Forum:Second Chamber

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ In Lovia, Congress is the national legislative body and the most powerful branch of government. The Second Chamber is one of the two chambers of Congress, located in the Capitol in Downtown Noble City, in which the Members of the Congress vote bills that originated in the First Chamber. Paradoxically, 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 2012 First Congress.

Whereas all national citizens may propose bills in the First Chamber, only Members of the Congress may vote them in the Second Chamber. Article 6 of the Constitution states that "all Members of the Congress are expected to vote on the motion in the Second Chamber". They have three legal voting options: "pro (in favor of the motion), contra (in opposition to the motion) and abstention (the wish not to vote)." Further more, they "have two weeks’ time to cast their vote in the Second Chamber. Voting may be closed earlier if the required majority is reached. The proposer may also choose to lengthen the voting period."

A normal majority ("fifty percent of the valid votes") is required to pass a motion amending the Federal Law. To vote on Constitutional amendments, a special majority ("more than two thirds of the valid votes") is required to pass a amendment. The special majority requirement was lowered from three quarters to two thirds in the 2010 State Reform (Sixth Amendment). All proposals approved by Congress, by the required majority and in due time, must be implemented by the government of Lovia.

001. Government
This is the government proposal, known as the Ilava I Government, that will rule for the duration of the 2012 First Congress, unless a dissolution is passed. The proposal includes the Speaker of the Congress and each ministerial position.


 * Prime Minister: Oos Wes Ilava - CCPL
 * Minister of Defence: Lukas Hoffmann - CNP
 * Minister of Foreign Affairs: Semyon Breyev - ind.
 * Minister of Finance: Percival E. Galahad - LAP
 * Minister of Justice: Bill An - PL
 * Minister of Health: James Torres - LDP
 * Minister of Education: Matthew McComb - PL
 * Minister of Culture: Oos Wes Ilava - CCPL
 * Minister of Labour: Pierlot McCrooke - CPL.nm
 * Minister of Commerce: Christopher Costello - PL
 * Minister of Agriculture: Jhon Lewis - Labour
 * Minister of Energy and Resources: Ben Opať - MCP
 * Minister of Environment: Ygo August Donia - CCPL
 * Minister of Transportation: Justin Abrahams - Labour
 * Minister of Tourism and Sport: Marcus Villanova - Labour
 * Speaker of the Congress: William Krosby - LDP

Pro

 * 11 Votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:48, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 14 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:53, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8 Votes Kunarian 00:09, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:08, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 votes Pierlot McCrooke 11:07, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 Votes HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 12:39, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 votes — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat  • What's up ) 15:30, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 votes Wabba The I 16:30, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 votes --Semyon 16:40, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1 vote (Ron Nash) I opppose a governemnt with conservatives Pierlot McCrooke 11:07, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 vote Joshua Katz, 16:41, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Abstention


✅ By a 79% majority! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:09, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
What I learned today: Me + Oos + krosby + Kurnian = half of congress Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:55, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotta take advantage of that è :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:25, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

I know right :D By the way why is education now education and science again? all of the departments use science to try and improve their ministries. Kunarian 14:30, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * It will support science in the genericity (in het algemeen in dutch) Pierlot McCrooke 14:35, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand but it would be easier just to call it the minitry of education. Kunarian 14:57, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. In Lovia we can use an abbreviation like "MES" (ministry /of/ education /and/ science). Anyway, we need to have a place for science in a ministery and in the Netherlands it's very common to group it with education. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:28, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

@Marcus: Could be useful, except your political views are all totally different. :P --Semyon 16:42, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Pikapi changed it back, because he thought you can't change active proposals. That is true, but in this case you can, because name has little meaning. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:10, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well the point i was making was a good and bad one. A good one beacuse we invest our power in the more advanced and experienced users, who are also more active. Thorugh the two elections i've seen the Younger at the time inactive users only have maybe 7 seats but now have let's say 9 or 10, Movin' on Up!!! Bad cuse we might also invest too much power in too little users. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:01, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

002. Educational Reform Act (Part I)
The 2012 Educational Reform Act - (Part I)

An act requiring the education of Lovia to be reformed and for the Standard Knowledge Assessment to be implemented as the official state-sponsored and subsidized test.
 * The theories of creationism and evolution will only be taught with permission from the parent/legal guardian.
 * The SKA may not include any topics about evolution or creationism.
 * If a school's average grades are below 80 (C-F), the school must offer tutoring every morning and afternoon, unless excused by a reasonable reason from a parent/legal guardian.
 * Students may choose to be absent for religious holidays, including Passover, Easter, Chinese/Lunar New Year, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, etc. They will not be marked absent. Any missing schoolwork will not be required to be turned in, or the due date will be delayed.

Pro

 * - 3 votes - -- Bill An 05:21, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * - For our children's right to propaganda would be great too! Lee Feng 05:21, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

 * 8 Votes - please fix the thing, write it more as a law and make things less vague then propose it to the second chamber again. Kunarian 10:26, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * (4 votes). This law is against reasonable principles. The part about the telling of thew theories is possibly illegal. Children should be not withheld information due to their parents Pierlot McCrooke 11:26, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 14 votes - It's just random school related laws, like why? Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:52, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Abstention

 * 17 votes --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:02, February 5, 2012 (UTC) still too vague: is this just a standardized test or really an entire school program?
 * 4 votes --Wabba The I 11:05, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:23, February 5, 2012 (UTC) not fleshed out enough. edit: Pierlot's point is very good.
 * I oppose the teaching of creationism, 'religious holidays' must be better defined, the SKA testing looks inhumane, and I have no idea what it actually is. --Semyon 14:49, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Expired. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:03, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Comment
Another, more amusing, flaw just occurred to me. When I was young and less responsible than I am now, I would quite happily have claimed to be a member of every religion on the planet to get days off school. And I'm pretty sure that any student with real dedication could find a religious holiday for every day of the year. :D --Semyon 19:16, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

006. Settlement Act Addition
The addition is as followed (also note: this is how is was done when the smart expereniced users were in charge so yeah it's actually for the better of Lovia)


 * The current existing Cities are:
 * Newhaven and Noble City
 * The current existing Towns are:
 * Sofasi and Hurbanova
 * The current existing Neighborhoods are:
 * Artista, Bayside, Citizen Corner, Downtown, Industrial Park, King's Gardens, Little Europe, Little Frisco, Long Road, Mandarin Village, New Town, Old Harbor, The Mall, Trading Quarter, Transcity, Abby Springs, Malipa, Newhaven (neighborhood), Old Port, Pines, Canterbury, Drake Town, Hightech Valley, Hurket-on-Kings, Millstreet, Newport, Nicholasville, Orange Gardens, Muza
 * The current existing Hamlets are:
 * Beaverwick, Clave Rock, East Hills, Plains
 * The current existing Villages are:
 * Adoha, Charleston, Kinley, Portland, Train Village, Novosevensk.

Pro

 * – 14 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:41, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak – 6 votes. --Semyon 14:45, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * – 8 Votes - Kunarian 15:35, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * – 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:43, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * (4 votes) to approving Sjorkskingma's version. -- 16:14, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Abstention

 * 11 votes - not as an addition to the settlement act. Only a recognition of existing localities. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:57, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:06, February 11, 2012 (UTC) I fully agree with TM, we need a recognition of Plains, not an addition to the law.
 * (5 votes) If we want Plains to become official, we recognize it in the vote below. We don't need an unnecessary addition to the settlement act. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat  • What's up ) 17:32, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Expired. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:03, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Comment
Fine, would you two be open to making a National Congressperson Order but just for Cities and Hamlets and such? It would just keep things clarified, which is all I want. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:23, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

007. Recognition of Plains
I find it ridiculous that we have something important that we all agree on, the recognition of Plains as a hamlet, but a really small point causes deadlock. (Deja vu anyone?) So, let's at least pass this, and argue over the rest later on:


 * Congress recognizes Plains as a hamlet located in the north of Asian Island

--Semyon 17:17, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Pro

 * - 6 votes, --Semyon 17:17, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 5 votes, — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat  • What's up ) 17:24, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17 votes --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:39, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes sounds good. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:10, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 votes --Wabba The I 18:20, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 8 votes - Kunarian 20:21, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

✅ with a 51% majority, in just over three hours. Not bad. :) --Semyon 21:49, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Abstention

