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: AIM legislative anti-flood initiative.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Antepec Independence Movement
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: August 2326
Description[?]:
| So many bills have created a huge workload for all parties. While we are all for parties working hard for the people, we feel that such a tremendous workload created by bulk legislation is a recipe for some less than cursory decision making on the run. We feel that with nine parties active that there will be sufficient bills on the floor to represent everyone's point of view. |
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: 12
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The maximum proposal quota a party can accumulate.
Old value:: 30
Current: 40
Proposed: 24
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:16:32, November 28, 2006 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the AIM legislative anti-flood initiative. |
| Message | We don't feel that this is necessary. The current situation will not continue. It is simply that with a number of new parties joining and others changing their positions, it has been necessary for parties to produce large numbers of manifesto legislation in order to state their positions and bolster their visibilty ratings. One would anticipate that shortly this will end - we the UCA have maybe one or two more manifestos that we wish to produce - after this we would hope that things would get back to normal and for proper debate on legislation. Therefore legislation on this issue is not necessary |
| Date | 21:25:16, November 28, 2006 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the AIM legislative anti-flood initiative. |
| Message | I disagree. I think this is entirely reasonable, although I'd support even fewer proposals allowed (maybe 6 a year with a max of 12). After all, if we have this many parties, it's tremendously irresponsible and self-centered for just a few of us to propose bills with tons of proposals. Takes up too much of everyone's time. |
| Date | 02:38:55, November 29, 2006 CET | From | Antepec Independence Movement | To | Debating the AIM legislative anti-flood initiative. |
| Message | We welcome input from all parties and will try to get a consensus prior to comitting to a vote. |
| Date | 06:06:10, November 29, 2006 CET | From | National Fasco-Communist Order | To | Debating the AIM legislative anti-flood initiative. |
| Message | I agree with the UCA on this one. Increasing the amount was my idea way back as the MLP, I think the more activity there is the more interesting the game is. |
| Date | 04:01:57, November 30, 2006 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the AIM legislative anti-flood initiative. |
| Message | Certainly in some ways, but when you have to weed through all those bills it can be an intense expenditure, especially with dialup. |
| Date | 08:29:50, November 30, 2006 CET | From | Antepec Independence Movement | To | Debating the AIM legislative anti-flood initiative. |
| Message | We feel that if the number of bills were reduced - especially with this many parties - that more 'considered' legislation would be put together, rather than huge bills that increase visibility around election time. At the moment, parties who have the time to put the 'mega-bills' together have an advantage. Proposals that arent used are simply wasted so the logic here is to use them on frivilous bills to improve your party standing rather than losing opportunities. AIM feels that this is a measured decrease in bills that can be introduced - we are not advocating winding the numbers down to single digits. The quota proposed should still allow shifts and visibility as parties need it. |
| Date | 07:13:25, December 01, 2006 CET | From | National Fasco-Communist Order | To | Debating the AIM legislative anti-flood initiative. |
| Message | Yea, you have a point. We may vote for this, see how it goes. |
| Date | 08:37:52, December 08, 2006 CET | From | Antepec Independence Movement | To | Debating the AIM legislative anti-flood initiative. |
| Message | We move this to a vote, thanks to all parties who contributed to the debate, both for and against. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 241 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 28 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 32 |
| Random fact: Real life-life nationalities, cultures or ethnicities should not be referenced in Particracy (eg. "German"). |
| Random quote: "Democrats couldn't care less if people in Indiana hate them. But if Europeans curl their lips, liberals can't look at themselves in the mirror." - Ann Coulter |