Forum:First Chamber

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ In Lovia, Congress is the national legislative body and the most powerful branch of government. The First Chamber is one of the two chambers of Congress, in which the Members of the Congress propose bills and debate them. The Second Chamber is where they are eventually voted. Despite the two-chamber system, Lovia does not have a bicameral parliament: there is only one group of MOTCs that both debates and votes the proposals. For the current composition of Congress, see this.

As prescribed by Article 6 of the Constitution, all Lovian citizens "may write and propose motions to the Federal Law", that "are presented to the Members of the Congress in the First Chamber." The MOTCs' duty is to "read the motion and form a personal opinion about it. In order to obtain the support of a majority of Members of the Congress, changes may be proposed in the First Chamber." If a majority is likely to be found, the proposer will move the bill to the Second Chamber for a vote.

The First Chamber is not a popular assembly where all citizens can express their personal interests. Polling the population ought to happen outside of Congress.

2013 Congress
Welcome again, MOTCs, to the 2013 Congress! First on our agenda is forming a government, followed by an election of the Speaker of the Congress. Afterward, we should aim to create a tax code, pass more laws relating to the economy, and possibly reform the states.

It appears that Ilava has won the informal vote to become Prime Minister, so I would like to invite him to propose a government. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:43, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Speaker.  Happy65   Talk CNP   09:22, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

He just said the Speaker still had to be elected. :P 77topaz (talk) 09:32, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Well, he was speaker before the elections, and he technically remains speaker until the elections are done. Therefore he is still speaker :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:26, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

So, Oos, can you propose your government? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:02, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Have we decided on the list? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:05, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not, but you can still propose one. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:06, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, we need the ministry of Family, Youth and Elderly :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:09, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Okay :P But I'd also like Education --> Education and Research and Agriculture --> Food, Agriculture, (and Fisheries?). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:12, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, including the fishery part :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:18, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

So. . . are you going to propose one? ;) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:52, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, later today :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:01, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a proposal here yet. :P 77topaz (talk) 02:32, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, forgot it and there was noone in my time zone to remind me of it :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:40, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Prime Minister
 * Oos Wes Ilava
 * Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries
 * Charles Alexander Bennett
 * Ministry of Commerce
 * Dave Leskromento
 * Ministry of Culture
 * Oos Wes Ilava
 * Ministry of Defense
 * Lukas Hoffmann
 * Ministry of Education and Research
 * William Krosby
 * Ministry of Energy and Resources
 * Charles Alexander Bennett
 * Ministry of Environment
 * Nicholas Sheraldin
 * Ministry of Family, Youth, and Elderly
 * Oos Wes Ilava
 * Ministry of Finance
 * William Krosby
 * Ministry of Foreign Affairs
 * Justin Abrahams
 * Ministry of Health
 * Taiyō no Eisei
 * Ministry of Justice
 * Dave Leskromento
 * Ministry of Labour
 * Marcus Villanova
 * Ministry of Tourism and Sport
 * Nicholas Sheraldin
 * Ministry of Transportation
 * Jhon Lewis
 * Speaker of the Congress
 * Semyon Breyev

Looks nice overall, but I don't like the "Comestibles" part of the new name for Agriculture much. In addition, Kunarian didn't sign up for the Education post at the sign-up forum, and I made User:TimeMaster/Education, so I would really like to have that post. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:54, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * See: . --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:16, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Woop, there's even more discussion :| So, the problematic points are:
 * Health: Is Eisei suitable as his views on health care seem to differ from the general views.
 * Education: Is Krosby willing to include Religious and Special-needs education?
 * Speaker: I think Semyon should get this. He doesn't have anything right now while he is one of our top politicians. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:19, February 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral on religious education (I will not actively support or oppose it, but will obey Congress) and pro on special-needs education. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:22, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd really rather have health. And i'd say Time should be in education, as he has shown a lot of interest. HORTON11 : •  13:35, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

I think Semyon should be Speaker, but I definitely want to keep health as I wouldn't get any other position, because my other choice was defense, but Kunarian only signed up for defense, and he has more political power than me. As far as I'm concerned, put Semyon in Speaker and that would be good. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:56, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

With Health I support QZ for his respect for the process of government, I feel that some others may simply use the position just to push their ideas through rather than look at the options and let the governors (preferably) or government decide on what happens. I feel that an impulsive Minister in this position could cause problems due to them viewing the position as one of power rather than responsibility, and for that reason I'd hope we could choose someone not in the big camps and who would therefore be more impartial and from my point of view QZ fits that. I fear Horton would end up deciding that because he had been allocated the position that it is his position to choose the health policy. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 23:08, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

I toowant to have the Health position. I have good ideas and will be cooperative with the others to create the programs. Granero (talk) 23:57, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

This has turned into a "I want" "I want to create" scenario. Just propose this, it seems fine to me most people don't do squat with there position anyway :I Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:24, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

We could possibly have some deputy ministers. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:14, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

It seems pointless, in a government with no opposition who cares if there's a deputy, to question or hold accountable when most Primary ministers do nothing or minimal work anyway :/ Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:47, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Granero, you aren't too active though... This decreases your likeliness of getting the ministry, and you don't have any unique views on the health care system from what I know. I want health because I actually have knowledge on the subject (in lots of these other ministries I don't), and I have unique view points. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:04, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather it just stay as "Ministry of Agriculture". Fishries, which seek to make a real living are ethier praticing Aquaculture or mass fishing (nets and such) are still considerd "... is the cultivation of  animals ,  plants ,  fungi, and other life forms for  food ,  fiber ,  biofuel  and other products used to sustain human life." Which would still be straight forward with just saying 'Agriculture.' Now if its for simply game, that would go under Tourism & Sport or Enviormental ministries. -Sunkist- (talk) 03:19, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, this is what I'm gonna propose. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:52, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

001. Notice
I, acting for and on behalf of HRH Dimitri I, as Speaker of the Congress, hereby declare this congressional term open. From now until the inauguration of its successor government, according to the Constitution, the Second Ilava Government shall be the supreme executive body in the Kingdom of Lovia. --Semyon 17:20, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, arguably not, but it's not my fault the constitution is so ambiguous. :P --Semyon 17:22, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Supreme executive body. Anyway, I'm going to archive the negotiations. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:29, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Good thing that was what I said, then. :P --Semyon 17:35, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:50, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

002. Voting Reform
I propose that the current system of voting in Federal Elections, with one major vote, one minor vote, and one support vote, be replaced with a system of five equally-ranked votes. Thoughts? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:08, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmmm... Doesn't that increase the number of seats given to inactive users? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:05, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Would this system allow giving more than one vote to a single user? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:48, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, Oos, but we could also put a protection against inactive users running. And you wouldn't be able to give more than one vote to one candidate. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:10, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very much contra that (they are citizens too). --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:32, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not what I'm proposing. Besides, it would still reduce their ability to slam down the major votes on famous old people who are the only people they know. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:47, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think this would spread votes too much actually. I would have on vote for me, one for Nathan, and then three between CCPL, Semyon, CNP. More than likely Nathan wouldn't have any seats, and I would have 1 maybe 2. People will just vote within their party if their party is big, and if their party is small they won't get very many seats. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 18:18, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, that's kind of the point. To refuse self voting, so if your support comes from only two people, you will receive few seats, but if from many, you will receive more. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:36, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

