Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: July 5472
Next month in: 02:32:33
Server time: 17:27:26, April 20, 2024 CET
Currently online (4): Bureaucrat | hyraemous | JourneyKun | LC73DunMHP | 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: Patriotic Coalition Proposal of February 2259

Details

Submitted by[?]: Gnazenal Phr'unt

Status[?]: passed

Votes: This bill presents the formation of a cabinet. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. Traditionally, parties in the proposal vote yes, others (the opposition) vote no. This bill will pass as soon as the required yes votes are in and all parties in the proposal have voted yes, or will be defeated if unsufficient votes are reached on the deadline.

Voting deadline: October 2259

Description[?]:

Including the patriotic parties in a coalition government that secures a majority. The ALF have been given the two posts that they wanted, along with two minor posts. The WPP have been given the bulk of the posts they currently hold. The CPP, whom the NF believe to be the more moderate of he four parties in question, have been given the Foreign Ministry as we feel that they will be our best representatives abroad. Lastly the NF have chosen one position, that of Lawspeaker. Although we are not the largest party in the coalition, we are the proposer, and have only asked for this one position and hope the other parties do not mind.

In the interests of having a government, and keeping the left out, we hope this cabinet is suitable.

ooc: The WPP have not been on in over a day, that could be problematic.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date10:48:35, July 24, 2006 CET
FromGnazenal Phr'unt
ToDebating the Patriotic Coalition Proposal of February 2259
MessageWe'll put this straight to vote for now, in the hope the suggested members back. If not, the next election is less than two years away.

Date13:22:39, July 24, 2006 CET
FromAlmighty Lodamunian Front (ALF)
ToDebating the Patriotic Coalition Proposal of February 2259
MessageI will support this. I am happy with the allocation of portfolios, and the NF is my preferred choice for the head of government, no offence to others.

Date20:07:40, July 24, 2006 CET
FromDemocratic Socialist Party of Lodamun
ToDebating the Patriotic Coalition Proposal of February 2259
MessageI don't appreciate being called unpatriotic.

Date20:59:35, July 24, 2006 CET
FromGnazenal Phr'unt
ToDebating the Patriotic Coalition Proposal of February 2259
MessageBring rightwingers, one assumes all leftists are unpatriotic traitors who desire to weaken our army so that we cannot defend ourselves.

Date23:27:36, July 24, 2006 CET
FromWhite People's Party
ToDebating the Patriotic Coalition Proposal of February 2259
Messagewe support, but in the future share the real jobs around more....

Date09:53:21, July 25, 2006 CET
FromGnazenal Phr'unt
ToDebating the Patriotic Coalition Proposal of February 2259
MessageAye, will do, although hopefully others shall take the lead.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
    

Total Seats: 419

no
 

Total Seats: 164

abstain
   

Total Seats: 118


Random fact: Moderation will not implement nation renaming requests where the proposed name does not comply with the requirements set out in the Nation Renaming Guide: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6364

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)

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 62