Forum talk:First Chamber

Article 2 – Rights of every human being in Lovia states:

to have a living
 * should this be to make a living ?
 * I mean: to have the right of having a home/house/apartment. So I figured 'living' would be a good word. Isn't it right? 15:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What about have a shelter, though I am not sure, I could try to find the right expression if you give me some time. [[Image:Love.png|18px]] Lars 15:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look it up. 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I found residence. Isn't that nice? 15:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perfect, that looks more like the 21st century we are living in ! [[Image:Love.png|18px]] Lars 15:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. What do you think of the rest of the text? Is it suitable? 15:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * i will propose my first proposal here Pierlot McCrooke 19:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's good. 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will make this country better Pierlot McCrooke 15:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Smoking ban
As long as there is no beer ban it is good. I fully agree with Lars: ban + taxes + penalties. --OWTB 08:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
Why is Pierlot absent? Has he been blocked? --Bucurestean 16:39, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhu, wikiwide, so I can't do anything about it. Well, that's what he told me, but I guess it's true. 16:40, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh really :O --Bucurestean 16:40, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * What did he do wrong? --Lars Washington 16:41, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Can I Vote?
I agree to this system but I am not sure if I can vote. Anyway I will try to find out what happened to Pierlot. Thanks!.Ligency 08:42, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you can. Please add "CIT" in front of your vote. 13:18, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

May I edit the page? Pierlot McCrooke 10:40, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * For talks, you may. If you would want to vote in the 2nd Chamber, you will have to be unblocked. 10:49, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh 83.161.230.43 10:51, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Five Point Dialogue
As the new PM I would like to invite all parties in Congress for a dialogue about the reform that awaits us. It seemed best to me if we would try to reach a consensus on the proposal and vote it afterwards. It believe it would have a higher success rate than when we should have five separate proposals. Invited for this dialogue are the PD, LD, WLP, LCP and LOWIA. 11:32, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to add the following point (WLP): No automatic seat for the king Pierlot McCrooke 11:42, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that the WLP already has some concrete views on this. I will copy it here, add your proposal and give my opinion some feedback. 11:46, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

This is the WLP proposal. I agree on most of them. Some comments: (1) Is okay for me but I doubt if it is needed (2) a must, but are there such regulations? (3) everyone should be allowed to propose a law, only Congress can vote and secretaries can only put law into action, also see 5 on this (4) Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities and relieve them of their duty if needed (5) I think it would be best to abolish state law and reorganize Congress in such a way that she has one chamber for representatives of the people and one for representatives of the states. The latter should then accept the proposal that was earlier approved by the people's representatives or make suggestions for changes and send it back (6) I completely agree (7) I don't see the point if the judge gets appointed by the secretary of justice, who can be questioned by Congress (8) I will remain neutral on this one (9) I totally agree. 12:01, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The Prime Minister will be elected directly and separate from the Federal elections. If none of the candidats gets more then 50% of the votes, a second round should be held between the two leading candidates.
 * 2) Abolishment of non-democratic local regulations
 * 3) We need to have clear borders between the authorities of the layers of the political system.
 * 4) The Congress should control the Ministers, Governors, Mayors, etc.
 * 5) Reduce the 4 layers of the political system to 3 layers.
 * 6) Abolishment of State Courts
 * 7) The Judge should be elected democratically and has to be independent.
 * 8) No automatic seat for the King in the Congress. He may not become Prime Minister or Judge though.
 * 9) New elections have to be held when at least 50% of the Members of the Congress have declared to be inactive or have not made a contribution for a month.


 * I agree on all of these points. However, I do wish to see the automatic seat for the King remain. After all, if he has to join a party and campaign in order to be elected it would damage his neutrality. He would have to form alliances and this would damage democracy. Therefore the automatic seat should remain. I say this on behalf of the LCP. Dr. Magnus 14:12, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the LCP view on the King's seat. 14:17, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you do, and it is no suprise to me mr. Medvedev! As for this point:


 * "The Prime Minister will be elected directly and separate from the Federal elections. If none of the candidats gets more then 50% of the votes, a second round should be held between the two leading candidates."