New users wouldn't get into Congress though, and I don't think it would represent the votes as accurately. It would force people to vote for people that they don't like very much or only semi-support.--Quarantine Zone (talk) 19:42, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think the system works ok actually. A lot of people were panicking (including me? no... :P) about 'rotation' but in the end the results we got were broadly acceptable. I think we just have to be pragmatic and accept that if we want to keep the OOC users voting for IC politicians thing (which I hope we do) that it has some inherent flaws, which result in some users receiving seats out of proportion to their contribution to the site. --Semyon 22:13, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think that the same flaw that semyon mentioned about out of proportion seats would appear in the new system as well. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:32, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

the current system ain't broke. It's the best defense against inactives, even though it alows some inactives in. Don't become a nickclegg liberal trying to reform everything :P Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:14, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I must say I'm a bit surprised about how no one supports this even though 2/3 of people in chat a month ago did. :/ Also, Marcus, this would be the "best defense against inactives", as they can't just slam down major votes on the only people they know (the effect is diluted), and can't self-vote and get into Congress if no-one else supports them. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:16, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but with five equal votes people like Oos and Hoffman who maybe work for there seats and are active will become marginalised against people from the LMP or MCP, who are barely active. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:22, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

003. Weapons and Hunting Act
I'm bringing this back! Woohoo! Hopefully we can get this passed through. I've made a little bit of revision, and if anyone has any suggestions just drop them below. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:59, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I'll be very honest with you the orginal law was written by a centrist liberal but was very appealing to me, and as a peace activist I really want to see no change to the law. I find it to be near perfect. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:20, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Concealed weapons licenses must be obtained in order to own sheathed knives over 6 inches in length, guns under 12 inches in length (including knife guns), and ballistic knives.
 * 2) All owners must be 24 years of age.
 * 3) Ballistic knives and sheath knives are not considered fire arms.
 * 4) Licenses can only be granted to hunters who are of 12 years of age, but all firearms used by anyone under the age of 18 must be legally registered to their legal parents and/or guardians.
 * 5) Licenses can only be granted to hunters whose firearm is fit for hunting; thus only handguns of .50-calliber or fewer, rifles of .50-caliber or fewer, shotguns of 10-gauge and greater, cross bows, hunting bows, and spears are allowed.
 * 6) All automatic weapons are illegal, except in the case of an official government military, militia, or police.
 * 7) Switchblade knives are illegal to manufacture, trade, sell, buy, and own.
 * 8) Bayonets are illegal to manufacture, trade, sell, and buy.
 * 9) Bullets containing poison, napalm, toxins, and explosives are illegal to manufacture, trade, buy, sell, and own, except in the case of an official government military, militia, or police.
 * 10) In the case of an official government, military, militia, or police, soft chemical explosives are still illegal.
 * 11) Hunters are legally bound to register with the Ministry of Defense annually to renew their hunting license. Once licenses are renewed, said hunters are legally aloud to hunt for the year.
 * 12) Hunters may only hunt a total of 24 times a year.
 * 13) Hunters must register with the Ministry of Defense at least 36 hours in advance in order to go hunting.
 * 14) All hunters are required to wear a bright orange hat. If the color of the hat is challenged to not be bright orange, a court case may be held to determine this.
 * 15) The fine for this will be 200 Lovian dollars. If they hat is orange, but deemed not bright orange, the fine will be 90 Lovian dollars.
 * 16) Newly manufactured items that have a similar look or use to firearms are required to have orange tips to signify that they are not legally firearms.
 * 17) This includes but is not limited to water guns, airsoft guns, paintball guns, pellet guns, BB guns, and model guns.
 * 18) The following sections of Article 3 of the Criminal Law Book are repealed:
 * 19) Section 1.2.2.2 "Licenses can only be granted to hunters who have reached the age of twenty-one on the day the license is to be granted."
 * 20) Section 1.2.2.6 "Licenses can only be granted to hunters whose firearm is fit for hunting; thus only handguns, rifles and shotguns are allowed."
 * 21) Section 1.2.6 "Hunters are legally bound to register with the Minister of Defense, at least one week in advance, if and when they are willing to hunt in group, that is three or more hunters, all of which must have a license to carry a firearm, and no more than twice a month."

What about the loopholes? Bayonets and switchblades were legal, and fake guns look just like real ones? Don't those pose as legitimate problems to you? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:34, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

it was  a "firearms" act not weaponry act. If you want bayonets and switchblades to be regulated (which I support) go for it. But the fake guns yeah just add a provision to the existing act. We do disagree on this issue you being conservative and me more on the left. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:17, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I got this changed to Weapons and Hunting Act

Still doesn't change my objection :P Wait is this to replace the current act or add to it...? Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:01, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

This is in addition to the old act, with the exceptions to the three parts that I suggested be repealed, but the parts that I repealed were replaced by other things in the act. Like 1.2.2.6 of the original is replaced by 2.1 of the new one. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:17, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

"Licenses can only be granted to hunters who are of 12 years of age." I have to disagree with this. 16 or 18 I'd say. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:32, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

The mental maturity of children who are 12-18 isn't much different actually. It wouldn't be that much of a difference in the end. The hunting accidents aren't caused by 12 year olds (in America 10). The law also specifies that they must hunt with their parents and with their parents gun, and their parents have to be 24 to own the guns, so there are precautions in there. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 16:09, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Though the mental maturity might not be so much different according to you, the mental being is still way more easily influencable, and therefore I'd prefer to have as little exposure to guns until a legal age. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:17, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, what about all the people who enjoy hunting as a hobby? They won't be able to hunt until they are 18. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:44, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah well, smoking is my hobby too and I officially couldn't get cigarettes until I was 16 è :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:31, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

But smoking is bad for your health especially at a young age; whereas, allowing 12 year olds to hunt with their parents who are over 18, both of which have hunting licenses, isn't going to hurt anyone. If you were to smoke when you were 12, your health would be drastically affected. Hunting at 12 isn't hurting the hunter or other people. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:27, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

That's ignoring hunting accidents. :P 77topaz (talk) 21:46, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Topaz, if you read what I said earlier, you would know that hunting accidents are rarely ever caused by youths. Hunting accidents are caused by people being ignorant and stupid. Just to top it off though, on average, about 100 people die in hunting accidents per year in the U.S. and there are about 800 total accidents. This is far less than injuries than in any common sport, and 1,500 people die while swimming per year on average. (Both of those are straight of the DNR.) The whole argument of safety on this is ludicrous. The majority of Lovian community doesn't understand this because the majority of the community doesn't hunt, and/or fails to do any research on hunting statistics. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:48, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

004. Marriage Act: 2013 Rewrite
As a concerned Lovian, I propose to change our Marriage Act in subtle ways to make it more open-minded. Lovians - progressives and conservatives alike - are open-minded people, who care deeply about liberty, but also equality, justice, and harmonious living. I found that the Marriage Act was well-written, but did not account for a few things, and had a few very old-fashioned and liberty-restricting elements.

The rewrite I propose is not a radical overhaul. My own politics are those of radical overhaul, but with this proposal, I just want to bring minor, beneficial change to Lovia. I hope it shows I am serious about politics, and that I care about coalitions, alliances, and goodwill in politics.

The original text can be found in the Federal Law.

