User talk:Kunarian/State Reform

I&apos;ve decided to revive the idea of reforming the states before the Federal Elections, if it does not work now then I will propose it again after the elections in hope of it getting greater support. Here is a short explanation of what the ammendments to each section are doing: SO in conclusion it isn&apos;t a massive change in a way, what is key is that it adds NO unnessesary extra tidbits such as mandatory positions that need to be filled or obligations of governors or things like that. What it does is alter the way the elections work to be fairer, make the states an easier part of politics to get into and gives the states control over a small portion of law however maintains democratic proceedure. I think that the more people who support this the better. any questions or ideas for improvement are welcome. :) Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 08:31, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ammendments to Article 4 - Establishing the political position of the states by giving them equal recognition in this article.
 * Ammendments to Article 5 - Gave the states the ability to enact more general policies and have given them control over the social and civil law books, giving a key area of governance to the states but not the power to change certain ways of governance or say change the law enforcement stuff and get an army or make gun control lax.
 * Ammendments to Article 6 - Made federal and state law operate in the same way so that the system is democratic and just throughout and so that bureaucracy is not added.
 * Ammendments to Article 8 - Altered the procedure of the state elections, you now elect 20 man strong councils (100 councillors in total across Lovia, this is for both democratic and logical reasons), your votes are worth more and now correspond to the most important home (if this had been implemented before Walden wouldn&apos;t have been able to politic Oos out of his position as governor in Oceana, and also with this system it&apos;ll encourage people to be more focused on the state where their first house resides), this new system eliminates the problem of people being spread out and so people not getting the right amount of votes, the governor and deputy governor are now elected by majority vote instead of first past the post and the State Council can be disolved and re-elected if nessesary. However key thing to note that while autonomy is expanded once more, there is no unneeded bureaucracy and little actual extra bureaucracy added.
 * Ammendments to Article 11 - Makes the state symbols and languages easy to install, more of a complimentary feature.

Since when are governors elected first past the post? The state election system currently seems to be a plurality vote. 77topaz (talk) 08:39, October 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * First past the post is the system where the person with the most votes wins, that&apos;s how it&apos;s done in the state elections atm. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 09:02, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

I&apos;m pretty sure first past the post is "first past a certain number of votes". 77topaz (talk) 09:06, October 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, it&apos;s just most votes wins, it promotes this kind of two party situation you find in a lot of states and makes it harder for new users to be involved in the process. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 09:16, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * So first past the post would be the same thing as a plurality vote? 77topaz (talk) 06:08, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Comments and Suggestions
I&apos;ll leave a nice little bit here so it&apos;s all easier to do. :3 Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 17:08, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

5.1.9
. I don&apos;t believe that the states should ever be able to override Congress in any matter. My vision is for them to be a much more localized executive branch, planning cities, et cetera. Besides, the Law Books could be changed at any time, so it&apos;s unorganized to mention them in law. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:31, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Social Law Book is quite a long law book. It contains several important acts, such as the Labor Law Act, et cetera. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:32, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

I&apos;m just going to sleep now so I&apos;ll quickly say that we can remove that overide if need be and plus the Social and Civil Law Books of the federal law would still apply to the States however States would be specifically allowed to legislate for them, the two books that States most want to be able to legislate for, unless you would prefer full legislative powers? or something else. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 00:48, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Holy Mother of darwin isn&apos;t it like 2AM over there go to bed xD I have no problem from my standpoint the states over riding social law like gay marraige and such but financial and judicial and such should go to congress. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:58, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

I don&apos;t think it&apos;s appropriate. Also, as I said, the actual law books could change at any time. There are also a couple flaws. Maybe I&apos;ll just do an edit of this next weekend. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:05, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

20 councillors? Can&apos;t we stick to 1 governor? Or maybe a govenor and 19 councillors.  Happy65   Talk CNP   08:23, October 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * The governor and deputy governor come from the council and have to be approved by the council, like the PM is. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:54, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

