| Date | 01:58:15, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | How does the remnants of the Albert Party expect democracy to work if they do not allow debate before pushing to vote? |
| Date | 12:56:13, June 05, 2005 CET | From |  National People's Gang | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | The Amystian Council has a policy of non-inclusive government. It seeks consensus in debate because that is a formula for maintaining the status quo. It operates an exlusive cabinet policy because that narrows challenges during elections. We expect this bill to fail, any relevant debate has already been heard and positions haven't changed. However, a failed bill recognises political differences and represents a greater challenge to the AC's dominance than a successful one with AC support.. The AC wanted a toothless opposition. This bites. |
| Date | 13:14:20, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | We're not sure how one can use consensus - the agreement of as many parties as possible - yet still be accused of being "non-inclusive". The only parties excluded from the cabinet entirely are the NFL and those who adamantly state that they will not work with the Council (as the CNT/AFL has in the past). The PACF still fails to explain why a cabinet should be composed as Parliament is, given the fact that Parliament is still the body with any real power in deciding the direction of the nation. |
| Date | 13:20:55, June 05, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | This is not the case. What's the difference between being excluded and being excluded entirely? Make a cabinet that represents a proportional share of the popular vote and we'll vote in favour. The AC has never done that. It objects, philosophically, to doing it, but it gives no philosophical reasons for refusing to do it. We have repeatedly explained why the cabinet should be composed thus: because that's what the electorate chose. |
| Date | 13:27:13, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | No, the electorate chose that Parliament be composed thus. The electorate does not choose the cabinet. (( If it did, there'd be an option for that rather than just which parties can propose the cabinet :D )) The reasons for refusing to do it are pragmatic - the current method works for the most part, and there has been no argument as to why it should be done so except for the claim that the "people" voted for it. The people know the constitution. The people know that the head of state proposes cabinets. The people have continuously elected Amystians to the place of President-Councillor. There doesn't seem to be much objection from the people, only from the PACF parties themselves. Where does it say that the electorate chooses the cabinet? Where do you see proof of all parties being allowed to propose cabinets as being any better, pragmatically, than having a single proposal that is then debated? |
| Date | 13:41:29, June 05, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | A significant proportion of the people want the constitution changed. They do not consider that the current method works. A marginal majority - on a second round vote - have reluctantly elected Amystian Council presidents. The PACF parties represent a significant proportion of the electorate. Isn't the AC supposedly in favour of an open market? Why then does it want control inside government? If it is in favour of free choice, let the marketplace decide what it considers to be the best cabinet. |
| Date | 17:33:46, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | Since the capitalist marketplace tends to greater and greater concentration of power in the largest multiinational corporations, this may not be the best comparison. |
| Date | 17:41:29, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | The Council favors a market that is as open as possible. Regulations are still left in place in certain respects under our policies. We are not a radically laissez-faire group. Similarly, we believed that regulating the cabinet proposals so that they came from a single source would be the best way to go about things, as has been explained numerous times. The Council has offered a compromise on the issue and would like to note that it has yet to receive any word on the offer other than a comparison to a weasel by a party that does not understand that the President-Councillor is trying to compromise not to "get out" of the accusations leveled toward the party, but to try to get the PACF to agree to stop killing Lodamunian citizens. |
| Date | 20:50:22, June 05, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | From our perspective, there's no difference between one president or one party putting up a proposal for cabinet, so it's not really a compromise. We certainly wish elements of the PACF would refrain from executions - but nearly a third of the population of the country has had no government representation for more than 30 years. Passions are high and, so far, there's little we can offer as signs of change which would ameliorate the situation. |
| Date | 23:07:16, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | Largest parties. Plural. It would not be only the Council offering cabinet proposals. More than one party would be putting up the proposals under the offered compromise. |
| Date | 00:06:32, June 06, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | No, the proposal is worded wrong, unless I'm mistaken. It's largest party. It was probably written with many nations in mind. Besides, if it meant largest parties, it would have specified which are the largest and which aren't. |
| Date | 00:13:47, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | (( Well god damn it. *lol* Foiled once again by proposal wordings. )) In that case, the Council urges the PACF to review its Inclusive Consensus Act under the terms of the ceasefire proposed by the 2nd June Movement. |
| Date | 01:22:21, June 06, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | We now consider this bill to be at best redundant, at worst a hindrance to possibilities of a ceasefire given the Inclusive Consensus Act. In the spirit of conciliation we urge all parties to abstain and we urge the CCF-Greens to withdraw their Democracy Enhancements Act. |
| Date | 01:25:09, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | (( Oh no! A Green party now?! *L* )) The Council agrees with the assessment of this bill by the 2nd June Movement and reiterates its requests. |
| Date | 01:37:37, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the PACF Democratic Principles Bill |
| Message | (( Damn it, except now you guys are going to win this, unless everyone actually does abstain. I think I'd rather keep my No vote simply to prevent legislation from changing, as no change would occur if we all abstained. )) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 182 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 233 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Characters are considered to be "owned" by the player who first mentioned or created them. In practice, players may share responsibility for role-playing a character, but ultimate authority rests with the owner. |
| Random quote: "Anarchy is the true nature of all things. Monarchy, democracy, communism, all useless forms to control the human mind. But a mind cannot be controlled. It cannot be restrained. It has no boundaries. It has its will. Anarchy is the true nature of all things." - Alex Battig |