Forum:First Chamber

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

The First Chamber is one of the two chambers of the Lovian Congress, the federal legislative branch. Unlike in other nations, the lower chamber serves as a room for debating and compromising, and the higher Second Chamber is where Members of the Congress vote bills that have passed through the First Chamber.

All inhabitants are allowed entry to the Congress, though only Members of the Congress have the right to actively participate.

Postal service
Because of above i also want to propose the following: Article ?: With addition of one letter. In case a postal district contains one neighborhood, this letter is assigned to a street. In case a postal district contains more neighborhoods, the letter represents a neighborhood
 * 1) The Lovian Postal service is a organization sorting mails, regulating the postal code system, and the post seals (this is a direct translation of postzegel)
 * 2) The lovian postal service uses this postal code system:
 * 1:Sylvania:
 * 1000: Noble city (Downtown)
 * 1010:South Noble City
 * 1020:North Noble City
 * 1030: West Noble City
 * 1040:East Noble City
 * 1050:Train Village
 * 1051:Clave Rock
 * 1060:Nicholasville
 * 2:Oceana
 * 2000:Hurbanova (downtown)
 * 2001: East Hills
 * 2010: Millstreet
 * 2020:Drake Town
 * 3:Kings
 * 3000:Newhaven downtown
 * 3010 Abby Springs
 * 3020: Under abby:Excludng Malipa
 * 3030:Malipa
 * 4:Clymene
 * 4000:Sofasi downtown:
 * 4001:Adoha
 * 4010:Hightech Valley
 * 5:Seven
 * 5000:Kinley
 * 1) Post seals from the Lovian Postal service contain a stylized portrait of the incumbent monarch
 * 2) In case there is no monarch, a image of the flag is used
 * 3) The postal service is administered by the Department of Industry, Agriculture and Trade
 * 4) There is a postal council, whihc contains all mayors.
 * 5) Post has to contain a post seal to be free
 * 6) post is sorted automatically

Talk
Any comments? Pierlot McCrooke 08:11, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, look at the previous topic. 10:22, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I already saw that. That is why i am proposing this Pierlot McCrooke 10:40, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Pierlot McCrooke, it looks as if you were inspired by the Belgian postal code system. Suppose in this virtual world, the largest city becomes a small hamlet (earthquake, innondation, migration of citizens), the system would prove not to be workable anymore. In my opinion, we should stick to the hexacode. --Lars Washington 10:43, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel the hexacode is too easy too use for criminals. I also have to say: the hexacodes are illegal used. Why? There was never a vote on them in congress, they where just voered in'(sorry for my bad english) undemocratically. That is what i want to change Pierlot McCrooke 10:47, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlegal? Well let's vote for it and make it legal, if that makes you happy, but that does not mean I agree with your concern. --Lars Washington 10:50, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont really get you Pierlot McCrooke 10:53, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I im not in favor to change the existing postal code, hexacode, that's all. --Lars Washington 14:45, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything wrong with the old system anyway. But I can see

Pierlot has done quite some thinking on this matter. Since you, Pierlot, like to "merge towns" so much as you do, why not "merge" the two postal code systems into a combination of both? That's really your thing after all! Dr. Magnus 18:04, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is too much. By the way do you support this? THis is similar too TNT post in the netherlands Pierlot McCrooke 19:28, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

What is the opinion of yuri? Pierlot McCrooke 10:28, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Lowering the power of the King/PM
This is the first part of a bigger reform plan. This part of the plan is to be treated as one proposal. The goal of this part is to give more power to the Congress and to neutralize the positions of King and PM.

Separation of Powers
Currently the Lovian Constitution states in article 1.A.3. that:
 * Lovia shall be organized based on the principle of the separation and balance of powers - legislative, executive, and judicial - within the framework of constitutional democracy.

I would like to make this more concrete by adding the following sentence:


 * Therefore no person is entitled to combine a top function in two or three branches of government; thus, the ruling monarch, the Prime Minister and the Supreme Court Judge shall be no less than three different persons.

Mid-term and Crisis Elections
One of the fields were the King and PM have too much power (compared to Congress, were the real sovereignty lies) are the organization of 'special elections'. The mid-term elections for example can only be organized on initiative of the PM. And there are no regulations at all about what to do when most of Congress is inactive. Therefore I suggest the following:


 * Changing Art.8.1.4: Mid-term elections can be organized if proposed in Congress and approved by a Congressial majority. (instead of "by the PM").
 * Adding an Art.8.1.5: New federal elections have to be held when more than half of the Members of the Congress are inactive; either self-declared or if they have not edited for over a month (31 days); or when the Prime Minister steps down.

This would also require a description of when the PM has to step down. I will handle that in the following part of this proposal.