Proposed version Marriage Act

 * 1) Marriage is an understanding between two adult people, referred to as parties, who voluntarily agree to take up certain rights and duties.
 * 2) The spouses have the duty to live in harmony with each other, offering each other respect, affection, consolation, and care and treating each other in fairness.
 * 3) The spouses have the duty to communicate with each other and make informal agreements concerning both the personal and professional including work, the household, sex, parenting, and finances, and to verbally resolve any conflicts. Considering the possibility that the spouses cannot come to an agreement on their own terms, it is the duty of both spouses to counsel for advice from a third party.
 * 4) The spouses have the right to retain their autonomy within their marriage including the right to choose and perform the profession of their liking, the right to keep personal finances, and the right to individually see and meet people.
 * 5) The spouses share the responsibility to take care of their children or others in their custody as well as of their possessions and properties.
 * 6) Both spouses share the liability to all expenses made for the benefit of the spouses’ child or children, which can be proven to be essential to the well being of the child.
 * 7) While the spouses have the right to make any informal or formal arrangement as to whom pays what, the law can enforce the shared liability of expenses of the above-described type in the case that conflict arises and the existing arrangement is fundamentally unfair to either or both spouses.
 * 8) Each spouse must bear the marital burdens in accordance to his or her capital and provide the partner with vitals.
 * 9) Marriage can only be solemnized if all of the following conditions are met:
 * 10) Each of the parties is at least 18 years old, or 16 given that the parents or custodians of the less than 18-year-old party fully consent with the marriage;
 * 11) Each of the parties agrees with the marriage on a voluntary basis;
 * 12) None of the parties is already in a standing marriage under Lovian law or under similar law in the country where the marriage was carried out;
 * 13) The parties are not genetically related in the first or second degree ruling out marriages between parents and children, brothers and/or sisters, aunts and/or uncles, and nephews and/or nieces, and cousins.
 * 14) The solemnization of a marriage is carried out in public before a representative of the law.
 * 15) A representative of the law is the Governor of the State in which the marriage is solemnized, a person appointed by that Governor, or any person who is in public service in the federal or state government.
 * 16) No representative of the law may refuse to solemnize a marriage if all the legal conditions are met, unless he or she conscientiously objects to the solemnization, in which case he or she shall report his objections to a Deputy Governor or another representative of the law who must then contact the parties to arrange for solemnization to take place under his or her supervision. The government is legally bound to solemnize any marriage that conforms to the demands set forth by the law.
 * 17) The parties sign a marriage contract at the public solemnization agreeing to the conditions laid out by the law. The representative of the law acts as a witness and validates the contract by signing it as well.
 * 18) A marriage is considered terminated in each one of the following cases:
 * 19) If the marriage is proven to not have been legally solemnized;
 * 20) If one of the spouses obtains a cancellation of the marriage contract;
 * 21) A spouse can cancel a marriage through a lawsuit if he or she proves that the other spouse has neglected his or her duties as a spouse;
 * 22) In this case, the neglecting spouse can be sanctioned to provide financial support to the neglected spouse.
 * 23) In this case, the judge must decide upon an arrangement concerning raising the spouses’ child or children, taking into account the opinions and wishes of both spouses as well as of the children concerned.
 * 24) Unless one of the spouses is considered an immediate threat to the health and security of a child, every person has the right to have regular contact and communication with his or her child.
 * 25) Every arrangement decided upon by a judge must take into account the health, security, and happiness of the child and the spouses’ ability to provide for those.
 * 26) If both spouses agree upon the termination of their marriage, effectively cancelling the marriage contract in the presence of a representative of the law.
 * 27) Upon the death of one of the spouses, or both, but only if the remaining spouse requests the cancellation.
 * 28) One year after one of the spouses has been reported as missing and has not been found, but only if the remaining spouse requests the cancellation.

Proposed changes
In the proposed version, some of the terminology has been changed, either to increase uniformity and clarity, or to reflect a more open-minded spirit. No mention is made of homosexuality, though: our law already allows for same-sex marriage.

The duties and rights of married people change, so that they are no longer obliged to actually live together (it is possible to be married harmoniously and live in separate places) and are no longer legally obliged to be sexually faithful to each other. Instead, extra emphasis is put on the emotional duties of married couples. Also expanded is the section on how to resolve marriage conflicts, including those with children.

The age at which marriage can be solemnized is lowered to 16, given the parents' consent.

The solemnization is simplified. A couple in want of a marriage only needs a representative of the law, more broadly defined now: the governor, someone appointed by him/her, or anyone else representing Lovian government. The "announcement" period is no longer needed.

The law explicitly states that "No representative of the law may refuse to solemnize a marriage if all the legal conditions are met". At the urging of Ooswesthoesbes, a provision is included to allow for conscientious objection by the representative of the law. A simple but efficient procedure is included to arrange for such cases.

Termination of the marriage contract by a single party, through a lawsuit, is rewritten. Provisions are included on what the judge can decide, financially and in the matter of children. The stress is on making harmonious arrangements and looking after the child's interests. A divorce should not be a war, and the child should never be its victim.

Thank you for your consideration. Punarbhava (talk) 17:43, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Well done on taking the time to write such a long article.  Happy65   Talk CNP   19:52, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, the law is fairly well written. There are some punctuation errors and typos that need to be fixed. There are a few things that I think should be changed though. I think that marriage before 18 isn't responsible. Marriage is very serious, and getting married at 16 would be very stressful and 16 year olds could be hasty and marry someone too early. Even if their parents agree it could still be irresponsible. Also, this law doesn't outlaw marriage between cousins. Even marriage between cousins causes deformation and health diseases in children VERY quickly. Even cases with 2nd cousins has been known to commonly cause deformation and health diseases. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:00, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points. I will specifically add cousins to the list. Punarbhava (talk) 06:54, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I do believe, however, that some 16 year olds are mature enough to engage in a serious, lasting relationship. If anything, Lovia has shown that young people can achieve great things. (Is it not the king and the political elite who were only teenagers when they begun this nation?) With the provision of the parents' full consent, I think we can build in a safety. I do not believe the right to marry will be used by many minors when this law takes effect. But if it does, it will be by mature, consenting young (near-)adults, with their parents' consent, and with the legal protection of the law. Punarbhava (talk) 06:54, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Barring people over 18 from marrying people under 18 might avoid some problems. 77topaz (talk) 06:59, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will. Marriages with people that have great age differences would just occur when the other party reaches 18, and the smaller age differences (16 & 18, 17 & 19, 17 & 18) would not be able to marry. In addition, I really don't consider 18 to be a much more mature stage of development than 16. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:39, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the points TM has made. Being an adult does not just happen the day the planet has made exactly 18 turns around the sun since you left the uterus. 18, just as 16, is an arbitrary age. Of course, legally, we need some sort of benchmark. 18 is a good one, I believe, but it won't hurt to make it more gradual. So those who are exceptionally mature, and are in a stable relationship that enjoys the approval of the parents, can enjoy the legal status other (possibly less or more mature) couples have. Punarbhava (talk) 14:36, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * You have to draw a line somewhere though. I could use exactly the same arguments to say - well, some fourteen year-olds are mature enough to get married, so we'll let them if they're exceptionally mature for their age. Also, the fact that parents approve doesn't indicate anything about the 'maturity' of the couple or the 'stability' of the relationship. Personally I think it better to have a single and simple distinction: those above 18 can marry, those below can't. @TM: I find 18 year-olds to be significantly more mature than 16 year-olds, though that's very possibly due to expectations of society rather than a natural thing. --Semyon 12:27, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, we should draw a line. We have drawn a line. It's at 18. We would, however, include a provision that would allow for some exceptions. Why? Because some people really want to get married. And I understand that. I know what love is like and I know that sometimes, you just don't want to wait one or two more years. And why should they? If they consider themselves ready for marriage, who are we to say no? What's the harm, anyway? In fact, the new law would actually push the marrying parties towards greater cooperation, harmony, communication, etc.
 * The parents' approval is just to make sure there is no abuse. We don't want 16 year old girls or boys marrying someone abusive under any circumstances. Punarbhava (talk) 13:20, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue I have is that you draw the line at 18, but then say 'No, we'll let people who really want to and are 'mature' to get married if they're younger' when the criterion that your using to decide whether people love each other enough or are mature enough is whether their parents agree - something which isn't related at all. --Semyon 21:00, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point. There is no way to test maturity, except the willingness of the parties to commit. The law does provide various safeties to give weight to the commitment: age, duties, parental approval, etc. That's about as much any law can do. Punarbhava (talk) 21:40, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, even though I believe 16 to be too young, it is an improvement of the older law, which didn't specify any age (a 5-year old could marry a 14-year old if they'd have permission of the parents and a legal advisor; not likely, but theoretically possible). The announcement thing - yeah.. I think it is necessary though. You can't expect the Government to be ready for any marriage any time. Now you could just kick in the door and claim your marriage. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:33, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * The new version eliminates unnecessary bureaucracy. You do have a good point. This is how I see it. Since Lovia has no actual administration - marriages are solemnized by an individual who represents the government - it is self-evident that the two parties must contact a representative themselves (as is the case in every country) and can only see their marriage solemnized as soon as a government official is available. If the person contacted is not online, or temporarily very busy, they'll have to wait a bit. If the representative is present, finds that the conditions are being met, and does not object, then it's done. Simple as that. Considering activity can be very fleeting on a wiki, direct accomplishment is the best way to deal with these things. Punarbhava (talk) 16:42, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

