Politics Forum.org | PoFo

House wrote:I would say both parties should be allowed to submit their own confidence motions simultaneously.

Sounds good as long as the two parties agree as well.

Why would that be necessary? I'm not talking joint governments here, I'm talking about both parties submitting separate confidence motions simultaneously.

Of course if both motions pass that'd be a problem. Maybe we could flip a coin then.

Dr House wrote:I'm talking about both parties submitting separate confidence motions simultaneously.

Of course if both motions pass that'd be a problem.

Which is exactly why that won't work. Then were stalled all over again as the two argue with each other over who is legitimate.

Maybe we could flip a coin then.

Which means were back to the Greek Salad idea... And you do realize in this case that THP is full of Balkanites who live close enough to Greece to give them the benefit of the doubt?

*runs away before noeman sees this*

Still, we need something in place to account for this. Perhaps if no agreement can be reached, a simple vote amongst MPs as to which party should procede first would settle it? That would in essence count towards Honi's suggestion.

What if you had a dual confidence motion, where both parties could put their legislation on the table, and parliament would vote on both. If MPs would be able to vote 'yes' to only one motion, but 'no' to one or both motions. That way there would be no chance that both could pass.

That makes sense too 'Note, and would eliminate yet-another delaying step.

I think it would have to be structured such that if you vote on one motion, you are required to vote on the other as well (i.e., no abstentions, unless you are abstaining from both). Otherwise we would have a weird denominator for calculating whether or not the motions pass (and could possibly have a situation where both pass).

You'd also need to make it clear, that the party that loses simply has to wait their turn. It wouldn't be like they'd lose all hope.

Beyond that, I see no problems yet with the last addon either.

I simply want to avoid a situation that plays out something like this:

- 31 MPs cast votes
- 17 support Motion A, 10 of those oppose Motion B, and 7 of them abstain from Motion B.
- 14 support Motion B, 14 of those oppose Motion A.

Because then you'd have Motion A passing 17 to 14, but you'd also have Motion B passing 14 to 10 with 7 abstentions.

I like Gnote's idea.

And I'm especially relieved that I don't have to make a Greek salad.

I like Gnote's idea as well.

Just a couple of ideas about proposing bills:

- The government may propose a number of (say 3 or 4) bills at a time - where individual bills would still be voted on individually (rather than as a package). The benefit is that MPs don't need to come to vote every time a bill is proposed.

- It then follows that the government can only propose a bill or a number of bills simultaneously once per week. It would then allow three days' discussion for other parties as well as for itself to secure support, and then allow three days (72 hours) for the vote.

Is only the acting government is allowed to create bills? Are bills introduced by the opposition or private members allowed?

And if they are, how could a bill introduced by the opposition measure the confidence of the government?

And I support Honi's idea regarding legislation.

House-

I think only the government should technically be allowed to do this, yes. However, there is nothing wrong with non-government MPs proposing legislation through a government MP. In other words, if you can get a government MP to sponser your bill, there is no reason why it couldn't be formally proposed.

As far as I can tell.

So with some assistance from Dave I've been making some headway with the statistical details regarding RoP. Here's what I have so far:

Social safety net: There is a public education system left over from the military government. There is no welfare safety net whatsoever, which is probably one of the reasons why there is so much social unrest and support for the far left.

Government bond rating: BB

Detailed income info:

GDP (nominal): $634.25 billion
Per capita: $29,500

GDP (PPP): $774 billion
Per capita: $36,000

GNI (Atlas method): $20,500
GNI (PPP): $24,900

Median salary rate: $19,500
Median household income: $26,000

Personal income distribution by decile:

Bottom decile: $0-$3,420
2nd decile: $3,420 - $6,360
3rd decile: $6,360 - $10,570
4th decile: $10,570 - $13,900
5th decile: $13,900 - $16,400
6th decile: $16,400 - $21,850
7th Decile: $21,850 - $27,000
8th Decile: $27,000 - $39,000
9th Decile: $39,000 - $59,300
10th Decile: $59,300 - up

Average work week: 44 hours

Average wage rate: $8.75/hour

We still have to decide on trade data, health indicators and the state of the finances the military government left us with. Most likely the government's budget is cracked and scrambled, with massive debt, deficits and very little money in the Treasury coffers.

Thoughts so far?

Great work, House.

Demo wrote:In other words, if you can get a government MP to sponser your bill, there is no reason why it couldn't be formally proposed.

That sounds good to me.

Essentially, it introduces much-needed dynamics to the game in that the non-ruling parties cannot afford to constantly block government-sponsored bills if they wish to introduce their own bills. Now non-ruling parties need to negotiate with the government and support some of its bills in exchange for government sponsorship for their own bills.

HoniSoit wrote:Essentially, it introduces much-needed dynamics to the game in that the non-ruling parties cannot afford to constantly block government-sponsored bills if they wish to introduce their own bills. Now non-ruling parties need to negotiate with the government and support some of its bills in exchange for government sponsorship for their own bills.

Right! It makes it more likely that people will haggle for votes both ways.

This way we can get past the "dirty commie" and "evil fascist" constant state of paralysis the game has been suffering from. Makes things more interesting in general, I think.

It could also very well turn Pofo parliament into a Communist one-party state. Everyone here are ideologues and we don't have a real country against which to pit our economic ideas, so it's not likely voter configuration will change from election to election, which means if only the Commies are allowed to propose legislation, then only the commies have an active voice.

I don't like it.

And yet, if anyone can propose legislation, what's the point of winning the election?

Sorry for butting in, the new document does allow private members bills but they have no constitutional significance.

Actually, he is correct, upon re-read-- I had forgotten about that.