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: Powers of the Presidency Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Ducal Delegation
Status[?]: passed
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: May 2199
Description[?]:
| Giving the President the sole power to propose a Cabinet would make Presidential elections much more meaningful and Cabinet-making much more smoother. Percy Waterman (Personal Secretary to the Grand Duke of Hikirena) |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The constitutional right and responsibility to propose a cabinet to the legislature.
Old value:: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Current: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Proposed: Only the Head of State can propose a cabinet coalition.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:22:10, March 09, 2006 CET | From | Communist Party of Aldegar | To | Debating the Powers of the Presidency Act |
| Message | We advocate the current system, as this allows all parties to have some say in the formation of the cabinet. |
| Date | 12:27:43, March 09, 2006 CET | From |  Ducal Delegation | To | Debating the Powers of the Presidency Act |
| Message | The proposed system would still mean that any new Cabinet would require the support of parties representing over half of the legislature. Percy Waterman (Personal Secretary to the Grand Duke of Hikirena) |
| Date | 03:44:13, March 11, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Conservatives | To | Debating the Powers of the Presidency Act |
| Message | The PC Party is currently unsure on this piece of legislation. While the Ducal Delegation makes a good point, we do not believe that this legislation would have much effect in practice, as all cabinet proposals have to go through the legislature regardless of who proposes it. Furthermore, this legislation may lead to potentially devastating deadlocks, because the Head of State may not be from a party that is part of the governing majority in the legislature (ie. the current situation, where the FBSP holds Head of State, but is not a member of the governing coalition). |
| Date | 13:07:45, March 11, 2006 CET | From | Ducal Delegation | To | Debating the Powers of the Presidency Act |
| Message | OOC: I see several advantages to giving the President the sole power to propose a Cabinet (1) Presidential elections, and the whole process of parties endorsing each others candidates, would become much more important and exciting, because only the President would be able to propose a new Cabinet. (2) It would prevent us being flooded with multiple Cabinet proposals (often unrealistic ones!) by lots of parties all at the same time, and getting into situations where a Cabinet Bill is passed giving us a new Cabinet, and then a few game months later another one is passed, turning the government on its head again! (3) The "devastating deadlocks" the PC refers to, where the existing governing majority does not include the party holding the Presidency, would be less likely if all of the parties used their 'endorsement' options astutely (presumably the majority coalition could all endorse one candidate and probably get him/her elected). However, if such a 'deadlock' did occur, it could actually make the game a lot more interesting. It would mean the party with the Presidency would have to negotiate with parties, trying to cajole them into a coalition in which his/her own party could join in. Having won the Presidency, a party could claim a kind of 'moral/electoral mandate' to be in the Cabinet, putting pressure on the other parties to compromise. Looking at the party voting records 'objectively', it would seem natural for Aldegar to eventually move towards two broadly competing blocs (on the one side, the FBSP, Marxists and PC; on the other, the DD, Republcians and ALP. Obviously there is always some fluidity in which parties work with each other (the DD, for instance, has long courted the PC to hold Cabinets together, despite the fact we only vote together less than two-fifths of the time). Anyway, that's just some of my thoughts. If anyone likes the idea, let me know; I\'m not going to put this Bill to the vote unless I think it has half-a-chance of passing. |
| Date | 20:38:44, March 11, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Conservatives | To | Debating the Powers of the Presidency Act |
| Message | OOC: I don't have that much time to spend on Particracy to get into negotiations and endorsements like this =P The PC recommends Ducal to keep this legislation on the table but forward it for a vote at a later date. It is, after all, a highly significant constitutional amendment, and given Aldegar's current state of politics, it appears unlikely that any major constitutional amendment proposal would garner the two-thirds necessary to pass. |
| Date | 12:13:40, March 12, 2006 CET | From | Ducal Delegation | To | Debating the Powers of the Presidency Act |
| Message | We are going to have a go with the vote anyway. Percy Waterman (Personal Secretary to the Grand Duke of Hikirena) |
| Date | 19:42:15, March 12, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Conservatives | To | Debating the Powers of the Presidency Act |
| Message | The PC will support this piece of legislation as a gesture of good will. |
| Date | 21:39:03, March 12, 2006 CET | From | Ducal Delegation | To | Debating the Powers of the Presidency Act |
| Message | We thank the PC and ALP for their support, and hope other parties will add theirs too. Percy Waterman (Personal Secretary to the Grand Duke of Hikirena) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 337 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 25 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 139 |
| Random fact: http://www.fantasynamegenerators.com and http://www.behindthename.com/random are great resources for coming up with character names from unfamiliar cultures. |
| Random quote: "Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon so long as there is no answer to it gives claws to the weak." - George Orwell |