The states shouldn&apos;t have power of the national government. State laws should have to be under federal laws, and I think that the deputy governor and governor system would work better than representation for each state via council. New users, EG me, would have very little representation... --Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:57, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Actually let me point something out to you if i may. New users have very big representation believe it or not considering the fact when they run for office (now just federal) they gain alot of power and usually go away. But, it would be a state council that would give you EVEN MORE representation because most likely you would get elected and have some say. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:05, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the current system, the two oldest and most respected users usually become Gov and Dep. Newer users will usually only become Gov or Dep when older users are not running. In the state council, more people will probably run and therefore win some seats. You might not become Dep but if two older users than you run, at least you will still be represented. You could even become Dep if a coalition between you and the largest seat holder forms. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:08, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

Votes
I don&apos;t think the strength of the votes you have should change depending on the primaryness of your house there, but instead, if you have two or three houses in a state, you should be able to have two or three votes respectively in a state. This way there could be a bonus for having more than one residence in a state. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:56, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

oh that is true :/ Idk Kunarian should fix that xD But yeah I would support that. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:24, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Issues Adressed
Sound good? Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 16:40, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) States should be able to write their own laws yet be limited in this. I will remove the override however your comment on the changing of the law books is in my opinion quite redundant. The law books rarely change. If you think it would be better then we could have the constitution reference the federal law for limits on what Law Books States can legislate on, then corrections can be easily done.
 * 2) On votes, I will change it to each person having three votes (once again major, minor, support), one per house, but I will not relate it to the primaryness of the house.

Just send it to the first chamber. No one else is talking about it so im guess we&apos;re okay with this. I&apos;m pro. You have my 14 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:43, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Time is talking about it. I believe I should at least adress his concerns before I put it anywhere. Especially considering our coalition. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 16:47, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

I conceed some things. I&apos;m still on the fence on running in two states, but the size of the legislature should be controled by the states. I&apos;m not seeing how that creates buracracy, if anything equal representation. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:04, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds bad. Let each person have three votes, but each having the SAME value. Therefore, if you have three houses in a state, you have three votes there. You MAY cast them for the same person (or not, negotiable). If you only have one house in a state, you will have one vote there. Just remove everything mentioning a specific law book. Say state legislatures may write their own laws but can&apos;t override federal law. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:12, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

It doesn&apos;t it&apos;s perfectly understandable:


 * "Every citizen may cast three favorable votes per state election" - three votes per election
 * "but may only cast one vote per official residence in the state that the official residence resides within:" - one vote per home and only in the state that home is in
 * "a Major Vote, a Minor Vote and a Favor Vote. A Major Vote is worth three points, a Minor Vote two and a Favor Vote one." - definition of the castable votes

There, it is simple and explained. Please cooperate on this point it actually allows people to decide on the state they are most interested in without having to have two houses there and on top of that would put an end to the possibility of tactics that have been used in the past (CPL take over of Oceana by buying third homes while not actually being interested in the state, just wanting control of it) being used again.

And not casting them for the same person is needed, to stop people plonking three houses in a state and voting for themselves with all of them.

On the point of State Legislation, I have already done that.

Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 22:24, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Well of course it&apos;s understandable. It&apos;s just dumb. There shouldn&apos;t be a vote hierarchy in the state elections (i don&apos;t think there should be one in federals either, tbh). Explained based on your explanation:


 * "Every citizen may cast three favorable votes per state election" - three votes per election
 * "citizens can cast one vote per official residence in the state that the official residence resides within" - one vote per home, and can cast two or three votes if you have two or three houses there
 * "each vote is worth the same amount of points" - definition of the castable votes
 * "each vote must be cast towards a different candidate" - provision helping to stop self-voting and encourage residences in multiple states

There it is. Simple and explained. Please cooperate on this point. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:43, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Against. because it sounds like you can&apos;t vote for yourself. Basically we are using a &apos;different&apos; version of instant runoff. Like listing your preference 1st, 2nd, 3rd, but in a different form. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:54, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * You can vote for yourself, but only with one vote. And neither system is even remotely like instant runoff. You get one vote in a state depending on where your residences are, so you&apos;ll get two votes if you have two residences in a state. However, you can only vote for different people with these votes. Basically it&apos;s the current system but if you have more than one residence in a state you&apos;ll be rewarded for it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:00, October 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Time I understand where you are coming from, but this is the most democratic way to do things. It ends up better representing the peoples interests like having the alternative vote in the UK instead of fptp would. It is as simple as a first preference and second preference and third preference vote. Could you please concede this point? or would you prefer that we found a compromise?


