Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: September 5471
Next month in: 00:10:38
Server time: 03:49:21, April 19, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): 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: Anthem Update Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Social-Liberal 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: January 2083

Description[?]:

A bill to update the lyrics of the anthem to a text that rhymes and is more linguistically pleasing, while staying true to the original text. This text is also less lengthy, which should reduce excessive scrolling time.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date18:29:15, July 15, 2005 CET
FromSocial-Liberal Party
ToDebating the Anthem Update Act
Message(OOC: this is just common sense guys. The current text is ridicilously long and not very nice either with all the repeats. As it does not actually change the anthem, I was hoping everyone would agree. Waiting a bit for people to voice objections before I bring this to vote)

Date14:44:25, July 16, 2005 CET
FromPartisans And Artisans League
ToDebating the Anthem Update Act
MessageYou do have a point about the repeats - it takes ages to scroll down...

Date14:46:39, July 16, 2005 CET
FromPartisans And Artisans League
ToDebating the Anthem Update Act
MessageAlthough the PPP who introduced the anthem might argue that they aren't strictly repaets as there are slight differences...I dunno....the PAL will back the choice of the PPP because this is a technicality and since they introduced it is more a matter for their personal opinion.

Date20:32:32, July 16, 2005 CET
FromBeluzian Labor Party
ToDebating the Anthem Update Act
MessageYour anthem is better... but still... changing the national anthem is like stealing the holy water...

Date02:15:38, July 19, 2005 CET
FromSocial-Liberal Party
ToDebating the Anthem Update Act
MessagePPP? Comments please?

Date04:25:14, July 19, 2005 CET
FromFree Beluzians
ToDebating the Anthem Update Act
MessagePeople's Populist Party. I think they dropped out of sight like I almost did.


Date10:52:52, July 19, 2005 CET
FromSocial-Liberal Party
ToDebating the Anthem Update Act
Message(Bah! Holidays perhaps.)

I will bring this proposal to a vote.

Date11:07:38, July 19, 2005 CET
FromPartisans And Artisans League
ToDebating the Anthem Update Act
MessageI wanted to wait and hear their opinion.

Date11:31:33, July 19, 2005 CET
FromSocial-Liberal Party
ToDebating the Anthem Update Act
MessageOh, for <bleep>s sake, if he is not responding for days, do we really need to wait for all eternity? This is just a rational improvement to an annoyingly long anthem, and to be honest I am getting tired of that much scrolling. If PPP is on a holiday and if you vote against merely because he is on holiday then this bill will fail.

I'll just keep proposing it until it passes, if that happens.

Date12:13:15, July 19, 2005 CET
FromSocial-Liberal Party
ToDebating the Anthem Update Act
MessageI mean seriously, and this is me talking OOC, he proposed the bill but it was passed by a 2/3rds majority. He does not own it. If you block it now you'll be blocking this thing which even you said makes sense. They will not have voted at all!

If you must insist on listening to them, you can at least put your standing vote on 'yes' and switch to 'no' if the PPP suddenly comes back and goes against it. Because right now, even if PPP comes back and approves it, it will fail on account of you voting 'no' and having a lot of seats.

I proposed this July 15th. He has had plenty of time to have his say. He STILL can have his say, but right now you are blocking something you said you'd support REGARDLESS of what he thinks, with the rest pretty much agreeing with the change. :/

Date02:18:42, July 20, 2005 CET
FromFree Beluzians
ToDebating the Anthem Update Act
MessageSLP, he's not blocking anything. Since the last election and the falling out of the other parties, when it comes down to the NMRP vs the PAAL, the FBP (Me) decides what goes on.

There simply isn't enough votes to fight against an alliance of PAAL and FBP, or an alliance of NMRP and FBP.

After the next election, that'll go away, but it's been fun while it lasts ^^

Date02:19:55, July 20, 2005 CET
FromFree Beluzians
ToDebating the Anthem Update Act
MessageEr, now I feel a bit stupid. This needs 2/3rds, its not a regular bill >.<

Okay, on anything BUT that.

PAAL, please do vote for this. It is just a pain in the ARSE to scroll down, and that's the reasoning behind the change. The majority of players do want to shorten in...

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
     

Total Seats: 146

no
 

Total Seats: 90

abstain
 

Total Seats: 38


Random fact: Your user name is not your party name. Choose a concise and easy to remember user name. You can change your party name at any point in time later in the game.

Random quote: "Changing the way we measure things is vital. So is decompartmentalising society making sure that economics and politics are not divorced from other crucial areas of life." - David Attenborough

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