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: The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive Socialist Party
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: April 4429
Description[?]:
The amount of bills that are being proposed as of late, especially with the increase in parties, is no longer viable. The Presidium is stretched and the amount reduces the quality of debate, and is detrimental to our democracy. OOC: The amount of bills is really getting too much, and is becoming more than a hassle. I, and I think some of you as well, want to keep enjoying this game, and therefore we need to cut back a bit on the amount of bills a party can propose. Furthermore, and I will say it here again, there needs to be some time for debate. So at least 3 in game months (12 hours RL) is not too much to ask. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The number of proposals a party can introduce per year (will be handed out as a monthly quota).
Old value:: 20
Current: 20
Proposed: 10
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The maximum proposal quota a party can accumulate.
Old value:: 50
Current: 20
Proposed: 25
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 19:25:09, July 22, 2018 CET | From | Conservative Democratic Union Lodamun | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | Mr Speaker, The CDUL supports these proposals Viktor Udinic MP for Internal Affairs Conservative Democratic Union Lodamun |
Date | 20:04:04, July 22, 2018 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | Mr Speaker, We have just had a change of government, this would appear an attempt to slow the rate of change by one of the losing parties. We oppose this sour grapes. Francis Young Republican leader |
Date | 20:59:30, July 22, 2018 CET | From | Progressive Socialist Party | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | Mr. Speaker, This has nothing to do with slowing down for the sake of partisanship, but purely for the workability of the Presidium. James McAvoy PSP Parliamentary leader OOC: Like I mentioned, I honestly have difficulty keeping up with all the current proposals, and it is taking the fun out of the game. So I hope you will reconsider. |
Date | 21:34:40, July 22, 2018 CET | From | Secular Humanist Party | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | Mr. Speaker, We wholeheartedly agree with this proposal, it is a very necessary change. Alexander Prince OOC: We really, really, really need this. It is also more interesting to see what proposals will be proposed if people have to be more conservative with the amount of proposals. |
Date | 23:01:52, July 22, 2018 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | Mr Speaker, The Presidium seems to be working fine. However if the PSP are in government after the next election then we will reconsider. Francis Young Republican Leader Ooc: It really isn't that difficult to keep up is it? Are you genuinely saying that having less to vote on is more fun? |
Date | 01:13:40, July 23, 2018 CET | From | Lodamun Labour Party | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | OOC: Perhaps we should work more with RP bills. It gives more depth to our laws and doesn't constantly bring changes. |
Date | 03:02:23, July 23, 2018 CET | From | Lodamese Democratic Progressive Party | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | OOC: I don't think anyone is saying it's more fun to have less to vote on, just that the amount of proposals being debated and voted on all at once recently is becoming too much. I can't say I disagree; I like that things are active, but it is starting to get a little out of hand and hard to keep up with when there's 10-20 bills being debated/voted on at a time, some with many proposals on them and even a few that are too similar to other bills on the floor. I think the amount proposed in this bill is a good compromise. Back before the current law, both these quotas were actually less than the proposed change (the party quote per year was 6 and max accumulative proposal quote was 12) and things back then would still be fun and active at times. Yes this proposed change will limit the proposals some and how much change would happen all at once, but I believe it's a more manageable amount. It's still quite a bit of proposals so I don't think it would really make things any less fun. |
Date | 10:19:25, July 23, 2018 CET | From | Liberal Progressives | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | OOC: I must agree with this bill, because of the amount of bills currently up for debate/vote, I find myself missing the time to process them all and find time for my own proposals. This way, I am merely responding to what others say and harldy doing anything myself. This is fine for a bit, but gets annoying real fast. Another reason for this is overcrowding. Currently, Lodamun is the busiest of all countries with 9 parties. I think that, if we are to continue with this amount of parties, that's alright, but we should be able to all participate. |
Date | 12:54:24, July 23, 2018 CET | From | Progressive Socialist Party | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | Mr. Speaker, If all parties vote in support of this bill, including the other coalition parties, will the republicans not obstruct this much needed and wanted law change? James McAvoy |
Date | 13:00:09, July 23, 2018 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | Mr Speaker, To block constitutional reform requires at least a third of the seats in the Presidium. As much as the Republicans would love to obstruct this, we can't. As per the debate above, we will happily support lowering the proposal quota once the PSP are in government again. Francis Young Republican Leader |
Date | 13:24:38, July 23, 2018 CET | From | Conservative Democratic Union Lodamun | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | Mr Speaker The CDUL is happy that already so many parties agree with this proposal; however, at the same time these wishes are blatantly ignored. The presidium is flooded with yet another series of bills, without any coordination within the coaltion. Futhermore, the manner in which debates are held by some is not something we can support. Consequently, the CDUL has left the coalition. Luca Brankic Party leader CDUL |
Date | 13:29:43, July 23, 2018 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | Mr Speaker, It is sad the CDUL have decided to leave the coalition, they were a valued member and have helped transform this nation into the free market and socially conservative paradise it is today. If they had wanted to coordinate coalition activity all they had to do was say so. The Republican Party will continue to propose (or flood!) legislative changes, that's what we are all here to do and we will continue to observe a period of debate before putting measures to vote. Francis Young Leader of the Republican Party |
Date | 17:29:03, July 23, 2018 CET | From | National-Socialist Lodamun Workers Party | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | OOC: I think less proposols will improve the role play as people will be forced to work together. We will support drops in the proposal amount until we think the desired result is reached. |
Date | 13:00:57, July 24, 2018 CET | From | Progressive Socialist Party | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | Mr. Speaker, Due to new elections we have to re-admit this bill to the floor. Hereby we do so. James McAvoy Parliamentary leader of the PSP |
Date | 15:12:40, July 24, 2018 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the The Returning Sanity to the Presidium Bill |
Message | Mr Speaker, The Republicans would now be happy to support, but worry that we might upset the SHP and CDUL with any display of inconsistency, therefore we will have to continue to oppose (not that it makes any differences!). Regina Miller Republican Leader |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||||||
yes |
Total Seats: 476 | |||||||
no |
Total Seats: 119 | |||||||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: The players in a nation have a collective responsibility to ensure their "Bills under debate" section is kept in good order. Bills which are irrelevant or have become irrelevant should be deleted. Deletion can be requested for bills proposed by inactive parties on the Bill Clearout Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
Random quote: "Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." - Edward Abbey |