 * (14 Votes) Read perivous vote comment above ^^^^ i think we can find a comprimise there. --Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:31, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I think it's unnecessary.
 * No just willy-nilly approving new settlements and not even putting it in a law book in unnecessary. a NSO i needed and will be approved. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:13, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's needed, then how come we've done fine without it before? We can just recognize the existing municipalities and localities, like before, periodically. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:15, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * IDk i find it quite uncivilized =P, idk why there should be oppiosition to this, it just helps people, at the most it dosen't do harm just good. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:18, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably because it's like the Congressional Journal, which in theory is helpful but turned out to be not that helpful. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:24, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Marcus, why don't you at least vote pro for this, so we can make Plains official? Then we can consider your plan afterwards. :) --Semyon 19:07, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying no to this, Like first we adopt the outline and then fill it in with plains and other settlements. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:32, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need for an outline (we have the settlement act and lists in several places, NO NEED), and what's wrong with first approving plains, and then adopting the outline? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:34, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhhh Wait so can we then approve the NSO after this? Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:38, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends if it gets the required support. But possibly. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:44, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I support Plains, but the NSO also needs to pass too. I would also like to propose a settlement after the NSO passes, I think it promotes new settlements and boosts the lovian population. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:48, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Article 9
Article 9 – Supreme Court Trials
 * 1) The Supreme Court is an independent institution and the nation's only and supreme judicial organ, led by three Supreme Court Judges.
 * 2) A lawsuit is a civil or public action brought before a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have received damages from a defendant's actions, seeks a legal or equitable remedy, from the defendant who is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint.
 * 3) A lawsuit can be opened by a plaintiff or a public plaintiff.
 * 4) Any person in Lovia may be a plaintiff in a lawsuit.
 * 5) A public plaintiff is a representative of the federal government or any institution of it or any other level of administration in Lovia.
 * 6) The federal attorney is the public plaintiff representing the federal government, the entire population or any other administrative institution of the federal level in court. He or she is appointed by the Minister of Justice.
 * 7) A defendant is the party accused by the plaintiff.
 * 8) A public defendant has the same status as a public plaintiff.
 * 9) The Judges, plaintiff and defendent must all be different people. If one of Judges are involved in the case, he/she must resign and a replacement be nominated.
 * 10) Both parties may opt to be represented in court by a lawyer.
 * 11) Every lawsuit before the Supreme Court must proceed in this manner and order:
 * 12) The plaintiff opens the lawsuit.
 * 13) The plaintiff makes an accusation and names the defendant in the lawsuit.
 * 14) The plaintiff may make a demand. This can be a period of imprisonment, a fine or/and any other punishment not contradicting the laws of Lovia.
 * 15) The Supreme Court Judges must investigate the accusation. They may find the accusation not suited for Supreme Court; that is when the accusations made are in no way a violation of the law.
 * 16) The Supreme Court must notify the defendant that he or she is accused in court.
 * 17) The Supreme Court Judges must read out the case, including accusations and demands.
 * 18) The plaintiff's party must speak before court in order to convince the Supreme Court Judges of the truthfulness of the made claims. He or she may bring forward witnesses, that can be asked questions directly relating to the accusations, and/or evidence material. He or she may ask the defendant's party questions directly relating to the accusations.
 * 19) The defendant's party may speak before court. The defendant or his or her lawyer may plea guilty to the accusations, or unguilty. He or she may also try to convince the Supreme Court Judges of extenuating circumstances. The defendant is free to bring forward witnesses and evidence, both directly relating to the accusations or to the extenuating circumstances.
 * 20) The Supreme Court Judges must consider both pleas thorougly and by interpreting the laws of Lovia.
 * 21) The plaintiff's party may demand a second round, for which the same rules account.
 * 22) The defendant's party may demand a second round, for which the same rules account, but only if the plaintiff's party has made use of their second round.
 * 23) The Supreme Court Judges must consider the entirity of the lawsuit. The Judges must, within two week's time since the last plea, come to a conclusion. They may conclude:
 * 24) That the defendant is guilty of the accusations, or of a part of the accusations;
 * 25) That the defendant is not guilty of any accusations.
 * 26) All Judges must agree on the conclusion, except in the following circumstances:
 * 27) One of the Judges does not make an edit for a full week. In this situation, the agreement of the two remaining Judges will suffice.
 * 28) The Judges disagree completely over the verdict to give. In this case, the Judges must announce their inability to judge the case and stand down. Three new Judges must be appointed and continue with the case.
 * 29) If the Supreme Court Judges find the defendant guilty, he or she may choose to sentence the defendant, by means of:
 * 30) A period of imprisonment in a federal penitentiary;
 * 31) A fine;
 * 32) Any other sentence, including penal labor or contributions to Lovian society.
 * 33) All sentences issued by the Supreme Court:
 * 34) Must be in agreement with the laws of Lovia;
 * 35) Must be in proportion to the violation;
 * 36) Must respect the personal integrity of the individual; therefore death penalty, corporal punishment and inhumane forms of humiliation are prohibited.
 * 37) The Supreme Court Judge is appointed by the Federal Secretary of Justice. This appointment must be confirmed by Congress, by a normal majority.
 * 38) Potential candidates for the position of Supreme Court Judges must give their names to the Minister for Justice, who will officially announce the candidacies in Congress.
 * 39) The three candidates that receive the most votes, after a voting period of two weeks, will become Judges.
 * 40) Not more than one candidate may stand from each political party.
 * 41) The term of each Supreme Court Judge does not necessarily coincide with the Congressional term, nor with the duration of a federal government. The Supreme Court Judge must maintain his or her duty until another is appointed and confirmed; only then is his or her service terminated. lasts for six months, or shorter, if he/she resigns due to personal reasons or a conflict of interests, or if the Judges declare their inability to judge the case.
 * 42) At the end of his/her term, the Judge must stand down and another must be elected.
 * 43) Judges must not remain in office for two consecutive terms, except in exceptional circumstances, such as if there are no other candidates.
 * 44) If one of the Supreme Court Judge resigns from his or her duty, the Department of Justice is bound to appoint a successor, with Congressional confirmation, within one month's time. It is the Supreme Court Judges' duty to continue their service until another Judge is confirmed, and until all ongoing cases are terminated, or prepared to be passed on to his successor, without causing disturbances.
 * 45) Congress has the unique power to discharge a Supreme Court Judge forthwith, by a special majority. The Department of Justice is then bound to appoint a successor, with Congressional confirmation, within one month's time.

I think we have enough support for this bill to pass, and it has been open for discussion for long enough. --Semyon 12:10, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Another 15 votes needed. --Semyon 19:43, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

Pro

 * 6 votes --Semyon 12:11, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 votes -- Wabba The I 12:26, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:49, February 12, 2012 (UTC) Although, the exceptional circumstance thing is a bit undemocratic.
 * 13 Votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:10, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 14 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:19, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 votes -- 13:28, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8 votes - Kunarian 22:36, February 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 19:32, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1 Vote Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:10, February 12, 2012 (UTC) (nothing against you, I still don't like judges and strong courts at a federal level) (Progressive Conservative Party)
 * 2 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:20, February 12, 2012 (UTC) (PNO)

Abstention

 * 1 vote. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:20, February 12, 2012 (UTC) (RTP)

✅, which is good. --Semyon 18:04, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Article 1
Article 1 A - Lovian National State
 * 1) Lovia is a sovereign, independent, unitary and indivisible National State.
 * 2) Lovia is a democratic and social state, governed by the rule of law, in which human dignity, the citizens' rights and freedoms, the free development of human personality, justice and political pluralism represent supreme values, in the spirit of the democratic traditions of the Lovian people and shall be guaranteed.
 * 3) Lovia shall be organized based on the principle of the separation and balance of powers - legislative, executive, and judicial - within the framework of constitutional democracy. Therefore no person is entitled to combine a top function in two or three branches of government; thus, the ruling monarch, the Prime Minister and the Supreme Court Judge shall be no less than three different persons.
 * 4) In Lovia, the observance of the Constitution, its supremacy and the laws shall be mandatory.
 * 5) The national sovereignty shall reside within the Lovia people, that shall exercise it by means of their representative bodies, resulting from free, periodical and fair elections, as well as by referendum.
 * 6) No group or person may exercise sovereignty in one's own name.