Federal Secretaries and Impeachment
To make Congress even stronger against the King and PM, we have to build in an impeachment procedure that allows Congress to fire the entire government:


 * Adding an Art.8.2.3.1: When Congress has lost its trust in the incumbent government, it can vote a motion of distrust. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority (50%), both government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held.
 * Adding an Art.8.2.3.2: When the Prime Minister and his government resign, Congress is dissolved and new federal elections are to be held.

Furthermore, Congress should be able to question Federal Secretaries and other executives of the government. Also, the power of the King and PM in the composition of the government is too big. Therefore I would make these two changes:


 * Rewriting Art.8.2.1: ''The monarch and PM will chose which MOTC will become Secretaries of a certain Department. Their proposal needs to be accepted by a normal majority in Congress.
 * Rewriting Art.8.2.2: ''Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities. When they have lost their trust in the questioned person, they can vote a motion of distrust against him/her. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority (50%), he/she has to resign and a replacement has to be proposed by the PM and approved by Congress.

Talk
My support Pierlot McCrooke 10:27, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I here and there change your wordchoice and such? 10:29, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, and filter out the spelling mistakes and all that.  10:32, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will, thanks. 10:35, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't mind that I took a good cut in both our respective powers?  10:36, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't Yuri. In fact, I always wanted this to happen. Democratization after demographic growth. 10:38, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad we can agree in these matters. That are already three votes, still six to go I guess?! 10:41, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Question: Why dissolve Congress if the Gov resigns? Is this really necessary; can't we figure out a more easy way? Elections can take up to two months! 10:44, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * They also do that in NL. BUt i dont know a easier way Pierlot McCrooke 10:45, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, they do it in most democracies. In fact this is the only 'correct' way to do so. Another option would be for the King to compose a new government with the person who got second most votes in the original elections. This all is however an emergency scenario of which I doubt it will happen. 10:47, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine with me. Has the Dutch Queen already accepted Balkenende's resignation, btw? 11:25, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * No Pierlot McCrooke 11:27, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is she still on ski holiday in Austria? 11:27, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont know Pierlot McCrooke 11:28, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

The Waldeners hereby give their full support to this proposal cluster. 12:59, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I support it too. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:10, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Abolishing the undemocratic local regulations
This is the second plan of above mentioned reform plan. This part is also to be treated as a whole and aims at introducing more transparency and democracy in legal regulations.

Because legal regulations made on local levels (states, towns, etc.) are undemocratic, we should abolish them. Only Congress should be able to declare a law. This would imply the following changes to the Constitution:


 * Art. 4.2/4.3/4.4 : removing the regulations concerning judicial structures on these levels; leaving only Congress in power to declare a law.
 * Deleting Article 5, that regulates the devision of judicial power between national (Congress) and local level(s).
 * Art. 6.1: replacing 'Federal or State Law' by just 'Federal Law'.
 * Art. 6.3: removing the regulations concerning the creation of a State Law.

Furthermore, I would like to make it possible for anyone to propose a law. Currently, only MOTC can do so. This would require the following changes:


 * Art. 6.2.1: One or more Members of the Congress write a motion --> Anyone can write a motion and propose it in Congress (First Chamber)
 * Art. 7.3.1: One or more Members of the Congress write an amendment --> Anyone can write an amendment and propose it in Congress (First Chamber)

Also, the judicial institutions on state level should be abolished. There are - luckily - not too many trials in Lovia and Supreme Court can manage them all. Therefor I would like to suggest that we also alter the following:


 * Art. 9.1: All judicial cases are to be handled by the Supreme Court (instead of the endless list of what they can do and what is for State Court).
 * The deletion of Article 10, which names the fields of authority for the State Courts.

Talk
My support, but a new role for the states has to be found Pierlot McCrooke 10:30, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but because that is a more delicate matter it should be addressed afterwards. 10:31, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

New version (Pierlot)
THis revision above removes some removals by Yuri because otherwise states would be usless

I would like to make it possible for anyone to propose a law. Currently, only MOTC can do so. This would require the following changes:


 * Art. 6.2.1: One or more Members of the Congress write a motion --> Anyone can write a motion and propose it in Congress (First Chamber)
 * Art. 7.3.1: One or more Members of the Congress write an amendment --> Anyone can write an amendment and propose it in Congress (First Chamber)

Also, the judicial institutions on state level should be abolished. There are - luckily - not too many trials in Lovia and Supreme Court can manage them all. Therefor I would like to suggest that we also alter the following:

Pierlot McCrooke 10:49, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Art. 9.1: All judicial cases are to be handled by the Supreme Court (instead of the endless list of what they can do and what is for State Court).
 * The deletion of Article 10, which names the fields of authority for the State Courts.
 * If I have to choose between undemocratic states or useless states, I will pick the latter. Also, in my proposal, states aren't useless but only taken away their judicial powers. They can still enact the regulation. 14:19, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe making the the second chamber the state chamber should fix the issue. But until this issue is fixed, states have to be undemocratical Pierlot McCrooke 18:31, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Changes in the citizenship regulations
This is the final part of the reform plan and is rather small. I believe its intention is clear.