 * And a question by the way, do you think we should add in protections against inactive users into this before we propose it or leave that for another bill, I&apos;ve been itching over it a bit... Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 23:02, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes include something on inactive users. Mostly new users come, hear of elections. Gain about 4-6 seats in congress and when we need those votes there never there making impossible to pass huge reform without every active and medium(ly) active member. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:06, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I&apos;m miss understanding your system? The way I understand it is you can cast a major vote in one state you live in, a minor in your second state, and a favor in the third. You can choose which state you want the largest votes in. It doesn&apos;t really seem more democratic to me, just letting you weigh your votes so that you can sway the influence in one state more. This way Oos could still have easily been politicked out of his place in Oceana back in 2010. Answer to the question: I was considering that, but I don&apos;t know of any effective way besides maybe requiring at least one edit in the month before the start of the voting stage. But then vote-askers would just make an edit before they start and then vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:13, October 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * You can cast a major, minor or favor vote in any state you have a house in but only one vote per house and it must be towards different candidates. And Time if you have a state that you take a greater interest in surely you should be able to cast a vote of influence because that is a state you want to actually contribute to. He may have been able to but it would have been much harder.


 * The system gives you the ability to choose who runs the states where you reside while allowing people to take a greater concern for a certain state rather than having a single vote no matter.


 * Its a good idea, maybe three edits of worthwhile contribution to the wikia in the month following up, it&apos;d catch a few of the people out who lurk until the elections, and it&apos;d be a step in the right directions. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 23:24, October 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but I think it should be based on other people voting for you. Under my system with the all-votes-different system, you have to rely on the support of other people, which I like. Besides, it is proportional anyway. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:31, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then maybe a one semi-influential vote system, one major vote (worth two) and two minor votes (worth one) if this compromise isn&apos;t take I may just go for a flat voting sytem, however I&apos;d like to lower the vote requirement (or eliminate it completely) for the states if we do go for a flat voting system to stop people having to vote for one person just so that at least someone gets elected.
 * And what do you think about the catch for inactive users? Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 23:35, October 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should just maintain the status quo? I wouldn&apos;t mind removing the legal requirement since it will be proportional, also. The catch for inactive people seems okay. Three total in the month before the voting stage starts? Perhaps it should be increased or decreased to just one? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:41, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * We&apos;ll apply a flat voting system (where you can vote multiple times in a state if you have more than one house but again not for the same candidate) and eliminate the requirement. Good, three in total before the voting stage starts yes. And I think three worthwhile edits (as in not just changing a little thing on a page) makes it so that they have to take a least a small interest (and might even bring them back in a bit). Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 23:44, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I&apos;m actually just against inactive legislators. More pain when you have 1/2 of your legislature gone. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:01, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * There&apos;s really nothing we can do to safe guard against that except for not vote for them. Perhaps we should do ten worthwhile edits? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:03, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes ten is a nicer number and reinforces the point that to have the right to vote you need to help Lovia grow, rights with responsibility. Shall I enact the changes? Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 00:08, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * (reset) Yes, but apply it to the federal elections too, please. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:09, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Don&apos;t worry way ahead of you there. :) Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 00:11, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point it&apos;s reminding me of the Declaration of Independence. You add one thing in you have 50% of the votes, add another and you have 45% add another and then have 55%, then take something away and have 20%. I&apos;m not particularly happy with &apos;inactive&apos; votes not allowed, denying citizen&apos;s the right to vote and such. I&apos;m okay with inactive legislators because too often new users get elected and leave. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:08, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean the Constitution of the US? I wouldn&apos;t mind getting rid of the edit requirement to vote. Maybe we should apply something similar to nominating oneself? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:17, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Inactive voters are as bad as inactive legislators. Tell me how the wikia benefits from either and I&apos;ll gladly remove it. The wikia benefits more from making people be a part of it to be able to vote. As i said, rights AND responsibilities.
 * Not allowing people to just come on the wikia get 50 edits and then leave only coming back to vote when the vote doesn&apos;t affect them is right. The active users who are actively affected by the vote should have the vote.
 * Besides lets not lose sight of the State Reform we&apos;ve worked so hard to bring in Marcus. We need power to the states and we need it now.
 * And I&apos;m going to sleep now, it&apos;s half one. That&apos;s not a healthy time to be up. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 01:29, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

