[Vanasalus]

The word came to my ears that there is an inclination in some political circles to push for a minority government instead of a normal majority government in order to exploit respective article in interim constitution, which grants an astonishing protection to minority governments.

The scheme involves the proposal of a trivial first bill, which will also be counted as the vote of confidence, by a minority government. Once such a government succeeds in first bill and be seated, then it would be almost impossible to end this government's mandate because Article-1-D of the interim constitution states "A minority government requires a super majority of 66% of the members voting to end its mandate."

We should stay extremely vigilant in next few days because tyranny is standing on our doorstep.

Hence, all dignified members of the parliament are strongly recommended to act against this malevolent plot and vote against the first bill (“vote of confidence” bill) proposed by such an minority government regardless of how trivial and sensible, that bill may sound.

Vote against tyranny.

[ingliz]

According to Gnotes "rules" every vote on proposed Government legislation is a confidence vote! And notwithstanding the clause requiring a super majority to unseat a minority mandate if a government repeatedly lost the 'vote' the GM would have to call fresh elections.

This clause was only introduced to bring about a period of stability to PoFo politics. This game cannot stand endlessly repeated rounds of balloting, perpetual elections with no clear outcome. This brief period of political stability should allow the mechanics of the game to be sorted out and a new constitution ratified with both gaining the legitimacy only a sitting parliament can give them.

[HoniSoit]

Don't make a drama of it, Van. We have had enough of them.

The clause regarding the requirement of 2/3 majority to unseat the minority government is to prevent frequent confidence vote which will make the game unplayable. The clause has been there for quite a while and no one objected to it. I'm getting really sick of people making a fuss about something after it has met no opposition and we have moved on. We cannot always go back to the beginning whenever someone happens to disagree with anything that has been broadly supported. Next time, please pay more attention - the interim constitution and its subsequent amendments are on the first page of the voting thread.

Regarding the first piece of legislation, it is currently in discussion. The SN-RF is not to propose a trivial legislation. I can personally assure you that it will be a serious bill. However, it is unreasonable to request any minority government to put forth a politically risky legislation for its confidence vote. We need to work out a compromise there. However, what you are doing is not particularly helpful.

[Oxymoron]

Why cant we form a coalition goverment again?

[HoniSoit]

We are in the process of forming a government, Oxy.

[Oxymoron]

Why? So basically this you got what ever you wanted, and now will run a Communist simulation?

[ingliz]

Read the amended interim constitution.

It is the "rule" that the largest party has the first chance to form a goverment, the SN/RF is double the size of any other party in the House.

[Andres]

The word came to my ears that there is an inclination in some political circles to push for a minority government instead of a normal majority government in order to exploit respective article in interim constitution, which grants an astonishing protection to minority governments.

Just move forward to see how the game plays out with the current rule. If it's seen to be to the detriment of the game, then you'll probably be able to garner support to change it. The same goes for Oxymoron. It's simply a game, if the rules are always being reviewed, then this will never move forward. Let it play out a while and then change what is seen not to work.

[Vanasalus]

Well, well, well. There we have got confessions.

According to Gnotes "rules" every vote on proposed Government legislation is a confidence vote! And notwithstanding the clause requiring a super majority to unseat a minority mandate if a government repeatedly lost the 'vote' the GM would have to call fresh elections.

Yet, Gnote's "rules", or interim constitution, proposes no such mechanism to force a constantly failing minority govern to step down. In other words, once such a government is seated, there is practically no way to unseat it until the next elections.

This clause was only introduced to bring about a period of stability to PoFo politics. This game cannot stand endlessly repeated rounds of balloting, perpetual elections with no clear outcome. This brief period of political stability should allow the mechanics of the game to be sorted out and a new constitution ratified with both gaining the legitimacy only a sitting parliament can give them.

If there is political instability in PoFoland, it must be largely due to the lack of dialog, sprit of goodwill and cooperation.

And, make no mistake, sir. I directly accuse you and a small yet loud clique within SN-RF for the large part of this state.

The clause regarding the requirement of 2/3 majority to unseat the minority government is to prevent frequent confidence vote which will make the game unplayable. The clause has been there for quite a while and no one objected to it. I'm getting really sick of people making a fuss about something after it has met no opposition and we have moved on. We cannot always go back to the beginning whenever someone happens to disagree with anything that has been broadly supported. Next time, please pay more attention - the interim constitution and its subsequent amendments are on the first page of the voting thread.

On the contrary... I paid more than enough attention. And, I spoke about the document until I am convinced that nobody cares about what our "obscure" THP thinks. Well, that “obscure” party became the second largest in the parliament, and now you will start listening us with more care, I presume.

Regarding the first piece of legislation, it is currently in discussion. The SN-RF is not to propose a trivial legislation. I can personally assure you that it will be a serious bill. However, it is unreasonable to request any minority government to put forth a politically risky legislation for its confidence vote. We need to work out a compromise there. However, what you are doing is not particularly helpful.

I am not against minority governments; only after the viability of all possible collation formulas are tested. That means: you will try to form a majority government with PNL, or SLD, or THP. If you fail, then PNL-SLD-THP will have a chance to form a majority government. And, if they fail too, then you can start talking about a minority government.