I think this can be moved to the Second Chamber. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:47, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Oos! I now confide this bill to you, as I have no voting rights yet . (By the way, could you arrange for my citizenship? For some reason, I have not been registered yet.) Punarbhava (talk) 07:54, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * I added you to this list. Consider yourself citizen now :)
 * Unfortunately, I don't have time to do that until Saturday. So, if nobody else will move it, it'd have to wait. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:01, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Could I do it? Punarbhava (talk) 09:53, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it, but do we really need to mention each spouse's must duties in the marriage? People should be allowed to decide for themselves. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 14:01, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * And they are. If they want no duties, and don't care about the protection they offer (which is their good right), then legal marriage is nothing for them. If they do, that's what this law is for. Punarbhava (talk) 14:36, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then doesn't this make arranged marriages illegal? HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 15:25, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you mean? I don't see how this relates. Punarbhava (talk) 15:45, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Arranged marriages being illegal is not necessarily bad. :P 77topaz (talk) 19:18, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Arranged marriages are not the subject of this act. It should be clear, however, that marriage (as defined by this law, but also by the previous version) comes with duties and rights, and commitments. Emotional, financial... Preventing arranged marriages, if Lovia considers that a priority, should be done by raising public awareness. Maybe a media campaign? Punarbhava (talk) 21:40, February 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this in addition to the old marriage act or replacing it? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:31, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * Replacement. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:13, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think at this point theres some nitpicking going on, what was set out was to define marraige as two praticipants, clearing the vauge law. I think we've added more in and should get it to the second chamber soon. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:04, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Has spelling and grammar been checked by a native now? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:11, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

005. 2013 Jobs and Highway


I think we all know government can improve the lifes of citizens, help buisnesses grow and create growth in our economy. We were sent here to improve the opportunity to sucess and I would like to start this year with a jobs bill that will help the hard hit areas of Train Village and promote growth in Charleston.

Let's look at the areas this will affect: But I also included new construction for the north: How will this be paid? Any ideas/comments? Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:05, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * Western Sylvania: 4.89 million dollars will be poured into the areas to repair roads connect and to create the new highway, create 350 jobs and allow companies in Charleston and Train Village to connect their services and have a chance to faster transportation. Two lanes going both ways will be able to create new opportunites to the future and with courtesy to nature, will go around scenic routes and leave nature alone.
 * Seven: Highway 6 is a great highway connecting the two most populated islands of Seven. Still in this act I add in another 1.42 million dollars of funding to create an extra connection to east kinley and another branch going into Amish kinley. The construction shows we have a commitment to all citizens of Lovia and wanting to improve travel speeds at any cost.
 * With taxes and a budget coming up hopefully, with this being pre-approved it will be covered to promote transporation and labour across the coutnry.
 * Noble City Area: Until 2015 we will add in two tolls in the outer area and inner area. The toll will be 0.75 lovian dollars and will allow access through the the other tolls for the rest of the day. So if you need to go to work through even two of the tolls, both ways it will only cost .75 for the entire day. By 2016 I plan that we lower the toll to .50 and keep it there.


 * I would like to protest! Invest heavily in constructing new highways? Even more cars, more pollution... Please NO. Think about alternatives: clean and fast railways, investing in better public transit. Punarbhava (talk) 18:14, February 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It would be good to reduce car travel and promote train travel. Also, Marcus, I think you meant tolls, not polls. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:17, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

I think the activist is right and I agree with him but as a small i'd say still developing nation can we afford it? We already have railways to help the urban downtown areas, and areas elsewhere but this is to connect two far ranging cities, a highway is needed. I think if we implemented a high speed rail, more of nature would be destroyed even as we go around the bulk of sylvania's beauty. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:22, February 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) I think that investing in more eco friendly and economically beneficial transport such as railways or docks is a better way to go.
 * 2) and when it comes to connecting distant areas I'd say that most areas are already pretty connected.
 * 3) and on railways, we wouldn't be destroying any beauty because new railways would be built alongside existing roads, leaving any damage done to a minimum.
 * 4) To be honest this just seems to be a bit of unneeded Keynesian ideas (using government funds to spend, spend, spend to appease people) leaking into our transport policy and I feel that we need to scale back and ask ourselves what else could we use this money for:
 * 5) the almost 5 million for western sylvania could be used to build a proper railway to charleston from train village, we might even have cash left over.
 * 6) the money going into seven could be used to make simply a smaller road as I do understand that car travel from one island to the other would be useful, I do not think we need a highway of the size you are talking about though.
 * 7) these tolls that you plan to establish, I have to say I will stand firmly against, firstly because the fact is that they are just a fiddly tax that could easily be included in income tax, secondly because of the hinderence that it would cause to people commuting not only will it take money out of their wallets but also time out of their day when I'm sure they'd rather just have to pay a little more income tax. Just do that, a little more income tax, that's the way to do it, not installing time wasting and annoying tolls.

my take on it. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 19:04, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

We can just expand the railway from Clave Rock to Charleston, no need to build a completely new one. HORTON11 : •  19:27, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

But see its mutual that we need some transportation, Charleston is secluded! You say expand it, that costs money and planing, you just can minorly connect two cities so far away. I think it would be cheaper and more accesible for the people to have a highway but if we want high-speed rail which i'm for, we can do that. I'm for western Sylvanian development, and for helping those in train village. So okay we're going with high speed rail, is anyone actually for that or will that be shot down too, I have the feeling it will. On the issue of Seven, Its clear we need jobs across Lovia and  make it accesable for citizens there to have faster transportation, we can't build high speed rail there, so we need a highway. On the toll, I think it's hard to say when we have no taxes, the taxes he tried to pass had limited revenue with a 38% rate at the top and 28% at the bottom, that we need some source of revenue, to fund the government to fund any of these projects. This is responsible, and isn't a large 2 or 3 dollar toll, but .75 cents a day. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:56, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think inserting another railway is fine, connecting to Train Village and then going through to Noble City. Also to just address Horton on why it should not be Clave Rock but Train Village: 1. it would be easier to build along the plains to Train Village than through the mountains to Clave Rock, 2. Clave Rock is about to 'green up', I hardly think a second train line would help that process 3. Going to Train Village allows us to also make another line to Noble City, which is useful for Trade (Noble City is our big trading city) and would help build jobs in Train Village.
 * On the matter of Seven, yes they should be connected but the amount of people on the islands does not require a motorway, also it's unlikely that it'll be used commercially as I'm sure ferries are the big thing there. Also jobs are not made just by building highways and railways, they facilitate it, but a bigger way to facilitate jobs is to come up with a proper business start-up and support model but that's a matter for another proposal which I hope to be heading. The point is, building this to simply facilitate jobs does not validate it as a practical policy that this government should adopt.
 * On tolls: you'd need to establish a law for those tolls too technically. So I'd prefer if we just put our efforts into getting a standard tax code set up and taking things from income. And on top of that I don't care how low it is, it's still an annoyance and unnecessary once we have a tax code set up.

