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: Administrative Reform Act of 2350
Details
Submitted by[?]: Catholic Workers Union
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: November 2352
Description[?]:
| A partial reform of our government operations. Article 1- That the maximum number of proposals allotted to each party each year should not exceed 10, so as to prevent radical shifts in the law and large, omnibus bills. Article 2- That no party shall be allowed to have more than a total of 15 proposals. Again, this is to prevent radical policy shifts. Article 3- That only the largest parties be given the right to propose cabinets, so as to emphasize the importance of the people's decision in the overall government of the nation. |
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:: 12
Current: 20
Proposed: 10
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The maximum proposal quota a party can accumulate.
Old value:: 24
Current: 40
Proposed: 15
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The constitutional right and responsibility to propose a cabinet to the legislature.
Old value:: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Current: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Proposed: Only the largest party can propose a cabinet.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:47:01, January 26, 2007 CET | From | Popular Socialist Front | To | Debating the Administrative Reform Act of 2350 |
| Message | Yes! |
| Date | 19:48:33, January 26, 2007 CET | From | Popular Socialist Front | To | Debating the Administrative Reform Act of 2350 |
| Message | What does "Honi soit qui mal y pense" mean anyway. Was Telamon originally spanish-speaking? It sounds like spanish. |
| Date | 07:07:25, January 27, 2007 CET | From | National Fasco-Communist Order | To | Debating the Administrative Reform Act of 2350 |
| Message | 5?!?! No way. |
| Date | 17:07:56, January 27, 2007 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the Administrative Reform Act of 2350 |
| Message | "No way" because you support our current motto or because you oppose Macon unionism. |
| Date | 19:07:38, January 27, 2007 CET | From | Popular Socialist Front | To | Debating the Administrative Reform Act of 2350 |
| Message | I think they object to the number of proposals |
| Date | 19:17:10, January 27, 2007 CET | From | Popular Socialist Front | To | Debating the Administrative Reform Act of 2350 |
| Message | and I like article 4. Mainly because I'm British and having both a President and a Prime Minister is confusing. Chancellor of the Commonwealth has a nice ring to it too. |
| Date | 07:51:19, January 28, 2007 CET | From | National Fasco-Communist Order | To | Debating the Administrative Reform Act of 2350 |
| Message | As the PSP said, the "5?!?!" was refering to the number of proposals per year. The MLP hasn't formulated an opinion on Macon unionism yet. |
| Date | 23:51:56, January 28, 2007 CET | From | Páirtí Sóisialach | To | Debating the Administrative Reform Act of 2350 |
| Message | Honi soit qui mal y pense is an old French motto used commonly in British heraldry. It means 'shame on those who think ill of it'. I think it is appropriate and will gladly prevent the passage of pertinent actions, such as 3, so long as articles like 4 and 5 are on the table. Chancellor!?! Come on, what is this, the Fourth Reich?!? I am not opposed to Macon unionism, but I feel that there is a better outlet available. @PSF: You would prefer none of our titles to one of them? Whilst I think the proposal on proposals is a bit restrictive, I could be willing to support them. For this to progress, I think each amendment should be brought individually. |
| Date | 00:45:57, January 29, 2007 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the Administrative Reform Act of 2350 |
| Message | What if I removed four and five and increased the number of proposals allocated to each party per year to say 10? Would that be acceptable? |
| Date | 04:56:41, January 29, 2007 CET | From | National Fasco-Communist Order | To | Debating the Administrative Reform Act of 2350 |
| Message | I would be ok with that, although I do support Article 5. |
| Date | 17:55:16, January 29, 2007 CET | From | Popular Socialist Front | To | Debating the Administrative Reform Act of 2350 |
| Message | Well, chancellor of the commonwealth sounds good and I'd rather have Prime Minister as the Head of state title. |
| Date | 00:35:37, January 30, 2007 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the Administrative Reform Act of 2350 |
| Message | Alright then, so we're at least half-way to constitutional reform. |
| Date | 12:33:33, January 30, 2007 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Administrative Reform Act of 2350 |
| Message | Definitely not - can't support article 3 |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 309 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 57 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 235 |
| Random fact: The Real-Life Equivalents Index is a valuable resource for finding out the in-game equivalents of real-life cultures, languages, religions, people and places: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6731 |
| Random quote: “Can anyone imagine a more perverse idea than forcing faithful Hosians like me to give away my money to enable irresponsible teenage girls to kill off their children because they were too drunk to use a damn condom?" - Dr. Francesca dos Santos, former Dranian politician |