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: Referendum Bill (4418)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Restaurierungsbewegung (RB)
Status[?]: defeated
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: April 4444
Description[?]:
| As per the confidence and supply agreement with the NDU, the government is introducing a bill calling for a referendum on the structure of the Alorian government. Its quite clear that a bill proposing for the establishment of a monarchy would not receive the two-thirds majority to pass. The question would be: Which form of government do you favour for Aloria? 1. Parliamentary Republic 2. Constitutional Monarchy Using this question will avoid any bias that arises from using a yes/no option. I hope that the parties of the Senate will support this motion. OOC: I've been thinking about this for some time and how we can RP a referendum. Here are the two options: 1. We simply RP a referendum among ourselves and determine the results, or: 2. We tie the referendum question to the next election. Prior to the election, each party announces which side they favour. The total for each side is added (in terms of the percentage vote), with the largest side winning the referendum. If the monarchist-side won, I'll introduce a second bill establishing a monarchy which (I hope) would then be supported by all parties to gain the two-thirds majority. On a side note, if parties wanted to split their vote that could also be an option. E.g. RB = 90% of supports at the next election back a monarchy in the referendum, 10% back a republic. Calculating this would take a little longer but might make it more realistic. Sorry for the long message, but post your thoughts below :) |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:09:30, July 03, 2018 CET | From | Neue Mehrheit | To | Debating the Referendum Bill (4418) |
| Message | OOC: definitely prefer the second option, at least that way there will be a conclusive outcome that all players can recognise. Vote splitting might complicate things but it should work. If we do, where shall we post what position our parties are supporting (and what percentage of party supports them)? |
| Date | 20:40:08, July 03, 2018 CET | From | Grüne-Demokraten 15 | To | Debating the Referendum Bill (4418) |
| Message | I agree with the second option as well. Also, should we add a clause that says the issue can't be revisited again for a hundred in-game years? I don't want to have the same debate over and over again... |
| Date | 20:40:29, July 03, 2018 CET | From | Grüne-Demokraten 15 | To | Debating the Referendum Bill (4418) |
| Message | That was OOC btw |
| Date | 11:40:20, July 04, 2018 CET | From | NDU/UDC | To | Debating the Referendum Bill (4418) |
| Message | OOC - I’m going to go with the consensus here and say two is better. Including a hundred year no return clause would also bring some stability afterwards so I agree with that too. If we’re splitting our votes, I think my party would be something along the lines of this: Republic (65%), Monarchy (35%). |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |
| no | Total Seats: 76 | |
| abstain | Total Seats: 49 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "Presidency, n. The greased pig in the field game of American politics." - Ambrose Bierce |