Article 1 B - Lovia is a monarchy, ruled by the ruling monarch.
 * 1) The ruling monarch is the person who legally inherited the throne from the previous ruling monarch. He or she is thus a descendant of the first Lovian monarch, King Arthur I of Lovia (Arthur Noble).
 * 2) The ruling monarch can be either male (the King) or female (the Queen).
 * 3) The method of the line of succession to the Lovian throne is absolute cognatic primogeniture. Therefore, the person who legally inherits the Lovian throne, after the previous ruling monarch has either deceased or abdicated, is the person who is the eldest child of the previous monarch. If the monarch had no children, the throne goes to the next oldest sibling, followed by younger siblings and cousins.
 * 4) All descendants of Arthur I of Lovia are part of the line of succession, regardless of any activity, except for those that have requested that they be removed.
 * 5) The partner of the ruling monarch is the person who legally married the ruling monarch. They are a member of the royal family, but they do not enjoy privileges over the citizens of Lovia.
 * 6) The person first in line to the throne is known as the heir apparent, and becomes monarch after the previous monarch has abdicated or deceased.
 * 7) The heir apparent to the throne will sign the Constitution upon their coronation.
 * 8) The heir apparent assumes the throne after they have presented themself to Congress on invitation of a normal majority in Congress. After this, the heir is officially declared Monarch of Lovia.
 * 9) The ruling monarch has the right to demand financial support from the Department of Finance, in which case the Minister of Finance can decide to grant the ruling monarch an amount of money, in agreement with Congress.
 * 10) The maximum amount of financial support that can be given is 4000 Lovian dollars per month.
 * 11) With the exception of the ruling monarch in function, no member of the royal family is granted extra-legal privileges. Each member of the royal family, with the exception of the ruling monarch in function, is a regular citizen as determined by the Constitution.
 * 12) The ruling monarch's functions in the government are ceremonial.
 * 13) The ruling monarch should preside over Congress, in partnership with the Speaker of the Congress.
 * 14) The ruling monarch does not have a vote in Congress, but is free to discuss and make opinions on the laws and activities of Congress.

Changes: Added two lines at the bottom.

Article 4
Article 4 – The structure of Lovia
 * 1) The Kingdom of Lovia is governed on different levels:
 * 2) The federal level encompasses the entire Lovian territory.
 * 3) The executive power of the federal level inheres to the Government of Lovia. This government consists of the Prime Minister and the ministers of the federal government, and has control over government departments, government institutions and civil services.
 * 4) The Prime Minister and other ministers are Members of the Congress; however, the heads of government institutions and civil services do not need to be Members of the Congress.
 * 5) All legislative power inheres to the Lovian Congress. This parliamentary body consists of the Members of the Congress, who are either democratically elected by the citizens of Lovia or who are Member by Right (the ruling monarch). Congress may, as the sole body in the nation, write and amend legal matters in the Federal Law and the Constitution.
 * 6) All judicial power inheres to the Supreme Court of Lovia.
 * 7) The state level consists of five states with limited powers: Clymene, Kings, Oceana, Seven and Sylvania.
 * 8) The executive power of the federal level inheres to the Governor and Deputy Governor of each state, both democratically elected by the citizens of each state.
 * 9) The local level, consisting of cities and towns, and the sublocal level, consisting of neighborhoods and hamlets, are governed by the state authorities.

Changes: Added a fourth level line that says the PM and ministers are MOTCs.

Article 8
Article 8 – Elections and the formation of a federal government
 * 1) Federal Elections:
 * 2) Every year federal elections must be held for the election of the 100 seat Congress.
 * 3) The term of office of every Member of the Congress is exactly one year. Therefore every year the elections should be held at the same date.
 * 4) Election procedure during Federal Elections:
 * 5) During a period of three weeks, any Lovian citizen can, without restrictions, become a candidate in the Federal Elections. This period begins exactly one month and twenty-one days before Inauguration Day.
 * 6) During a period of three weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her votes in favor of candidates in the Federal Elections.
 * 7) Every citizen may cast three favorable votes in the Federal Elections: a Major Vote, a Minor Vote and a Favor Vote. A Major Vote is worth three points, a Minor Vote two and a Favor Vote one.
 * 8) Citizens may choose not to cast their votes, or to only cast some of them.
 * 9) Citizens may not cast multiple votes for the same candidate. All cast votes must be given to different candidates.
 * 10) All citizens must receive at least three points to receive any seats in Congress.
 * 11) The normal dates of elections, excluding the possibility of a dissolution of Congress, are set at December 10th to 31st for nominations, and from January 1st to 21st for voting. Inauguration Day is set at February 1st.
 * 12) All candidates will complete the elections with a percentage of the total votes, with the exception of those that have withdrawn.
 * 13) The percentage of votes cast to a certain candidate from the total votes cast is the amount of seats in Congress that the candidate will control.
 * 14) The congressperson may delegate their seats to all the parties that they wish, but still control the votes of each congressperson.
 * 15) New federal elections must be held when more than half of the Members of the Congress are inactive; either self-declared or if they have not edited for over a month (30 days).
 * 16) The Prime Minister and Ministers of the Federal Government:
 * 17) A coalition of political parties and/or Members of the Congress that control more than 50% of the seats of Congress should form between the end of elections and Inauguration Day.
 * 18) The coalition should create a proposal of which Members of the Congress should become the Prime Minister and the ministers of the federal government. This proposal must be approved by a normal majority in Congress.
 * 19) If no government proposal is approved, then the former government should continue its duties until a government proposal is approved by Congress.
 * 20) A Member of the Congress should be elected by a normal majority of Congress to become the Speaker of the Congress, who presides over Congress in conjunction with the ruling monarch.
 * 21) The Speaker of the Congress has the power to appoint a special session of congress in the case that more than half of congressional members are inactive and elections are not being held.
 * 22) Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities. If the congress has lost their trust in the questioned person, a motion of distrust may be proposed in congress against him or her. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, he or she has to resign from the government and a replacement has to be proposed by another Member of the Congress, accepted by the person who is nominated, and approved by Congress.
 * 23) When Congress has lost its trust in the incumbent government, it can vote a motion of no confidence. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, both the government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held, with the former government and congress continuing until inauguration of the new congress.
 * 24) If the Prime Minister or a minister resigns, a replacement has to be proposed by another Member of the Congress, accepted by the person who is nominated, and approved by Congress.
 * 25) The Prime Minister may schedule new federal elections at any time. If he or she decides to do so, both the government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held, with the former government and congress continuing until inauguration of the new congress.
 * 26) State Elections:
 * 27) Every Lovian citizen has the right to become a candidate for Governor of a state wherein he or she has an official residence.
 * 28) It is not permitted to be a candidate during a state election in more than one state.
 * 29) The term of office of the elected Governor and Deputy Governor is exactly one year. Therefore every year the elections should be held at the same date.
 * 30) Election procedure during State Elections:
 * 31) During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen and resident of the state can become a candidate in the State Elections. This period begins exactly one month before the day of the inauguration of the Governor and Deputy Governor.
 * 32) During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her vote in favor of a candidate in the State Elections of the state of which he or she is an official resident.
 * 33) Every citizen may cast one vote per state election. Inhabitants of multiple states have the right to cast one vote for each state in which they have an official residence.
 * 34) Citizens may choose not to cast their vote.
 * 35) The normal dates of elections, excluding the possibility of a resignation of both Governor and Deputy Governor, are set at September 16th to 30th for nominations, and from October 1st to 14th for voting. Inauguration Day is set at November 1st.
 * 36) The candidate who received the highest number of votes and at least three will become Governor of the state in which he or she participated in the state elections.
 * 37) In the case of an ex aequo, a second voting round must be held within two weeks' time.
 * 38) The Governor is in charge of the competencies given to the state government.
 * 39) The candidate who received the second highest number of votes and at least three will become Deputy Governor of the state in which he or she participated in the state elections.
 * 40) The Deputy Governor is in temporary charge of the state competencies during the absence of the Governor.
 * 41) Upon the resignation of the Governor, or any other instance causing the Governor to quit, the Deputy Governor becomes Governor and will keep this office until the next elections.

Changes: Added and revised some stuff about the part titled "The Prime Minister and Ministers of the Federal Government", and reinstated a 3-vote legal requirement, to make sure that inactive people won't get elected.