That is my reply in full. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 21:30, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure people in Amish Kinley would even want a highway connection to their village. :P 77topaz (talk) 20:38, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't. --John Amman 20:46, February 23, 2013 (UTC) Never fear, the CNP are on the side of Amish Kinley in ensuring their lifestyle (as well as the environment of Lovia) is as undisturbed by the development of lovia as possible. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 21:30, February 23, 2013 (UTC) Oy vey. Then scrap the Amish Kinley route. So, in all we should scrap everything, okay then. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:06, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

2013 Lovian Transportation Route
My last attempt in this. I can already see this will become wasted time anyway.

For starters I will hope to create the Western Sylvanian Railroad a high speed rail connnecting the bays and urban areas of Charleston to the economic hit areas of Train Village in hopes of new jobs their. 410 jobs will be made and will cost 5.1 million dollars. In the north of Train Village we see that it's railroad and highways will lead to highspeed rail and able for faster travel across the island. The cost of a ticket is 3.00 one way, 5.00 two rides. A monthly pass 140$.

I'm still hoping for a toll to be introduced on the most traveled highways, this is needed to fund projects elsewhere. Possibly on highway 1 or 2.

In seven I scrapped the Kinley route to lead the town into NK, but kept the eastern kinley route for faster travel now costing 1.29 million dollars and creating another 50 jobs. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:26, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Also, Sylvania Highway 1 exists, connecting Charleston to the rest of Sylvania. Even if a new highway was built, it would probably be an extension of Highway 7. A new railroad might be nice, but Kunarian has been opposed. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:28, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed, not really anymore. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 21:39, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

On the railway: I'd support it if it went from Charleston to Train Village to Noble City. Also no high speed, that's kind of pointless and too expensive for Lovia only the most advanced and largest nations have them and no setting ticket prices yet, I'd prefer we get a plan set up before we do details.

No tolls, they're mainly annoying and we can fund our projects through more direct and less hassling tax, leave tolls for private roads not for public ones.

On Seven I can support a standard road connecting the settlements but a motorway at a stretch and depending on others opinions.

Finally all these job numbers seem rather ominous, I'd like to see your sources. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 21:39, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

All we'd need to do for the railway is to expand the Trans Sylvanian Railway. HORTON11 : •  21:49, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to create a new railway, for reasons stated in the last section. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 21:53, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we all go on chat and talk about this (and maybe about SCP too)? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:55, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gotten my opinion in here yet...but I think that if we are going to build trains, let's have them be fast. I'm thinking maglev bullet trains. For highways, if we build more, is anyone up for an autobahn? With autobahns and bullet trains, we could get places in no time. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:45, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

006. SLP-LP-CNP proposal for Transportation Bill 2013
Well after discussion and planing three major political party leader Hoffmann, Krosby and Villanova, we've came together and proposed this new plan. Here's a gallery of what these new projects will look like. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:58, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) On the issue of Sylvanian railways we've came up with this proposal. First we already have a Train Village to Noble City Railway, we'll repair some lines, but add another line next to it which will also go from NC-TV then to Charleston. This can create 525 short term jobs, and 80 long term jobs. This will cost 30.01 million dollars.
 * 2) Connecting roads from eastern kinley to the highway their and the bridge. This will help Seven's hard hit economy and create 90 short term jobs, and cost 1.1 million dollars.

NOTE: Hi, since this is being spearheaded by me and other colleagues, and this covers my ministry, I will have a question time on Transportation, this act, and Unemployment, among other things that relate to this act on Sunday, 24th, at noon - maybe 2 or 3. PLEASE COME!!! ASK QUESTIONS!!! BE ACTIVE AND INFORMED!!! I hope we can get this passed by the end of next week (March 1st-2nd). And the question time tomorrow will allow for scrutiny into any problems or question you have have and enlighten you so we can get this passed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:07, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Coldn't you just continue the railroad that's alerady there, because it's more expensive to do it from scratch.MMunson (talk) 23:38, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

We need more transportation and it being faster, more accessible and for people and transport of goods. It will cost more but what it can do is allow one of them to be primarliy used for goods and free up the other one for people and leasure travel. There is also more jobs involved, that can allow more money into the economy and combat Train Village's unemployment problems. (I'm adding this to Question Time tomorrow) Also if you have any questions, they can be answered tomorrow for over three hours in Question time. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:50, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

We agreed that TV-Charleston would be an extension of NC-TV. . . —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:09, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

But it would have one more lane now right? Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:16, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah thats what I said, again all please come to QT tommorrow. Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:19, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Three things: --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:05, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * The costs will be more like 35 million.
 * The railroads on the maps should perhaps be drawn in a more steady line (there is nothing in the way of making them straighter except for the natural hills).
 * Other than that, sounds good :)
 * I agree with Oos on the costs point, we need to consider both the people we are hiring (their pay) and the amount of money we need to spend on bits and bobs to build the actual thing. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 20:21, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * True its good we're discussing this...I wouldn't know exactly how each labour would be compensated but it would be something like 15.00 an hour, more? Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:29, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Nice. I need to change my sig, it still says CNP   Happy65   Talk CNP   09:59, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

@Oos, are you sure. This is a regular railroad on a small island. I'd say even still, 29 million. The roads in kinley, how much. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:24, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that my autobahn and maglev bullet trains are out of the question due to pricing? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:37, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Well, you should take in account that - unlike America - Lovia does not have its own iron supplies. Everything must be imported. Therefore I take a look at the Dutch prices and a piece of railroad in Limburg, which was a single lane and about 30 km long, had a cost of about 20 million. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:47, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

But shipping to Lovia shouldn't be all that hard because it's close to California. There will be transaction fees though... --Quarantine Zone (talk) 21:37, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

@Maglev- that's right. High-speed trains are unreasonable and unnecessary, given the size of Lovia. HORTON11 : •  21:43, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

So what are we doing here what would be nessacary? Labour, Parts, Trains? How much would each be worth. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:38, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Reboot
I propose we get this approved and done, this upgrade to our railways is an essential improvement that will promote a stronger economy and will allow for more environmentally friendly transit by promoting train transport over car transport.

The construction of the "Headlands Cross State Line"
 * Costs - $70,500,000
 * Labour - 1 average worker @ ~$60,000 - ~500 workers - $30,000,000
 * Resources - 1km of rail @ ~$500,000 - ~81km of rail - $40,500,000
 * Benefits
 * The line will facilitate economic growth in both Charleston and Train Village
 * The line will facilitate internal trade as well as external trade, giving Lovia a more fluid economy
 * The line will be useful also in providing quick transport of supplies and services in cases of emergency
 * The line will also be useful in lessening car traffic and will provide safer and cleaner train transport for the masses

I suggest we move this to the second chamber as soon as humanly possible after critique. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 13:12, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

Here! But what about costs afterwards, meaning long term jobs as in train workers, conductors and line repairment, etc. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:15, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually against this one for 2 reasons. 1) As Marcus just said, you're over budget due to paying for maintenance, and they may run into problems and require extra money, or the workers could demand more pay, etc. 2) I think that some of your money should be put towards other things as well like fixing roads or fixing rundown railroads. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:45, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Uhhh don't miss-quote me, i proposed this and want it. I am 100% for this and think its definitley needed for lovia's well being. Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:48, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

I think this should not be done via Congress. It is an state internal affair, which should be discussed between the Minister of Transportation, Governor of Sylvania, and other locally involved. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:40, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

007. Update NSO
I propose to update the NSO. If there are no objections, I will make a proposal. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:54, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Revised already this year or late last year.  Happy65   Talk CNP   15:56, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Only East Hills needs to be a town. It is but not on that page of the NSO. Wabba The I (talk) 16:03, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:10, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

@Happy: you don't make sense right now. You just updated the page on Plains so it would be a town. In the NSO, it is still a hamlet... Hamlets are now the places in the rural districts with less than 500 inhabitants. Even Beaverwick is a village now. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:51, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: the Settlement Act was updated, but the NSO wasn't? :P 77topaz (talk) 08:08, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

Well, nothing was updated. Only the federal law. And that was exactly the reason I don't support unnecessary changes which affect a lot of pages: nobody's gonna update them... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:15, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're the PM and admin. :P Anyway, in that case, this should have been done already, but since it hasn't yet, it should be done soon, so. 77topaz (talk) 08:17, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's the responsibility of the proposer to look after it :P It should be done indeed. However, I need list of hamlets (small populated places within the districts. So far, only Oceana and Sylvania have lists that I am aware of). --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:18, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

The censuses could be useful. 77topaz (talk) 08:25, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

How? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:57, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

008. - Constitutional Change - Voting Rights
Hi fellow congresspersons, I've been trying to pass economic changes with the train connecting train village to Charleston and new roads in seven but I hope all congressmen in their own right will please consider that and pass it. But I move to maybe a technicality and important right that each citizen should have, this should be added to the elections and formation of government section of the constitution.