Because the regulations concerning citizenship are rather obscure (inhabitant for four days; 50 usefull edits), I would like to propose the following changes:

3.1. You can become a Lovian citizen if
 * 1. You are active for at least four days
 * 2. You have made at least 50 edits

Only those two conditions have been altered, all other regulations would still stand (like giving name and gender).

Talk
I hope that all these references and changes are clear. It wasn't easy to write. If you should have any questions, just ask me or try to have a look at the Constitution. 10:34, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * My support Pierlot McCrooke 10:41, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mine not yet. I had a more concrete proposal in mind. I'll try to write it down as well, okay? 11:24, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. This is the part of the reform I spent least time on, as the result clearly shows. 11:30, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very pleased with the idea of a faster regulation for citizens. I support the other proposals too. Well done! Harold Freeman 11:40, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

New version (Dimitri)
My more concrete version, including a residence section:

Article 3 – The Lovian citizenship
 * 1) Every inhabitant of Lovia has the right to become a Lovian citizen.
 * 2) An inhabitant of Lovia is every person who has a domicile (permanent residence) within Lovia.
 * 3) There are requirements to become a Lovian citizen:
 * 4) He or she must reside in Lovia.
 * 5) He or she must have made at least 50 edits.
 * 6) Acts of vandalism or related edits are not to be included in this count.
 * 7) He or she must truthfully provide the following personal information:
 * 8) His or her official name that consists of at least one given name and a surname.
 * 9) His or her biological sex.
 * 10) His or her domicile (permanent residence); this being a full adress of a residence in a Lovian city or town.
 * 11) The rights of a citizen are described in Article 2.
 * 12) One's citizenship may be taken away as a punishment in a trial.

What about this version? 11:42, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds alright to me. 11:45, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * We (WLP) back it. 13:02, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is good. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:13, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Again a new version (Pierlot)
Article 3 – The Lovian citizenship Pierlot McCrooke 11:47, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Every inhabitant of Lovia has the right to become a Lovian citizen.
 * 2) An inhabitant of Lovia is every person who has a domicile (permanent residence) on a wiki-style map within Lovia.
 * 3) There are requirements to become a Lovian citizen:
 * 4) He or she must reside in Lovia.
 * 5) He or she must have made at 50 edits.
 * 6) Acts of vandalism or related edits are not to be included in this count.
 * 7) He or she must truthfully provide the following personal information:
 * 8) His or her official name that consists of at least one given name and a surname.
 * 9) His or her biological sex.
 * 10) His or her domicile (permanent residence); this being a full adress of a residence in a Lovian city or town.
 * 11) The rights of a citizen are described in Article 2.
 * 12) One's citizenship may be taken away as a punishment in a trial. This needs to be voted upon by Congress, because this may be controversial
 * The issue with the judicial branch is exactly that they solve things the Congress can't do... 11:50, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Citizen right take-offs are controversial, so i think this should be voted by Ciongress Pierlot McCrooke 11:53, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course they are controversial: but votes can be controversial too! The deal is: a judge judges the case, and his judgement should be considered fair as it is within the Constitutional limits. 12:00, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the traditional view on this: judges are indeed capable of making a 'correct' decision. If you deserve a block then the loss of citizen can be added too. 12:02, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Amendment bill: Article 1B
I wish to rewrite the Constitutional Article 1B (about the monarchy).

Current state
Article 1 B - Lovia is a monarchy, ruled by a king or queen.
 * 1) The ruling monarch is the person who inherited the throne. This can be the king or the queen.
 * 2) The partner of the ruling monarch is the one who married the person who inherited the throne and
 * 3) A new king or queen:
 * 4) The monarch of Lovia is the first-born child of the previous ruling monarch.
 * 5) The person the most related to the former king will become ruling monarch.
 * 6) * If the former monarch didn’t have any children.
 * 7) * If the first-born child refuses to become king or queen.
 * 8) The heir to the throne has to sign the constitution before his or her inauguration.
 * 9) The king or queen and his or her partner are automatically Members of the Congress.
 * 10) The king and queen have the right to become a federal secretary and/or a member of one or more state governments and/or a member of a city or town government.
 * 11) The ruling monarch receives means by the Department of Finance to compensate his or her expenses. The Secretary of Finance has the right to turn down means if the expenses are not of any general use or if the monarch has spent too much on unnecessary items.
 * 12) The ruling monarch can also:
 * 13) * Grant a civilian an extra living as a gift.
 * 14) * Grant a company or store the right to be an official Royal Warrant.
 * 15) Every member of the Royal family is equal to normal citizens.