This is the old non-judicial amendment that didn't get passed due to inactivity--you can read what it does. I've also changed federal secretaries to ministers of the federal government. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:44, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Pro

 * 11 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:44, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:57, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6 votes. --Semyon 14:59, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:03, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 20:15, February 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 votes - Kunarian 22:38, February 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 votes — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat  • What's up ) 00:20, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

 * 4 votes - Confederate members of the CNP voting - Kunarian 22:40, February 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 votes -- 23:52, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 3 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:03, February 12, 2012 (UTC) (Me, PCP, LCP) (I'm now seeing the benefit of abstain, it means not bad, but needs more or isn't 100%, i think this law dose something but really not much. I still like departments over ministries.)
 * (4 votes) No ministries. In case I support it I will repropose it with the term department Pierlot McCrooke 16:11, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't support this. ^points s better. With this inactive people will be elecgted even faster Pierlot McCrooke 16:12, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Pierlot you also need to put how many of your congressmen you want to vote Abstain for this, right now it's only 1 vote abstain for you Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:13, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Formerly, it was zero. There was no legal requirement, as it was deleted in the 2011 State Reform. I'm adding it back. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:33, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
Can we get this over with and approve it already?? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:41, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

✅, which is good. (mocking Semyon :P) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:32, April 13, 2012 (UTC)



008. Settlement Recognition Act

 * 1) To organize all existing settlements, as defined in the Settlement Act, the National Settlement Order (NSO) is created.
 * 2) The duties of the National Settlement Order are:
 * 3) To list all existing settlements in Lovia.
 * 4) This includes all settlements, such as cities, towns, villages and hamlets.
 * 5) Recognized neighborhoods will be listed together with their respective settlement.
 * 6) To list the population and state of each settlement.
 * 7) All settlements recognized by Congress should be written in the Order.
 * 8) To recognize a settlement, the settlement must be approved by a normal majority in Congress.

In addition it will be added to the Public Law book when it passes.

Pro

 * 14 Votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:38, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:09, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6 votes. --Semyon 16:11, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:41, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 votes. --Pierlot McCrooke 16:37, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 votes. -- 16:54, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 votes. (follow the leader, I guess :P) — <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 16:56, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 votes Wabba The I 18:11, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

 * 11 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:44, February 12, 2012 (UTC) I think this is quite pointless. We already have lists, such as the main page, or hamlet, village, town, etc. I believe this would just have the same fate as the Congressional Journal: unnecessary complexity. You can just look in other places. Simplify, simplify.
 * Not really, the pages we list the hamlets and stuff aren't officical, which i could just add anything. By you saying this would get out of hand, leads me & should everyone else, to believe your not in favor of the NCO, which is just a different version of this. Think about it. It's quite simple and helps everyone. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:46, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, you couldn't just add anything to the NSO either, right? Your argument is invalid, the NSO could get changed the same way the front page could be. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:29, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * No it says it needs a 51% to change, so yeah proper parlimentary procedure. But just for the record we don't need to re-approve the places like NC or HU they're already approved. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:43, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, we have already approved them in recognitions of the existing localities. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:53, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 votes - I have to agree with Time on this one — <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 16:39, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain
✅ Over a 50% majority!!! I will now add it to the Public law book. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:46, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not speaker. -- 16:54, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter (unstroke). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:04, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I will make a act that abolishes the speaker Pierlot McCrooke 17:27, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't help Lovia. It's roleplay. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:36, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

012. Lovian National Sevens Team Recognition
By a simple 50% majority we shall now recognize the LNST:
 * The Lovian National Sevens Team is the fully recognized national Rugby Sevens team of Lovia.

Pro

 * 14 Votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:49, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:50, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 votes - Wabba The I 18:18, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 18:32, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6 votes. --Semyon 19:30, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:11, February 21, 2012 (UTC) though, perhaps it should be at the bottom, not the middle, like the involvement act.
 * 8 votes - Kunarian 00:19, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain


✅ with a 53% majority. :) --Semyon 19:31, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

013. Lovian National Soccer Team (Lovian National Football Team)
I would like congress to finally allow this team to become official. We can decide on the name later, if not we'll just be trying to haggle out a name and nothing will be achieved (it's been over a year trying to get the team recognized). HORTON11 : •  19:47, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we use association football, btw. It's neutral, and more formal (both soccer and football are short forms of it). Also, Horton, why don't you vote yourself? :) --Semyon 19:52, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * On wikipedia most teams are styled "national football team", except for the US (where it's soccer). Football sounds better to me, but we can decide on the name later. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 20:06, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. --Semyon 20:09, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

Pro

 * --Semyon 19:52, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 20:04, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 Votes, though, how will this be implemented if we haven't decided a name? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:10, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just add the page to the main namespace as "Football Team", and then we can have a discussionin the oub to work out a definite name. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 14:36, February 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * 5 votes - Wabba The I 12:00, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 votes — <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 15:32, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:32, March 1, 2012 (UTC) per discussion below: we will call football football and handegg handegg
 * 8 Votes - Kunarian 17:01, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:25, February 29, 2012 (UTC) we can't, unless we have decided that it will be "(Association) Football"
 * I plan on using "football team" (see the above discussion with Semyon). Calling it a "National Associaltion Footbal Team" it too long and it just doesn't sound right. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 14:36, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recommend it. Many of us are actual football fans, and personally, I can't stand when soccer is referred to as football. What if someone later on, someone wanted to establish a football organization? — <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 15:31, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Because logic dictates that calling American football "football" is stupid. The ball is not even a sphere, and it's mostly a hand game. A game that's all about feet is much more deserving of the name "football", as it was originally called. Anyone up for handegg? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:41, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm swayed by Horton's logic that every national football team on Wikipedia is known as 'national football team' apart from the American one, where 'football' means something else. Now, as American rules is not played in Lovia at all, there seems little point in using the American version. --Semyon 17:30, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, so real football is called "football" and American football "handegg"? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:38, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * In Lovia? That's what I'm recommending. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:59, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * American Football isn't really played here, so it would be ok to refer to it as a "football team". HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 13:28, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of football, the US national team beat Italy for the first time yesterday, 1-0. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 13:52, March 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * 2 votes — <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 15:32, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

✅, with a 55%+ majority. HORTON11 : •  17:06, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

016. Weights and Measures Act

 * 1) The primary and official system of measurement used in Lovia is the International System of Units, which may be referred to as the metric system.
 * 2) All information provided by the government shall, where relevant, use SI units.
 * 3) Where convenient, SI units may be prefixed with the appropriate SI prefix.
 * 4) The sole exception is that degrees Celsius shall be used for the measurement of temperature, rather than degrees Kelvin.
 * 5) The secondary system is the imperial system as used in the United States of America.
 * 6) Information provided by the government should, if possible, provide the imperial equivalent of any SI units used.
 * 7) Any purveyor of goods bears responsibility for providing information in the metric system associated with the goods being traded.
 * 8) The level of precision of measurement shall be left to the discretion of the purveyor, as long as it is not so precise as to hinder the purchaser, nor so imprecise as to deceive.
 * 9) Where possible and legible, the imperial equivalent of the metric units should also be provided on the goods being traded.
 * 10) Mathematical punctuation:
 * 11) The period is used as a decimal mark to indicate the radix point.
 * 12) The comma may optionally be used to separate digits into groups of three.

This sets up the weights and measurement system used in Lovia. It will be in the... hmm... I suppose Public Law Book. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:12, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Pro

 * 11 Votes. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:23, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 6 votes (on condition we change the word accuracy to precision.) --Semyon 18:49, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:12, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9 votes HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 20:11, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 votes Wabba The I 11:00, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * 16 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 04:41, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 12 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:06, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

 * 2 votes; Lovia should use the imperial system for better accomodation with the US. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 20:11, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 votes (same reason as horton stated) Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:06, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * But this accommodates for both, and slightly more citizens prefer the metric system. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:09, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1 vote. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 04:42, April 15, 2012 (UTC) (RTP)

✅ By a 59% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:28, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

017. Election of Supreme Court Judges
I hereby open the election for Supreme Court Judges. Each of the 100 congressman or congresswoman has one vote, which should be cast for their preferred candidate, using the template (in case it wasn't clear :P). The election will close at 0300 hours Lovian time on the 5th of May, when the three candidates with the most votes will become judges. Good luck everyone! :) --Semyon 11:03, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Lars Washington (User:TimeMaster)

 * - 2 votes. --Semyon 11:03, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 8 votes. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:27, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 4 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:49, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 4 votes HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 13:53, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 3 votes Wabba The I 16:22, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 2 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:40, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Rico Wasabi (User:The Master's Voice)

 * - 2 votes. --Semyon 11:03, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 8 votes Kunarian 11:31, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 7 votes The glorious First Consul of Rome 13:52, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 2 votes Wabba The I 16:22, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 4 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:40, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Antonia Tilly (User:Horton11)

 * - 2 votes. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:27, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 7 votes HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 13:53, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 2 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:40, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

John Paul Hrádske (User:Ooswesthoesbes)