Now this law an certain sections obviously do not apply to actual users but since were trying to be real nation here:
 * 1) Any Lovian citizen aged 18 or older may exercise their right to vote in an election.
 * 2) The citizen must file registration for voting with the State Government to be allowed to vote.
 * 3) Registration must be filed at least two weeks before an election is held.
 * 4) A state may set the voting age limit for statewide elections to either the age of 16, 17, or 18, according to the preference of the state.
 * 5) No citizen may be barred from voting on grounds of their gender, sexual orientation, race, personal beliefs, or religious background.
 * 6) Infringement of voting rights is a felony, punishable by a minimum of a 10,000 dollar fine.
 * 7) The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime.
 * 8) The voting rights of citizens can be removed if they are deemed unfit by way of a Supreme Court order.
 * 9) Electioneering is allowed, but only 30 meters or more away from the location where a voter casts a ballot.
 * 10) Breaking this law once leads to a 1000 dollar fine. Breaking it more than once leads to a minimum prison sentence of three days and a 3000 dollar fine.
 * 11) The Supreme Court may prescribe a greater punishment depending on the severity of the crime.

Please give some feedback, what should be added, deleted, changed (Idk about the last "electioneering" thing, although i think it's needed for a safe environment for campaigning) Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:28, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

I think 16 and above for the voting age, and 100 feet away from the voting center. The fine should be higher, and should be MUCH higher for second offenses. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:34, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

First Point - usually conservative dont want to extend the franchise to 16 so I compromised to 17. But I'll move it to 16 :P. 100 feet away, second offense fine being 1k. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:32, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Two things: 16 should be 18 and in Lovia, we use the metric system, no feet, we want meters. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:15, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Oos, it should be 18.  Happy65   Talk CNP   07:11, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

@liberals - I knew the franchise being extended would be a problem. I said 17 as a compromise, personally i would want 16, conservatives 18. So lets compromise to 17. Changed to 30 meters which is 98.42 feet, in meters its a round even number. Anymore suggestions? I'm moving this to the second chamber by saturday! Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:03, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Round 750 to 1000 and increase 1750 to 5000. Also, I think the voting age should be 16 (there are many 20-year-olds not ready for voting and many 16-year-olds who are), but I won't block the proposal on it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:04, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

@On fines - Ill increase them slightly. On the issue of voting age, it's a huge argument across the World and many countries. And i'd like maybe for people to actually voice an opinion on this before it goes to the second chamber. I support votes at 16, while conservatives say 18. I'll compromise and say 17, are conservatives for that. In reality (not to toot my horn) but as I proposed it, and we'd approve it it'd be a huge step forward in history for youth rights, right? Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:11, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going with raising it to 24. That would work fairly well. Most people are ready by then. (Not really, that would never get passed, but if it could that would be pretty awesome.) I think that 17 is better than no voting age, so I'll vote pro if it goes to second chamber. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:43, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we need one more fix: there should be a line in place that people can be excluded from voting by court order (f.e. severe prisonership, mentally not fit etc.) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:09, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Can I just say that we need an age at least and I think that 18 is the best way to go to begin with. Then those who think it should be higher/lower can attempt to change it. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 13:45, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:50, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

I can't even with those who think it should even be higher than 18, just because you don't want to take part in a democracy or you think you're too stupid to vote doesn't mean a excited citizen wanting to excercise his/her right to vote shouldn't. I'm thinking that 17 is where it should be kept there's some poor poor judgement on your part, to those who think those who are young don't have the tools, or thought process to be able to vote. I know i'll look forward to casting (IRL) my first ballot, I know some of you felt the same way. Some 16 and 17 are more prepared than any 18 year old, and some 18 year old than 17 and 16. But in the same right we don't force everyone to vote, we shouldn't deny a more mature group of people the same right of "too vote, or not to vote". I can already hear the slippery slope arguments of "Why not allow a 15 year old, or  4 year old" but we all know first off that a 4 year old can't make that situation but in all honesty maybe a 15 year old can but we do have to have a standard of a mature young adult age like 16 or 17 in which our citizens can join the franchise and become an active citizen. Again i'll push for votes at 17. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:38, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Marcus, I don't doubt that there are many people who are younger than 18 that are ready to vote, it's that I think that there are a lot of people who aren't ready to vote but will vote anyway. It's better to wait until nearly everyone is mature enough to vote and then allow them than to have a whole ton of votes from people who aren't ready. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:31, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

But what is mature? Your mature enough to enlist in the army, marry and go off to college or get a job, be taxed on that money but not be able to say how you would like that money to be taxed and where for it to go. Again like I said, votes at 17! Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:37, March 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * This argument is entirely true and could work in a American sense, but here in Lovia we have a diffrent story. Almost all of our entire youth will go to college, and most likely with government assistance, almost none of them will get out of High School and enter Lovia's deadly, I mean DEADLY military. Leave it at 18. -Sunkist- (talk) 23:19, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I love the blantant disregard of the facts put foward and instead saying that we are a poor, crumbling nation who relies on a non-existant military, which is very interesting. Most americans also come out with debt since it's such a capitalistic nation so again I don't know where that point went. Again i'm looking at these points from a conservative point of view on this issue and none of them pass the smell test. Until someone has a credible argument against this, I say votes at 17! Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:30, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * Who said we are a poor, crumbling nation who relies on a non-existant army? Bantant disregard of facts? Is it not true that most of the Lovian youth goes to college after High School?  -Sunkist- (talk) 02:14, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

This isn't something to block the law on. . . I prefer a lower age, but 18 is fine. 17 is also a prime number, which makes it look awkward when used for age limits. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:59, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

18 is better. Like I said up the page.  Happy65   Talk CNP   07:17, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

I'd say there's more support for 18. Taking our regulations on tobacco and alcohol in mind, I would not add yet another age. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:40, March 13, 2013 (UTC) :Yes it's a good idea to match all our points of maturity together. Also on Marcuses points:
 * Army - Lovia doesn't have one, although the federal police could be considered your equivalent in this argument. In the federal police you are a cadet and cannot become a corporal (front line police) until you are 21 at least.
 * Marry - only at 18 are you able to marry without needing your parents permission.
 * Colledge - to be honest this isn't really a good argument, colledge is part of education and children are educated from a very yound age so being in education isn't really a good argument for me.
 * Job - a valid point that however it's not really too relative considering you can actually be working way before the legal age, and can get 'paid' in a way, I prefer the argument of having to pay taxes for working at that job.
 * Tax - we haven't got taxes and we can put them in to be taxed at 18, therefore the age of 18 is truly the age of maturity in lovia, then they are taxed at 18 for their earnings and can decide where those taxes go with their vote.
 * Votes at 16 or 17 don't work as well in a Lovia considering the above situation I've just described. I suggest that we go with 18 being the age of maturity in lovia and keep this consistent in any future laws we decide to pass. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 10:00, March 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see age as the issue, it's whether or not the voter is informed. I think we should make the voting age 17, and we could introduce a Lovian politics course (or something like that) in high school, to teach students on the system and help them make informed voting choices. (unsigned)