Proposed state
Article 1 B - Lovia is a monarchy, ruled by the ruling monarch.
 * 1) The ruling monarch is the person who legally inherited the throne from the previous ruling monarch. He or she is thus a descendant of the first Lovian monarch, King Arthur I of Lovia (Arthur Noble).
 * 2) The ruling monarch can be either male (the King) or female (the Queen).
 * 3) The partner of the ruling monarch is the person who legally married the ruling monarch. She is a member of the royal family, but does not enjoy privileges over the citizens of Lovia.
 * 4) The person who legally inherits the Lovian throne, after the previous ruling monarch has either deceased or abdicated, is the person who is most directly related in terms of kinship to the previous ruling monarch.
 * 5) The heir to the throne will sign the Constitution upon his coronation.
 * 6) The ruling monarch is Member of the Congress by Right, meaning he is automatically granted a seat in the Lovian Congress.
 * 7) The ruling monarch is thus not permitted to participate in elections to Congress.
 * 8) The ruling monarch has the right to demand financial support from the Department of Finances, in which case the Secretary of Finance can decide to grant the ruling monarch an amount of money, in agreement with Congress.
 * 9) With the exception of the ruling monarch in function, no member of the royal family is granted extralegal privileges. Each member of the royal family, with the exception of the ruling monarch in function, is a regular citizen as determined by the Constitution.

Changes
This is what I did:
 * 1) I formalized the article's word use and brought some uniformity to the use of terms as "ruling monarch" and "king or queen".
 * 2) I simplified the paragraph about inheriting the throne.
 * 3) The queen formally was an automatic MOTC as well (!). This I deleted.
 * 4) I deleted the sentence that the king and queen could become secretary and such: that sentence was not needed. As long as there is no sentence saying they cannot do so, they can.
 * 5) I deleted the sentence about the king getting money from the Finance Department. Instead, I added a sentence saying the king could ask for money, and that the Congress would have to agree with what the Finance Secretary decided to do with it.
 * 6) I deleted the king's right to:
 * 7) * Give extra residences to some citizens (very undemocratic)
 * 8) * Do Royal Warrants (silly system)
 * 9) I reformed the last sentence about the other members of the royal family. Qua content, nothing changes here.

Talk
This is what I earlier promised to do. So here it is. 08:42, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am pro Pierlot McCrooke 10:42, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! Do you think we can start moving the whole load to the 2nd Chamber? 11:22, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Group it according to content, and let's start voting. Will you notify all MOTCs? 11:27, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Either you can do it now/this evening/tomorrow or I will do it this weekend. 11:46, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll perhaps do it tomorrow. In ten minutes' time I'm off to Ghent. 13:19, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree with these changes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:16, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Another thing
I can't find it back in the law, but shouldn't someone who commited a crime elsewhere (in another wikination/site) be guaranteed that he won't be punished for that in Lovia? In the past we've seen - mainly other wikinations - doing this and it's not a good way of dealing with things. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:56, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well noticed. We should indeed try to get something of this kind into law. 08:53, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. In March - that's tomorrow - the elections in Mäöres end and we'll also try to get it in the law there too. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:56, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well. Do feel free to propose the same here in Lovia . If you don't feel like it, I'll look into it myself next week. 08:58, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about people who committed crimes against humanity or internationally wanted terrorists? Just kidding, good idea! 08:59, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Therefore we have outchangingsfor bearings treaties (=uitwisselingsverdragen) ;) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:02, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with OuWTB's idea. 13:02, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, got my support too. Harold Freeman 14:29, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Belgium could once arrest, trial and sentence anyone we was accused of crimes against humanity. We had to drop this law though because of pressure from the international community (mainly big nations that made war). Too bad. Perhaps Lovia can become this open too? 09:04, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Naa, would get too political. 09:05, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad, I liked the idea. But I understand that it is too far removed from the no-nonsense style of the Lovian law. 09:08, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, someone who committed a severe crime on another wikia should have this on his/her (strafregister) for a couple of months, just to remind him/her of his/her wrongdoing elsewhere and because other users should at least be informed. --Lars Washington 09:24, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

So, are we going to vote this one? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:44, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Preface
The present situation:
 * There is only one highway (Highway 1) in use
 * Lovia being an archipelago of small islands, the construction of new highways is rather difficult
 * The highways are numbered, starting at one; and so far only Highway 1 is in use

