User talk:Kunarian/State Reform

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

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


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

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


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

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

5.1.9
. I don't believe that the states should ever be able to override Congress in any matter. My vision is for them to be a much more localized executive branch, planning cities, et cetera. Besides, the Law Books could be changed at any time, so it's unorganized to mention them in law. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:31, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Holy Mother of darwin isn't it like 2AM over there go to bed xD I have no problem from my standpoint the states over riding social law like gay marraige and such but financial and judicial and such should go to congress. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:58, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate. Also, as I said, the actual law books could change at any time. There are also a couple flaws. Maybe I'll just do an edit of this next weekend. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:05, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

20 councillors? Can't we stick to 1 governor? Or maybe a govenor and 19 councillors.  Happy65   Talk CNP   08:23, October 30, 2012 (UTC)


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

The states shouldn't have power of the national government. State laws should have to be under federal laws, and I think that the deputy governor and governor system would work better than representation for each state via council. New users, EG me, would have very little representation... --Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:57, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Votes
I don't think the strength of the votes you have should change depending on the primaryness of your house there, but instead, if you have two or three houses in a state, you should be able to have two or three votes respectively in a state. This way there could be a bonus for having more than one residence in a state. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:56, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't it's perfectly understandable:


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

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

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

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

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

Well of course it's understandable. It's just dumb. There shouldn't be a vote hierarchy in the state elections (i don't think there should be one in federals either, tbh). Explained based on your explanation:


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

There it is. Simple and explained. Please cooperate on this point. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:43, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Against. because it sounds like you can't vote for yourself. Basically we are using a 'different' version of instant runoff. Like listing your preference 1st, 2nd, 3rd, but in a different form. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:54, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * You can vote for yourself, but only with one vote. And neither system is even remotely like instant runoff. You get one vote in a state depending on where your residences are, so you'll get two votes if you have two residences in a state. However, you can only vote for different people with these votes. Basically it's the current system but if you have more than one residence in a state you'll be rewarded for it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:00, October 30, 2012 (UTC)


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


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

Maybe I'm miss understanding your system? The way I understand it is you can cast a major vote in one state you live in, a minor in your second state, and a favor in the third. You can choose which state you want the largest votes in. It doesn't really seem more democratic to me, just letting you weigh your votes so that you can sway the influence in one state more. This way Oos could still have easily been politicked out of his place in Oceana back in 2010. Answer to the question: I was considering that, but I don't know of any effective way besides maybe requiring at least one edit in the month before the start of the voting stage. But then vote-askers would just make an edit before they start and then vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:13, October 30, 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Yeah, but I think it should be based on other people voting for you. Under my system with the all-votes-different system, you have to rely on the support of other people, which I like. Besides, it is proportional anyway. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:31, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then maybe a one semi-influential vote system, one major vote (worth two) and two minor votes (worth one) if this compromise isn't take I may just go for a flat voting sytem, however I'd like to lower the vote requirement (or eliminate it completely) for the states if we do go for a flat voting system to stop people having to vote for one person just so that at least someone gets elected.
 * And what do you think about the catch for inactive users? Hoffmann LogoCNP.png Kunarian TALK 23:35, October 30, 2012 (UTC)


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

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

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

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