That is a good reason. Overall, it looks good! I&apos;ll do a final proofread this weekend. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:37, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

11.5.3
The Oceana language is recognized as a regional minority language, and shall thus be protected from extinction.
 * 1) The language may publicly be used by its speakers, under the condition that an accurate English translation shall be provided within a reasonable time.
 * 2) The Narasha &apos;Oshenna Rát or Oceana Language Council is a federal institution under the Ministry of Culture that shall preserve the language through literary, cultural and lexicographical projects. The Narasha &apos;Oshenna Rát is entitled to regulate and promote the use of Oceana language.

Now we give back the states some power, we should also make sure the Oceana language is regulated by Oceana (Oceana State Department of Culture and Heritage) and not by the Federal Government. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:59, October 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * Roger, I&apos;ll also make it possible for all states to regulate their own local langauges and promote them in their own way. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 10:26, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Can&apos;t we create a language called Sylvanian and make Sylvanian the official language of Sylvania, Lukas? :P Happy65   Talk CNP  LogoCNP.png 10:49, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Can&apos;t we create a language called Sylvanian and make Sylvanian the official language of Sylvania, Lukas? :P Happy65   Talk CNP  LogoCNP.png 10:49, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, on the condition you rename the State Department of Culture and Heritage to Ministry. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:01, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn&apos;t that be problematic with the national ministries? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:13, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * This is starting to look less and less like the state council reform. Not to say i don&apos;t fully support Oceanic cuture. But now i feel we&apos;re attaching more and more things to this so we get a whole bunch of changes passed. Hopefully we will vote on each article seperatley. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:25, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Marcus. I mean, I support the Oceana reform, but there&apos;s no need to bundle state-related reforms together. — Beer.png Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat  • What&apos;s up ) 12:33, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, see i support everything except article eight where the feederal government controls the size and now prohibits citizens the right to vote. Not a very &apos;Liberal&apos; idea right there. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:36, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hardly Marcus. You only turned against this reform when we said that we should take away the right of inactive citizens to vote. Trying to portray this as prohibiting citizens voting is just you playing politics. And I think it says a lot that you don&apos;t support state reform should we safeguard the citizens of today and the future against the problem of people coming on getting 50 edits, not contributing then voting and only ever coming back to vote never being affected by the vote. It&apos;s unfair. If they want to vote they have to contribute, simple, rights and responsibilities.
 * In business you wouldn&apos;t pay people who turned up one or two days of the year would you?
 * And the reform is still completely a state reform. The addition of Oceana culture being handled by the Oceana State is just another part of the giving of power to States. Do not try and throw this chance at reform off just because we are getting it all done at once.
 * If there are so many changes happening rather than the transfer of power from the federal level to state then please, list them. In my opinion this is just scare mongering on your part. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 15:44, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * And the reform is still completely a state reform. The addition of Oceana culture being handled by the Oceana State is just another part of the giving of power to States. Do not try and throw this chance at reform off just because we are getting it all done at once.
 * If there are so many changes happening rather than the transfer of power from the federal level to state then please, list them. In my opinion this is just scare mongering on your part. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 15:44, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are so many changes happening rather than the transfer of power from the federal level to state then please, list them. In my opinion this is just scare mongering on your part. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 15:44, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

@Timey: why do you want to force people your wwish? Pierlot McCrooke 13:03, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

@Kun - Well, i&apos;m liking the concept on State Councils: (okay we agree on that) But you&apos;ve taken it one way and i&apos;m in another direction. Still i&apos;m not going to vote down the reforms just not give it 14 votes in favor. And like the last state reforms, it will be voted in parts right? Each article? Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:52, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

Issues/concerns
As this is such a large proposal, I think it is best to propose each section individually. I have to read the act in detail but if there&apos;s something I don&apos;t like, that could be enough to prevent me from voting for the bill as a whole.

