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: Parliament Expansion Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Proletariat Revolution Party
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: December 2066
Description[?]:
| In light of the fact that we now have 9 parties and the possibility for a 10th to join our ranks, it is in the best interests of everyone involved if we expanded parliament from 200 to 300 hundred seats. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The total number of seats in the legislative assembly. Should be between 75 and 750.
Old value:: 200
Current: 75
Proposed: 300
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:09:49, June 11, 2005 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | I like this bill because it provides more flexibility and since we don't have proportional voting yet, it won't disenfranchise the small regions of our country. |
| Date | 20:15:17, June 11, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | LLP, it's nice to see I've got a new ally; it's just the other old dudes we gotta worry about. They're rather conventional and PP likes to spout off about the national debt adn yet NOT raise taxes. |
| Date | 00:09:47, June 12, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | Yes i still support And Raise Taxes "Tally Ho!" |
| Date | 01:31:17, June 12, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | LLP: And you call yourself libertarian. For shame. You should be supporting moves to shrink the government, not make it bigger. You're being political now - the populace supports bigger government, so you give up your ideals to pander? PEL: We're running in the black, and will be until that insipid national park bill hits. Then we get to listen to the People's Party doing his national debt song-and-dance again. Now shoot that bill down so we can avoid the torture. We shouldn't be increasing the size of our parliament any. It's perfectly fine as it is. Increases in size will lower efficiency and increase costs - and I'm sure we can all agree, there are better uses for the taxpayer's money than lining the pockets of greedy politicians. |
| Date | 06:46:17, June 12, 2005 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | Haha! You're one of those dictatorial Libertarians, eh? When I say smaller government, I don't mean cutting representation. You're the one opposing special elections for empty seats for political reasons, and apparently, it doesn't matter to you that people aren't represented in this government. All in the name of a smaller government, hm? |
| Date | 07:16:45, June 12, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | Excuse me? National debt 'song-and -dance'?? and PE i said I would raise taxes when you give me some sort of commitment that you won't just go off with spending bills..is that so hard to ask?? I would be pretty if I gave you you $300 billion with no strings attached. I even gave you the option of telling me what kind of spending restraint is acceptable to you... if you wan't to be silly and childish about it then fine... but don't blame me for yopur problems... |
| Date | 07:31:04, June 12, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | It should read "'I would be pretty stupid if I gave you $300 billion" Seriously PE, you're holding up the tax bill for everyone else... and smaller govt mean you increase representaion at the level of the states, not the centre ...so yes what you're proposing is anti libertarian. |
| Date | 07:59:48, June 12, 2005 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | No it's not. You cannot define a political movement like that, espically libertarianism. There are several brands. You are probably one of those "states rights," types. Perfectly fine -- I am not. In anycase, it's still breaking down districts to give fewer people more representation, so their representives can actually work for them. |
| Date | 11:14:21, June 12, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | LLP: Stop being insulting. We are the party that ALWAYS proposes special elections throughout our nation's history. Or didn't you read any of that history? It's not political reasons. Having you join me would be good. And I'm not a state's rights type. I'm a "removing government interference" type. The people should be free to do what they want economically and socially. The only government responsibilities are preventing force and fraud, as well as providing education. |
| Date | 02:23:26, June 13, 2005 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | Sure, it's fine that we the people are free, but that doesn't mean they should be denied representation when they do need it. |
| Date | 02:44:30, June 13, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | I can make a good case for a large government decreasing representation. It goes like this: Larger governments result in increased beaurocracy and the resultant waste of time and money. This increased beaurocracy results in inefficiencies that can cause legislature to stall. It creates an unresponsive government. This is unrepresentative and undemocratic. If you truly want to increase representation, then shorten the term lengths. |
| Date | 12:51:47, June 14, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | I will support this bill. |
| Date | 15:21:38, June 14, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | LFP - feel free to propose a bill to shorten the term. |
| Date | 23:15:38, June 14, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | Apparently, a responsive and democratic government is not a good cause. You who vote yes, you simply want more politicians in power. That's greedy. There are many better causes than extending party payrolls. Very well, we'll propose a term length shortening act. |
| Date | 00:28:18, June 15, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | Then why vote against it? As the nation grows, it's democratic to allow them to have fair representation. |
| Date | 04:34:26, June 15, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Parliament Expansion Act |
| Message | No, it's democratic to use money for things other than lining politician's pockets. We aren't elected by districts anyways. Instead, everyone votes for their favorite party and that party appoints politicians. Since people don't choose politicians directly, arguments of bringing things "closer to the people" fail automatically - all parties are national affairs. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 106 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 94 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If you want to know how many players there are in Particracy right now, check out the Game Statistics buried at the bottom of the World Map screen. |
| Random quote: "The government was set to protect man from criminals, and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government." - Ayn Rand |