[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

If the entirety of your party is abstaining than no one even needs to come to parliament. If your party does have a viewpoint and chooses to post it over and over again, parliament can always censure you.

[Clausewitz]

Yes, but what you propose is optional, a smaller party could easily fill out all its seats with members and then be able to shout down the larger parties by simple volume of posts. This is a recipe for anarchy in parliament, all you'd have to do is swamp the discussion/voting thread and the thing essentially becomes meaningless. And if rules aren't put in place to prevent that I as a small party would be an idiot not to abuse it.

# Once the Clerk of the Parliament certifies that a seat has been assigned an MP, that seat may not be estranged from that MP until the next general election conducted by the Clerk of the Parliament, except by the express and public consent of the MP (certified by the Clerk of the Parliament), or by a 2/3 vote of the Parliament to impeach that MP.

Oh, I beg you Falx, give me the reason.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Even better.

[Vanasalus]

If the entirety of your party is abstaining than no one even needs to come to parliament. If your party does have a viewpoint and chooses to post it over and over again, parliament can always censure you.

This is a corrupt politician speaking, seeing himself above will of the people. We, in THP, will not yield before corruptness of the rest.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

This is a corrupt politician speaking, seeing himself above will of the people. We, in THP, will not yield before corruptness of the rest.

Referring to yourself, right? I don't think it was the will of the people to have you come into parliament and waste taxpayers' money on your salaries if you're just going to jump up and down and make a mockery of the democratic party. They voted for a humanist party, not a useless party.

[Falx]

Actually no one voted for the humanist party, I promised this party to several voters and they voted for it on the basis of what the updated version of the party policy says. The name just stayed because I couldn't think a new one up fast enough, that's why we now only use the acronym THP rather than the meaning behind it.

Oh and I oppose any raise in payment for parliament.

[Donna]

They voted for a humanist party, not a useless party.

I motion for a LOL.

[Vanasalus]

Oh and I oppose any raise in payment for parliament.

I oppose any parliament bigger than 50.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Actually no one voted for the humanist party, I promised this party to several voters and they voted for it on the basis of what the updated version of the party policy says. The name just stayed because I couldn't think a new one up fast enough, that's why we now only use the acronym THP rather than the meaning behind it.

Then you're a farce of a party and we will be doing a service to the democratic process by censuring you. I'm sure that all your votes came from the anti-democratic supporters of the autocratic rule. You are being used as a pawn in their move to bring down the democratic process.

Oh and I oppose any raise in payment for parliament.

I oppose any pay for parliament.

[Dr House]

I oppose any pay for parliament.

I disagree, for the same reason Washington did: If politicians don't get paid only the rich can participate.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

So what? This means the commies can't participate by default. Unless they're class traitors.

[Demosthenes]

So what? This means the commies can't participate by default. Unless they're class traitors.

We have little need of pay. We work in service to the people for renumeration greater than simple payment can ever deliver.

2/3 vote of the Parliament to impeach that MP

YOu will be lucky to get 50% of anything, let alone 66%. Though I don't speak for the SN-RF voting coalition, I highly doubt we would ever vote to censure anyone save those engaging in true criminality.

[Dr House]

I motion for a LOL.

Motion seconded.

[Clausewitz]

YOu will be lucky to get 50% of anything, let alone 66%. Though I don't speak for the SN-RF voting coalition, I highly doubt we would ever vote to censure anyone save those engaging in true criminality.

Falx was talking about running this simulation into the ground. You still wouldn't impeach?

[Falx]

Falx was talking about running this simulation into the ground.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped slandering me Clausewitz, else I'll have to ask the more witty and creative members of my party to start posting "exclusive" stories about you too.

[Demosthenes]

Falx was talking about running this simulation into the ground. You still wouldn't impeach?

Why don't we wait and see how things turn out first, then make any decisions that come up once he's actually done something evil.

If anyone actually does something a 66% majority considers evil, then fine. We'll be open to talking about it.

But don't expect that just because you can't get your way, that we will all fall in line.

Remember, the SLD-SN-PUC negotiations largely broke down because of you.

I, for one, am not keen to cozy up to you any time soon as a result. Unless of course, Vlad and the RF say otherwise.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Uh, the SLD-SN-PUC negotiations were doomed from the start, as Nets has always stated that he would not be in a coalition with the RF. Once the RF and the SN joined forces, there was no possibility of a PUC-SLD-SN relationship.

[Demosthenes]

Uh...the RF and SN did not join forces until the talks broke off...at least not fully.

Just as the PUC was dealing with multiple parties, so too was the SLD at that time.

Clausewitz pretty much singlehandedly mucked it up with his demands on the SLD and the SN.

RF had absolutely nothing to do with it at that time.