 * @sunskit - you were the one who put forward this sort of militaristic Lovia and a sort of sad nation, we are not. @kun -  We are progressive we can work in that direction, you're right we dont have taxes but, the master of the tax law, I'd say we need laws about taxing and education to allow young adults who want to leave and work at 16 should, but then denying these young adults that right is wrong and this must be a first step in that direction for correcting that wrong. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:08, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * "I mean DEADLY military." Sorry, I didn't know North-easterners didn't comprehend sarcasm. My dearest apologies. -Sunkist- (talk) 23:55, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no need to insult such a large group of people over something this small. :P 77topaz (talk) 00:08, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * You get use to the infantile attacks, when someone can't honestly defend there position correctly. And I see no humor in war or "DEADLY" military, so excuse me if somehow midwesterners, which I doubt, find that hilarious. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:16, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Its simply sarcasm to state the matter your 'enlist into the army' has no weight in this conversation due to the fact that Lovia's Army is HIGHLY unlikely to go to war due to our neturality status. Are you trying to say that I find humor in entering a accutally deadly military or war, if so, I'd demand an apology on your behalf due to false accusations. In the United States, men entering at the age of 17 should be able to vote, due to the fact that the US Military is dangerous and deadly, while in Lovia the arguement does not hold up. -Sunkist- (talk) 19:38, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't even have an actual military which is so amazing that you don't even know basic things about lovia. NO YOU DO, You Said "Dealy War" was a sarcasam and then insuled an entire fucking part of America. You've proven your a horrible statesmen and have no actual useful comments to make. Saying that a fictional army, is deadly and that we are a bad nation in which most students will have debts, like every other student in the world, or die in a military which appeared to be a joke, and had sarcasam behind it. Next time, come to the chamber with sometime constructive like kunarian. Even if he doesn't agree with me, which is like 90% of the time, he doesn't just go make something up but actually replies with something backed up with some fact. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:22, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * "We don't even have an actual military.." YES I KNOW, thats the reason WHY I SAID "...almost none of them will get out of High School and enter Lovia's deadly, I mean DEADLY military." Becuase you said for one of your reason of maturity that "Your mature to enlist in the army...". I'm not stupid, I know that we only maintain the FCSB, the LSS and the Federal Police. I never even mention the words "...Deadly War..." together in my statement, I did say "..enters Lovias Deadly, I mean DEADLY military." Which you know, is NOT insulting due to the fact its not deadly nor is it even a real organisation, THATS WERE THE SARCASM COMES FROM. You have done libel to me in this Chamber, and I do demand an apology.
 * WHEN I SAID "This argument is entirely true and could work in a American sense" becuase America does have a deadly army, and If I said diffrently, I would insult my cousin, my father my fathers father and his father.
 * -Sunkist- (talk) 00:34, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Beacause you join the military, die but never go into a war? The Original statement said was about a deadly military, but what would that military do to make it die. Thats why the orginial statement made zero sense. But then why say it at all you obviously find something either a joke, or need for humor in that its the politics of it or the war side. I won't even apologize for a matter not even needed, with unconstructive comments and that creates side arguments insulting an entire side of a country because of the lack of seriousness. But again in a case were we debate voting age and age of adulthood but none seen. Yes we all have someone that has fought in the military, my grandfather in WWII, but you bringing that up is not even apart of the argument.  Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:49, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * You must be joking me. Can some one please help me to help Mr. Villanova understand. Calling the Lovian military deadly, is like saying "The American south is extremely liberal and supports same-sex marriage" Its not true, its sarcasm, not to be a joke but to make an ".. usually conveyed through  irony  or  understatement ." It relates to the age of adulthood, becuase you brought up the voting age in Lovia with military service, WHEN THERE IS NO MILITARY IN LOVIA. -Sunkist- (talk) 01:02, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * There's the Special Forces. And, most of the world, including nearby countries like the USA, do have enlistment ages for militaries. 77topaz (talk) 01:44, March 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * The Special Forces are no longer active in Lovia, I believe Lukas dismantled them. -Sunkist- (talk) 01:51, March 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * You would be correct sir. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 09:42, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * But prehaps there is a compromise in this. I'll say it doesn't make you more qualified to vote in state elections than federal but what if we did 17 for state elections, and 18 for federal. Everyone gets something Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:21, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * What about States can set their own voting age limits for the state elections? not only would that be more interesting but then you could go 16 completely if you were governor of somewhere, stay at 18 or go to 24 if you felt that upwards was the way to go. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 21:11, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * As a states right advocate I like that :) I added in states may lower the age to 17 or 16 for statewide elections, but not raise it above 18. I'm moving this to the second chamber Saturday again :D Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:13, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * I added Citizens can be excluded from voting rights if deemed unfit under Supreme Court order. We don't want psychos voting. Is the English good? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:20, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is, quite. :P 77topaz (talk) 07:37, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you fix it? :P I want to say: Burgers kunnen uitgezonderd worden van stemrecht indien ongeschikt verklaard middels een Hooggerechtshofuitspraak. :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:43, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a more grammatically correct way would be The voting rights of citizens can be removed if they are deemed unfit by (way of) a Supreme Court order. 77topaz (talk) 08:05, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I added it :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:09, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * We are going to allow Supreme Judges to take peoples voting rights away? Lets not do that, that could have some serious political implications on the system if a supreme judge decided to revoke all of CCPL's or Labour's Congressmen from voting. -Sunkist- (talk) 19:42, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you realise this is about voting for elections, not voting in Congress? And such an order would not be able to be made just at whim. 77topaz (talk) 20:49, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Constitution's are somtimes made ambigious, like that of the US Constitution and can be used as such to justify peoples actions. As a Justice, I COULD take into account that a Congressmen is a voting citizen, and 'voting rights' could be say such as both electorial and congressional, and could remove BOTH. Never does the article say its just for the cause for election rights, but simply 'voting rights' which in the Second Chamber, you 'vote' to enact laws, thus being part of your 'voting rights' -Sunkist- (talk) 00:40, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

What section of the Constitution will this be added to? Article 2, Article 8, or another? If Article 2, Article 8 will need to be amended from "any citizen" to "any citizen eligible for voting". —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:21, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

In the heeading it said in the last part of it's act. So is there general support of this (75%) so? :D Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:22, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I saw that, and changed it to "Not sure if Article 8 is the best section for this. I propose Article 2. If we put it in Article 2, Article 8 will need to be amended from "any citizen" to "any citizen eligible for voting," but you undid that for some reason. So please ignore that respond to the statement that I posted:

Not sure if Article 8 is the best section for this. I propose Article 2. If we put it in Article 2, Article 8 will need to be amended from "any citizen" to "any citizen eligible for voting." —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:43, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Wait wut happened xD Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:08, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the military thing was relevant at all even in a sarcastic sense... We don't have a military. Anyway, my argument for older than 17 is that the percentage of 17 year olds who are ready to vote is lower than the percentage of 21 or 24 year olds who are ready to vote. After the age of 24 though, the percentage of people ready to vote barely goes up at all if any. This is because 24 is the high end of the average age that people's minds mature, so virtually everyone is able to make as rational decisions as they're going to be for the rest of their lives at that point. That is why I want higher than 17, but like I said, I'd vote pro anyway. 17 is better than no age limit. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:48, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but I would like to know if anyone else would agree. I don't want to tyranny of the majority here and see though, if anyone else agrees. Personally, as you know I don't. So what does everyone else think? Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:37, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think 18 would be the best compromise. Most of us agree with 18: you prefer 16, QZ prefers 24. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:31, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

009. State Laws
I want to bring back the state laws. But: before I'm gonna waste a lot of time, I want to know whether we can get a 66%+ majority for this. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:08, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

You always have known I'm a VERY strong advocate of devolution and stronger states! All six votes would be in support of State Laws, Governors and Councils!!! Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:00, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