Yes, this document called "interim constitution", which is far from being comprehensive and perfect, may not be suggesting this process. Yet, it is the custom in all functional parliamentary democracies. Avoiding those steps before thinking about a minority government is nothing but a hidden coup d’état. And, I will not stop speaking against it.

[HoniSoit]

I am not going into this pointless debate.

You could raise the issue in the parliament and seek support there. We're definitely not going to hold a vote on this issue now. But we will do so once the government is formed.

I don't think it is wise to stall the game at this point. Raise all changes you feel necessary to make after we have a government. After all, we allow constitutional changes. But for now we need to move the game forward like andres has suggested.

I'm trying to be reasonable here; I hope you will, too.

[Falx]

This brief period of political stability should allow the mechanics of the game to be sorted out and a new constitution ratified with both gaining the legitimacy only a sitting parliament can give them.

Which could have been done democratically last election cycle had the GM council not killed the then majority government that the THP had managed to form. Having self appointed voices for the people is the only way the extreme left can govern.

[Vanasalus]

You could raise the issue in the parliament and seek support there. We're definitely not going to hold a vote on this issue now. But we will do so once the government is formed.

So, you confess that your party will proceed seeking a minority government without checking the possibilities of a coalition.

Is this your decision, or that of Ingliz? Because, I have doubts about whether the rest of your party is even aware of it.

I don't think it is wise to stall the game at this point. Raise all changes you feel necessary to make after we have a government. After all, we allow constitutional changes. But for now we need to move the game forward like andres has suggested.

I am intending to initiate a cross-party committee to start working on a new constitution in following days. Yet, its implementation will take time before it comes to parliament, weeks or maybe a month. Till that time, we have this interim document, and unfortunately, this documents requires a great deal of goodwill and wisdom for the smoothness of the events.

However, I see no goodwill or wisdom in your persistence for a minority government before seeking for a viable coalition. I only see the desire for an untouchable minority government under the protection of Article-1D. Hence I will vote against your government. And, God willing, you will be defeated by the parliament if you insist in this Machiavellian scheme.

I'm trying to be reasonable here; I hope you will, too.

I guess you are confused about what "reasonable" is or is not unless you are using that particular word to somehow discredit me.

[HoniSoit]

that particle word

particular

[ingliz]

Falx:

The coalition you proposed was a "minority" mandate as the PUC was still seated but not active and according to the Clauswitz document this would have meant any amendments passed by your illegal regime would have been unconstitutional.

ps. it would have been 'illegal' using your own measure of illegality as you could have only raised 48 votes in its favour. The SLD had previously refused to support a government having any fascist component.

[Falx]

The coalition you proposed was a "minority" mandate as the PUC was still seated but not active and according to the Clauswitz document this would have meant any amendments passed by your illegal regime, it was as illegal using your own measure of illegality, would have been unconstitutional.

Yet when I was trying to hammer it out the Pofo Directory ... er GM Council changed the rules to kick them out of government without an election. Then they changed them again, and again... and again. Make no mistake I will use up as much political capital as necessary once government is formed from preventing this sort of monstrosity from ever appearing again.

[ingliz]

The "fascist" coalition was never in government: The communists were the de facto 'caretaker' government until the GM Council dissolved parliament as they were the only "government" with a sliver of democratic legitimacy at that time (29 -7 vote). Your coalition lacked even that.

[Falx]

Iglitz, while your revisionism is endearing it is also annoying.

We'll see how well the other parties react to the constitution that you slapped on top of the elections when they actually read the whole thing and start seeing the clauses put there in good faith abused.

[ingliz]

What exactly has been abused?

[Gnote]

The confusion over my proposal is a direct result of a failure to take it through to it's natural conclusion.

1) Every vote is essentially a confidence motion. This will require that a seated government work within a set of parameters that is agreeable to the opposition parties, unless it has enough seats to constitute a majority on its own.

2) This whole idea that we will be in a perpetual state of elections is vastly over-blown. The only way we would be in such a state would be if the governing minority party failed to push an agenda that was acceptable to enough MPs outside of its party. Since a minority government, by definition, has the support of less than half the people in the country, it's only logical that they not be allowed to push their agenda with no consideration for what the larger, splintered majority wants.

This system will work if this game is to work at all. Governing parties will have to make concessions to smaller parties if they want to continue to govern. If they don't want to make concessions, they will be forced from government. Smaller parties will have an incentive to work with larger potential governing parties so that they can push their agendas. If a small party thinks that it can get some of its policies implemented in exchange for propping up a larger minority, it would be foolish not to.

[Gnote]

Honestly, the lack of response to my repeated clarification of the policy is, to me, indicative that certain people participating in this process have absolutely no desire to see the game succeed.

This latest attack on the constitutional policy we agreed on BEFORE the last elections is a plain and simple failure to actually read the discussion surrounding the decision.

Falx and Van, the two of you need to start thinking about the best interests of the game, and not let the best interests of your party cloud that.

Need I remind you, YET AGAIN, that this constitution was set BEFORE we last voted, BEFORE seats were allocated, and BEFORE any of us had any idea of the makeup of the government.