I agree with this point, however not with "50% of the votes" part. A candidate should also be able to win with, lets say, as low as 40% if others get less support and votes. Dr. Magnus 14:21, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, second rounds are usual for presidential elections. 14:32, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry to tell, but i never agreed with the "no seat for the king" thing! Considering all points, I must say i generally agree. I don't agree however with 1, 7 and 8. also, i think there is already such a provision as in 9. 14:33, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * So we have a (non-LOWIA, non-LD) consensus about the following:


 * 1) No changes to the voting system in this reform plan; separate proposals can be made
 * 2) Abolishment of non-democratic local regulations
 * 3) We need to have clear borders between the authorities of the layers of the political system: Everyone should be allowed to propose a law, only Congress can vote and secretaries can only put law into action
 * 4) Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities and relieve them of their duty if needed
 * 5) An abolishment of state law and reorganize Congress into two chambers: one for representatives of the people and one for representatives of the states. The latter can then accept the proposal that was earlier approved by the people's representatives or make suggestions for changes and send it back
 * 6) Abolishment of State Courts
 * 7) No changes to the appointment of judges
 * 8) Keep the automatic seat for the King in the Congress.
 * 9) New elections have to be held when at least 50% of the Members of the Congress have declared to be inactive or have not made a contribution for a month.
 * Is this about it? If so, then I would also like to hear the opinion of the LD and LOWIA. 14:43, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Walden says ay, though the last item continues to bother me.. 14:49, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if half of the congress is inactive, its decisions are no longer democratic. Perhaps we should make it 'mid term elections to fill the seats of the inactive ones'. The others could keep their seat. 14:56, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * then we should just change the mid-term election provisions, right? 14:57, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. When the last two parties give their opinion we can make the proposal in Congress. Please note that no-one has to follow his party if he doesn't agree. Also, changes can still be made in the first chamber. 15:09, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * we'll have to wait a little longer with the proposal i think: Congress only opens on February 1st! 15:09, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Opinion of the LD by former party leader Latin: --Bucurestean 15:39, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) An abolishment of state law
 * 2) and reorganize Congress into two chambers: one for representatives of the people and one for representatives of the states. The latter can then accept the proposal that was earlier approved by the people's representatives or make suggestions for changes and send it back  (Makes the system more complicated, you need more time to approve a law and more important: who will be the representatives of the states? We, the active people. It won't make any difference...)
 * 3)  (nothing against the King. But we keep at our point that in the next elections (2011), the King should become a candidate if he wants a seat in Congress). However, the LD won't block the reform for only this point.
 * , one of the main points.
 * 1) (added point): no person can become Judge and Prime Minister at the same time. The King is not allowed to become Judge or Prime Minister.
 * 2) (added point): English only official language of Lovia. Other spoken languages like Oceana can be recognized as regional languages but may not be used in administration (read: in articles).
 * 3) (added point): The inhabitant/citizen regulation should become more clear ("inhabitant" is not described in the constitution for example).
 * 1)  (nothing against the King. But we keep at our point that in the next elections (2011), the King should become a candidate if he wants a seat in Congress). However, the LD won't block the reform for only this point.
 * , one of the main points.
 * 1) (added point): no person can become Judge and Prime Minister at the same time. The King is not allowed to become Judge or Prime Minister.
 * 2) (added point): English only official language of Lovia. Other spoken languages like Oceana can be recognized as regional languages but may not be used in administration (read: in articles).
 * 3) (added point): The inhabitant/citizen regulation should become more clear ("inhabitant" is not described in the constitution for example).
 * 1) (added point): The inhabitant/citizen regulation should become more clear ("inhabitant" is not described in the constitution for example).
 * WLP (represented by me) agrees on the three added points! 15:41, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

LOWIA says: --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:01, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) No changes to the voting system in this reform plan; separate proposals can be made
 * 2) Abolishment of non-democratic local regulations  (too vague..)
 * 3) We need to have clear borders between the authorities of the layers of the political system: Everyone should be allowed to propose a law, only Congress can vote and secretaries can only put law into action
 * 4) Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities and relieve them of their duty if needed
 * 5) An abolishment of state law and reorganize Congress into two chambers: one for representatives of the people and one for representatives of the states. The latter can then accept the proposal that was earlier approved by the people's representatives or make suggestions for changes and send it back
 * 6) Abolishment of State Courts
 * 7) No changes to the appointment of judges
 * 8) Keep the automatic seat for the King in the Congress.
 * 9) New elections have to be held when at least 50% of the Members of the Congress have declared to be inactive or have not made a contribution for a month.
 * 10) (added point): no person can become Judge and Prime Minister at the same time. The King is not allowed to become Judge or Prime Minister.
 * 11) (added point): English only official language of Lovia. Other spoken languages like Oceana can be recognized as regional languages but may not be used in administration (read: in articles).  (then there's no point in the recognition, I'm very busy now, but I'll explain it better later on)
 * 12) (added point): The inhabitant/citizen regulation should become more clear ("inhabitant" is not described in the constitution for example).