Highway plan
The 2010 Highway Plan consists of these items:
 * In the United States, odd numbers generally indicate a north-south route, and even numbers mean an east-west route. We could adopt this system in Lovia as well.
 * In that case, the Highway 1 will be divided into smaller portions:
 * The section Hurbanova-Noble City will become the new Highway 2
 * The section Noble City-Train Village will remain Highway 1, and this road will be extended both north and south
 * The section Train Village-Newhaven will become the new Highway 4, and will also be extended west
 * A north-south oriented highway across Kings will be constructed, and be named Highway 3
 * A north-south oriented highway across Asian Island will be constructed, and be named Highway 5
 * In a later phase, a north-south oriented highway from the Emerald Highlands (Clave Rock and East Hills) to Hurbanova would be constructed, and be named Highway 7

Highway overview
The proposed system:
 * Highway 1 new.png Highway 1: Blue Sea shore - Train Village - Noble City - southern tip of Sylvania
 * Highway 2 new.png Highway 2: Hurbanova - Noble City
 * Highway 3 new.png Highway 3: northern tip of Kings - Newhaven
 * Highway 4 new.png Highway 4: Clave Rock - Train Village - Connection Bridge - Newhaven
 * Highway 5 new.png Highway 5: Adoha - Clymene State Airport - Sofasi
 * Highway 7 new.png Highway 7: Clave Rock - East Hills - Hurbanova

Construction plan

 * Phase 1: Re-organization of Highway 1 (April 2010)
 * Phase 2: Construction of primary connections (April 2010 - September 2010)
 * Full construction Highway 3
 * Full construction Highway 5
 * Phase 3: Construction of secondary connections (October 2010 - January 2011)
 * Construction Highway 1 between the Blue Sea shore and Train Village
 * Construction Highway 1 between the Noble City and the southern tip of Sylvania
 * Construction Highway 4 between Clave Rock and Train Village
 * Phase 4: Construction of the Emeralds-Hurbanova connection (December 2010 - March 2011)
 * Construction Highway 7 between Clave Rock, East Hills and Hurbanova

Talk
In my judgment, a federal secretary can arrange things like these by himself. i do however wish to involve Congress in the process: if democratically agreed on, our plan stands a lot stronger. i would like all members of the congress to think well of the plan i present you here today. It might finally be a solution to a highway "system" that was hard to alter. with this proposal, our nation will be able to construct new highways in the future without having to change the numbering system, or without having irregularities all over. 07:35, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could there as well be a highway to East Hills? From Hurbanova to the north, entlang the ocean and then to the Emeralds where East Hills is located. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:46, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, that would be good :). Is it good if i put it on the construction plan around december 2010? 07:50, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this plan. Pierlot McCrooke 07:56, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:00, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for your support fellows  08:00, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * You have mine as well. I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to tackle old issues! 09:19, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * You have my support. Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 16:55, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW: you can already vote in Second Chamber Pierlot McCrooke 16:58, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Voting options amendment bill
Constitution, Article 6.2.4:
 * Every Member of the Congress can vote (pro, contra or abstention).

Should be:
 * Every Member of the Congress can vote (pro, contra, neutral, back to first chamber, merge proposal with another or abstention).
 * Pro means that you support the proposal, contra means that you oppose it, neutral is a mix of pro and contra (for using when you support some points but also oppose some points), abstention means no opinion, back to first chamber means that you support the proposal going back to the First Chamber for some adjustments and Merge with another proposal means that you support merging the proposal with another.

I think that is good. Pierlot McCrooke 18:42, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Probably better

 * Every Member of the Congress can vote (pro, contra, neutral, back to first chamber, ).
 * Pro means that you support the proposal, contra means that you oppose it, neutral is a mix of pro and contra (for using when you support some points but also oppose some points)and back to first chamber means that you support the proposal going back to the First Chamber for some adjustments
 * Only if a Majority is for back to first chamber, the proposal may be moved back to First Chamber
 * A Neutral vote is not counted in the uitslag (i have this from wikipedia)
 * If a Proposal is defeated, it may be sent back WITHOUT voting