 * - 2 votes. --Semyon 11:03, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 1 vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:27, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 10 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:49, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * - 1 vote Wabba The I 16:22, April 2012 (UTC
 * - 8 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:40, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
First past the post is a very bad voting system. Could we try single transferable vote for each of our congresspersons? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:29, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the first sentence. However, I think that in practice if someone's preferred candidate is losing they will transfer their votes to their second-preferred candidate instead. That will have the same effect as STV, but without the confusion of having 100 separate voting preferences. --Semyon 14:02, April 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I meant make separate preferential ballots of blocs of congresspersons, not a separate for each one. For example, my bloc of 11 would have 3 separate ballots, 8 sharing one ballot, 2 another, and 1 having their own. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:29, April 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems like an awful lot of work to me. :P --Semyon 16:28, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not George Matthews! I support him but I don't vote on him! Wabba The I 16:22, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

I know you're not Matthews, but I thought you wanted to use him as your character to become judge. :) --Semyon 14:39, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, how do we know when to stop? When 100% of MOTCs has voted (that's not going to happen)? 67%? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:32, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. There's a time limit. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:33, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * What now? The thee candidates? I though we had agreed on FOUR Supreme Court Judges? The glorious First Consul of Rome 15:47, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

I think that was the original proposal, not the one that eventually was accepted. That one also suggested random selection rather than voting. --Semyon 16:22, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm pretty sure it was four in this case awell. Four, because for one, it is an even number. The glorious First Consul of Rome 16:34, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * It definitely says three in the law, as well as in the proposal in the Second Chamber. In any case, you're doing rather well. :P --Semyon 16:41, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

That was the old proposal that was not approved, Magnus. 4 randomly selected jury members plus one judge. A different proposal was accepted. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:53, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

I hereby announce the election of three new Judges: Lars Washington, Rico Wasabi and John Paul Hrádske. Congratulations! :) --Semyon 10:12, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:19, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

018. Census
As it's not included in the law I don't see any reason to postpone this anymore. I propose to increase the population to about 220.000 by retaking a census old-style and multiplying by 10. Any future discussion about how to control population growth in the future can be held separately. If this vote is accepted, I can immediately start fixing everything.

Pro

 * 17 Votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:33, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8 Votes Kunarian 10:03, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 votes Wabba The I 10:45, May 26, 2012 (UTC) when Kunarian edit all town pages!

Contra

 * 11 votes - I would like to see a new style that isn't based on residences. We should individually decide what population each hamlet, village, and neighborhood should have, add those up for each town and city, and then combine the cities and add some rural population to get the state. Then add the states to get the nation. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:42, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. Shall I simply make a proposal of f.e. Oceana in population incl. rural districts? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:48, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made a proposal for Oceana. It would be very welcome if the other governors could also bring up figures for their states, so we can combine the data and form our first census with rural districts. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:49, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Done it. --Semyon 18:45, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I didn't see this. I'll do it by tomorrow. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:25, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

 * I'm honestly a bit confused by this.--— <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 00:20, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

Expired. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:03, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

019. Membership of the IWO
Members of the Congress, please vote to authorise the signing of the Declaration for the Establishment of the International Wiki Organisation (in a side page). I apologise in advance for the awful wikicode and Limburgish. --Semyon 13:57, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * The Limburgish is now sorted; feel free, but not obliged, to fix the wikicode, anyone. :P --Semyon 14:03, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Pro

 * - 6 votes. --Semyon 13:59, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:09, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 votes — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 15:55, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 16:46, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 votes Kunarian 18:48, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:56, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1 vote — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 15:56, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 votes Kunarian 18:49, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 vote —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:56, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain


✅ by a 53% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:56, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
I will bring this to the Mäöreser Landjszaal as well. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:10, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do. :D --Semyon 17:56, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to remind you: the Mäöreser law system is efficient, but slow :P I hope to get the results within a week :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:42, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Finally, Mäöres has voted pro with 4 pro and 2 not yet voted :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:02, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

020. Abortion Regulation Act
(Social Law Book, Federal Law)
 * 1) Abortus Provocatus (referred to hereafter as abortion), defined as a willingly induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability, is considered legal only when:
 * 2) Carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Ministry of Health.
 * 3) Permission has been given by the executing physician and at least one other, non-involved physician.
 * 4) Executed no sooner than two weeks after the first consultation.
 * 5) Executed within the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy, except in circumstances considered in section 2.
 * 6) One or more of the following:
 * 7) The mother has been impregnated against her will.
 * 8) The risk to the physical health of the mother is considered to be one hundred times greater than the average risk of childbirth.
 * 9) The fetus is considered to be inviable before the twenty-fifth week of the pregnancy.
 * 10) In every case, the mother has to give her approval to carry out the abortion.
 * 11) Abortion after the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy is considered legal only when:
 * 12) Carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Ministry of Health.
 * 13) Permission has been given by the executing physician and at least two other, non-involved physicians.
 * 14) Executed no sooner than seven days after the first consultation.
 * 15) One or more of the following:
 * 16) The risk to the physical health of the mother is considered to be one hundred times greater than the usual risk of childbirth.
 * 17) The fetus is considered to be inviable before the twenty-fifth week of the pregnancy.
 * 18) In every case, the mother has to give her approval to carry out the abortion.
 * 19) Before carrying out an abortion, the executing physician must always take the following measures:
 * 20) To notify the patient of all health risks involved with the abortion of pregnancy.
 * 21) To remind the parent of several other possibilities for undesired children.
 * 22) Any alternatives to abortion must be legal and comply with the Adoption and Orphanage Act.
 * 23) To ensure themselves of the patient's desire to carry out the abortion.
 * 24) If an abortion is carried out illegally, the following consequences may follow:
 * 25) The executing physician will have their medical license revoked.
 * 26) The executing physician will be liable to prosecution for murder and held responsible for the costs of the operation.
 * 27) The mother will be fined $10,000.

Pro

 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:03, July 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 vote - Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:09, July 16, 2012 (UTC) (PCP)
 * 5 votes - Wabba The I (Jhon Lewis - CCPL) 20:10 July 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10 votes —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:21, July 24, 2012 (UTC) (LDP)
 * 9 votes HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 12:43, July 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6 votes --Semyon 19:35, August 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 vote. Bart K (talk) 09:36, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

 * 13 votes - Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:09, July 16, 2012 (UTC) (GPL,Labour,ARP,Walden) - Strike the clause 3.3 and make 3.2 more understandable
 * 1 vote —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:21, July 24, 2012 (UTC) (LAP)

Abstain

 * 2 votes Until there is more clarification in 3.2 (or expansion). HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 19:10, July 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 vote (PCP) Thomas Bale comment: "As a liberal conservative I understand women's rights, but needs clarification" Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:13, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
We should put more detail into the law and perhaps explain what options may be considered "legal alternatives" to abortion. Cause under this a doctor could perfectly get her to sell her baby on the black market. Something sad, but it does happen and we should strive to minimize the number of loopholes in our law. HORTON11 : •  19:46, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Not the first thing i thought of, but i mostly voted contra because of the vaugeness...hopefully more clear language will get people to vote contra .Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:31, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we would have to create a separate law about adoption and orphanage. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:28, July 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * It is vague, so we need to specify which alternatives are legal and what the punishment is for engaging in illegal alternatives. We should also start an awareness campaign on good alternatives, cuase in the end having lots of abortions isn't good. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 17:29, July 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said above: these alternatives should not be placed in an abortion law. If this law is accepted, we can start working on an Adoption and Orphanage Act. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:58, July 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * See now honestly I'm seeing this is now partisanly driven and not trying to further this law. I just think then this furthers the right for a women to choose and then i think women are smart enough to know what they do with ther bodies. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:49, July 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's about time we're getting laws passed, but it seems nobody's willing to cooperate. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:17, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * We should create an Adoption/orphanage act (we should also include foster care) and pass it along with the abortion act. Right now my only issue is with sec. 3.2: To remind the parent of several other possibilities for undesired children. We should either list the possibilities in subsections to 3.2 or or have a single subsection saying "Any alternatives to abortion must be legal and comply with section x.x of the Adoption and Orphanage act. I will not vote contra because it is overall good but it should be sent back to the 1st chamber to fix this. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 17:38, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not necessary. We could fix it right now if you want to. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:46, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. If we can fix it here it would be great. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 17:47, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the new clauses had an "Or" added, while older classes didn't get an "Or". I think that should be fixed. Although, personally, I would prefer to not have those "Or"s, and instead simply have an "any of the following" in the earlier clauses. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:19, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, we're at 50% pro now.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:33, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

This should pass, so changed one of my contra votes to pro. 51% and passed. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:03, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

✅ By a 51% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:03, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Preface
The present situation:
 * The Federal Police has an unnecessary number of sub-divisions.
 * These sub-divisions are not divided in any feasible way, and their descriptions are very broad.
 * Some sub-divisions are improperly classified as "units", while others are considered branches and others aren't labeled at all.
 * Individual traffic units have been localized to serve in individual states, and operate much like local police without much cooperation between other local units, which can be troublesome.
 * There are supposedly local bureaus for individual states, yet they aren't documented anywhere on the site.
 * It is unknown how these local bureaus would relate to the sub-divisions.
 * There is no clearly-defined rank structure.
 * There is no clearly-defined structure in general.