Also, wouldn&apos;t this bill remove the need for a governor? HORTON11 : •  13:17, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

No it&apos;s basically congress on a state level. Same way we appoint a PM they appoint a Gov and Dep Gov. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:19, October 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * The governement should be elected by the people, not appointed. And this would defeat the whole purpose of having a governor. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 16:10, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * He is Horton, marcus maybe just chose the wrong word. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 16:45, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant governor, sorry. Something like keeping the current state election system (or similar) seems fine. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 16:52, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * This is practically the same except that the Governor and deputy are appointed by majority, it&apos;ll still work out for you no worries there. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 17:01, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * I would rather have the governor directly elected by the people and council seats given out in proportion to the vote percentage. This way the people have a more direct participation in politics whle at the same time keeping the governor accountable to the voters. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 17:12, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * as the governor is directly elected, he will be responsible to his voters for achieving promises.goals
 * The governor will also be in check by the councils, but if too often he goes against their advice they could remove him from office come election time HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 17:25, October 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * But that would mean a first past the post system of governance and would most likely cause many situations where 50% of the people do not support the governor. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 17:15, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way there is bound to be at least some disgruntled and unrepresented voters. But there would be checks and balances with direct elections:

To Counteract Those Stirring Up Trouble
This is still a state reform. I and Time have worked out the details to make it uncomplicated in practice and unbureaucratic, giving the states greater autonomy.

The changes being made are: There is no need to split this up, they are all related, however if need be we can pass the state election and rights based reforms seperate from the state culture reforms. However as you can see from the pretext of state, there should be no reason to do so. And size is not a reason, a reason is whether it is related to the reform of states. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 15:54, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Giving states the ability to regulate their own culture (e.g. language in Oceana)
 * Giving states the right to legislate
 * Giving states state councils to handle legislation
 * Changing the procedure of the state elections accordingly now that we shall be electing the state councils
 * Adding failsafe in both elections so that only the citizens that contribute the wikia and are concerned about the wikia can vote


 * swollowing pride* fine. I&apos;ll give it support, still. Please move it to the first chamber or something before i change my mind - Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:59, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Marcus. To be honest I&apos;m glad to have your full support without you and Time I don&apos;t think we could have gotten this reform to this point. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 16:45, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don&apos;t have too much of a problem with this, but I still feel that the governor should have the final say in state affairs. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 16:14, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * They will Horton, as the Governor you will have full executive power over your state, legislatively things come down to the State Council (although they can also propose votes on executive action too). Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 16:45, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Both the governor and the council (like the 1st chamber) should be able to propose laws but I believe the governor should ultimately be the "chief decider" (like the second chamber), If governors are directly elected and can still maintain their role I would be fine with this. Also, how would the legislatures be composed? HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 16:56, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Horton did you read the law? Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:59, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