What would the laws say? I'm pro devolution, but in general I want less government usually...--Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:54, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well devolution does not equal less government, it does not also equal more government. What it does mean is that people get a stronger decision on how big the government governing them should be, because while they have just the same influence over the central government as before, their vote for the devolved government is worth much more and can decide much more greatly on the path they wish to take.
 * Although as I've found, devolution does simplify things, the most devolved levels of government are normally the most efficient and so in a way voting for devolution does reduce government to a degree as centralised jobs are transformed into devolved jobs and due to better efficiency normally less jobs are needed for the same task. Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 21:36, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah In lovia though its very weird, it proves the horseshoe theory of political science. Its supported by Socialists and Conservatives yet in the middle no support.... Basically it would take some power away from the greatly powerful centralized government and give them to governor's to enact laws through "State Law Books" and then would give power to "State Councils" to change and amend these laws. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:27, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

But you see quarantine, more government isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you take the American mentality of a necessary evil, yes small govenrment seems good. But with an open European mentality we can balance out a larger government to better serve people's needs. And i'd support the reintroduction of state laws, cause we should allow a greater degree of autonomy to states. HORTON11 : •  19:25, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Horton on the issue of the scope of government and what new state laws could allow. It could allow more more productive and adpative laws to the needs of that state's citizens. I would like to see Governors, State Laws, and State Councils all having an equal say and working to have power at the state level and promoting growth and social change at a more accessible, smaller level. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:03, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I fully support such a move. State laws are vital and important especially when our states are so diverse. Having the same exact laws for Seven as for Sylvania makes no sense and trying to pass a Seven based law through government makes no sense either as MotCs who were voted for by people not from seven will vote on it. We need to have a flexible government in such a modern day and age. Hoffmann Kunarian TALK 21:36, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad too see the support for this, call me crazy but I think I remember there was a possible coalition about this. I don't actually remember if that ever worked out :P. I fully agree with reienstatement of the State Laws if: We Put in elections for state councils to replace elections for Governors and States having "mini-congresses" with the Governor being from the majority party. Impowering democracy as well as devolution. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:30, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

The reason I'm against big government is that I see no need for it really. I think that people need to rely on themselves and their community more than the government, so I feel that some parts of the government are unnecessary and that they simply cost money that could be more well spent. Anyway, I'll vote pro probably. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 00:31, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Any support here still? Lets not have this left alone and forgotten! Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:46, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

The balance: 28% pro, 34% probably pro. We still need 5%! :P Anyway, next week I've got more time, so then I might start writing. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:15, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

To the Speakers corner maybe? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 21:30, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Its not something much to be swayed. But I think once they see the senior politicans like Oos, Hoffman, Krosby and I (from 4 different right-left specturms) itll get approved. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:44, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Time is against devolution though. I think Punarbhava is the farthest left on here, and I'm the farthest right. Either way, Time and Oos are fairly close on the right-left scale. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:47, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I think Time and me are pretty much the same when it comes to the economical stand. In practically all other aspects, we are opposites :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:03, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're opposites on the Green to non-green scale. Idk if anyone on here is opposites on that scale. There are very few truly non-green people, and I don't think we have any on here, and we have some pretty green people. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 12:25, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yes but I want to have support for this xD @Oos - Anyway to get this proposed? Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:14, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

@QZ: Non-greens are rare in Lovia, maybe because it makes no sense to be anti-green :P @Marcus: Sure, I'll write a proposal this week. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:39, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

First proposal
. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:26, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

Any remarks? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:33, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

My Take:


 * I'm not really for or against state courts, so okay Pro for that. But still very good, love the devolution.
 * State Law: So Pro for this! You say motions are proposed and voted in the same chamber? So it wouldn't be like this system, would be a bit weird, no?
 * I don't get article 6.7 "A motion that is not intended to be enshrined in the State Law, but that does need State Council approval, is proposed and voted in the same way.", Please clarify.
 * I dont get how your are elected into the state council it's a bit vauge. Why don't we just do it in the parliamentary way we do it in congress, the council, or majority party appointing a Governor and Deputy Governor.
 * Instead of 3 votes per state?
 * Is there a outline of the powers of the state council?
 * Can these state councils create "State Ministries" to oversee statewide things (Ex in Oceana "Minority Affairs", in Clymene "Healthcare") Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:54, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

This just seems to make things more comlex. We don't have enough people or time for active state councils or ministries. HORTON11 : •  13:58, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

No the point is, when you have two or three people running for a state each with an invested interest, and they recieve votes they deserve even a minor share of the responsibility. I mean technically under the plan we have know a governor with a stroke of the pen can just do whatever within limit. Now their will be opposition in some form, and debate and votes on bills proposed by other members with care of the state or the governor. I just think this bill needs some tweaks, but in the thought of it, it's very good. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:09, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

I just think it would be more efficient with people interested in contributing to a state politically should work directly with the governor. HORTON11 : •  14:15, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

But for a party that stands near the liberal spectrum, it's very undemocratic to say "You did okay but no say in the process, Bye bye!!!", your version would be hope the governor actually listens to citizens and thinks that they would change the process, but through actual democracy is how it should be changed, and that is what is being proposed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:18, March 26, 2013 (UTC),

Ideally that is what should be going on, but 1.We don't have enough users to have active councils in all states, 2. If we can barely get a good amount of users to vote in congress, I don't think involvement in these councils would amount to the same. 3. It makes for a bunch of unnecessary bureaucracy that can be put aside in favor of a smaller and more direct thing with the governor. HORTON11 : •  14:31, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

Reply @Marcus:
 * State Law: there is no direct need for two separate chambers, as in most cases, the State Council will exist of two or three users only.
 * 6.7: this is f.e. a vote whether a railroad is to be constructed, or renaming a street. It should not be in the State Law, but it still needs a vote.
 * @how you are elected: It is exactly that way.
 * @3 votes: Mmm... Didn't really think about that. Shall we simply keep one vote per state then?
 * @powers: see article 5
 * @ministries: see article 5.1.7

Reply @Horton: One vote or at the most two. True, I mean In my personal opinion i would like users to run in two states so sectionalism isn't created and more interest in other state's matters. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:47, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * We need State Councils if we want to reenact the State Laws. Just one person deciding on all of the state law is very undemocractic. If you have three people running in one state, you would already have a way more democratic system. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:41, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we could add that a user may run in two different states, but may only hold one (Deputy) Governor position. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:52, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * We would have to see if others are interested in this. If this were to happen, I'd think most people would want to be in Sylvania, but much less in Seven or Kings. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 15:02, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, so far, we have managed to keep at least two candidates per state (with Seven as minor obstacle). That's all we need, for the rest the system will be fairly equal, except for that probably more will get done. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:09, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I think serving in two states would solve that. Maybe I would run in Seven, or you Oos. But we have primary state concerns like Clymene or Oceana so we choose those above helping those other also important states. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:11, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, enabling running in two states would already make the problem disappear. F.e. Marcus could run in Seven to represent the non-Christians, and I culd run in Kings to represent the non-atheists :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:16, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * True! Plus I think if we only ran in one state you'd see each party only in one or two states, which wouldn't correctly represent the people of Lovia. Would you know change your act to two votes and two states? Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:27, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether two votes would be a good idea. Keep it either at one or make it an odd number :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:28, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the two states xD that seems rather important? Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:31, March 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, one vote per state, right? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:10, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm feeling like three votes per state would be better :P In Communist Lovia: Everybody wins!!! Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:34, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * Three votes per state? :P Well, if it's possible to give more than one vote to a single candidate, I'm not against it :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:21, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * omg xD haha, did you add those new changes though? I'd really like to see this passed! Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:39, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * I will, however, on second look, I think it is not clear what exactly the State Laws are meant for, so I'll first dive into that. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:01, March 28, 2013 (UTC)