Reform plan
These items are being proposed:
 * The Federal Police will become known as the Lovian Federal Police to make it more distinct and to make documentation easier.
 * The current, "local bureaus" will be re-organized as precincts. They will eliminate the need for individual local police agencies. They will be:
 * Clymene Federal Police Precinct (CFPP)
 * Kings Federal Police Precinct (SKFPP)
 * North Sylvania Federal Police Precinct (NSFPP)
 * Noble City Bay Area Federal Police Precinct (NCBAFPP or NCFPP)
 * Oceana Federal Police Precinct (OFPP)
 * Seven Federal Police Precinct (SFPP)
 * Sub-divisions will be completely overhauled and re-structured as individual bureaus. They will be:
 * Lovian Federal Security Bureau
 * The primary and most visible of the bureaus, its purpose is typically just to patrol the precinct and to respond to local threats.
 * Lovian Federal Investigations Bureau
 * Its purpose is to provide a less direct response to crime in cases where some detective work is called for.
 * Lovian Federal Traffic Security Bureau
 * Its domain is the highways of Lovia, where its handles everything from enforcing the rules of the engaging in high-speed pursuits.
 * Lovian Federal Coastal Security Bureau
 * On an island nation such as Lovia, security is just as important out at sea as it is on land. Its job is to prevent illegal activity in the space between the states.
 * The Coastal Police will become one with this bureau.
 * Lovian Federal Counter-terrorism Bureau
 * The name is pretty self-explanatory here. Its job is to counter large-scale movements of organized crime.
 * Lovian Royal Guard
 * A small unit dedicated to protecting the royal family and providing them with their own security. It has been known to extend its protection towards the Prime Minister and congresspeople also. The Royal Guard is a special case because it lead by a specially-appointed Colonel and is stationed in the Noble City Bay Area Federal Police Precinct.
 * The Royal Guard sub-division already exists, so this will be the only aspect of the Federal Police that won't need to be altered much.
 * Each precinct will contain roughly a platoon of members from each bureau (except for the Royal Guard bureau in all precincts other than the NCBAFPP).
 * The Specialized Forces unit will be dissolved entirely but thats okay because they never did anything anyway.
 * The rank structure that will be used can be found here.
 * Anyone above the student rank of Cadet classifies as an officer.
 * Those who hold the title of Corporal or Corporal First Class are commonly referred to as "Officers" if they serve in any bureau other than Federal Investigations. The proper Federal Investigations equivalent is "Detective" or "Investigator".
 * Those who hold the title of Cadet are not allowed to serve until they become full officers.
 * Corporals are standard infantry, and typically serve as unit members unified under a higher-ranking team leader.
 * As long as there is no higher-ranking officer available, Corporal First Classes are put in charge of lesser ranking officers in their unit.
 * Lieutenants typically lead a fireteam or squad composed of lesser-ranking officers.
 * Commanders typically lead a squad composed of lesser-ranking officers.
 * Each precinct will be lead by a Colonel.
 * Colonels can command anything up-to a platoon of lesser-ranking officers at once.
 * Each Bureau will be lead by a Chief.
 * A Deputy Chief will serve as an advisor to their bureau's Chief.
 * The Chief of the Federal Police is the ultimate leader of the Federal Police.
 * The Chief of the Federal Police does not have a deputy. All of the individual bureaus' Chiefs will form a council and serve as advisors to the Chief of the Federal Police.

Terms

 * Rosana de Oliveira-Torres will retain her position as Chief of the Federal Police.
 * Christopher Costello, who is currently in command of the Coastal Police, will inherit the position of Chief of the Federal Coastal Security Bureau.
 * Lars Washington, who is currently in command of the FP's investigations unit, will inherit the position of Chief of the Federal Investigations Bureau.
 * The "Bureau Chiefs" from the current system will become Colonels of their respective precincts.
 * We will need a list of candidates for Chiefs to lead the unclaimed bureaus and Colonels to lead the unclaimed precincts.
 * Pikapi and anyone who is willing to help gets to overhaul and update the Federal Police article with this new information.
 * Each individual precinct and bureau will get an article of its own.
 * DimiTalen might need to create us some logos and seals.

Pro

 * 1) 5 votes — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello  (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 16:51, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) 11 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:56, August 21, 2012 (UTC) (CCPL)
 * 3) 11 votes. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:17, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) 6 votes - though I'm not sure it needs to be voted through. --Semyon 10:16, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * it doesn't need to and on top of it, all of the stuff within it can only be done through the commissioner who is appointed by the Ministry of Defense not Congress. Besides Costello's Reform is being put through. Kunarian (talk) 13:04, August 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) 4 votes ---''It's all here, black and white, clear as crystal. 21:39, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1) 6 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:57, August 21, 2012 (UTC) (LMP, PNO, RMP, RTP)
 * 2) 8 Votes - this is a matter for the police commissioner also, the main problem with this is that you claim there are far too many subdivisions yet create a system which does not minimize them. I would also prefer if my position wasn't undermined through this act and that things were left to the ministries like they are supposed to be. Kunarian (talk) 03:17, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I never felt that there were to many divisions, just that they weren't organized well. Also, you had nearly a week to get back to me with your opinion like you said you would. I also didn't realize that the Federal Police fell under the juridistiction of the Minister Defense, however, I am not undermining you by suggesting this, you had no such plan to reform the force in the first place. If you want to work together in the future, I would be happy to collaborate with you. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 03:25, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the amount of ranks is unnecessary, but otherwise I like the reform. And perhaps we can just consider this a referendum on support for the reform from Congress. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:42, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, that we shall do, besides, it would seem that active reform and support are both present. Kunarian (talk) 14:11, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I don't really understand why this is needed, and it should be in First Chamber first. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:11, August 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I already had this in the First Chamber for a while but for some reason I got very little feedback, and I can see many reasons why these changes are necessary. As it is now, the force is organized in a sloppy and unrealistic manner. This reform will really give the police force the organization it deserves. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 20:41, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:17, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  Agree with TM and this would require a change in law; the text you wrote, isn't approvable of being used in the law. -- O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:21, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  Agree with TM and this would require a change in law; the text you wrote, isn't approvable of being used in the law. -- O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:21, August 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that would be necessary. As it is, the Federal Police law is very vague and doesn't have any legal documentation on the way the force is organized and/or structured. Clearly, this change can be made within the force and doesn't necessarily require any added legal documentation. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 20:41, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. I forgot the Local Police Law was repealed. Still, I don't believe it needs to be voted here. The Federal Police Commissioner has full right to do these changes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:49, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but our commissioner was Granero and he appears to be on an indefinite leave. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 20:52, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then the Minister of Denfence should appoint a new commissioner. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:54, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. Even the Minister of Defense would have had to pass such a reform through congress if he was the one to propose it. I feel that the Minister of Defense has just as much of a right to propose a reform as I have, only I thought this up, and I would like to see these changes put into place. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 03:30, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * By law only the Minister of Defense can appoint the Commissioner, not Congress, and therefore by law only the Commissioner can proceed to fulfil said reforms. Law is law, and these changes shall be put in place sooner rather than later. After all Congress is awfully slow atm. Kunarian (talk) 03:35, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Its good to have your support then. Now that its been proposed, should we at least wait until it is passed by congress? When would you like to see these changes implemented? — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 15:58, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well simpler things like rank have already been started to be put in, and along with that a new factor of pay has too. Could you implement the precincts, as in get their pages written, the idea seems to be well developed there in your head. I think things shouldn't be delayed while we have momentum. By the way it's Dimitri that's officially working with Costello to bring in the reforms. Hoffmanns off writing tax stuffs. Kunarian (talk) 16:29, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well simpler things like rank have already been started to be put in, and along with that a new factor of pay has too. Could you implement the precincts, as in get their pages written, the idea seems to be well developed there in your head. I think things shouldn't be delayed while we have momentum. By the way it's Dimitri that's officially working with Costello to bring in the reforms. Hoffmanns off writing tax stuffs. Kunarian (talk) 16:29, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Expired. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:03, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