Rather clear
--Bucurestean 18:57, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * We should/could make a distinction between those proposals actually changing the way our country is run, and the less acute issues, such as the language issue (11). -- 19:10, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you have a point. --Bucurestean 19:11, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Points which are supported by a majority

 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5 (!): Only the part about the abolishment of state laws
 * 6
 * 7
 * 8
 * 9
 * 10
 * 11
 * 12

To be discussed, exluded or postponed: 5 & 11. --Bucurestean 19:14, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm abolishment of state laws. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:21, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * We already knew, dear Oos Wes. But there is about 9 against 1... --Bucurestean 19:23, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Me, Yuri and Dimitri already discussed the state laws issue, some time back. What we found, was that "transferring" the useful articles from the State Law to the Federal Law (by Congressial vote of course), proved the best solution. We got rid of the undemocratic state laws without creating a new State Parliament, and yet, we would preserve all valuable state laws. -- 19:27, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then there's no need for any local governors and we could better abolish all states... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 05:34, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * True Pierlot McCrooke 07:52, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Liberal Democrats wish to reform the states but not as described here above. --Bucurestean 12:19, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * So do we have a (more or less) general agreement on all topics described above, minus 5.2 (reform of Congress) and 11 (English only official language)? Those two should become separate proposals then. 12:22, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * A funny remark: the Progressive Democrats, during the elections often profiled as the established/conservative party, is the only party to support all proposals above. How perception can give a twist to reality...  12:28, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * after edit conflict) No, only 5.2 is not supported by a majority. With the pro of the PD, 11 is supported. --Bucurestean 12:29, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * We didn't know your ideas :P Btw it's no coincidence that the PD is supporting every point because 9 of the 12 points have been created after an agreement with the WLP. Besides there are some points which aren't really changing something, like the King's seat, the voting system or the appointment of judges. But we do appreciate your open thoughts on reform :) --Bucurestean 12:31, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the full monty without 5.2 (if wanted separate proposal by PD) and no change for the kings his seat (separate proposal by LD?). I still suggest we make 11 a separate proposal too (PD+LD+WLP) so the total reform plan has a bigger majority, I'd hate to see it all thrown away because of just the status of languages. 12:35, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * But there is already a majority? (9/12) There are also other points which are accepted by a small 7/12.--Bucurestean 12:36, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but what if someone would withdraw his vote from the entire list because he didn't like just one element? 12:43, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * bwc) I understand what you are saying, well of course we could. It doesn't matter if it's going to be proposed some days later. However, "points" like keep this and that are a bit inutile, aren't they? They don't change anything, so I think it's not needed to put that in Congress. --Bucurestean 12:43, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we will make one proposal, comprising everything that is (thought to be) supported by a majority except the points that don't make a difference. 12:45, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, excluding point 11 and 5.1 & 5.2 which will be proposed separately? --Bucurestean 12:47, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11 isn't any 'reform' but will easily get a majority afterwards. I'm thinking of dropping/replacing the idea of 5.2, but that will take some time. It would be best to leave it out. I still would like to go through with 5.1, if we find a majority. 12:50, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comment on the communist talk page (:P). Accepting some loose laws on state reform will create problems. We need, after this dialogue, to look for a new solution concerning the states. --Bucurestean 12:53, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I too answered there, stating that the problem is/would be covered. 12:56, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Missing

 * 1) The Prime Minister will be elected directly and separate from the Federal elections. If none of the candidats gets more then 50% of the votes, a second round should be held between the two leading candidates.

So I added it, point 13. --Bucurestean 13:19, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm now I fully understand what you meant by point 1... it's just another point which won't make a difference :S --Bucurestean 14:12, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally oppose this thirteenth item. Earlier a firm believer in the presidential system (as applied in the United States and France), I have lost my faith in this direct election of a leader. It causes a nation to split into fixed factions and also renders the President (or, in this case, the Prime Minister) to be too outspoken. -- 14:22, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

LCP
I just selected the opinion of the LCP in your schedule, Bucurestean. Dr. Magnus 14:07, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could you also take a look at point 13 (en de pro die net uit de tabel valt :S) --Bucurestean 14:08, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