You reached a breaking point: "Adding failsafe in both elections so that only the citizens that contribute the wikia and are concerned about the wikia can vote". I can&apos;t support this... Citizens of real-world nations are also entitled to vote in elections even though they don&apos;t live in the country anymore. Also, what function does citizenship have then? Nothing... It should be renamed to "active users with more than 50 edits and 4 days of activity" then. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:09, October 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * Right then I will change it to users, instead of citizenship. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 17:14, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * we opening a huge can of worms here. Either we keep it the same or Put "made 50 edits in the last year and is a citizen" Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:16, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oos is rights. THough having a bunch of inactives voting is frustrating to candidates, the ARE citizens, you know. Denying them their right to vote (or limited) could potentially lead to court action. - Horton
 * Nay, it couldn&apos;t, not if the law was changed. --Semyon 17:23, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Nay, it couldn&apos;t, not if the law was changed. --Semyon 17:23, October 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this edit better in your opinion Oos? Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 17:25, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Again as you know I love, the idea of state councils but everything else is becoming a turn off. A user who makes 50 edits in the last year and is a citizen should be allowed to vote. some people are busy before election times (Summer for state elections, and christmas times for federal) Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:30, October 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * 50 edits
 * since the last election of that kind took place
 * and is a citizen. Would seem most fair. It allows someone to be &apos;active&apos; and not rush there edits in the last second and in case they were jus tinactive in that month. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:36, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Already done. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 17:37, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing &apos;else&apos; the only else is the safeguard against inactives. And if so I will make it 50 edits then, that way at least they can&apos;t rush in at the beginning of the elections. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 17:33, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright then. My last hang up is just the size control of the councils. Allowing even any flexablity on this from even 20-30 would be fine. still like I said I&apos;m in support. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:41, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

I still have difficulties with it... You&apos;re actually revoking citizen rights for those who make less than 50 edits. It&apos;s purely a quantity game. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:45, October 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * Would using the word "Users" look right in the constitution though? and I know but it&apos;s not a hard number of edits to reach in a year, most editors reach it in a week of two within joining Lovia. It&apos;s not making it impossible, in fact it&apos;s making it rather possible indeed. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 17:51, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of principle I&apos;m opposed to it. If we do this, we totally neglect the fact that some of these users have made 10,000 edits and know more about the country and the wiki than most of the newbies. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:00, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * But people should not be forced to do this. You don&apos;t see the US government forcing people to be politically active in order to vote, and this infringes on their citizen rights. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 18:02, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, we&apos;ll scrap it then and once again see an election biased towards those with old guard votes. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 18:05, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

Art. 8, sec. 4
I find a lot of issues and problems for this sections. It is too bureaucratic and complex for the state level. It&apos;s hard enough to get all congressperople to vote/be active, so how can we expect state councils to do that. FUrthermore I believe basing this on an indirect parliamentary system is less democratic than direct elections. HORTON11 : •  17:58, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8.4.1: undermines the whole purpose of electing governors ( I do not believe that councils and state government should mirror congess)
 * 8.4.2: the governor should be directly elected and the council should not need to choose a leader. The deputy should be the one with second-most votes, as always has been. (parliamentarian politics take away from what democracy should be: direct)
 * 8.4.3: an unnecessary position and adds further bureaucracy (in congress the speaker role has been invisible), still I could live with this
 * 8.4.3.1: that is something that can be done by the governor if needed
 * 8.4.4: too complex and unnecessary, and anyways the council should not be like Lovian congress.
 * 8.4.5: OK
 * 8.4.6: OK
 * 8.4.7: elections should be fixed as they have before, I would not want state politics becoming parliamentary

Complete tosh. It is not bureaucratic at all. State councils are closer to people and you often find that most people are far more active on a state level than a federal level on top of that we don&apos;t have inactive people standing for state governor so we won&apos;t have problems. This seems to be you, trying to protect your position in Clymene. And these elections are much more democratic than the current ones so your entire point is flawed. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 18:03, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

I am not against state councils, just against them appointing the governor. The governor, deputy should be elected as they always have, and council seats given out as a percentage of total votes. We don&apos;t have inactive people standing for state governor, but as seen many time we get people who run and win elections (especially in congress) and then disappear. And i&apos;m not trying to protect my position in Clymene, I want to maintain the current status og governors. With this, what power does the governor have? It would then make better sense to get rid of the position altogether as he has no important-enough job as to merit keeping the position. HORTON11 : •  18:09, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

But this is exactly what we have in congress! And your not against that!? The speaker role is completely cerimonial. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:12, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

As it stands now the governor is the sole source of power in the state. With councils he has no power and therefore the role becomes unnecessary. We should either remove the governor role altogether or allow for vetos or a final say for the governor.

@ Marcus- I am not a big fan of the system in congress. HORTON11 : •  18:18, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

The governor is not ceremonial, you are simply not reading the reform right. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 18:18, October 31, 2012 (UTC)