Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Since the spam timer discourages voting participation if there are over 9000 new bills all opened at the same time.

I think the opposition MPs should also be able to propose bills.

What kind of system for bill proposal from the opposition did you have in mind? Can I get a second here?

The opposition, to my knowledge, was supposed to appeal to the ministers to compromise and introduce legislation. Legislation is simply a matter of influencing a minister to take something to the minister's party's floor, where then it'd move to consultation and eventually the clerk would accept it as voteworthy.

As it stands, the SN-RF ministers merely made the legislation and it had minimum debate in consultation.

Vladimir and I opened up offices for which any parliament member, even non-parliament member, could ask us to propose a bill or consider an idea. No one took up the opportunity.

No matter what, it makes sense that the Clerk approves of whatever legislation is being voted on.

The point is that the opposition did not do anything in the simulation, but that wasn't going to stop the government.

Your system is arbitrary and obstructionist.

MB wrote:What kind of system for bill proposal from the opposition did you have in mind?

I have in mind a system where once the government is formed the opposition should then organise itself to form shadow ministries and propose bills through its shadow ministers (opposition parties can negotiate among themselves on appointments and introduction of bills). And say, for each week the government can propose up to 2 bills while the opposition can propose 1 (otherwise there won't be any difference between winning and losing election now that the government doesn't have the exclusive power to introduce bills).

Hopefully this system could add a lot more dynamic to the game.

That sounds like a clever, nuanced yet pragmatic and sophisticated system, which is why I know the communists will never adopt it.

MB. wrote:Your system is arbitrary and obstructionist.

Indeed, I am thinking of changing to a MAC. But as far as the current rules, I'd like to see what's so difficult about that.

FYI, the American system is such that groups make bills and the chairperson introduces them to the floor.

I do not know the MP system, but I do not believe that it is a free-for-all.

The legislative calendar does seem to be controlled by the government at least in "constitutional" matters.

Article 3. (a):

"...private member's bills may be introduced by any MP, as long as this legislation has no constitutional significance."

And there is an argument to be made that the legislative calendar is controlled by the government full stop.

Article 4. (c):

"- Those ministers will have the power to introduce legislation pertaining to their portfolio,..."