022. Census Act

 * 1) The census is defined as a yearly survey of every household in the Kingdom of Lovia.
 * 2) Censuses are carried out by a Demographic Center in each state, under the supervision of the Governor.
 * 3) Congress must send federal inspectors to each Demographic Center to ensure that data collection is being done correctly and to a high standard, and maintaining high statistical reliability.
 * 4) If there is concern about the census, Congress may choose by a simple majority to order any of all of the Centers to repeat the census.
 * 5) In extreme cases, Congress may nominate another individual to take over the supervisory role of the Governor.
 * 6) The data collected must include the following:
 * 7) Total population by district, neighborhood, hamlet, village, town and city.
 * 8) Population by ethnic background.
 * 9) Population by mother language.
 * 10) Population by religion.
 * 11) Individual Centers may also choose to collect some or all of the following data:
 * 12) Population by size of household.
 * 13) Population by age.
 * 14) Population by marital status.
 * 15) Population by country of birth.
 * 16) Data concerning the possessions of the population, e.g. car or house ownership.
 * 17) Population by sector of employment.
 * 18) Percentage of population unemployed or in education.
 * 19) Population by status of dwelling e.g. rent, full ownership, ownership with mortgage etc.
 * 20) The census should be carried out in the June of every year.
 * 21) In the case that the census is delayed in any state for more than a month without prior notice being given by the Governor or Congress, any citizen may take over the supervisory role of the Governor, or request Congress to nominate an individual for this role.
 * 22) Censuses may also be carried out at other times at the request of Congress, or if a Governor wishes to gather more up-to-date information on their individual state.

Anyone there? :P --Semyon 12:33, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Pro

 * (6 votes) --Semyon 16:09, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:52, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 14:30, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8 votes Kunarian (talk) 15:09, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 14 votes (Sorry for the inactivity, Hopfeully the 14 votes makes up for it :D) Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:42, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain
5 votes - Yes, age does seem like an odd thing not to require for statistical reasons. Its like the only goal of the census is to track the populous by heritage and that kind of thing. — <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello  (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 00:43, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 Votes - I just don't like how things like religion and mother language are required but age is not. I'm afraid I can't vote for this right now. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:21, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's purely a reason of ease. Making a realistic age table is a job that requires studying and a lot of effort. Effort most governors are probably not going to do anyway. We don't want shitty statistics because it's mandatory to have them. It's better to not have in that case. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 03:19, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why are mother language, ethnicity, and religion required? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:08, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * No-one has shown any interest in collecting any of the optional data, though. --Semyon 12:00, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, then why collect mother language, ethnicity, and religion? From a realistic stance, I don't find those to be more important than say, age, or gender. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:02, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's very much a personal matter on what you think is most important however I would say that age is something that we should definitely include as mandatory, as it ties in so much with education, employment, pensions and so many other things that are hugely important to both the culture and governance of Lovia, but I believe we need this passed so I support it in this form but for ease of it being passed as well as ease for the future I suggest we include age. Kunarian (talk) 22:23, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not offended that race and religion are required, I just think that age is a pretty major factor and that the government should put some effort into tracking it on a national scale. I feel the same way about a few of the other fields too, but I don't necessarily feel much need to push for that. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 01:38, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind: if we create age diagrams, we will hardly be able to do population boost in the future. Also: take Amish Kinley: it's mainly younger people living there. I'm concerned that these particularities will not be represented in age figures if we create them too hastily. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:26, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, we first need historical populations before we can go on with age figures. So: if somebody has a few months spare time: I'd say go ahead :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:27, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Historical populations (histpops? :P) are going to be a real faff to do. --Semyon 11:30, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, from 1870 to 2010 we grew about 200,000 inhabitants, which means originally it went fast (lots of immigrations), then slow, followed by decrease (famines of the 50's), in Oceana closures of the mines (60's-70's) and migration to other nations such as Mäöres (80's) and then a sudden boom by immigration and natural birth up until now. Good luck :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:34, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ IT IS LAW :P Congrats Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:23, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

023. Second Amendment - Speech Reform
I can't believe that this wasn't present earlier, but after shifting through our Constitution, I noticed an unethical and rather embarrassing lack of "the right to freedom of speech". The small but necessary change that I am proposing is as follows:


 * Article 2, Section 1.1 - Of freedom of thought, speech, meaning and religion.

If you don't approve of this reform, that would suggest that you are also opposed to freedom of speech, one of the most basic civil liberties. — <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello  (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 21:11, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be pro if it was phrased like this: 'Of freedom of thought, speech, meaning and religion, barring the use of these freedoms to deny the rights of other citizens.' --Semyon 10:11, September 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * What would you say defines: "barring the use of these freedoms to deny the rights of other citizens." Freedom of speech couldn't infringe on the rights of another individual or groups of individuals? — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 00:26, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Pro

 * 5 votes — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 21:11, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes - However, what about freedom in other mediums than speech? Press? Not even sure if Assembly is in there. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:12, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 16:33, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 12 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:28, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8 votes was going to vote Contra but I double checked the Constitution and anything that gets out of hand should be covered by the Right of Privacy and Right to live in peace with his or her fellow-menKunarian (talk) 18:46, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Abstention

 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:21, September 15, 2012 (UTC) Not just a little error. This change has a huge impact on the current policies of the wiki.
 * The constitution has force over Lovia, not the site. But we should also strive to prevent fascists like Doorian from launching a tirade against other groups. We shouldn't tolarate hatespeech. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 16:33, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not entirely correct. The constitution has force over Wikination, which includes both the site and the country. Otherwise we'd be unable to block certain people. If you could make the freedom section more elaborate concerning speech, I'd change to pro. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:41, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. I think that people should be able to be blocked, regardless of what the Constitution says, if they take it OOC. The Constitution shouldn't be so important in OOC situations. And court cases no longer apply to bans, so that helps create a division between IC and OOC. Example: hate speech = ban, if you're talking to a user. If it's IC, well, we'll have to act on it, or just remove it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:10, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Freedom of speech in this fictional nation and trolling/vandalism on this website are two very separate and distinct matters. I think it goes without saying that the later isn't permitted. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 15:59, September 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikination/Lovia are not that carefully separated. For example, Article 3 states a citizen has to have a domicile. Now, denying citizenship to homeless people is rather barbaric, probably as much as lack of freedom of speech, but from the Wikination point of view it's understandable why it's done. --Semyon 20:10, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is any excuse to leave this out of the Constitution. In the United States constitution they say "freedom of speech", and unfortunately, there are instances where the government doesn't see through with this. If you must overthink things, in Lovia, the exception could very easily be wiki vandalism and that kind of thing. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 21:29, September 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * And what about the 50 edits? Though I agree freedom of speech should be guaranteed in the Constitution, it is important that we clearly indicate borders: translations are mandatory. In Libertas, freedom of speech was also a constitutional right, which led to problematic chaos. Several pages are still written in Romanian, Icelandic, English, etc, because people simply referred to the Constitution. Eventually it (with other reasons) led to the wiki falling inactive. Don't let it happen again. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:12, September 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that these nation wikis are flawed because of the lack of distinction between country and wiki. Nevertheless, I still believe that this reform is a necessary one. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 00:40, September 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Bart K (talk) 11:11, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

 * 6 votes. I don't oppose freedom of speech in real life, but 'freedom of speech' is not a suitable policy to have on a website like this. --Semyon 15:40, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 votes (labour) What semyon said Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:28, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Expired. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:03, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
Okay, when is this going to be approved? — <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello  (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 00:11, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

I am more concerned about what is going to be approved. The first proposal or the proposal from Semyon. Bart K (talk) 10:58, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's still the original proposal. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:10, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

038. Package
I propose the current State election reform in the First Chamber. This includes the Revision to the State elections part of the Consitution and the new language of the Police Act. Please vote. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:54, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

THERE is still a Re-edit of the bill in the first chamber. Please we need this! Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:28, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Pro

 * 14 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:37, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:59, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 votes Wabba The I (talk) 10:59, September 19, 2012 (UTC) (changed on 20 September, 2012)

