Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: August 5475
Next month in: 03:04:59
Server time: 20:55:00, April 26, 2024 CET
Currently online (3): burgerboys | hexaus18 | hexaus19 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Constitutional Amendment

Details

Submitted by[?]: Classical Liberal 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: January 2216

Description[?]:

The CLP feels that with the increase in parties that perhaps adding more seats to the assembly would be a boon to the political system.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date23:07:06, April 16, 2006 CET
FromClassical Liberal Party
ToDebating the Constitutional Amendment
MessageJust to start off this bill won't be moved into a voting stage until after the next election because I don't feel like having it reset to debate after the election occurs before this things voting deadline is up.

Now I really think that adding some more seats might make it a bit more competative in here with the new parties showing up.

Date01:46:48, April 17, 2006 CET
FromLutte Féministe de Libération
ToDebating the Constitutional Amendment
MessageI agree. Good proposal. Always good for democracy's sake to have more representatives.

Date02:17:23, April 17, 2006 CET
From Front Canrillaise
ToDebating the Constitutional Amendment
MessageI am against any increase. The lower the better. Besides, we do not want to have to waste the taxpayer's money by adding 150 more politicians.

Date05:44:51, April 17, 2006 CET
FromClassical Liberal Party
ToDebating the Constitutional Amendment
Messagewell with the increase of parties RWE do you think lowering it will be better? I mean I could understand if we were losing parties that perhaps lowering the seats would be better but why do that when we have gained parties?

Date01:15:00, April 18, 2006 CET
From Front Canrillaise
ToDebating the Constitutional Amendment
MessageWell, there are really only 6 active parties in Rildanor and a few who fall in and out of the game. The CLP is really the only new party to ever stick around, the rest are stagnant. Our current number is good as it only takes 3 strong and like-minded parties to pass a law, as opposed to requiring 4 or 5.

Date06:11:51, April 18, 2006 CET
From Front Canrillaise
ToDebating the Constitutional Amendment
MessageWe'll see how well this works.

Date08:22:19, April 18, 2006 CET
FromDevout Ecologists Party
ToDebating the Constitutional Amendment
MessageI dislike the seat increase. We have more then enough (600) and we certainly do not need more. Furthermore, 600 is an ideal number considering easy to judge 1/2 and 2/3's needed for bills. For 750 2/3'rds is 500, nothing wrong with that, but 1/2 is the weird number 375.. we like rounder numbers.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
    

Total Seats: 434

no
  

Total Seats: 166

abstain
  

Total Seats: 0


Random fact: When it comes to creating a Cultural Protocol in a Culturally Open nation, players are not necessarily required to provide a plausible backstory for how the nation's cultural background developed. However, the provision of a plausible backstory may be a factor in whether Moderation approves the Cultural Protocol if players in surrounding nations question its appropriateness for their region of the game map.

Random quote: "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated" - Mahatma Gandhi

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 65