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: Social Democratic Party
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Party
Status[?]: passed
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: July 5096
Description[?]:
| RP: The leader of the social Democratic Party Shelly Finhart statement: After a dreadful night for the SDP, we have seen our boat slashed by almost 1,000,000, losing 22 fellow MPs, and almost half the vote fall. Is it a heavy heart that I announced these losses. I will continue to serve as the party leader until the next election. They’re remaining members of the party have decided that I should continue to lead us. The loss of our vote came directly from the rally for empire party. Question we now face in the SDP are we gain back the voters that we’ve lost and stay true to the center left. We are currently in negotiations to merge political parties. This would not be new for the SDP we had merge with a center right political party decades ago and a centerleft party. We had once become the National Democratic Alliance and New Democratic Liberal party. So please my friends hold tight and strong. As we begin this exciting new chapter. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribeVoting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 257 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 43 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "A democracy that does not allow limits is not a democracy. Just as a limitless freedom is not freedom, but prevarication. Indeed, any theory of freedom worthy of this name is first of all a limit theory. If we extend the unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not willing to defend a tolerant society against the attacks of the intolerants, then the tolerants will be destroyed and the tolerance with them! Because, I ask to myself and ask you, given a certain system that we call democratic, which is today the best possible system to allow everyone to live freely and to be able to express their own thoughts, how can the same system admit attacks against its integrity? How can a system refuse the principle of the self-preservation? For this reason, to suppress the apologetics of thalerrism, it's for this reason that the exaltation of exegetes, principles, facts or methods of Thallerism and its anti-democratic aims does not constitute a violation of the freedom of manifestation of thought, but, on the contrary, the celebration of that freedom. The protection of the first premise on which a modern democratic system is based. And this premise must be safeguarded also and above all against itself and its abuses." ~ Malik Astori, Leadership of Liberty and Progress (Istalia) |