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: Government Expense Savings act.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Adam Smith 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: April 2082
Description[?]:
| Taking into consideration the cost of each member of parliament to the nation, it is a concern that we have such an enlarged and inflated number of representatives. It provides no benefit to our nation to have over a thousand people involved directly in creating laws all of which have to be paid out of tax revenue. It is thus proposed that we reduce the size of the parliament. Let us not place more burden on our citizens than is necessary. We consider a 33% reduction in the number of MPs not unreasonable, and this would not affect the representation of any party adversely. With respect to concerns over corruption there shall be instituted a register of the financial interests of all MPs. This register shall record all sources of income of all MPs to thus enable the elimination of favouritism due to these interests. Additionally MP's financial records shall be open to scrutiny by an apointed auditor and shall be so scrutinised at the request of the parliament. There shall be an annual audit of MPs financial records to be held in May of each year. Any and all discrepencies in the financial activities of MPs shall become items of public record and if illegal shall be passed to the public prosecutors for action. Parties shall be encouraged to additionally monitor the actions of their MPs in respect of their actions in relation to the interests of their families and associates. This latter is to be a voluntary action ont the part of the parties. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The total number of seats in the legislative assembly. Should be between 75 and 750.
Old value:: 450
Current: 365
Proposed: 300
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:38:22, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | We are willing to accept proposals for other numbers of MPs. 300 is not a magical number or anything. |
| Date | 15:38:44, July 11, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | I like the idea of a parliament divisible by 100 and 3. Makes for nice round numbers. I was thinking 600 to provide for a more direct voice for the electorate...but 300 works too. |
| Date | 16:55:14, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | The intent of the 450 was to ensure each MP represented about 100,000 people. If the goal is savings, then perhaps rather than reducign tghe number of parliamentarians, we might reduce their salaries. |
| Date | 17:17:32, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | What is so special about 1:100,000? The population figure is in constant flux. It is impossible to keep the representation to a round number ratio. In addition to that, while we only have a pseudo proportional system, the ratio is irrelevant. Cutting salaries simply opens opportunities for corruption. In an ideal world, we wouyld do both, however a small cut in salaries combined with a reduction in number should bring our administrative overhead down considerably. |
| Date | 19:51:59, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | As the Council was opposed to increasing Parliament beyond its original 100 members, this reduction will be supported. |
| Date | 03:29:39, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | Any further opinion from the CCF, MSP or DSP? |
| Date | 06:30:42, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | In the real world les representatives means more corruption. However, that can never be the scenerio in Lodamun. Supported, only if you change the number to 293 or 307 because they are prime numbers. |
| Date | 07:27:40, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | 101? 7? 83? Why a prime number? |
| Date | 15:31:31, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | The only advantage of a prime number is that it pprevents an exactly flat distribution of seats acroos the parliament. As we have passed the political freedom act, such an event would only lead to negotiations between parties to form a government, it is no longer a special case. As such we do not feel that there is any need to make the number of seats a prime number. It is much better to have a number where it is easy to establish how many votes are required for a bill and a constitutional bill to pass. Our ideal would be 102, but this is too great a change to be made in one step, so we propose reducing the number ans seeing how it works out. Lower numbers of MPs do not, in real life increase the likelihood of corruption. One MP in 300 does not have significantly more power than one in 450. However it is easier to keep track on the activities of 300 people than it is on 450. Lower numbers of MPs also means that they could actually be paid more, thus making corruption less likely while saving money. The likelyhod of corruption only significantly increases when the number of MPs is below 50. |
| Date | 00:35:53, July 15, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | I highly doubt a larger paycheck from the government is going to detour corruption among a parliament of corporation leaders. |
| Date | 00:37:28, July 15, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | Corporation leaders? Not all moralistic capitalists (TiC) are rich. |
| Date | 01:29:26, July 15, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | ((I think you mean deter, not detour DSP)) None of our parliamentarians have any direct or indirect employment in any corporation or company. We disapprove intensely of the government interfering in business. We will not tolerate any form of corporate welfarism nor will we allow any corporation to obtain favourable treatment from our government. We request the DSP to present the evidence for this extraordinary assertion that we are corporation leaders, and we would not mind receiving the accumulated pay from these corporations for the last 8 years while we have been serving the nation if you could arrange that as well. All indirect ties, through relatives or old school friends etc are documented in our party and in any matter that may directly impinge upon any such indirect tie the member(s) involved are required to vote according to the party whip. Now we could include a clause that would require complete disclosure of the financial interests and revenue sources of all MPs in this bill. Would that satisfy the DSP, and would their party members agree wioth such action. |
| Date | 02:41:43, July 15, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | We cannot, of course, speak for the DSP, but Tuesday Is Coming would support such an amendment. We strongly believe that government should be visible and held accountable to the people. |
| Date | 15:11:33, July 15, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | The bill has been ammended to include a financial disclosure clause. |
| Date | 02:29:45, July 17, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | ((I am going to try moving this to vote. It is opposed to one of the proposals in Fillibuster 2 so we will see what happens)) |
| Date | 22:53:41, July 18, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Government Expense Savings act. |
| Message | We would ask the CCF to explain why they have rejected the reduction in overhead cost, if they care to answer. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 198 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 135 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 115 |
| Random fact: The voters enjoy active parties who take upon themselves the initiative to create laws. |
| Random quote: "[The people] may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you made them feel." - Carl W. Buechner |