Contra

 * 11 Votes -- Not necessary. Adds bureaucracy, not autonomy. Not opposed to some parts of it, such as the Local Police (which should be headed by a governor-appointed person), but disagree with much of it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:01, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * About the Local Police, of course headed by a governor-appointed person. The rest is not good and is unclair. The state just need: a Governor, a Deputy-Governor, 10 members of each State Legislature. The appointer of them is the legislature of country? Wabba The I (talk) 15:37, September 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the first half, but we do not need any sort of state legislature. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:35, September 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * The person with most votes is Governor, the second is of course Deputy-Governor and other candidates are member of a kind of state council with some members (depending on population). That is my view but yeah, you are right. Wabba The I (talk) 10:15, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 votes -- What Time said. Only I'd like to add that since my recent police reform, we honestly don't have any need for more law enforcement agencies. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 23:50, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 votes - Retrieved from abstention votes - Wabba The I (talk) 15:32, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 5 votes. Not yet redrafted - more details in 1st Chamber. --Semyon 19:28, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:01, September 18, 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, Semyon has got a few valid points.
 * 3 votes - unclair Wabba The I (talk) 10:59, September 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 votes. Bart K (talk) 05:08, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:03, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

039. The state Reform Package (2)
This is the second and final time I will try this. I believe in state empowerment as a source of activity and chance for growth in the wikia besides from politics and can help states take care of smaller issues, which really help everyone help get things along. I propose the state package of the "State Elections" reform and instating the "State Police"

I'm closing voting by October 1st, We need this done before elections begin. Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:25, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Pro

 * 14 votes Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:47, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:51, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 votes -- I don't understand! Wabba The I (talk) 18:27, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Contra

 * 1 vote -- I don't understand! Wabba The I (talk) 18:27, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 votes — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 01:55, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 2 votes -- I don't understand! Wabba The I (talk) 18:27, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes -- Still flawed. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:21, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 votes -- Please work out a better system which is not so wobbly as this one. Bart K (talk) 10:57, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
I respectfully request that voting be delayed on this for another day to straighten some problems out and get some questions answered. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:37, September 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, if we all abstain and don't vote against it, then it'll get passed in its current form. I'd like to discuss this reform a little myself, first. Me and Kunarian just worked out a Federal Police system that eliminates the need for Local Police authorities. As much as we'd like to be regionalist and support our own state, going local isn't smart. Having a separate agency for each state just makes more chaos, and is generally counterproductive in many ways I'm sure you can imagine. What we really need is to maintain an effective law enforcement agency, which we already have. And whats with being able to run in two states? Do you plan on running in two states? Having control of these "state police" in whatever state(s) you become the governor of... Your reform gives a lot of power to however is in charge of a state. That would be a really interesting political maneuver, and explain why you waited until there was such short notice to post this reform. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 02:02, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

If you want to be helpful, please make proposals! --O u WTBsjrief-mich 03:06, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm really not supportive of this reform no matter how you slice it, so I'm not going to try and negotiate the police thing out of the reform with a counterproposal. Smear campaigns are funner, anyways... don't take it personally Villanova or Oos, you guys are cool. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 03:35, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just want to respond to two points. First I think I think alot of wikia revolves around the concept of that we don't actually control but are there. Like other characters, old politicians, etc. I feel like the state police if it matters would be like that. Practically in a IRL situation every city would have a mayor, city council, a state would have a Governor and a legislature to check it. But since we don't have enough users we don't have it but seriously i think the state legislature thing is needed. Another principal is that it does not go local but state wide just to say. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:50, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of having a state legislature, but the rest of your reform is something I really don't think we are ready for yet. I personally and professionally don't want to see the Federal Police fall to ruin. Being a small nation, we only need one or the other, and I just think that its obvious that creating more law enforcement agencies that are more limited would be less effective. Also, what happens when you give a band of proud regionalists guns? The being able to run on more than one state is just utter bullshit, cause we only have a few nominees as it is, and the least thing we need is everyone having a "backup" state to claim power over. — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 00:08, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

The proposal was not passed by the deadline set. --Semyon 13:09, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

040. Decreasing the governor's function in the marriage act

 * 1) The solemnization of a marriage is done in public, before a Lovian governor in the attendance of two witnesses.
 * 2) The marriage must be announced to that governor at least five days and maximum two months on beforehand.
 * 3) At the public solemnization a marriage contract is signed in which both parties agree to its conditions.
 * 1) The marriage must be announced to that governor at least five days and maximum two months on beforehand.
 * 2) At the public solemnization a marriage contract is signed in which both parties agree to its conditions.

is to be changed by:
 * 1) The solemnization of a marriage is done in publice, before a legal party in the attendance of two witnesses.
 * 2) The legal party should consist of the Governor of the State in which the marriage is solemnized or someone who is appointed by that Governor.
 * 3) The marriage must be announced to the State Government at least five days and at most two months beforehand.
 * 4) In case a Governor or appointee refuses to solemnize the marriage for personal reasons, another person is to be appointed by the Governor to do so instead.
 * 5) If the Governor refuses to appoint someone to solemnize the marriage, the Deputy Governor should appoint someone; if the Deputy Governor refuses as well, the couple can have their marriage solemnized in another state.
 * 6) At the public solemnization a marriage contract is signed in which both parties agree to its conditions.
 * 1) If the Governor refuses to appoint someone to solemnize the marriage, the Deputy Governor should appoint someone; if the Deputy Governor refuses as well, the couple can have their marriage solemnized in another state.
 * 2) At the public solemnization a marriage contract is signed in which both parties agree to its conditions.

Changes and additions added in bold. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:45, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Pro

 * 17 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:45, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes. Made minor change of get --> have. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:21, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8 votes - Kunarian (talk) 20:56, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 votes (PP and 7), though I made some very minor changes --Semyon 12:31, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Porcines support this? It says "person" in the text, not "party", like it used to. Pigs can't marry anymore. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:46, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I misread it. Only the person solemnizing the marriage has to be a person. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:33, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 votes. Bart K (talk) 10:55, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 votes Wabba The I (talk) 09:50, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 vote. - Masterire (talk) 12:50, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 votes — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 01:18, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 4 votes (Breyev and CCPL) --Semyon 12:31, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason for abstention? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:05, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I can imagine that the CCPL feels that only a Christian priest has the right to officiate a marriage. :P — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 01:26, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why there's a difference between a state (=legal) marriage and a church marriage :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:15, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
Cris costello gave me one of his seats .dont belive me go on my talk page!

Masterire (talk) 07:34, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * See: here. So, you have one seat in Congress :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:57, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Added your vote back. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:50, October 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * shouldn't there be vote to leaglise gay marrige?Or things like that that are debated in congress evey day? Masterire (talk) 20:20, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Gay marriage is already legal. Things are usually only debated in Congress when someone proposes something in the First Chamber or Second Chamber. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:37, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Two more votes. I'll ask Chris to vote, and if he does, this will pass. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:03, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

✅ By a 52% majority. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:53, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

041. Recognition of Overbanken as a neighborhood
Alright: National Settlement Order will be updated:
 * 1) Overbanken will be recognised as a neighborhood of Hurb.
 * 2) Hurbanova will be an official city.

Pro

 * 16 votes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:46, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 votes — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 12:26, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7 votes - Congradulations to the honorable governor for helping bring around this historic moment! Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 16:50, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 14 votes - fuck it I love Oceana ^_^ Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:54, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I wanted to say if I were atheist :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:07, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? I'm catholic and I swear all of the fucking time. :D — Beer.png <font color=#2E6FFD>Christopher Costello (<font color=#2E6FFD>Pikapi • <font color=#2E6FFD>Chat  • <font color=#2E6FFD>What's up ) 17:20, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd better read the bible, son :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:45, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't swear (or at least when I do I repent for it), I find that swearing can normally be topped by a good well worded and thought out sentence. ;) Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 17:56, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 17:30, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 vote. <font color="Teal"> Happy65  <font color="Aqua"> Talk CNP  LogoCNP.png 18:09, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11 votes. I feel like some of the unnamed green areas adjacent to the stream and the three houses should become houses, though. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:03, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thought of that too. You should see the green areas as spaces for the future. If Hurb is packed again, we can use those areas as back-up before creating a new neighborhood :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:15, November 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6 votes. Late, I know. --Semyon 21:33, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6 votes. Late, I know. --Semyon 21:33, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
I'm pro Oceana against this. I'm not sure were it fits in, because it has no formal way to buy a home. until then i'm against Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:34, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

I want Overbanken to become a neighborhood because Hurbanova seriously needs to become a city. <font color="Teal"> Happy65  <font color="Aqua"> Talk CNP   18:49, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

✅ By a 65% majority! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:07, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

(or Gratulatsii! :P) --Semyon 21:31, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

That Lew bude vurar! :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:16, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Great! <font color="Teal"> Happy65  <font color="Aqua"> Talk CNP   15:54, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it accpeted with a 100% majority, no one voted against? Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:01, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Let's change it. ✅ By a 100% majority. <font color="Teal"> Happy65  <font color="Aqua"> Talk CNP  16:04, November 2, 2012 (UTC)