You go ahead and fix the list, I am not good at these HTML things. *compleet a-technisch ben ik* Dr. Magnus 14:11, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, if you tell me what your opinion is on point 13... --Bucurestean 14:12, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the seperate elections for a prime minister-thingy. I disagree with the second-round when no candidate gets more then 50% of the votes. Whoever gets the most votes, whether this is 20% or 90% does not matter: he or she wins the elections. So "pro & contra". Dr. Magnus 14:20, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dat is onlogisch, want bij een tweestrijd zijn er volkomen andere resultaten, bijv:
 * Ilava (rechts) 35%
 * Medvedev (links) 25%
 * Red (links) 15%
 * Magnus (links) 15%
 * Jefferson (links) 5%
 * Tweede ronde is het niet partij tegen partij maar links tegen rechts...
 * Ilava 35%
 * Medvedev 65%
 * Snappie, tis veel betrouwbaarder en logischer. --Bucurestean 14:25, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stick to English, young fellows . Well, I personally doubt whether this really is more logical... -- 14:28, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * In the first case the only thing what matters is the organisation... if left is too divided - however there are more people who prefer a left Prime Minister than a right PM - right will simply win and vice versa. --Bucurestean 14:30, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ik snap je punt, Bucurestean. Maar onthoudt:
 * 1) Ik bén soms onlogisch
 * 2) Door zo'n tweede ronde krijg je twee groepen tegen elkaar (zoals democraten vs. republikeinen) maar gaan de individuele partijen en hun inbreng verloren in een groter geheel van één stroming. Daar er geen socialistische partij is zou hierin de stem van de LCP verloren gaan, en mogelijk die van andere kleinere partijen. Dr. Magnus 14:31, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * {PS: Sorry for the Dutch, I cannot express myself as well in Englsh as I can in Dutch! Dr. Magnus 14:31, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * But in the first case, the chance that most people are dissatisfied with the PM is bigger than in the second... --Bucurestean 14:33, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at this year's election: left was not organized: they were scattered across Libertarian, Liberal, Communist and Progressive groups. Yet, Medvedev got elected! -- 14:35, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe you could look it this way. The LCP, LD, PD and WLP included there are about 15 à 20 members, while LOWIA has only one. --Bucurestean 14:37, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, that is right . Still, I have serious doubts about this system. It implies a harsh political dichotomy - look at the United States! The entire country, my beautiful America, struggles over every little political action, as a result of this painful partisan situation. -- 14:39, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Arthur on this matter. Politics should be about consensus and a non-majority elected PM can never be as outspoken as one that did got an absolute majority. A quick look at second-round politics teaches us that the degree of pluralism is significantly lower with such systems, the U.S. being an extremum. 08:24, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * You said what I wanted to say in the words I wanted to use, if I had only recalled them! -- 18:35, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see what is wrong with the current election system? I believe the outcome was pretty fair. I will support the rest of my party on this, but I will not vote against the proposal as a whole if it stays like this. Harold Freeman 08:35, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal(s)
Instead of writing funny postal code systems, we could perhaps try to reform our state organization, as all of you wished to do, according to the election campaigns. Is there anyone who would like to start writing? Anyone could do it. We will help you out when the proposal is in the First Chamber, to bring it in agreement with our current legal system. 06:50, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will be writing something very soon now. I will post them in 'bunches' on the forum, but I think they are best voted for separated. 08:41, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

States
Why don't you just abolish them and make local executive power democratic? Elected mayors with minor responsibilities. All laws approved by a democratic organ, namely Congress. That sounds like a solution, more than this silly stuff we're in now. Martha Van Ghent 08:59, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I included that in one of the possibilities :) Bucurestean 09:06, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't know the turbulent history in Oceana and nobody here wants it to be repeated. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:06, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I included Oceana as an autonomous region in the same possibility haha Bucurestean 09:09, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:10, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably no surprise that I support a unionist state? Especially when it is a small one like Lovia (or Belgium ). I do support Martha's proposal, perhaps you can make it after you get elected? Otherwise it are always the same persons who write them... 11:12, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * OWTB and I haven't really written a law until now... ;) "only Yuri and I", to quote the King. Bucurestean 11:13, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, I believe OWTB has made already a proposal or two and Pierlot also wrote some things. Not all of them made it to law, that's sure, but that also counts for mine. And don't forget the Highway Plan of mr. McCandless! 11:17, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was generally speaking, you can't compare 2 proposals to 10 proposals. Anyways, I don't think that it should be a problem... Bucurestean 11:20, May 13, 2010 (UTC)