Other suggestions? Pierlot McCrooke 11:05, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Other option
Removing all voting options and make it so that the maker of the proposal can make the voting options: I was thinking of this solution. MOTC can then vote every option a maker of a proposal offers. This would require deleting voting templates Pierlot McCrooke 15:14, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Talk
I think this would do good for democracy Pierlot McCrooke 08:36, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't believe it's necessary. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:38, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your proposal then? I at least want neutral back Pierlot McCrooke 08:38, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are neutral you can use abstention and say you're neutral. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:39, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Abstention means: really no opinion. Neutral means: a mix of contra and pro Pierlot McCrooke 08:41, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. There's no difference in the outcome of the vote then. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:42, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * It really DOES matter. Abstention and Neutral arent the same Pierlot McCrooke 08:44, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll never use both the templates, so actually I don't care. I would be in favor of adding "samþykkt" and "á móti" as templates though. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:45, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the translation of that? Pierlot McCrooke 08:47, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * "pro" and "contra". --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:42, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Pierlot, I wish to point that "abstention" isn't just "no opinion". According to Wiktionary: So, if one chooses to abstain, he can do that for a whole set of reasons; not just because he/she has no opinion. Just wanted to make that clear. 09:17, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Abstention = The act of abstaining; a holding aloof
 * To abstain = (3) Deliberately refrain from casting one's vote at a meeting where one is present
 * The lovian vot eoption means no opinion Pierlot McCrooke 09:19, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, shut it. You know it doesn't. The law says nothing about what it means, so it means what the dictionaries say it means. 09:20, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * We should making a law defining the voting options. Because it isnt clear Pierlot McCrooke 09:21, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * All other MOTCs seem to find it clear... 09:26, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know but the difference between Abstention and Neutral werent very clear in my proposal so i added it Pierlot McCrooke 09:30, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made a somewhat different proposal. It deletes abstention and replaces it by Neutral Pierlot McCrooke 10:54, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem stays the same. 10:57, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * What for problem? Pierlot McCrooke 10:57, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not solving anything, only making it more complex, and less concise. 10:59, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be complex, but i might solve it abit Pierlot McCrooke 10:59, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, i am not so good in writing lawtexts Pierlot McCrooke 11:06, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Still too complicated. And if a majority votes against a proposal it already is clear, that it's better to send it back to the 1st chamber. Holding a vote for sending it back is bureaucracy and only takes too much time. Also, it will result in the following: one can no longer propose something that has been proposed in the 1st chamber, as there is no majority vote for sending it back and therefore it will become a mess. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:17, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why dont you write a alternative then? Pierlot McCrooke 11:19, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I'm fine with the current regulations. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:22, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue ("one can no longer propose...") that you pointed out here, is indeed important. Thanks for doing that :) 12:32, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

I have added something. BTW:The back to first chamber voting option is for people who arent against A proposal, but still want it rewritten Pierlot McCrooke 11:23, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we should also have a template for those who still doubt whether they want it rewritten and vote against, for those who still doubt whether they want it rewritten and vote in favor and for those who still doubt whether they want it rewritten and vote neutral/abstention, and so on. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:43, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not needed, people who want to vote that, can vote against, or neutral Pierlot McCrooke 11:48, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Voting policy
You may not have noticed, but at Libertas, incidentally, I discovered there has been some tampering with my voting. This is not the first time this kind of vandalism occurs. Isn't there a possibility to avoid this, by organizing a fair voting system? It is possible, cause it has been done here in the passed with the polls. --Lars Washington 15:39, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen it too. I think Lovia has quite a fair voting system, isn't it? This is for sure: there have never been such irrevgularities as the Libertan parliament currently has. Is there something you'd like to propose here, Lars, or are you fine with the Lovian situation? 15:52, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, everything is very, fine. Lovia is the friendliest place in town --Lars Washington 15:57, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope things get better in Libertas as well. 15:59, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish I could do something about it, to help change this ㅎ_ㅎing situation. --Lars Washington 16:11, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

I REALLY hope wikistad will get closed. Wikstad constantly leads to fights Pierlot McCrooke 16:21, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is that, McCrooke? Because you were kicked off the site? Need I remind you that you where the cause of the majority of conflicts over there? ;) Dr. Magnus 16:49, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Evryone did. Even wiki staff wanted to close the website Pierlot McCrooke 17:12, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Government support for welfare campaigns
In the light of mr. Donia's milk campaign I (Medvedev) would like to make the following proposal:

Bill (Federal Law)
Article 13 - Health and Charity Campaigns Act
 * 1) Any non-profit campaign that is privately organized, putting effort in the realization of one or more of the topics listed below, shall be able to apply for financial and/or infrastructural support at the Department of Welfare.
 * 2) Campaigns eligible for government support are:
 * 3) Campaigns which counteract, try to prevent or raise awareness about abusive consumption of food, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and/or narcotics.
 * 4) Campaigns which counteract, try to prevent or raise awareness about violence, hatred, and/or discrimination.
 * 5) Campaigns which promote or give advice about a healthy lifestyle.
 * 6) Campaigns which raise support, either by means of financial contributions or other means, for charitable causes in and outside Lovia.
 * 7) Campaigns which promote or give advice about a proper education.
 * 8) Campaigns which promote or give advice about the use of contraceptives.
 * 9) Any campaign applying for government support shall make use of factual information in support of its goal.

Original list (to illustrate some possible campaigns)
Campaigns against unhealthy consumption (abusive alcoholism, smoking, ...) Campaigns against violence and hatred (racism, domestic violence, ...) Campaigns that promote a healthy lifestyle (exercise, eating fish, drinking milk, ...) Campaigns to raise support for good causes (third world, fourth world, ...) Campaigns that promote a good education Campaigns that promote contraceptives

Talk
The text between brackets are only examples and not to be taken up in the law. They can however be put on the Department of Welfare article as a guideline for future campaigners. It would be up to the Secretary of Welfare to judge which campaign is suited and which isn't. 08:30, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I do some rewriting? 08:48, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Spelling, grammar, adding option, ... do as you please!  08:49, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). I also want to rework those brackets "". 08:52, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see they're only examples Good.  08:52, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * So that people have an idea what they are voting for. 08:54, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about this? I hope you didn't think I edited it too much (which I probably did).  09:07, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * A real top-shelf bill! 09:41, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would't wait too long: just move it to the 2nd Chamber  13:18, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ich bin für. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:27, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving it in about five minutes. 14:41, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Forbidding Yuri to demolish Pines
I want to forbid Yuri to demolish Pines. Otherwise we have housing problems, becase many places are full Pierlot McCrooke 17:32, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I sense a little paradox here, I'm turning this uninhabited neighborhood (only one citizen and a camping) into a natural park because there are too many houses unoccupied elsewhere. There is no shortage of houses, Pierlot, there are too many . Half of Newhaven is not in use, I'm trying to fix that. 18:24, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe changign it in a restaurant and shopping neighborhood and demolish that too large shopping center? Pierlot McCrooke 18:27, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * The shopping center is indeed to big. I'll tear that down in the future too, or at least take of a floor. Again, I do feel that a neighborhood with one inhabitant is just a spillover. There is plenty of space left in Newhaven ánd everywhere else. 18:30, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just demolish that shopping center Pierlot McCrooke 18:31, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then there would still be too many space left. Perhaps there should be a law that declares cities to have either two thirds of their space occupied or simplifications have to be made. 18:35, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pierlot McCrooke 18:36, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't support such a law either, it was only hypothetical. But the (non-)occupation of buildings is a real problem in Lovia, one that is severely neglected. 18:38, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Gibberish
Should we perhaps consider writing a rules and customs book for Congress, as they have in America? Some people just don't seem to get that this place is not a kindergarten. Pierlot, if you don't like something, then you must have a reasonable argument with that person. Starting campaigns and childish bills in Congress is of nu use. 19:05, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am supporting this. I think i have done too much. But I didnt like yuris changes Pierlot McCrooke 19:06, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Still no reason to panic. You should learn how to react properly, Pierlot. 19:07, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "neighborhood"
At the moment the law doesn't define the word "neighborhood". (see also ). Therefore I believe we should put something in the law. I propose the following (to be re-written to better/more formal English as this is just an outlet of thoughts): --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:33, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * A neighborhood is a part of a town or city.
 * A neighborhood should at least have one residential spot (otherwise there can't be the minimum of 121 inhabitants).
 * (Are we still doing the Chairman thing?)
 * other ideas?
 * i support the getting rid of undemocratic chairmen. if i understand it well, it sort of means you "reign" over a portion of the city, and you decide what the streetnames will be and who can build where. if so, i support the abolishment of this function. And i do support the things you propose here oos wes. 08:14, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I share Mr. McCandless's opinion in this matter. -- 18:12, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, or we should say a chairman would "collect ideas from the people in the neighborhood" and bring them to the mayor. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:30, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Motion of no confidence: Pierlot McCrooke
Wants to leave the wiki, almost resigned, vandalism. Any supporters? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:30, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Little problem: Congress cannot fire its members. Under the Third Amendment a motion of distrust was built in to fire Federal Secretaries (which he is not) or the entire government (which he is not). 15:34, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! "Motion of no confidence" - I love this strange English you use, McCrooke! I am laughing so hard I almost shit myself! Dr. Magnus 15:34, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then there's a big problem in the law I guess. Up to the fourth amendment I'd say! :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:36, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what you were elected for. 15:38, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * For what? :O --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:38, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * To amend and write the law? You know, the kind of thing I and Yuri do. 15:41, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh that. Well, I try to have some input in the 1st chamber here (see the section above), but I can't write the laws in such good English as you can :( --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:43, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * A stub is a good start . I gladly rewrite bills, but I can't just "suck 'm out of my thumb" ;) 15:44, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah ok, that's right :P Need to go now -> FOOD. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:45, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * MOTC are elected and can only quit themselves. Otherwise the majority could simply throw the opposition out; there is no sane country in the world that allows such practices. I do see the beauty of the Belgian government voting away all VB (nationalist party) members out of the parliament but that wouldn't be very democratic, would it? 16:26, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would surely like the idea of LB members voting out all left MOTC ;) A good solution would be: voting out that MOTC, but replacing it with a member of the same party. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:10, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * that wouldn't work in a country as ours, where we barely have non-motc party members. 17:13, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we'd give another member a vote which counts twice è. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:16, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Try Marcus Villanova or Percival Galahad. Dr. Magnus 17:15, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Language reform (Constitutional amendment)
Parentheses suck. In our Constitution, Article 11.4, we find the following line:
 * The national language is (American) English.

I very much dislike it, for it is unclear and ambiguous. That is why I want to propose a rewriting of the entire Article 11 (which is a small one), and together with that a more extended legislation regarding language.

Current state
Article 11 – National symbols
 * 1) The federal capital of Lovia is Noble City, Sylvania.
 * 2) The national symbol of Lovia is a white pine tree.
 * 3) The national colors are: navy, red and white.
 * 4) The national language is (American) English.

Proposed state
Article 11 – National symbols and language
 * 1) The federal capital of Lovia is Noble City, Sylvania.
 * 2) The national symbol of Lovia is the white pine tree.
 * 3) The national colors of Lovia are navy blue, red and white.
 * 4) The national flag of Lovia has a navy blue hoist, a red fly and the white pine tree as badge.
 * 5) The national language is English.
 * 6) The variety of English spoken and written by the Lovians is Lovian English. Lovian English is defined as a variety of American English, sharing its orthography and grammar, and most of its pronunciation and vocabulary, supplemented with lexical and grammatical features that are generally recognized as Lovian and that are understandable to all Lovians.
 * 7) The Lovian authorities of all levels shall make use of standardized Lovian English in all official documents.
 * 8) The language Oceana is recognized as a regional minority language, and shall thus be protected from extinction.
 * 9) The language may publicly be used by its speakers, under the condition that an accurate English translation shall be provided within a reasonable time.
 * 10) The Narasha 'Oshenna Rát or Oceana Language Council is a federal institution under the Department of Culture, Heritage and Education that shall preserve the language through literary, cultural and lexicographical projects. The Narasha 'Oshenna Rát is entitled to regulate and promote the use of Oceana language.

Proposed state
Article 11 – National symbols and language
 * 1) The federal capital of Lovia is Noble City, Sylvania.
 * 2) The national symbol of Lovia is the white pine tree.
 * 3) The national colors of Lovia are navy blue, red and white.
 * 4) The national flag of Lovia has a navy blue hoist, a red fly and the white pine tree as badge.
 * 5) The national language is English.
 * 6) The variety of English spoken and written by the Lovians is Lovian English. Lovian English is defined as a variety of American English, sharing its orthography and grammar, and most of its pronunciation and vocabulary, supplemented with lexical and grammatical features that are generally recognized as Lovian and that are understandable to all Lovians.
 * 7) The Lovian authorities of all levels shall make use of standardized Lovian English in all official documents..

Changes
What changes?
 * I incorporated the Flag of Lovia within our Constitution.
 * I changed some phrases into clear and proper English.
 * I made "English" our national language.
 * I made "Lovian English" the "variety of English spoken and written within Lovia"; and I defined it as "a variety of American English" sharing most of its characteristics, supplemented with our own features.
 * Standardized Lovian English is the language to be used by all authorities.
 * I (finally) recognized Oceana (language) as a regional minority language, that is protected from extinction.

Talk
Opinions please, dearest MOTCs? 08:49, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but perhaps you could also make the Narasha 'Oshenna Rát the official regulation of Oceana? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:57, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could I then institutionalize it under the Department of CHE? 08:58, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oui, tu peux. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:00, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, I'll add that then. 09:01, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Something like that? 09:07, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dshacueme! --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:15, April 3, 2010 (UTC) (=thanks!)
 * I suppose that's an Oceanan word for naranja?  09:23, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it quite has the same load yeah :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:28, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

I am contra, because the fact the not by the users here spoken oceana will be made official. Making it offical as a regional language seems a bit useless Pierlot McCrooke 09:04, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pierlot, the Constitution is about LOVIA, not WIKINATION. 09:23, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that the boundaries between 'standardized Lovian English' and other variants (like American English with Dutch influences) are very vague. It is nice to have it in the law but I can't think of using it in any way. We wont sack people because they use British English in official articles I hope? 09:26, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about: English (American grammar and some Lovian expressions) in articles and official documents/requests. On any other occasion you can speak whatever you want but you must provide a translation if asked for. Now isn't that neat? 09:30, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple: we will try to use American English consistently (in articles and official things), in which we allow "Lovian" (that includes Dutch influences) characteristics which most of us understand (= "standardized"). Of course, we won't "sack" anybody! But as has been done since the beginning, we will probably correct "colour" into "color" or "boot" into "trunk". 09:31, April 3, 2010 (UTC)